Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0422022. 3. 4. e Ao Ao REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Case File #02-013 Tom Holme Construction, Inc. is requesting consideration of a preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single family residential development. The property is located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive. Case File #02-032 Wensmann Realty, Inc. is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey for the lots originally described as Lots 22-24, Block 4, Regal Crest. Case File #02-030 Mark Toohey is requesting a variance to the front yard setback and bluff setback on the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line; less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. Old Business: Case #02-021 (Continued) Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to structure setback to the ordinary high water mark to allow an existing deck to remain on the property at 3894 Green Heights Trail. New Business: Case File #02-041 Petition to vacate drainage and utility easement located over the common area added to the lots in Deerfield 6th Addition. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcagenda~Ag042202,DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission I/elcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesitmony or comment will not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME kDDRESS 17 Z q,-/ 'T"o-ce,~tO PHLIST.DOC PAGE I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the April 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case File #02-013 Tom Holme Construction, Inc. is requesting consideration of a preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single-family residential development. The property is located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the property located on the north side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single- family residential development. Staffhas identified three issues that must be addressed. The first is the storm water runoff management ponds. The Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN042202 .doc Planning Commission Meeting · 4pri122, 2002 mnoffplan and has determined the second pond, located on the north end of Lots 3 and 4 may be acceptable, but is not the most desirable plan. The staff and the developer are reviewing other options to manage some of this runoff. The second issue is the required buffer strip around the wetlands. The plan does not identify the proper buffer strip, and must be revised to include this area. Finally, the tree inventory and preservation plan must be revised to identify the trees in terms of caliper inches. This information is required in order to determine whether or not tree replacement is necessary. There are other engineering issues pertaining to the development of this site. These issues are outlined in a memorandum from the City Engineer, dated March 28, 2002. These issues must be addressed as part of the final plat application. 1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the City Council. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required 30' setback from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the grading plan. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees. Provide the calculations indicating the number of caliper inches to be removed for development of roads, utilities and drainage ways, and the number of caliper inches to be removed for building pads and driveways. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least 1' above the curb elevations to provide positive drainage away from the house. All improvements, including utilities, roads, storm water ponds and so on, must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. All plans must also be prepared in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. Staff recommended approval with the above 5 conditions. Criego questioned if the final plat would come before the PC. Kansier responded it would go straight to the City Council. Comments from the public: Jim Johnson, the Engineer from Hakanson Anderson Associates, representing the contractor, felt staff presented the information very well. Johnson said they did hold a public information meeting and there were no significant concerns from the public. They have been in contact with the Spring Lake Watershed District. Most issues have been addressed. The City Staff and the Watershed are working on the best alternative for runoff. The tree planting survey will be revised as requested. The developer and property owners were also present for questions. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN042202.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 Jennifer McCollough, 17294 Toronto Avenue, the adjacent property owner, was concerned with the runoff on Lot 1. McCollough suggested a better solution for the runoffwould be to have the driveway come offMushtown Road. The public heating closed at 6:50 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: Asked staff to respond to McCollough's concern for runoff. City Engineer Sue McDermott explained when a building permit is submitted and reviewed; the permit would not be approved until the nmoffwas addressed. Originally, the developer had brought in a plan with all the homes in a cul-de-sac coming offMushtown Road. The City would like to minimize access on to Mushtown Road. There is an existing driveway on the property with access to Mushtown Road. The proposed roadway takes its place. · Felt the driveway was excessive. · Liked the fact the street is going to be 28 feet wide. · The ponds and water retention issues are important. · Questioned the Watershed District's concem. McDermott stated the plan that could be approved by the Watershed District is slightly different than what is before the Commissioners. The City has a concern because of the maintenance of the ponds and lawns with steep slopes. It is not desirable for the City to maintain the pond. The staff will meet with the Watershed District to discuss alternatives including a "dry pond". · What is the relationship with the ponds on the north section and the existing homes? McDermott said there would not be any problems. · Biggest concern was water retention. Ringstad: · Agreed with Atwood on the water retention. · From the public hearing and the informational meeting most issues seemed to be addressed. · Supported the proposal with staff's five conditions. Criego: · This is a good use of the property. · Strong feelings with the wetlands. Would like to see the final plans for this project before approving. · Agreed with staff other than the retention plan should be brought forward. Lemke: · Single-family homes are a good use for this property. · Questioned staff on the access off Mushtown Road. Is another driveway appropriate offMushtown or can the mnoffbe addressed without changing the driveway? Kansier noted the earlier comments by City Engineer Sue McDermott indicated the L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN042202.