Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112502e REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: A. Case File #02-110 Danes/Colluci Variance Resolution. Ao Bo Co mo Public Hearings: Case #02-126 Eagle Creek Development is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on approximately 4 acres of vacant land on the east side of the Deerfield Development. The amendment would designate this property from the Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) designation to the High Density Residential (R-HD) designation. Case #02-123 Karl Holm is requesting a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located at 3201 Spruce Trail SW. Case #02-124 Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot average shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail NE. Old Business: Case #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles as asking to consider an approval of an amended survey for the approved variance. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\02FlLES\02planning comm\02~agendaXAg 112502.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 welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS .~.__ . 7.)- L:\DEPTWORK\B LANKFRM~PHSIGNUP.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the November 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler 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 October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: A. Case File//02-110 Danes/Colluci Variance Resolution. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY R1NGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case #02-126 Eagle Creek Development is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation on approximately 4 acres of vacant land on the east side of the Deerfield Development. The amendment would designate this property from the Low to Medium Density Residential (R-L/MD) designation to the High Density Residential (R-HD) designation. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN112502.doc Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Eagle Creek Development has filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located east ofFish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 4 acres of vacant land. The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 4 acres of land located on the east side of the Deerfield development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street with an apartment complex. The Planning staff recommended denial of the request. The proposal is premature at this time. Access through the private streets in the Deerfield development for an additional 120 units is not appropriate. Although it is likely Adelmann Street will eventually extended to the south, there are no plans for this extension in the near future. The City has not included this extension in the CIP, nor has the developer submitted a preliminary plat. The availability of services is also an issue. There are no services adjacent to this site. Comments from the public: Harold Jesh, representing the developer, John Mesenbrink, Eagle Creek LLC, stated he realizes there are some issues of concern for the City, both for the present and in the future. The housing development of approximately 4 acres would provide 120 unit market rate apartments meeting the needs of the City. At this time, the developer has 3 clients interested in bringing businesses into the industrial park which includes an additional 60 jobs. Jesh asked if there was anything that could be approved contingent upon, be it a preliminary plat or access of services or a compromise on this issue. Kansier responded there was nothing to act on. There is no preliminary plat. The staff felt this project was premature. Jesh said they have an interest to develop an apartment building in the area. Mr. Mesenbrink has an interest in the Prior Lake area and would like to go forward with the two 60-unit apartment buildings. Stamson questioned Jesh if this project would be developed at the same time they work on the industrial park. The staff's concern is access to the property, how are you going to address that? Jesh said he is asking for a compromise and some contingencies that staff would recommend so the applicant can continue to work on this project and meet the City's concerns. Criego questioned the developer why he would take 4 acres and develop it High Density. Jesh felt there is a need for apartments in the Prior Lake area. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN112502.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Criego questioned if Jesh sees other parts of the R2 area being zoned to High Density. Jesh responded he could not answer at this time. Kansier briefly explained the R2 area in the Deerfield Development. Rye gave a historical background with City Council on the Adelmann access. Stamson recapped the issues. Understands it is premature to develop. Kansier explained the Deerfield development and the City's concern is that segment of road is built through a private street. Jesh said the 120 units would not be built immediately; it would be built in phases. They do believe Prior Lake is rapidly growing and this is an opportunity for multiple housing. Lemke questioned a time line on phasing. Jesh responded there would be a number of phases, starting with the platting. Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, said he bought his residence about a year ago and would be looking right at the proposed apartments. D.R. Horton promised the trees would not be removed; in fact the area would be parkland. He's lived in Prior Lake for 6 years and was looking forward to living in this area. He is against all the problems associated with high density areas. This is not the right place for apartments in a R2 area. Kilau was not against townhomes. Lisa Kasperek, 5441 Fawn Court, said she too was told by D.R. Horton the woods would remain. She is not against the area being built as townhomes but is against the apartments with all the traffic. Kasperek agreed with staff in denying the proposal. The meeting was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: · Not in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a number of reasons. The main reason is the history of this project. Appalled the residents were told by D.R. Horton the area would remain parkland. · It would benefit all to refresh the Commissioners, that piece of land was taken out in the first phase because the density was challenged. The density (for apartments) was not supported by the Planning Commission and City Council. Three years later the owner is asking the City for the same thing. · Staff gave good reasons to deny. Look at the history the City had with this project. · How could this possibly meet the needs of the City? How would the City be assured the project would bring in 60 new employees? Prior Lake is embracing High Density housing throughout the City and there is no need for additional apartments. L:\02FILES\O2planning comm\02pcminutesLMN112502.