Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011000REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File 99-094 - Benjamin and Marilyn Giwojna are requesting a zone change from the R2 District (Low to Medium Residential) to the C3 District (Specialty Business Use) for the property located at 4636 Colorado Street. B. Case File 99-100 - Hillcrest Homes is requesting a setback variance to permit side yard setbacks less than the required 10 feet and a 5 foot setback for sidewalls exceeding 40 feet for the property located at 16340 Park Avenue. 5. Old Business: A. Case File 99-089 - Thomas and Kathleen Snouffer Variance Resolution. 6. New Business: A. Election of Officers 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: r.L:\OO~IL~,~\OOPInCO~4~OOP~,A~ 11000~ 16200 ~ag~e t~reeK ~ve. ~.P__i, ?flor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2000 1. Call to Order: The January 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the December 13, 1999, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File 99-094 - Benjamin and Marilyn Giwojna are requesting a zone change from the R2 District (Low to Medium Residential) to the C3 District (Specialty Business Use) for the property located at 4636 Colorado Street. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated January 10, 2000, on file in the Planning Department. Benjamin and Marilyn Giwojna have filed an application for a Zone Change for the property located at 4636 Colorado Street. The request is to rezone the property from the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) District to the C-3 (Specialty Use Commercial) District. Staff felt this property has been improperly zoned for many years, because its actual use is and has been commercial. This application would make the use conforming under the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed C-3 zoning designation is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval of the request. Comments from the public: Bruce Tilseth, 4636 Colorado Street, explained the zoning issue came up with a request for a sign permit. It was discovered during this process the property was improperly zoned. Mr. Tilseth said he was also representing the owner, Mr. Giwojna, who was L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN~MN011000.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 recovering from an illness. Mr. Giwojna has owned and leased the building since 1978 and would like the property to come into compliance with the rest of the area. Pat Heaney, 4642 Pleasant Street, stated he had no problem with the request. Mr. Heaney questioned the zoning in the area. Another concern was for the VFW/Municipal parking lot. He explained noise is sometimes a problem and questioned who would handle his concerns. (Stamson responded if it is noise to contact the police department. Rye spoke on the zoning.) Mr. Heaney also said most of his neighbors had no problems with the request and anticipated the whole stretch of property would be changed. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Felt the area should be zoned C3. · Questioned the joining property. Tovar said all the other properties are C3 and R2. · No problem with the request. There were no other comments from the Commissioners. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO THE C-3 (SPECIALTY USE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File 99-100 - Hillcrest Homes is requesting a setback variance to permit side yard setbacks less than the required 10 feet and a 5 foot setback for sidewalls exceeding 40 feet for the property located at 16340 Park Avenue. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 10, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc., proposing to construct a single family home with attached garage. Lot 7, Lakeside Park is a substandard lot of record and is allowed one 5 foot side yard setback. However, the building wall is 65 feet in length and code requires that 2 inches per linear foot shall be added to the setback for building walls over 40 feet in length [City Code Sec. 1102.405 (6)]. The applicant is requesting the following variances: A 4.08 foot Variance to permit a side yard setback of 5.08 feet instead of the required 9.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length [Code Sec. 1102.405(6)]. I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin~rnn011000.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 2. A 4.16 foot Variance to permit a 10 foot side yard setback instead of the required 14.16 foot side yard setback for a building wall 65 feet in length [Code Sec. 1102.405(6)]. 3. A 1.92 foot Variance to permit the cave to encroach to within 3.08 feet from the lot line instead of the required 5 feet [Code Sec. 1101.503(1)]. The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the survey and has no objections to the variances requested. Staff concluded the requested variances not did meet all of the required criteria for hardship. A legal alternative exists to redesign the structure to meet, eliminate or reduce the need for variances and the structure shall be setback from the property line as prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, Hillcrest Homes, 16091 Northwood Road, said he felt the issues were straight forward and would stand for any questions. Mr. Deanovic did say he was caught off guard on the overhang encroachments. He believes the new items are in the new zoning ordinance. Deanovic said they are trying to stay within the building pad and follow the ordinances. Commissioner Criego requested abstaining from comments and voting, stating he was the previous owner and adjacent property owner. Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, pointed out Deanovic's December 21, 1999 letter commenting on main floor living space. Albers explained the new construction sales for Prior Lake, indicating the average first floor square footage was 1,353 square feet. He said he is concerned for the application of this clause in the ordinance because people will start designing homes without eaves and gutters. This will cause improper drainage and water problems. The effect of this ordinance is negative. The encroachment issue is a problem. The Planning Department should require a permit to add gutters and eaves. Albers felt the ordinance is ineffective and not practical. The design issue can be remedied by reducing the size of the overhang and shifting the house to the side. However, he did not feel it was advisable for anyone to have that small of a house with an expensive lot. Does not believe everyone understood the impact of the 2 inches per 40 foot sidewall setback. The building pad is not acceptable or workable. Albers urged the Commissioners to grant the variances. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: No problems with this issue in terms of the new ordinance. There are many of these deep, narrow lots in the Shoreland District. l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnO 1 lO00.