HomeMy WebLinkAbout031300REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 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 #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the
southeast comer of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
B. Case #99-100 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting a setback variance to permit side
yard setbacks of 9 feet and 6.08 feet to construct a single family dwelling for the
property located at 16340 Park Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet.
6. New Business:
A. Case #99-095 Review request to vacate lake access and right-of-way for Kneafsey's
Street adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove.
B. Discuss concept plan for development for Foxtail Trail property.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
r-,L:\0~FIL~.~S\00PIrCOAMM~00P~A~EN~GQ3130~.D(~C
16200 ~a§le ~reeK ~ve. ~.a., ~'rlor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The March 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Cfiego,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue
McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 28, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Cramer read the Public Heating Statement and opened the first meeting.
A. Case #00-010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for Stonegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in
the southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 13, 2000, on file in the office of
the Planning Department.
On January 23, 2000 a Conditional Use Permit application was received to allow a Multi-
family dwelling on the property located at the southeast comer of Tower Street and
Toronto Avenue. The proposed building will have 43 units with underground parking.
No variances are needed.
The applicant had asked the item be continued to March 13, 2000 to address site plan
issues prior to Planning Commission review. On March 2, 2000, the City received a
petition protesting the project. Staff suggested a neighborhood meeting be held to answer
any development questions and identify neighborhood concerns. On March 7, 2000, the
City received a request from the applicant to continue the heating until March 27, 2000 to
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINkMN031300.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
allow adequate time for a neighborhood meeting. The City also received a waiver to the
60/120 day timeline for a decision on the CLIP to be made by the City.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO MARCH 27, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #99-100 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting a setback variance to
permit side yard setbacks of 9 feet and 6.08 feet to construct a single family dwelling
for the property located at 16340 Park Avenue.
Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator presented the Planning Report dated March 13,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On December 17, 1999, the Planning Department received a variance application from
Hillcrest Homes, Inc., proposing to construct a single family home with attached garage
on an existing substandard lot of record. A public hearing was conducted on January 10,
2000, and after reviewing the variance requests with respect to hardship criteria, the
Planning Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving the setback variances,
but denied the variance for the eaves to encroach. On January 24, 2000, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution #00-01PC denying the cave encroachment, and adopted
Resolution 00-03PC, granting setback variances.
A revised survey was submitted depicting 6.08 foot and 9 foot side yard setbacks along
with the original building permit. The applicant was notified the survey did not match
the approved variance per Resolution 00-03PC. On February 23, 2000, the applicant
submitted a revised variance request.
Staff concluded the requested variances did not meet all of the required hardship criteria.
A legal alternative exists to redesign the structure to meet the setbacks as provided for in
Resolution #00-03PC and eliminate the need for the variances requested.
Comments from the Public:
Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, stood for questions. His understanding was because
of the length of the sidewalk, the home will have to be shifted to one foot.
The public heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned staffifthe setback measurement is from the eaves or foundation. Kansier
responded from the foundation but there is a provision in the ordinance stating how
wide the over-hang can be. Specifically, it cannot be less than 5 feet from the lot line.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcminhmn031300.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
· Supported the variance, as that is what was intended.
Criego:
· Abstained.
Cramer:
· Originally felt there was a hardship but after going out to the site found a more
general concern with the side yard setbacks of the adjacent home to the north.
· Horsman explained the neighboring side yard setbacks and future potential problems.
· Concern not wan'anted. Supported the request.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with Stamson that this was our original intent.
· The hardship criteria was met.
Atwood:
· No comment.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE SETBACKS REQUESTED BY
APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Vonhof, Atwood and Cramer. Criego abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
Rye suggested hearing Item B before Item A because most of the audience was present
for that Item B. The Commissioners agreed. Item B was heard first - see page 5.
A. Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13, 2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On February 28, 2000, the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance
provision requiring an additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the
building wall exceeds 40' in length. The purpose of the additional setback requirement is
to reduce the effect of the bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially
important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet.
The Planning Commission discussed several alternatives to this requirement.
Several examples of houses exceeding the 40' wall length were discussed. The examples
included both substandard and conventional lots. The plans also presented different
breaks in the building, as well as continuous walls.
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn031300.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned staff's recommendation. Kansier said staff'really does not have one. The
City is hearing from builders who are concerned. It does not appear to be a problem
with the newer lots. It is a problem on the substandard lots. Houses are getting
bigger, people are building setback to setback. Staffis willing to work with whatever
the Commission feels is appropriate.
· Felt 50, 60 and 70 feet is too long. There has to be some level of break.
