HomeMy WebLinkAbout0923022.
3.
4.
mo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 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 #02-098 Janice Galloway is requesting a conditional use permit to allow retail
sales in the C-5 zoning district.
Case File #02-095 Thomas Knight is requesting variances from the minimum 7,500
square foot lot area and 50 foot lot width for nonconforming shoreland lots, the minimum
75 foot Shoreland setback, the maximum 30 percent impervious surface coverage for
shoreland lots, the maximum 35 foot structure height, and maximum 10 percent
residential driveway slope for the construction of a single family dwelling located at
15747 West Avenue.
Old Business:
Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a Preliminary Plat
and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay Townhomes consisting of 10.62
acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes. This property is located on the south
side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and V2 mile west of CSAH 21.
Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the required minimum
25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition to an existing single
family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24 feet of driveway width
on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
7. New Business:
ge
Ao
Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning fences on comer and
riparian lots.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\02FILES\02planning ¢omm\02pcagenda~AG092302.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
ADDRESS
PHL1ST.DOC PAGE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad
and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, City Engineer Sue McDermott 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 September 9,2002, Planning Commission meeting will be
presented at the October 14, 2002 meeting.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case File #02-098 Janice Galloway is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow retail sales in the C-5 zoning district.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff stated the applicant contacted the City offices this afternoon
and requested withdrawing her application.
B. Case File #02-095 Thomas Knight is requesting variances from the minimum
7,500 square foot lot area and 50 foot lot width for nonconforming Shoreland lots,
the minimum 75 foot Shoreland setback, the maximum 30 percent impervious
surface coverage for Shoreland lots, the maximum 35 foot structure height, and
maximum 10 percent residential driveway slope for the construction of a single
family dwelling located at 15747 West Avenue.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated September 23, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutes\pcnmO92302.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Thomas Knight is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District) and located at 15747 West Avenue SE (Lot 5,
Point Beautiful). A single family dwelling and detached garage are present on the site.
Both are proposed to be removed to accommodate the new structure. The applicant
requests the following variances:
1. A 1,579 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square feet of lot area
for nonconforming Shoreland lots to allow a 5,921 square foot lot.
2. A 5 foot variance from the minimum 50 feet of lot width for nonconforming
Shoreland lots to allow a 45 foot wide lot.
3. A 1.2 percent variance from the maximum 30 percent impervious surface
coverage for Shoreland lots to allow 31.2 percent impervious surface
coverage.
4. An 8 foot variance from the maximum 35 feet height in the Shoreland district
to allow a structure 43 feet in height.
5. A 1.9 foot variance from the minimum 907.9 foot elevation for residential
vehicular access on property located within the floodplain to allow access at
906 feet.
6. A 5 percent variance from the maximum 10 percent residential driveway slope
to allow a 15 percent driveway slope.
Staff recommended approval of the requested variances to lot area and width and
vehicular access flood elevation, so the applicant can construct a reasonable use on the
site. Staffbelieved all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
requested height, impervious surface, and driveway slope variances. The applicant
created the hardship by the design of the dwelling. The staff therefore recommended
denial of the requested variances from maximum height, impervious surface coverage,
and driveway slope requirements, as proposed by the applicant. With respect to the
driveway slope variance, even if the Planning Commission does not approve the
requested variance, the City Engineer may approve a driveway slope exceeding 10% in
circumstances of unusual topography or existing conditions.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Tom Knight, 15747 West Avenue, stated he did not have any problem moving
the shed. The height can be changed as well. He will also adjust to bring all variances
into compliance.
Criego questioned if the variances were granted, what width would he need? Knight said
it would be 24 feet. Staff confirmed.
The hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m.
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutes\pcmnO92302.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Questioned staff on variance #5 (elevation).
Kirchoff said it would be for the
driveway access, as it is an existing condition.
· Questioned staff on variance #6 (driveway slope). Kirchoffpointed out the
survey shows a 15% driveway grade. City code is 10%. Staff felt it could be
13.5%. McDermott explained the grade. After the report went out staff was
informed the actual grade was 13.5%.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation with approvals and denials.