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 · Not sure how much of the design the Commission is going to get into with the structures with this restriction. Not clear what the public benefit is. This may not be the proper forum. · If not for the overhangs, this would not be in front of the Commission. The structure would not require a variance and meet the letter of the code. · Would like to hear the other Commissioners' comments. Cramer: · Questioned the benefit of the 2" portion of the ordinance. Agreed with Vonhof to look at this issue again. · In the past, the Commission has recommended design changes, but this lot is substandard. The garage has to come out the front. There is no way the garage can be detached. · The City does not allow a detached utility structure in front of the house. · The home does need a garage. It does meet the variance criteria. · There appears to be a 15 foot building separation on the property. · Support the variance at this time. But would like the Commissioners to recommend City Council look at this ordinance. Stamson: · Questioned staff on the overhang. Horsman responded the problem was the 5' separation on the encroachment issue. · Agreed with Commissioners with the building wall setbacks. The ordinance is creating variance requests. It is not what the Commissioners envisioned. · It is limiting development of lots. There is no public benefit. · Does not agree on the overhang. Five feet is the minimum setback. If work had to be done for utilities or drainage it would be a problem getting a vehicle in between. Open Discussion: Rye reminded Commissioners that disagreeing with a provision of the ordinance does not justify granting the variance. If the Commissioners have a difficulty with a provision of the ordinance, the procedure is to defer it back for study for a possible amendment. If the variance is granted, the Commission is obligated to come up with the Findings of Fact to support the criteria. Cramer: This lot is substandard and in the past the Commissioners have deemed a garage is a must in Minnesota. It is a hardship and the variance should be granted. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION THAT WILL APPROVE A 4.8 VARIANCE FOOT AND 4.16 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 5.08 FOOT AND 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9.16 FOOT AND 14.16 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BUILDING WALLS 65 FEET IN LENGTH. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn011000.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 AMENDMENT BY VONHOF, SUPPORTING RATIONALE TO THE MOTION, IS THE UNUSUAL LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE WIDTH, THE SETBACKS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT, IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, THE PROPERTY IS RIPARIAN AND THE LOT HAS SUBSTANTIAL GRADE. STAMSON ADDED IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DID NOT OPPOSE THE REQUEST. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Criego abstained. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENY A 1.92 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT TO BE 3.08 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET. Vote taken indicates ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Albers questioned the Commissioners on the Motion regarding setbacks. Vonhof explained they could not grant a greater variance than what was published. The intent of the ordinance was based on the City not wanting long narrow homes on the lake, specifically the Shoreland District with the substandard lots. When you look into the practice, what is the solution? The Commissioners do not want to force people into building detached garages. Stamson remarked in general, the ordinance is a good idea, but in practice when the City is dealing with 50 foot lots, it is impossible. Criego reminded the Commission of a similar situation with side yard setbacks on substandard lots. It was decided to go with a 10 and 5 foot side yard setback. It would not be unusual to eliminate this ordinance from substandard lots. He suggested the Planning Commission could recommend eliminating this ordinance to City Council. Second issue is how practical is it to consider 2" for every foot added to the side yard setback on both side? Why is 18 feet the magic number? These two issues need to be talked through. Vonhof said in the general sense, the City does not want structures 70 feet long. In reality in looking at substandard lots, the Commissioners hold strong on the 30% impervious surface requirement. Vonhof is not opposed to looking at something for substandard lots. Criego questioned if it is an ordinance the City wants applied overall or only to standard lots. Vonhof stated many of the regulations benefit the public, even setbacks enter into public safety. l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn011000.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2000 Stamson commented the benefit was that it was more aesthetically pleasing. Several homes 60 feet long would be unattractive. On the other hand, on a 50 foot lot it is hard to avoid and construct a livable home. This would not have the same impact on a standard lot. It is more reasonable to have this on a substandard lake lot. Vonhof said as long as the setbacks are maintained and the intent is to make the lakeshore look aesthetically pleasing, then require screening. Stamson suggested sending the issue back to staff for research. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW THIS PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION AND OPTIONS FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Case File 99-089 - Thomas and Kathleen Snouffer Variance Resolution. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 10, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. On December 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the requested variance on this property. After reviewing the proposal with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution approving a variance to the front yard setback. The following variance is included in Resolution 99-027PC: 1. A 9.94 foot setback variance to permit a 15.06 foot front yard setback rather than the required 25 foot front yard setback [City Code Sec. 1102.405(3)]. Comments from the Commissioners: MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, APPROVING RESOLUTION 99- 027PC APPROVING A 9.94 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 15.06 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 25 FOOT SETBACK TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhof abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: A. Election of Officers l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn011000.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 10. 2000 Vonhofnominated Cramer as Chair of the Planning Commission. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Criego nominated Vonhof as Vice-Chair. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: The City re-advertised for applicants for the Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Donald Rye, Director of Planning Connie Carlson, Recording Secretary I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn011000.doc 7