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Ringstad: · Agreed with Atwood. Cannot support. · Would like to see some consistency with the current housing in the Deerfield project. This is not consistent. · Did not like the only current access would be the private road. · There are several apartment units and high density townhomes that have been recently approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. · Cannot support the Amendment. Criego: · The current property is zoned R2, as well as the surrounding area. · See no reason to take 4 acres out of the area and make it High Density. · Believes R2 is the correct zoning. No need to change to High Density. · Does not support. Lemke: · Agreed with Criego. Stamson: · Agreed with Staff's assessment. This is premature for this piece of property. · Too much of this area is undeveloped and still up in the air to warrant saying either way it would work. It is unknown how the rest of the area is going to develop. It is too early to decide on the zoning. · Deny the request. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will before the City Council on December 16, 2002. B. Case #02-123 Karl Holm is requesting a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located at 3201 Spruce Trail SW. Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Karl Holm is requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 3201 Spruce Trail SE. In order to construct the proposed addition the following variance is required: L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN112502.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 An 11.4foot variance from the required 25foot front yard setback to allow a 13.6foot setback from Sunset Trail (a side yard abutting a streeO. The fact the applicant would like to construct an addition to a single family dwelling that encroaches into a required minimum setback does not create a hardship. The addition is a convenience. The applicant's perceived hardship is created by the design of the addition. The proposed addition would expand the nonconformity of the front yard setback from Sunset Trail. Therefore, staff does not support the variance request because the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Comments from the public: Karl Holm, 3201 Spruce Trail, said the north side deck is at 24.7 feet to the property line and is not in violation. The west side deck had been installed when they bought the home and was not aware of the City's guidelines. He is under on impervious surface. Holm addressed the 9 hardship criteria. His main concern was to increase the living space. He felt it was impractical to add on to the back of the property because of the terrain and drainage issues. Criego questioned the speed limits on the streets and who maintains the boulevard right- of-way. Holm said 35 and 30 mph and he maintains the right-of-way. The hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · It is a beautiful lot; unfortunately all the hardships are not met. · Many families do outgrow their homes. Rather than variances, maybe relocation will meet the applicant's needs. · Will not support. Criego: · Originally felt the same as Ringstad, but in looking a little more at the layout and listening to the applicant, can see a unique situation. · First of all, the front yard should be 25 feet assuming a normal setback from a street, there is a unique situation with this property. It is almost 50 feet to the curb. · Would agree if it was a normal street with a normal setback. The applicant has maintained the 37 feet of right-of-way. · He can expand his home without interfering with the intent of the ordinance. · There is a hardship because of the excessive setback on the west side; there are drainage and elevations issues. · Provide the request. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN112502.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Lemke: · Questioned staff why the setback is 37 feet. Larry Poppler explained the right-of- way width. Speculates Spring Lake annexed in early and the standards have changed. This street is a little larger than local residential streets. It is a Municipal State Aid Street and has more traffic than a typical residential street. It is a shortcut from 170th to Highway 13. Appreciates Ringstad's feelings on the issue, but what was a reasonable usable living space 30 years ago is not the case today. The addition will probably not even be seen from Sunset Trail because of the change in elevation and trees. Agreed with Criego to grant the variance. Atwood: · Agreed this is a unique situation and does not undermine the intent of the ordinance. · There are some hardships due to the setback, uniqueness of the lot and large setback. ~, Support the variance. Stamson: · Deeply disappointed with the opinions of fellow Commissioners. They are loosing the scope of what a variance is. The idea is to deal with situations where a person has a proven hardship denying reasonable use of their property. The fact that there is a large right-of-way is certainly unique, but doesn't in any way create a hardship. · It gives the applicant a larger yard than normal. There is no hardship. If that was part of his yard, his property taxes would be higher. · It doesn't create a hardship by the fact he doesn't own the property, he uses like it is. · The idea behind the setbacks from the right-of-way is to allow the proper use and development of the right-of-way itself. The fact is that the curb is 35 feet today is not the issue. If that is the case, we would have written the ordinance to say "a setback is this distance from the curb". · The concern is the City's ability to utilize the right-of-way. It needs to be protected. · The lot is 12,000 square feet and not unreasonably narrow. · The applicant can add to the back of his lot, he is not on a bluff, it is just a slope. · There is clearly no hardship and will not support. Open discussion: Criego: · Sadden by Stamson's disappointment in the Commissioners. · Understands what Stamson suggests. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN112502.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 It is a small house and needs to be expanded. It could be expanded to the south and would strongly recommend it. But the fact is the City has a 37 foot setback. It used to be a County Road. This particular comer lot is unique. · The intent of the ordinance was 25 feet plus some average from the curb. It is hard to base an ordinance on averages because one could get hurt - it could be larger than 15 feet. In this case the setback is much larger than the normal. For that reason, we are asking the applicant to extend his house maybe not in the most practical way. · Go for the variance. Stamson: · The variance process is not a design review. It is there to allow flexibility in the ordinance. It is to offset situations that create a distinct hardship. That is not what is happening there. · It is not fair to the balance of the City who is forced to live within the ordinance. · The idea is not to have a setback to the curb. · It is only a hardship because the applicant can't get what he wants. It is an inconvenience. He can add on the back of his house. · Drainage is an issue on the other side of the street. · You can't create a hardship simply by denying someone an addition. The ability to add on is not being denied. · Based on the standards used in the past, is the denial of a family room addition a limitation of unreasonable use? · The addition of a family room is not a hardship. · This is not a substandard 6,000 square foot lot, it is a large lot. Atwood: · Maybe the vacation of a right-of-way issue should be discussed. · This is unique. Stamson: · Unique is not a hardship. The issue is space on the applicant's lot. It is fairly large. · Generally when the Commissioners look at variances, the lots are 6,000 square feet and 50 feet wide. There is more than buildable space on this property. It is a standard lot. Lemke: · The topography limits the building pad because of the drainage. More grading would have to be done. Stamson: · Premium lots are sold like his and made into a walkout. Drainage is a matter of grading. · Convenience is not part of the hardship criteria. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN112502.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Lemke: · Questioned staff if they would vacate the right-of-way. Poppler said the City would not be in favor of it - do not know how much future traffic would be on this road. It is not a policy. More than one lot would have to be vacated. · Agreed with Criego, that reasonable use of the property is warranted. · It is not a site line issue. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood, nays by Stamson and Ringstad. MOTION CARRIED. C. Case #02-124 Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot average Shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail NE. Planner Cynthia Kimhoff presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot Shoreland setback for the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail. The subject property is a riparian lot. A single family dwelling, constructed in 1968, currently occupies the site. In order to construct the proposed addition to the dwelling the following variance is required: A 29foot variance from the 75foot Shoreland setback to allow a 46foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance request and commented if the addition were moved to the west side of the home, the Shoreland setback would increase. Furthermore, if the applicant can successfully argue or demonstrate a hardship, the DNR would not oppose a setback variance of some sort. However, the DNR believes the proposed variance can be reduced. The fact the applicant wants to construct an addition for dining room space does not create a hardship. The addition is a convenience. Furthermore, the proposed addition would expand the nonconformity of the Shoreland setback. Staff believed the Shoreland setback variance was not wan'anted because the applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship and a reasonable use is currently present on the site. Comments from the public: Applicant Marge Kinney, 14458 Shady Beach Trail, her husband, Layton and Doug Nelson the builder, were present. Kinney stated they would like to add a 3 season porch L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 to gather their family together in one place for birthday and holiday dinners. The home was built in 1967. Their family has grown and the home no longer meets their needs. They have 5 grandchildren and it is important to have the entire family together. It is no longer possible to seat the family together for a dinner. Kinney stated the family is so important to them they are very distressed by the lack of dining space. The home is no longer functional for the families' needs. The addition would solve the problem for more space. Kinney said they were terribly disappointed by staff's recommendation and strongly disagree with staff's findings. Kinney said she understood the minimum variance the Commission will grant is 25 feet to allow a 50 foot setback. She stated she told staff they would be willing to redesign the porch to comply with a 50 foot setback. Staff felt the home was setback 64 feet and was already nonconforming. Kinney felt they exceeded the setbacks in 1967 when they built their home and the area was Eagle Creek Township. The lake has risen over the 35 years, and they have lost 24 feet of shoreline. She felt it is not their fault the lake has risen creating a hardship. The Shady Beach area is unique as it is a peninsula and fits the hardship criteria. Kinney disagreed with staff's 9 hardship criteria responses and disputed each. She said it was obvious to them that hardship is very much like beauty - it is "in the eye of the beholder." They strongly believe it would be unreasonable to deny their request. Kinney stated the variances should be granted in the name of