Lemke:
· If the shed is removed, is applicant under the 30% impervious surface? Kirchoff
responded it would be. The shed would take care of the impervious surface
variance.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Atwood:
· Agreed with commissioners and staff including the impervious surface.
Ringstad:
· Concurred.
Stamson:
· Agreed. Staff's approach is correct.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02-
012PC A 1,579 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 7,500 SQUARE FOOT
MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS, A 5 FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE 50 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS,
AND A 1.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 907.9 MINIMUM ELEVATION FOR
VEHICULAR ACCESS IN THE FLOODPLAIN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02-
013 A 1.2 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 30 PERCENT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, AN 8 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 35
FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, AND A 5 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 10
PERCENT MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
6. Old Business:
A. Case File #02-07 - 212 Development is requesting consideration of a
Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan to be known as Crystal Bay
Townhomes consisting of 10.62 acres to be subdivided into lots for 26 townhomes.
This property is located on the south side of CSAH 82, east of Fremont Avenue and
~ mile west of CSAH 21.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 23,
2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Crystal Bay on the property located south of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue
and approximately ½ mile west of CSAH 21. The application includes a request to
approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 24 dwelling units on 10.62
acres. The development also proposes private open space and 21 boat slips for the use of
the residents.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on September 9, 2002.
Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission generally agreed the
development was consistent with the PUD requirements. The Commissioners, however,
requested the developer submit new plans and information addressing the following
items:
· Provide calculations indicating the impervious surface in each tier, as well as the
overall impervious surface. The Planning Commission indicated the additional 25' of
right-of-way may be included within the impervious surface calculation, but the
impervious surface may not exceed the allowable 25% in each tier. The total amount
of impervious surface may not exceed 30 percent.
Review the configuration of the boat slips with respect to water safety and other
issues. No more than 21 slips will be permitted.
· Revise the tree inventory to include only those trees considered significant in the
Zoning Ordinance. Identify which trees will be removed for roads and utilities, and
which trees will be removed for building pads.
· Revise the landscaping plan to meet all ordinance requirements. The landscaping
should also address any required tree replacement. The tree replacement
requirements are over and above the required landscaping.
· Provide details, including height and materials, on the proposed privacy fence along
the west lot line.
· Provide copies of the restrictive covenants for this development.
The remaining issue is the impervious surface in Tier 2. The staffhas discussed the use
of the permeable pavers with the DNR staff. As noted in e-mail from Mark Osborn, the
DNR will not oppose the use of this type of product if the City feels it is appropriate. The
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutes\pcmnO92302.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
DNR has suggested additional ponding or infiltration be provided to accommodate the
extra impervious surface. The City Engineering staff is reviewing the literature on this
product at this time.
Although the impervious surface in Tier 2 exceeds 25%, the impervious surface on the
entire site is less than the 30% maximum. If this development were not a PUD, the 25%
requirement would not apply. The developer would not be able to exceed the 30%
impervious surface on the site.
Staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat
subject to the conditions.
1. The tree inventory must be revised to include only those trees considered significant
in the Zoning Ordinance. All of the necessary information must be submitted to staff
to verify the calculations.
2. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
3. The private streets must be platted as outlots. An 11' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
4. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5. All public improvements must be constructed to the standards of the Public Works
Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted for review by the City.
Criego questioned the modifications as part of the PUD. Kansier responded there would
be 2; private streets are a modification. There are two setback requirements, both along
Fremont Avenue rather than the 25 feet, these are 15 feet at the closest point. There is a
setback to the private street. Instead of the 25 feet to the curb they are requesting 20 feet.
The second modification has to do with impervious surface in Tier 2. If you count to
give the developer credit for the pavers, it is not a modification.
Applicant, John Klingelhutz, said having all the driveways in the second tier uses up the
impervious surface. However, they have come up with pavers that will address the issue.
Klingelhutz explained process and tile system.