· Retain 18 feet, but have it in multiple phases. A house would look more reasonable
with multiple breaks as opposed to one big break.
· It seems to be needed on the garage side.
Stamson:
· Clarified the 18 foot break.
Kansier said the reason for the provision was to reduce
the mass on the adjacent property.
· The intent was not to cut down the square footage.
· 18 feet might still be a problem with a smaller house.
· Suggested setting the standard back. Do not have an alley look.
· The idea is to break up the wall.
Vonhof:
· Look at the 50 foot lots in the Shoreland District and setbacks.
· 50 feet is more workable than 40 feet.
· The City is running into this standard more often. A standard is needed so the are no
huge walls.
Chris Deanovic, 16091 Northwood Road, agreed with the assessment that it appears most
of the problems are the long walls on the smaller lots. The standard lots will be okay to
work with. Deanovic suggested staying focused on the lake lots which seem to have
more problems. He felt 80 percent of the time the City will be in the 40 to 50 foot range.
Length is all that is left on the 50 foot lots after setbacks. Keep the break around a 4 or 5
foot break or multiple.
Cramer:
· Reduce to 15 feet for breaks.
· Strongly want to keep this to substandard lots and not apply to standard lots.
· It might complicate enforcement. But it is a huge issue on the substandards.
· Would like to see the staggering for all lots, but to a greater degree to substandard.
Vonhof:
· The Commission has be strong on impervious surface. Something is going to have to
give.
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn031300.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Rye brought up another approach. If the total distance front to back of the building is 40
to 50 feet, the City could require a particular dimension in breaks. It could be done in a 5
and 3 or 4's or 6 and a 2. Then for 50 to 60 foot length a requirement could be a little
greater. So that the longer the wall require cumulatively more offsets or breaks. Apply to
all lots.
After a discussion, the Commissioners felt a 20% break in the length of the building
would be appropriate. The break would be 20% of the front (widest) width of the house.
Kansier gave examples of the breaks.
Chris Deanovic said the building code separates between the standard lots and
substandard lots and questioned if there is much of a problem with lake lots. Vonhof
responded there was and the potential is there for problems. The City does not want long
walls in a crowded area. Deanovic said in his experience, it would be better to apply the
requirement after 60 feet.
Rye said ideally ordinances should be consistent for all lots.
Criego:
· Agreed with Rye's idea to put the sum of either side on a regular standard lot.
· On a substandard lot, propose 10 feet on one side. If there is a garage attached on the
side that is closest, it would have a foot or two offset.
Vonhof:
· Suggested to add at least one wall on a substandard lot can be allowed up to 50 feet.
Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes, pointed out a tuck-under garage cannot be shifted.
Stamson:
· Set a standard for what the break has to be. Forty feet with one wall on substandard
lots be 60 feet and then come up with a reasonable number for what the break has to
be.
After discussion, Commissioner Cramer summed up the requirements:
· Substandard lots: One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 feet, one side the sum of 10
feet and the other side between 40 and 60 feet with a 1 foot offset.
· Standard lots: Remain two 40 foot walls, with the sum of 10 foot breaks.
Kansier said they will work up the language and come back to the Commissioners.
6. New Business:
A. Case #99-095 Review request to vacate lake access and right-of-way for
Kneafsey's Street adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove.
l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13, 2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Kneafsey's Cove was platted in September 1946 dedicating the roadways and waterfront
to the public including a 30-foot wide roadway located between Lots 5 and 6. In
September, 1999, the City received a petition from the property owners of Lots 5 and 6,
William and Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec, requesting the vacation
of a 30-foot wide lake access and roadway located along the waterfront between Lots 5
and 6. The reason for this petition was to allow the adjacent owners to assume ownership
for maintenance purposes and to reduce a hazardous vehicle situation with respect to
parking and vehicles entering the lake.
On December 13, 1999, the applicants requested this item be deferred to allow the
petitioners to amend the original petition to include the entire waterfront. On February 9,
2000, the City received an amended application signed by Steven and Linda Erickson
(Lots 12 and 13), Raymond and Kathryn Comforth (Lots 14 and 15) and C. Richard and
Patricia Kuykendall (Lots 9 and 10), in addition to the original petitioners, William and
Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec. These petitioners constitute more than
50% of the property owners, so the petition includes the entire waterfront adjacent to Lots
4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove.
Staff recommended approval of the vacation of the roadway and waterfront as it is
consistent with the recommendations in the Lake Access Study adopted by the City
Council in 1995.
The Department of Natural Resources and Assistant Attorney General's office objected to
the proposed vacation citing existing and future limited access opportunities on Prior
Lake.
