HomeMy WebLinkAbout041000REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 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 #00-027 Mark and Robin Buenz are requesting a road access elevation
variance for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at 14513
Glendale Avenue.
5. Old Business:
A. Discuss lakeshore setback and bluff with DNR.
B. Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 aag~e ~reeK ~ve. ~.a., ~nor aaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The April 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Stamson, and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Criego Absent
Cramer Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 27, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Cramer read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first item.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File/t00-027 Mark and Robin Buenz are requesting a road access
elevation variance for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at
14513 Glendale Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 10,
2000, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The applicant has asked the item be continued to April 24, 2000 to address an additional
variance required for this site at the same time. The staff has published a notice of the
new heating date in the Prior Lake American. Notices of the deferred hearing have also
been sent to owners of property within 350' of the site. These property owners will be
renotified of the new heating date.
Joe Whitney, 14492 Glendale, said he owns the property in question and did not see a
problem. Horsman explained the road elevation is too low based on the Flood Protection
requirements. Access elevation is less than 907.8'. Whitney went on to say fifteen years
ago the property was buildable. The lots were platted ten years ago. Whitney explained
meeting with the City several years ago regarding buying and splitting this property.
Horsman explained there will be a public hearing on April 24, 2000.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INhMN041000.I~C I
Planning Commission Minutes
~Ipri110,, 2000
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO APRIL 24, 2000.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Discussion of Lakeshore and Bluff Setback Encroachments
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 10, 2000
on file in the office of the City Planner.
On February 28, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's decision to not allow a balcony to encroach into a bluff setback. The
Planning Commission adopted Resolution #00-04PC upholding the Zoning
Administrator's decision. At the same time, the Commission directed the staff to contact
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for their input on structure
encroachments into the buff and lakeshore setbacks.
The staff views lakeshore and bluff setback requirements as a special provision which
overrides the allowable setback encroachments. Peter Leete of the DNR concurred with
this interpretation. Therefore, no encroachments are permitted into the lakeshore and
bluff setbacks.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Questioned why are no encroachments permitted. Horsman explained the DNR does
not allow encroachments such as eaves, overhangs, etc., because of potential
hazardous situation created by runoff. It can saturate and erode soils and create bluff
failure.
· Rye noted the DNR takes a very conservative view in interpretation of regulations.
They are not inclined to accept exceptions.
· What are implications if the Planning Commission grants a variance to allow an
encroachment? Rye noted the DNR does not enfome the ordinance. The City was
required to adopt a shoreland ordinance complying with DNR rules. The City adopts
and enforces the ordinance.
Stamson:
· Is language from Model Ordinance the same as the language from the Zoning
Ordinance? The City should consider adding language clarifying that no other
encroachments are allowed.
· Rye noted that would be clearer. The general rule is - if it is not permitted, it is
prohibited.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\nm041000.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
,4pri110,, 2000
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING THE
SENTENCE "NO OTHER ENCROACHMENTS ARE PERMITTED TO SECTION
1104.303 BLUFF IMPACT ZONE."
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Be
Discussion of Additional Setback Requirements for Building Walls
Exceeding 40' in length.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated April 10, 2000, in file
in the office of the City Planner.
On February 28, 2000, and again on March 13, 2000, the Planning Commission discussed
several alternatives to this requirement. The Planning Commission suggested the
following requirements be included in an ordinance:
· 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.
The staff attempted to write an ordinance including the suggested language. Under the
proposed approach, the ordinance becomes even more complicated and confusing, and is
thus very difficult to apply and enforce. In staff's opinion, the change to the ordinance
should provide a simpler approach.
The Planning Commission's previous discussion has suggested a need to limit the
building length, or to provide a break in the building wall. The purpose of this is to limit
the bulk of a long building wall on the adjacent property. In order to accomplish this
objective and still provide some setback relief, the staff suggested the following
approach:
· Increase the initial length of a building wall to 50 feet before an increased
setback is required. If the building face exceeds 50' without a break, the setback
must be increased 2 inches for each additional foot of building wall.
· The additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall
equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For example, a 70' long wall
requires a 7' break.
This approach will be simpler to understand and administer. It also accomplishes the
objectives of the original language. Finally, this language would apply to all lots.
This approach would require an amendment to the setback provisions of the ordinance, as
well as to the definition of a building face. These amendments require a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council.
l:\00files\0Oplcomm\0OpcminXmn041000.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
~4pri110,, 2000
Commissioner Comments:
Stamson:
· This approach makes sense. It is simpler and accomplishes the objectives.
Vonhof:
· Agreed this is a simpler approach.
Atwood:
· Likes the idea it applies to standard as well as substandard lots.
Rye pointed out it is an equal protection issue.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIDE
YARD SETBACKS FOR WALLS GREATER THAN 40 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
There was no new business.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye distributed a handout announcing the April 25, meeting on the downtown
redevelopment plan. Discussion will center on a composite plan. The idea is to get some
final direction.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1 :\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin~nn041000.doc 4