Criego questioned where this process is being used. Klingelhutz said there is property in
Prior Lake using it now. McDermott said the City has looked at this issue before. The
concern is for the maintenance. The tiles have to be maintained so the system will still
work. Rye said some of the material submitted pointed out annual sweeping or
vacuuming of the pavers. There is no question there is a maintenance factor.
Klingelhutz said the Association would take care of it. The company said it could be
done every 3 to 5 years. He suggested maintenance could be made a condition of the
Association.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Ringstad questioned the maintenance price on a 3 or 5 year basis. Klingelhutz guessed
around $2,500 to $3,000.
Atwood questioned maintenance procedures. Klingelhutz responded.
Criego questioned the total length of the dock. Klingelhutz said the dock length
remained the same, they just changed the design to run parallel with the shoreline.
Criego said there are no documents showing the change. Kingelhutz explained the design
to allow more open water. Kansier felt it was shorter.
Klingelhutz also displayed a map showing the drainage. The second tier will mn off into
the NURP pond.
Rye confirmed the dock dimension change is 10 feet shorter.
Lemke questioned the snow removal with pavers. Klingelhutz said it would handle it and
explained the snow removal procedures.
Commissioner Stamson opened the public hearing to only the specific issues discussed
(above).
Kyle Schroeder, 15555 Highland Avenue NW, felt the homeowners covenant is standard.
Kansier stated the homeowners association is the same as any subdivision development.
During the construction, the city has control, the next generation of homeowners is not
restricted by the City. Schroeder said he did not understand the impervious surface issue.
Kansier explained and confirmed the development was under 30% overall. He also felt
the pavers were a test and should be tested away from the lake where it wouldn't make
any difference if it didn't work. Schroeder questioned the paver maintenance upkeep by
the association.
Dave Retzlaff, 15559 Skyline Avenue, said he can not see the development from his
home but did not go along with the project. He agreed with Mr. Schroeder on the pavers.
Nothing has been proven that the pavers work and should not be allowed. Retzlaff
questioned variances. Kansier responded there were no variances requested and went on
to explain the differences between variances and modifications. The modifications are
setbacks with the private streets and the decision on the pavers. Retzlaff questioned the
calculations on the tiers. Kansier responded it was based on the driveway. He suggested
reducing the housing size. It is a matter of money. A simple solution is to cut down on
the livable space. Retzlaff questioned the developer donating land. Does he want a favor
from the City? Stamson explained the land donation is a requirement for the City
parkland and in this case the City is taking cash. Stamson said the County is requesting
roadway easement for future development. Kansier explained the developer is donating
the additional land without payment.
The heating was closed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Questioned the e-mail to Jane Kansier from Mark Osbom regarding the paving
area as impervious. If the developer goes to pavers, it will still be covered.
Kansier said they included all that area as hard surface when they did their
drainage plans. The DNR agreed. It has already been done.
· The developer already included extra drainage.
Paver Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Questioned staff on any specific guidelines regarding recommendations on this
new (paver) product? None of the Commissioners are engineers. Any guidance
would be helpful. McDermott said the City has not allowed the pavers in the past.
It the City allows them now, they should consider writing the ordinance to give
people credit. Maybe 10% for using this.
· Questioned if any other Cities have guidelines to this? McDermott and Kansier
said they were not aware of any.
· Kansier said her conversations with the DNR are similar. It is a new product and
technology and somewhat unproven at this time.
· McDermott said they looked at similar products. One of the concerns of the City,
which the developer addressed is the freeze/thaw cycle. If the drain cycle system
is designed property, it should not be an issue.
Atwood: · Suggested being really specific on the instillation with inspections.
· McDermott agreed to ensure the City is getting what it approved.
Stamson: · Supported using the pavers in this specific instance. We are looking at
impervious surface at 25% where normally the City allows 30%.
· Comfortable trying something different. It this was not a PUD, 30% would be
allowed.
· The developer allowed additional ponding for non-impervious surface.
· Additionally, it is covered by the homeowners association and maintenance.