justice. They were law abiding, taxpaying citizens of Prior Lake for 35 years. She served on the Prior Lake school board for 25 years, learning about establishing and enforcing policy. She learned rules should be fair and consistent believing the City's rules are fair and consistent. One should not make or enforce a rule simply because one has the power to do so. She strongly questioned staff's recommendation to deny the variance. This addition will do no harm to the neighbors or to the water quality of Prior Lake. She wants her home functional to carry on family traditions and continue to be positive influence on their children and grandchildren's lives. The hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: · Would like to pass as the applicants are neighbors. Atwood: · For the very reason the applicant stated the loss of lakeshore, does not see how further encroachment to the lake could be allowed. · Questioned the applicant's second proposal. Kirchoff explained the second proposal, but it was not shown on the survey. Ringstad: · Did not agree with Mrs. Kinney's hardship assessment. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 112502.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 · Cannot support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. supported encroachment. · The applicant has reasonable use of the property. · Hardship #5 - is to maintain the character of the lot. · Will not support the request. Has never Stamson: · Agreed with Ringstad. It all comes back to hardship. · Traditionally, a 3-season porch or a lack of one does not create a hardship. There is reasonable use of the property. · Denial of this request does not create a hardship. · The guidelines are State Statutes. It is not a convenience for the owners. Hardship goes far beyond the dictionary definition. · There is no clear hardship. Will not support. Lemke: · Has no doubt the Kinneys believe there is a hardship. · Believes in supporting the protection of the lake. State Statute is a 50 foot setback; the City's is 75 feet. · Cannot see how this fits into the current ordinance. Criego: · Has empathy for the Kinneys, but the Commissioners are very strong on protection of the lake which includes setbacks and impervious surface. · Mrs. Kinney mentioned a 50 foot setback, but it is 75 feet. · The applicant is a 64 feet now, which is not an issue. · The Commission cannot allow this one to pass. Most of the lake requests are for lake setbacks. If this was voted in, there would be a flood of requests and why would their requests be any different than the applicants? · The Commission feels strongly on these issues, they are somewhat lenient on some issues, such as side yard setbacks. This is a fairly large size home. · Believe strongly on the 75 foot setback. For that reason the Commission must stick to the requirement. Stamson: · Appreciated Mrs. Kinney's rulemaking opinion. · The Commission has to stay consistent with the ordinances. They have taken a very defined approach on lake setbacks. · The tradeoffwith the 75 foot setback is the 30% impervious surface. In order to justify that, the Commission has to be consistent in the lakeshore lot variance procedures. · This variance has to be denied. It does not meet the criteria. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN112502.doc 1 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02- 020PC DENYING A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: A. Case #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles as asking to consider an approval of an amended survey for the approved variance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On March 25, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-01PC, approving a 14.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 10.5 feet to the rear property line rather than the minimum required 25-foot setback for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 15358 Breezy Point Road. In November, 2002, the applicant submitted an application for a grading permit for the construction of the single family dwelling. The survey submitted with the grading permit differs from the approved survey in that the style and location of the house have changed. On the new survey, the house is located further back from the road than the original plan. The house is also located closer to the side lot line (10' as opposed to 25') than the approved survey. The house is still located 10' from the rear lot line and at least 50' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The setbacks shown on the revised survey are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and with the approved variance. Staff's comments were if the Commission felt the survey was consistent with the original intent, a Motion should be made to amend Resolution 02-01 to include the revised survey. Ken Boyles presented an overlay of the proposed change. It will not affect any of the variances. The house is actually smaller and the impervious surface is less. The applicant never solved the utilities problem to the lake. Now there is no need for the extra fill required with the original proposal. The only difference is that it is a different smaller home. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Questioned the closest distance from the 904 OHWM. Kirchoffresponded it was 50.6 feet. · No problem with the changes. Approve. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN112502.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Lemke: · Questioned staff if a notification was sent to the adjoining property owners. Kansier said it was not necessary. · Agreed with staff. Atwood and Ringstad: · Agreed. Rely on staff's recommendation. Stamson: · The new design is in the parameters of what was discussed and what we were looking for. Although, the footprint is different. · Support the request. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE HOME AS AN ATTACHMENT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The Commissioners said they would be present for the December 23, meeting. Stamson questioned the location of the propane tank at the new Holiday Station on County Road 42. Kansier responded the area around the tank will be landscaped. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Community Development Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 112502.doc 12