Criego:
· Questioned if the property was steep.
Kansier said it was not. Actually it was
relatively flat.
Questioned if the property started at the 904. Kansier said at the time this area was
platted the 904 had not been established as the ordinary high water mark. There is no
indication of the 904.
Questioned what the distance would be at the narrowest point. Kansier said it was
probably 25 to 30 feet. But it may not necessary reflect the 904.
Stamson:
· Questioned if the road was used as a winter access. Kansier said it was not.
Atwood:
· Questioned the DNR's letter opposing the vacation as it provides access to the second
and third tier homes.
· Has the DNR ever come forward opposing this. Kansier said the City has no record
of opposition. The plats have been developed for so long that people are not even
l:\00files\00plcomm\0Opcminhnm031300.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
aware of the access. Residents have landscaped the area and you could not tell it was
a public access. If this was a new development, the City would have a different
recommendation.
Questioned the DNR's mention of future public access on paper as they talk of Prior
Lake being under accessed. Kansier said there was no specific requirement she was
aware of. Rye said the DNR had some general standards and rules of thumb applied.
If there is so many acres there should be so much access and parking. Rye explained
some of the other areas around the lake where there is public and neighborhood
accesses. The DNR is very definite on their position for keeping the public accesses.
Comments from the public:
Joe Cade, the attorney representing the property owners in the petition said the question
the Planning Commission is faced with has already been determined. The City Council
already made the decision. This petition should have been brought forward in 1995 or
1996. The property owners did not understand the property did not become vacated
through Council actions. Both the Council and Lake Advisory recommended vacation.
These kinds of actions can be brought by property owners. Two property owners have
already vacated their properties and now the rest of the neighbors are asking to vacate the
entire stretch. The City has never maintained the street and there is no parking available
to the public.
Stflmson:
· Questioned ifCade received a copy of the letter from the Attorney General's office.
· Cade responded he felt it was a form letter and the DNR sends that letter out in every
case there is some one attempting to take public property. He did not think anyone
from the DNR ever stood on Cove Avenue and looked at it or asked anyone at the
City what the history has been.
Criego:
Questioned Cade if he knew where the 904 elevation is. Cade said they did not do a
survey and did not know the elevations. The access is not used for winter access. The
maintenance crew piles the snow on the easement from Cove Avenue.
Nancy Samec, 14777 Cove Avenue, said she owns the property right up to the easement
and has had water up to her deck as her house is very close to the easement.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· It is obvious in 1994 and 1995 the City Council decided there was not a public need.
· Had reservations regarding the road vacation to allow winter access.
· Agreed to vacate the lots.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego, the vacation in front of the homes is appropriate.
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm031300.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
· Had reservations on the access.
· Questioned the City Attorney's opinion on the State Attorney General's letter.
Kansier responded the City Attorney felt the DNR quoted the wrong case.
· Supported the vacation area surrounding the homes.
Vonhof:
· Sympathized with the residents but disagreed with the Commissioners.
· Prior Lake has a number of these accesses addressed by the City Council. There are
also a number of private accesses owned by common neighborhoods.
· The issue is this is public land not private land. As a public Planning Commission
there is a responsibility to the residents of Prior Lake.
· It is not good public policy to give away public land. This is owned by everyone.
· If there was any other public property, vehicles, fire trucks or anything else, the
statute is very clear on how to dispose of it. It is not legal or allowed to give away.
There is a process of vacating public property.
The letter from the Attorney General clearly addresses this issue citing 4 cases.
Would rather see a legal opinion from the City Attorney. There are 4 cases from
Minnesota Courts clearly stating Minnesota Law prohibits the vacation dedicated to
the public use unless the persons requesting the vacation prove that the property is
useless both now and in the future for the purpose for which it was laid out.
The plat was originally laid out for public use. There is nothing in the application that
talks about what the original intent was. One can only assume that it was laid out for
the public with the intent to be used by the public.
Many neighborhoods around the lake are set up with a private access for just the
neighborhoods.
This is dangerous ground for this Board to be giving away public land. There is no
compelling reason in the application to support that this should be done at this time.
Atwood:
· Compelling legal angle.
· Would like to have something from the City Attorney.
· Hesitate at this time to vote in favor of the vacation.
Stflmson:
· Strongly agreed with Vonhof's comments. This is not in the public's interest.
· The basic argument of"not being used now" is not what the statute intends.
· No one has come forward with an argument that this is good for the City. The closest
is "we've had cars go into the lake." Did not see how changing the ownership effects
that at all. The City should take some action with the road.
· How does changing the property to private hands change the scenario?