There is some assurance.
· Going in as part of the development process verses an individual, an engineer will
be closely monitoring the project.
· Overall there is little risk as a problem. It will be a good test, because it is under
30%.
· The downside is minimal even if it doesn't work. The developer has compensated
in other ways.
· Questioned if the City can allow modifications on impervious surface areas.
Kansier said it would be done through proper installation and inspection.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
· Recommend to City Council a modification allowing 30% in Tier 2 subject to the
condition that the developer us this system. It is a unique situation.
Lemke:
· Questioned staff on the percentages if 9,000 square feet were taken out of Tier 2.
Kansier said it would be 25%.
· The developer said they would use this for all of the driveways and it would be
well under 25%.
· This would be a net gain if the product worked as advertised, there would be less
runoffthan if we had a regular development. It is a gain and a benefit.
· Agreed with Stamson, most of the runoff does not drain to the lake anyway.
There should be no major problems.
· Questioned if there was any kind of warranty on the pavers. Rye said he would
be surprised if they did. There are so many factors outside the company's control.
The company may warranty the structure of the bricks. That's all they are
providing. The rest is up to whoever is installing it.
· Klingelhutz said the whole system would not work unless it was properly
engineered. It's not the brick, it's getting the water to the area. Engineering
could inspect it.
Criego: · Starting offwas against it, but now feels strongly the other way. If the developer
is suggesting replacing the driveway with the pavers, it would be well below the
25% impervious surface.
· In favor of going forward with the plan.
· Still has concerns about the dock and should be checked by the DNR.
· There is a good relationship between the neighborhood and developer.
· Excited about the project.
Lemke:
· Add condition that maintenance of the pavers be added to the recommendation of
the approval.
· It also appears the boat slips have been pulled in closer to the shore.
· It will be a very beautiful addition to the City.
Atwood: · Agreed with Lemke.
· It appears the docks have been pulled in.
Ringstad: · There is a good working relationship between the developer and neighbors.
· The pavers - The townhomes will be marketed at $500,000+, those residents will
protect their interest. The homeowners will keep up their area.
· Just to ensure the pavers are what we think they are, perhaps post a Letter of
Credit for 5 years to meet the expectations.
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
This should be a very nice project.
Stamson: · The developers have done a great job of addressing all issues.
· It is a nice design - an asset to the City.
· The pavers will work. It is a unique situation. All the risk has been mitigated.
· The trees will be protected on site.
· All other issues have been addressed to satisfaction.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY SUBJECT TO THE 5
CONDITIONS STATED BY STAFF. ADD #6, THAT THE DRIVEWAYS BE
IMPLEMENTED WITH THE PROPOSED SUBSTANCE PRESENTED. CONDITION
#7 - ADD STATEMENTS IN THE CONVENANTS THAT THERE WILL BE
MAINTENANCE TO THE PAVERS. CONDITION #8, RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE DNR CONSIDER THE REQUEST THAT THE DOCKS ARE AS CLOSE TO
THE SHORELINE AS POSSIBLE AND STILL OPERATE. CONDITION #9, ALLOW
THE 30.2% IMPERVIOUS SERFACE IN TIER 2, NOTING SUBSTANTIAL
REDUCTION DUE TO THE PAVERS PRESENTED. RECOMMEND THE DESIGN
OF THE PAVERS BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
DEPARTMENTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY, SUBJECT TO THE
ABOVE CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on October 7, 2002.
B. Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the
required minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition
to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24
feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated September 23, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Richard Gau is requesting variances to permit a 6 foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to
encroach into a required front yard setback on the property located at 16994 Monroe
Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot front yard
setback. The steps of the stoop are proposed to be 11.7 feet from the front property line
and the eave/overhang over the garage is proposed to be 14.1 feet from the property line
abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop and eave addition, the applicant
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet. The project was started without a
building permit.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang.
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways.