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 runoff issue could be addressed without changing the driveway. Another driveway access to Mushtown Road is not very desirable. Also, there is a fairly steep grade to Mushtown Road. · Stamson: This is an appropriate development for the land. · The ideal solution would to have the driveway off Overland Drive. · Questioned the runoff into the pond. McDermott explained with some redesign it would be possible to maintain the wooded area. The City has trouble getting access to a pond in back yards. A newly designed pond would be located in the same area. · Does not have the same concern for the runoff. It stays the same. · Support the development and should be moved on to City Council. Open Discussion: Criego agreed with the Commissioners but felt the runoff should be addressed and the matter should be open for the neighbors to view the plan. It is important the neighbors understand and have a voice in the process. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CREIGO, TO DEFER THIS MATTER TO MAY 13, 2002, TO REVIEW THE RUNOFF ISSUES. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #02-032 Wensmann Realty, Inc. is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey for the lots originally described as Lots 22-24, Block 4, Regal Crest. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. Wensmann Realty is requesting consideration for a Registered Land Survey (RLS) of the lots originally platted as Lots 22-24, Block 4, Regal Crest. The RLS formalizes an administrative lot line adjustment on these lots. When the units on these lots were constructed earlier this year, they were placed on the lots so that they encroached over the original lot lines. The staff approved an administrative lot line readjustment in January, 2002 to correct this situation. When the applicant brought the deeds to Scott County for recording, the County determined a Registered Land Survey was required. The purpose of an RLS is generally to simplify the description and recording for Torrens Land. The County is responsible for determining whether an RLS is required, under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes §508.47. Staff recommended approval of the RLS as presented. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN042202.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting ~pri122, 2002 Comments from the public: There were no comments fi.om the public. The floor was closed at 7:05 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: All the Commissioners agreed this was a title process and should be approved. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR LOTS 22-24, BLOCK 4, REGAL CREST. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on May 6, 2002. C. Case File #02-030 Mark Toohey is requesting a variance to the front yard setback and bluff setback on the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single family dwelling with an attached garage for the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail, and legally described as Lot 31, Candy Cove Park. The following variances are being requested: 1. A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW); 2. A 25' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be setback 0' from the front property line rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet; 3. A variance to allow a structure to be located within the Bluff Impact Zone; 4. A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum 24 feet. The lot is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not have the minimum required lot width of 90' at the front building line. The lot also does not meet the minimum lot width of 75' at the OHW. The lot is considered a bluff under the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Using the required setbacks, including the front yard, side yard, and top of bluff, this lot contains a building envelope approximately 100 square feet in area. L:\02FILES\02planning cornm\02pcminutesWIN042202.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting .4pri122, 2002 The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on this lot. The proposed dwelling is a 1 aA story structure with a 20' by 22' attached garage. The footprint of the house and garage includes 1,796 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a 22' by 16' deck and a 19' by 18' deck, both located on the lakeside of the house. The proposed impervious surface on the site is 23%, which is within the allowed limits of the Zoning Ordinance. The DNR did not comment on this request. The City Engineering Department comments note the City will grant an easement for landscaping and access across the fight-of-way. In addition, the City will be responsible for providing sewer service at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the above findings, the staff found this request meets the nine hardship criteria. There is no legal alternative for the construction of a house on this lot. The staff therefore recommended approval of the requested variances. Comments from the public: Allison Gontarek, attorney for the applicant, Mark Toohey, explained working with staff to address their concerns. The proposed single family home is simple and the applicant has gone to great effort and expense to make a reasonable request. He has complied in every respect. Ringstad questioned Toohey if he was promised it was a buildable lot when he purchased the property. Toohey responded the lake setbacks have changed since he purchased the property. Criego questioned the decks. Toohey responded they were walkout platforms. Criego also questioned the front yard setback. Gontarek responded there were two alternatives. Staff had suggested pulling the house forward so it would be as far out of the bluff as possible. Lemke questioned whether the number of borings were adequate for the engineer's analysis. Staff noted the applicant had received a separate grading permit for that work. They were restricted by the ordinance as to the location of the borings. Bruce Thomas, a neighbor, stated he had several concerns. First, the impact on the remaining lots. Runoff into the lake and Mr. Braddy's property. Another concern was the proposed size of home being less than any other home in Candy Cove and that it would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. He also questioned the additional noise from Highway 13 with the bluff impacted. Thomas suggested the Commissioners go out and see the property before they make a decision. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXlVlN042202 .doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting .4pri122, 2002 Shelly Hines, 5540 Candy Cove Trail, stated he was not clear on the plan from the drawings. His concern was for noise coming off the highway with the bluff being shaved off. He also felt the driveway would be a blind curve. Art Shoot, lives two houses down from the property, felt that originally Mr. Braddy's property as well as this property would be unbuildable. Noise is also an issue. He cannot open his windows until the leaves come out on the trees. This house will not impact the noise. The public heating was closed. Kansier pointed out the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance. The Shoreland District also restricts the type of clearing permitted on a bluff. It is not clear-cutting. The other issue is there is no minimum size for a house or garage building pad. The applicant is proposing a modest house that fits the limitations of the lot. McDermott stated the Engineering Department reviewed the runoffvery carefully. The design will minimize runoffto Braddy's property. The road was recently reconstructed and problems should not occur. Parking will only be allowed on one side of the street. Kansier addressed Mr. Shoot's concern regarding subdividing two adjoining lots. The other lots have been addressed. These lots are under separate ownership and not combined. The lots were all platted long before the current ordinance. Stamson asked staff to address the neighbor's concern for buildable lots. Kansier explained the ordinances and property lots. Most of the lots on Candy Cove would not be permitted under today's ordinances. She also said it takes pretty extreme conditions to say a lot was unbuildable. Any application would be asked to provide an Engineer's Report with a variance application to ensure the conditions on the lot would not preclude a building. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: Questioned staff on the streets. McDermott explained the right-of-way obtained from MNDOT. Part of the easement was granted to Dale Braddy. If this is application is approved, staff will take this before City Council for easement approval. McDermott explained the potential access to the other lots. · Questioned the access and land locking the properties. Kansier responded there would be easement accesses recorded. · Can understand this applicant requesting access but concerned for the other adjoining properties. * Kansier explained why the City requested Mr. Toohey to have an engineering report up front. Questioned why the driveway would be 28 feet wide instead of 24 feet. McDermott said it would be 24 feet at the roadway. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes'uMN042202.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 · Has been at the sight, the applicant has done his best to comply. · It would not interfere with the quality of the lake. · Questioned the zero lot line. Kansier explained the measurement from the bluff. They were minimizing the effect as best as they could. · Good application. In favor. Lemke: · Questioned staff what would happen if the surveyor was off a few inches. Kansier explained private use of public property. It has happened before and that is how it is addressed. · McDermott said property boundaries are marked clearly and will make every effort to make sure it does not happen. · Agreed with Criego, it is a good application. · Clarified he had been to the site. Atwood: · It is a good use of the property. Approve. Ringstad: · It meets all 9 hardships. Approve. Stamson: · This lot is clearly unbuildable without variances. · Support the variances as proposed. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02- 007PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT THE OHW, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process. D. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line; less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single- L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN042202 .doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting .~pri122, 20O2 family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following Variances: 1. A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet. 4. A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback. 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an cave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3- feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. 8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and, 9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24'. Lot 14, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The subject property is a legal nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD). The subject lot has dimensions of 40' front & rear lot lines, by 100' side lot lines, for a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. According to Scott County land records, the applicant does not own the adjoining properties Staff received a letter from the adjoining property owner in support of the variance requests. The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel mad is on the property east of the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utilities. If the road were to be L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN042202 .doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting /lpri122, 2002 moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the R-O-W would be 1' from the proposed structure. The Department of Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious surface area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks. They alone will not have measurable negative impact to the lake. The staff believes all of the variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to variance requests 1, 2, 5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot of record. In addition, staff felt the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in size to eliminate Variance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested variances. Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. o The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the approved additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as shown on the survey to ensure additional variances are not required. 3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable county and state agency regulations. Staff recommended approval of variances #1, 2, 5 & 7, with findings and deny variances 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and plan. Stamson questioned staff's recommendation for leaving a vestibule, addition of a garage and second-story room. Horsman explained the applicant's architect felt the vestibule is needed to get around the stairway. Criego felt there was confusion regarding the road. Horsman explained the 20 foot platted road and where the road actually exists. Kansier said the roads were private and designed on paper in the 1920's. The actual roads were always on private property. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN042202.doc 1 0 Planning Commission Meeting .4pri122, 2002 Lemke questioned the ownership of Lot 14. Horsman explained the ordinance for a private road between single lot ownership. Comments from the public: Applicant Steve Mosey, explained the changes on the survey and the platted road and the actual road. Others had built on the road therefore causing the problems. He also explained the proposed garage and entryway. If he didn't have a vestibule he wouldn't have a front door - all access would be through the garage. Mr. Mosey has worked with staff and will reduce the driveway making as little pavement as possible. Stamson questioned the proposed entry. Mosey explained the problem with the stairway. Criego questioned why the stairway was on that side of the house. Mosey responded there were trees on the property lines and the close location of the neighbors' homes. Criego questioned the slab on the lakeside. Mosey said it is an existing patio. The hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Refreshing to see someone reducing his impervious surface. · A vestibule is need. · Will support based on thc fact it is reducing impervious surface. Atwood: · Questioned the impervious surface. Horsman said a reduction is permitted. · Would like to see a revised survey and other options. Ringstad: · Agreed with Lemke's comments. · Reduction of impervious surface is important. · The vestibule is necessary for safety. · Support request. Criego: · There are a lot of variances requested. Do we want to let a property go on a zero lot line? Looking at the adjoining properties, it will be sticking out from the other homes. · Concern for safety pulling out of the garage. Even though there is 20 feet, it is not the applicant's property. · Overall opposed to adding to the home in this method. If additional space does not solve the parking problems. The previous owner used the garage across the road. · Hard time allowing construction of a building to the property line. L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutesWIN042202.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting .4pri122, 2002 Stamson: · Concurred with Criego, pushing the building up to the property line does not warrant approval. · Not sure the current configuration is the only option. · The hardship criteria had not been met. Another concern is the staff report is different than what is in front of them. · Does not support a two-car garage sitting on a right-of-way. · The adjoining properties are setback 20 to 25 feet. Open Discussion: · Lemke questioned if a private right-of-way is so different from a public fight-of-way. There is not a lot of traffic. · There has been a past tradition to allow a two car garage. Realize it is up the edge of the platted right-of-way, but it is not a whole lot different than the Candy Cove property. · Stamson said it is different from Candy Cove. That property was off 90 feet from the road. · The adjoining property leaves enough room for the road to be moved. · By creating a building like this is eliminating the neighbor's ability to reclaim his property. It is creating a problem. · The Commission has allowed a two car garage when space allows it. · Atwood felt this will limit the person across the street by allowing construction to the edge of the right-of-way. Would like to see a revised plan. · Lemke questioned staff on the existing road and what problems it would cause. Rye responded it is a platted right-of-way intended as a private street. Do not know if an individual could claim it. · Kansier said in redoing the Candy Cove road, there was a similar problem. Although there was no platted road, there was an established right-of-way because of use. · Lemke said the big hang-up is taking something away from the adjoining property owners. This matter should be continued and get an opinion from the City Attorney. · Criego felt there were alternatives without infringing on the zero lot line. The Commission cannot make things worse when there are alternatives. It is a small piece of property. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DENY THE APPLIATION AND HAVE STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION INDICATING THE LACK OF HARDSHIP. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE METHODS BY NOT INCEASING THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES. Vote taken ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nays by Ringstad and Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXlVlN042202.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting .~pri122, 2002 A recess was called at 8:17 p.m. t 6. Old Business: The meeting resumed at 8:21 p.m. A. Case #02-021 (Continued) Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to structure setback to the ordinary high water mark to allow an existing deck to remain on the property at 3894 Green Heights Trail. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Donald B. Scherer (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property located at 3894 Green Heights Trail. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a required building permit. The applicant requested a 23-foot variance to allow a structure setback of 52-feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 75-feet. On May 8, 2000, The City received a complaint regarding the construction of a deck on the subject property. Upon inspection it was noted a new deck was under construction and measured 16' x 16'. The applicant was notified of the building and zoning code violations after which he applied for a building permit on June 8, 2000. Upon review of the application staff determined a certificate of survey was required for this project and notified the applicant. The applicant was given two written notices regarding denial of the permit as submitted, and the additional information staff requested. When the applicant did not respond, he was given a final notice and the case was then forwarded to the prosecuting attorney for court action. The applicant/owner eventually submitted a variance application for the deck as a result of a negotiated settlement with the attorney for the ordinance violation. The City Engineering Department felt the variance would promote "lake creep", the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore. The Department of Natural Resources concerns include the hardship for a 16' deep deck versus a 12', and a wider deck such as 20' to accommodate more area and less of a setback encroachment. If the Planning Commission approves a variance, the DNR suggested a condition be the removal of the existing shed located near the lake. In addition, the DNR is not supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance for the deck setback. The staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria have not been met, and the variance hardship was created by the owner when the deck structure was constructed in violation of the zoning ordinance and without an approved building permit. Staff recommended denial of the variance request. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes'cMN042202.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting ~4pri122, 20O2 Comments from the public: Attorney Frank Muelken, represented the applicant Don Scherer, distributed letters and pictures from adjacent neighbors. (Commissioners took time to review material) Muelken noted the new construction covers an existing slab of concrete. Impervious surface is not an issue. The new construction is the same as the concrete slab. He is aware this matter has been going for some period of time and hoped for some form of closure. Muelken said Scherer admitted he should not have gone ahead and constructed the deck. Muelken suggested a fair compromise would be to grant the variances, remove the storage shed and improve the view of the property. John Granlund, 3893 Green Heights Trail, said he has been attending the last couple of meetings and has learned a lot. He felt the Scherer deck poses no problem. Setbacks and allowances have been allowed for other lake homes and referenced other variances. The deck would not reduce the value of surrounding homes. Requested the variance be approved. Horsman clarified the existing deck was over the slab. The public hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Cannot support the additional lake creep for the deck that currently exists. Criego: · As it relates to past variances, the Commissioners feel strongly about staying outside the 75 foot boundary. Most decks already exist and people are asking for 3 season porches. · The question that comes before the Commission is what if this request came before the deck was built? The existing deck was in the setback, but because it was there the applicant could replace it. It should not have been extended. · The applicant should have brought this matter forward, but I would have voted to keep the existing deck and not allow the extension. Lemke: · Clarified the slab and deck as existing structures. · Pointed out that Captain Jack's deck extends to the water. Horsman explained the setback averaging. The adjoining structures did not allow the applicant to go past what he has. · Rye stated Captain Jack has been operating under a conditional use permit. · Would have gone with the DNR compromise. Atwood: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN042202.doc 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 · Not a fan of after-the-fact variances. · Agreed with staff's recommendation. · Not all neighbors agreed the deck was okay. Someone called and complained. Stamson: · Agreed with Commissioners, a building permit should have been applied for first. · The Commissions has approved variances in the past, but some deck is necessary, however, what is allowed is very minimal. The hardship does not warrant a 16' deck. · Captain Jack's is a totally different use of property. It is a marina. Just because a marina is built to the property line, a home does not have to be. · Oppose the variance. · Questioned staff if the applicant needs a variance to replace what was there. Horsman said he could go back and replace the existing size deck. Lemke: Appreciate the point of view on Captain Jacks. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-003PC DENYING A 23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Horsman explained the appeal process. 7. New Business: A. Case File #02-041 Petition to vacate drainage and utility easement located over the common area added to the lots in Deerfield 6th Addition. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. D. R. Horton, Inc. has filed an application to vacate a 5' wide portion of the drainage and utility easement located on Lot 45, Deerfield 2nd Addition, immediately adjacent to the properties at 17252, 17254, 17256 and 17258 Deerfield Drive. This 5' strip of land is to be added to these properties, in the plat ofDeerfield 6th Addition. The easement must be vacated in order to allowed the placement of decks on these units. There is no need for the retention of an easement on this 5' strip of land. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of this request. There were no comments from the applicant. Comments from the Commissioners: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN042202.doc 1 5 Planning Commission Meeting /lpri122, 2002 Stamson: Agreed with staff, it is in the public's interest and a better use of the property. Criego, Lemke, Atwood and Ringstad agreed. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASEMENT AS PRESENTED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The Long Range Planning meeting is scheduled for Wednesday night. Reminder the City Council/Planning Commission workshop on the Jeffer's property is Monday April 29, 2002. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~lN042202.doc 16