· Form letter or not from the Attorney General, the cases cited are specific examples
identical to what we are looking at. In all four cases the Courts specifically said that
there is no current use for them now was irrelevant and that the important thing was
need to prove was that there is no potential use. There has been no good argument.
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcminhnn031300.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
· The City's study said there is no current use and they did not see a use. The study
does not address this issue.
· It is the Attorney General's opinion that is the standard the City needs to meet citing
court documents to back them up.
· The standards have not been met.
· The statute has come forward that this is good for the City of Prior Lake.
· How will it change being private?
· The cases cited by the Attorney General are relevant. The important thing is to prove
there is no potential use.
· Aware previous studies do not address future uses.
· The standards have not been met.
Cramer:
· Questioned vacation for Lots 2 and 3. Kansier said Lot 2 was vacated in 1984 and
Lot 3 in 1985, before the lake study.
· Asked for clarification from Stamson on his position. Stamson responded he was
strongly opposed to vacating the road. As far as the rest of the property, did not see
any argument proving it was in the public's interest to vacate.
Criego:
· Why did the engineering department conclude in 1995 that this access should be
vacated. McDermott said she was not on staff at the time nor any one else on staff.
The study does not go into any detail on this parcel. McDermott said it did not even
identify every public access as Vonhof indicated.
· What is the footage and any future use? Certainly there is no past or current use.
· The only use is a roadway to the lake. Where would they park?
Strongly believe to vacate the area surrounding the homes, not the roadway.
Stamson:
· Does not believe it is the Commission's position to make those decisions. If the
Commissions can't think of anything at this moment, it is not right to vacate it.
· what are the specifics?
· It sounds like the engineering department didn't even look at this access. The report
was an overall look at the lake.
McDermott pointed out the lack of access in the winter. The streets are narrow and there
is no on-street parking.
Atwood:
· It is not public friendly.
· By vacating it closes any options for future thoughts.
· Agreed with Stamson, the Commissioners can scratch their heads trying to think of a
reason.
· It puts the burden on the Commissioners and it is not our jurisdiction.
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn031300.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Vonhof:
· Right now the Commissioners are just thinking of parking.
· Access is also on the lake side. The lake is a public body of water.
· Don't forget there is a significant access point from the lake.
Stamson:
· Nearby homes could use the access and would not necessarily have to park.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION AS REQUESTED EXCEPT FOR THE
ROADWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Cramer and Criego, nays by Atwood, Vonhof, Stamson.
MOTION FAILS.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, THIS PROPOSAL IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE CITY IN REGARDS TO VACATION
OF PROPERTY AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD OF VACATION AND
RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DENY THE VACATION AS REQUESTED.
Ayes by Atwood, Vonhof and Stamson, nays by Cramer and Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on April 3, 2000 as a public hearing.
B. Discuss concept plan for development for Foxtail Trail property.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13, 2000,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann realty, Inc., is considering development of the property located on the north
side of CSAH 82, about 1/4 mile west of CSAH 21 and directly east of Wilds Parkway.
Current access to this property is via Foxtail Trail, a private street. This property is
presently vacant land. The property is designated for Low to Medium Density
Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and is presently zoned
R-1 (Low Density Residential). Four different concept plans were submitted for the
development of this site, along with an explanation of how each of these concepts was
derived. The purpose of this item was to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the Planning Commission to voice any particular concerns or ideas about the
proposed development. This discussion is for informational purposes only.
Kelly Murray from Wensmann Homes addressed each of the concept plans. Her
concerns for clarification from the Commissioners were the definition of a driveway,
shared driveways, PUD, CUP.
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcminkmn031300.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
March 13, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Felt a PUD would be appropriate.
Vonhof:
· Private streets have to be built the same as public streets.
· What about street replacements in private areas? Rye responded the associations are
responsible.
· Move road to the east north. Murray explained the process of keeping the traffic off
County Road 82.
Stamson:
· Concern for the inner private street connecting to two public street.
Cramer:
· Asked staff to explain a PUD. Kansier explained the conditions.
· Liked the single family to the north. It was primarily an R1 zone.
· Driveways should be reduced.
· Probably require a PUD.
Atwood:
· Questioned staff if there were any problems with a PUD. Kansier said there were no
problems. There a many designs that preserve the site. Kansier went on to explain
staff looks at the applications to see if they meet the ordinances.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
· Rye explained Scott County Economic Developer Mike Sabota's public hearing to
consider a moratorium on building in the townships.
· Bill Criego and Christine Walsh have been appointed to the EDA board.
· Kansier discussed the Planning Commissioners program.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Don Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn031300.doc 11