Staff believed that all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
requested variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot cave/overhang, and 27 foot wide
driveway. The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the
driveway. Staff could support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety
of the dwelling entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommends denial of
the requested variances as proposed by the applicant.
Lernke questioned if a 2 foot variance is permitted. Kirchoff said the house already has a
2 foot eave.
Applicant Richard Gau, 16994 Monroe, questioned the difference between an awning and
cave. Kansier explained the awning is attached to the building. His covering is a
structure. Gau presented pictures of his driveway indicating there was no ample parking.
He would like to fit into the neighborhood and felt there were no other options. Gau
explained the procedure and invited the Commissioners to come to his home and view the
situation.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Agreed the applicant's intentions are pure.
· Agreed with staff that he could have the same amount of safety to the entrance
with a different design.
Ringstad:
· Suggested tabling this two weeks ago to work out something between staff and
the applicant. However, there was no compromise.
· There are 9 hardship criteria and all 9 must be met for a variance. This meets
very few hardships. Cannot go along with any of it, including the driveway
extension of 3 feet.
· Support staff's recommendation to deny.
Criego:
· As it relates to the driveway entrance - it was discussed at the last meeting to
reduce the width of the driveway. Not sure why that was not taken as input. It
still allows the applicant extra space.
L:\02FILES\02planning comrn\02pcminuteshMN092302.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
· It does not meet the hardship and would not recommend approval of the 3 foot
variance.
· As it relates to the overhangs - awnings clearly indicate a temporary light
structure without being substantially put together will pillars and 2x8's. This
clearly not an awning. Cannot approve. No hardship.
· One area it does meet the hardship is overhang over the stoop and stairway. There
is a safety issue and should allow the applicant some structure covering.
Lemke: · Questioned staff on the intent of the 24 foot width driveway ordinance. Kansier
explained the ordinance requirements. There are a number of public safety
aspects as well.
· Limit the driveway to 24 foot is for people to park along the street. That is not the
case here. The reason to hold it to the standard does not work. The lot is narrow.
· There is hardship along the property - it is a comer lot with two front yards.
· The applicant is not asking for a bigger house or increase of impervious surface.
The overhang does not increase anything.
· Could fine 9 hardships in this request.
Stamson:
· As far as the overhangs and stoops. It comes down to what the intention of a
variance. It is when someone is denied use of their property when there is no
alternative. In this case, what the applicant is trying to accomplish makes sense.
But this could be accomplished within the ordinance or with a reduced variance.
· Kirchoff stated a 5 foot awning would be permitted over the stoop.
· This does not qualify for a variance. He has other options.
· The driveway - in general there is an opportunity to go from a 3 car driveway
down to a 2 car driveway. In this case, the property line is so short.
· There is no public parking on his street. Leaning towards a variance being
warranted in the driveway case.
Open Discussion:
· Ringstad felt if the Commission grants Mr. Gau the variance, then they have to be
prepared for others in the City.
· Stamson agreed but felt there was a number of unique circumstances on this
property qualifying for a variance. The slope issue, lack of on-street parking. It is
unique. It is an existing home, not new construction.
· Criego pointed out the applicant could have a hammerhead driveway. This is not
unique.
· Lernke felt the intent of the ordinance is to have reasonable use of the property.
There is enough room for snow storage.
· Criego said there are alternative ways to solve the problem. The applicant can
park 4 cars right now. Nothing different from anyone else.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcrrm092302.doc 1 l
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
011PC DENYING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 11.7 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR AN 8 FOOT STOOP, A 14.1 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR
A 6 FOOT EAVE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
Criego questioned if the applicant could build something over the stoop for safety
without a variance. Ringstad agreed. Kirchoff said he could have an awning without a
variance. Criego felt an awning is temporary.
Ringstad withdrew the Motion.
Gau stated with the two foot overhang, water freezes in the winter and spring. He felt the
proposal would be the most efficient way to keep people safe.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO COVER THE EXISTING STOOP AND STAIRWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kirchoff explained the appeal process.
7. New Business:
A. Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning fences on
corner and riparian lots.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 23,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of regulations pertaining to
residential fences on comer and riparian lots.
The most recent discussion about fences is the result of a discussion at the City Council
forum. A City resident with a comer lot would like to place a 6' high fence along
Carriage Hills Parkway. Since this street is not classified as an arterial, the front yard
fence provisions apply. The City Council directed staff to review an amendment to the
ordinance addressing these situations.
The subject offences in the area between houses and the lakeshore is not new. In 1996,
the Council considered an amendment to the fence ordinance to restrict the placement of
fences in the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Staffmade no recommendation on the draft
ordinance that limited fence height to 5 feet and opacity to no more than that of a chain-
link fence. After a great deal of discussion, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the proposed ordinance. One of the reasons given was that it did not appear to
L:\O2FILES\O2planning comm\O2pcminutes\pcnmO92302.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
be a widespread problem that necessitated an ordinance amendment. The City Council
subsequently denied the ordinance on a 4-1 vote.
One of the concems raised by staff at that time, which the feel the same today, is that
additional regulation of fences would mean the establishment of a permitting process for
fences. At the very least, this would require staff review of fence plans. It could also
lead to a requirement for surveys to verify location relative to property lines. It would
also mean field inspections. Given our current staffing circumstances, establishing a
permit system for fences will add an additional load on the staff while addressing what
appears to be an infrequent problem. The issue has arisen twice in the past 6 years and
would hardly seem to justify an ordinance amendment and potential staffing
modifications to deal with it. In both cases, a disagreement between neighbors has raised
the issue. Unless the Council has an experience different than the staff, it does not appear
to be a problem of such magnitude and frequency as to require an ordinance amendment.
Criego asked for clarification on the comer lot problem. Kansier responded the problem
is the side yard and is matter of aesthetics. It becomes a stockade appearance with a solid
wall of fences, such as Carriage Hills. Carriage Hills is all side yards on the comer lots,
accesses are off the local streets.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Has empathy for riparian lots for someone losing their view of the lake but they
are no different than anyone else, blocking views. It has to be fair to all.
Rye that was basically the argument pointed out the last two times it came before
the Council. There is the question of aesthetics but by the same token are we
depriving someone of a right that everyone else in the community enjoys simply
because of their location.
Stflmson:
· In favor the leaving the ordinance the way it is. You could end up having row
a~er row of mismatched uneven fences. It is different if it's along County Road
42 where there is a definite need for some kind of privacy, which we allow.
· When its smaller streets the tradeoffis too great.
· My situation is the same. The aesthetics of the neighborhood would be severely
impacted.
· Not in favor of allowing privacy fences on those particular streets. Allowing a
fence with some opacity is a good idea and it meets the needs of keeping children,
animals or people out of your yard.
· People pick their lots, its something you pay for when you decide where you are
going to live. That's a tradeoffwhen you buy the lot
· The ordinance works.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcmn092302.doc !3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
Ringstad: · Agreed with Stamson, people pick their lots.
No need to change what is currently in place.
· It is an infrequent problem, no need to recreate something right now.
Lemke: · Agreed. The first step is a public hearing and if there are 75 people present
talking about specific problems, I might change my view.
· It's not a big enough problem to warrant a change.
Atwood:
· Agreed with staff and the permit process.
Rye stated if there was a public hearing it would have to be on something specific.
The Commissioners agreed to report back to the City Council to leave the fence
ordinance as is.
Stamson questioned the commercial sign ordinance addressing flashing light signs. Rye
said they are generally not allowed except a time and temperature sign.
Stamson said it is noticeably starting in Savage. Most cities have ordinances that do not
allow blinking lights, and this is a way around it. Would like to take a look at the
ordinance.
Rye said staff will take a look at it.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye briefed the Commissioners on Lakefront Plaza.
Kansier said there will be joint city council/advisories to hear a presentation on the 2020
Strategic Plan for the City, October 14, 2002, around 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. The regular
Planning Commission meeting will start at 7:00 p.m.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\pcrra~092302.doc 14