HomeMy WebLinkAbout0508002.
3.
4.
A.
6.
A.
7.
8.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case File #00-027 (continued) 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.
Case #00-021 (continued) Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval of a
preliminary plat for the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, for
the property located on the west side of Northwood Road north of Hawk Ridge Road.
Case #00-030 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the
requirements for fences located within the front yard.
Case #00-035 Consider an Amendment to Sections 1101.400, 1102.306, 1102.405,
1102.505, 1102.605 and 1101.503 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the definition
of a building face, the required sideyard setback for structures with walls exceeding
40 feet in length if the RS, R-l, R-2 and R-3 Districts, and allowed setback
encroachments to the required lakeshore and bluff setbacks.
Old Business:
New Business:
Discussion for Comprehensive Plan - Density.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
r-L: \OCFIIJ38\00PI~C12~.II~OOPt~.M~EN'~4305080~. DQC
16200 ~.agte ~reeK ~ve. ~.r.., ~nor t.aKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The May 8, 2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:40 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer and Stamson,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City
Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Criego Absent
Cramer Present
Atwood Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 10, and April 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were
approved as presented.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Cramer read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first hearing.
Ae
Case File #00-027 (continued) 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 May 8, 2000,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage. The public hearing was opened on April 10, 2000.
The agenda item was continued to the April 24, 2000 meeting. This item was then
continued to May 8, 2000, due to a lack of quorum on April 24th. The following
variances are being requested:
A variance of 4.12 feet to permit vehicular access to be 903.78 feet rather than
907.9 feet as required to be not more than 2 feet below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 909.9 feet [City Code Subsection 1105.203].
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN~N050800.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
A 46 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 29 feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM) of 904 feet rather than the minimum setback
requirement of 75 feet [City Code Subsection 1104.302(4)].
The staffbelieved all of the variance criteria had been met with respect to Variance (1)
vehicular access elevation, and to Variance (2) structure setback to the ordinary high
water mark, with the condition an alternative building site location be found and by
redesigning the structure to meet a 50 foot lake shore setback out of the shore impact
zone.
In addition, staff recommended four conditions to be met by the applicant prior to
building permit approval and issuance for the subject lot: 1) Combine the subject lot with
the adjacent remnant lot in common ownership with one property identification number
(PIN) and legal description to create one parcel, with proof of recording at the county; 2)
year round occupancy of the property be subject to submittal of an emergency
management plan to be approved by the Police Chief and Fire Chief; 3) all Resolutions
adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of recording be submitted, along
with the City Assent Form, to the Planning Department; 4) submission of a revised
survey with a minimum structure setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water
elevation of 904 feet.
Stamson questioned what type of emergency plan would the applicant have to provide.
Kansier said it would be very simple and reminded the Commissioners other applicants
provided emergency access plans in case of flood.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Mark Buenz, asked that the plan be approved as proposed. Buenz explained
the street sewer plan and presented photographs of the area. Buenz felt no matter where
he placed the home he could not make the 75 foot setback and went on to explain the
setbacks. They felt they put the home in the best place without obstructing the neighbors'
view of the lake. The only item they were aware of when they originally began the
project was the access problem. Buenz also said he knew they had to raise the level of
the house. The house was designed to provide for evacuation.
Atwood questioned Buenz's opposition to staff's recommendation, specifically the
obstruction of view for the neighbor and grading. Buenz responded he felt the setback
does not represent a setback from the lake. He can move the structure back the additional
7 feet and completely redesign the house, but did not feel he would gain enough to make
a difference. He also believes the lake will be prevented from raising to that level
because of the sewer system.
Robyn Buenz, said she contacted Scott County about combining the lots (as part of the
recommendation from staff). She was told they could not combine the lots as each lot is
in a different subdivision. Horsman and Kansier explained the recommendation on
combining the lots and how the City would work with the applicant on that condition.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
Bret Tupy, the general contractor who is going to build the home, explained the proposed
garage and setbacks. The Buenz's are objecting staff's recommendation of redesigning
the garage. The recommendation will create a steeper driveway and they still will not
make the 75 foot setback.
Denny Moss, 14545 Glendale Avenue, said all the land surrounding the applicant is
building is low. His house is only where it is because he brought in fill to bring it up to
an acceptable elevation. Moss did not want the City to put the applicants through a lot of
grief positioning the house because if the water is going to raise it will effect the entire
neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· It is an unusual piece of property. Generally the 904 is a line running along a natural
lake shore. The 904 is determined by a developed street and the natural lake line
where a number of homes exist.
· Questioned staff on the alternate building sites. Horsman explained moving the home
back at least 7 feet would bring them 15 feet from the lot line and get the home out of
the Shoreland impact zone that the DN-R is concerned about. Staff recommended a 50
foot setback. The DNR said to redesign or setback at least 37 feet.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the road elevation.
· A variance is appropriate for lake setback. Seventy-five feet is unattainable for this
lot. Normally hesitant to consider a setback less than 50 feet, however, with the road
being developed and the applicant is not directly impacting the natural shore line, the
hardship is met. Moving the home back 7 feet increasing the setback, is a very minor
hardship.
· Approve variance at 37 feet.
Cramer:
· Thanked whoever staked the house out as it was helpful understanding the layout.
· There is a hardship on the lake setback.
· The DNR states in their letter they would like to get the applicant out of the shore
impact zone. The setback is to protect the cul-de-sac. Normally very hesitant to go
against the DNR and the 50 foot setback but there is a hardship. The shore impact
zone has been developed. Some setback variance is needed.
· Felt there was a hardship.
Atwood:
· Unique with the lake setback.
Agreed to approve the structure setback of 29 feet.
· The burden of redesigning the structure is not necessary.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
Open Discussion:
Stamson said moving the home back would not effect the lakeshore impact zone. All it
requires is a retaining wall. It is less than a variance. The DNR is trying to protect the
shore. It is reasonable and would not require any additional variances.
Horsman explained the calculations.
Tupy said if you move the house 7.5 feet to the south and possibly 2 to 3 feet to the west,
it would meet the requirements. A surveyor could calculate and attain the 37.5 feet.
Denny Moss said the homeowner has to build and maintain a retaining wall. From his
standpoint, retaining walls always fall down. Moss said it is absurd. The street has
impacted the shoreline, not the applicant's house.
Cramer said he understood Commissioner Stamson's point of view, but has a hard time
granting the setback. Prefers to support the 29 foot setback variance.
Atwood questioned staff if there is any other areas around the lake similar to this piece of
property. Kansier said there probably was, especially around the Oakland Beach and
Glendale areas where the roads were built low and are already impacting the lake. This
area is low. Kansier felt the DNR would not take a strong stand on the issue. They
would take the City to court and then take over the administration of the Shoreland
Management Rules.
Cramer said he would support the 37.5 setback from the high water mark.
Kansier said the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council.
Cramer explained the Planning Commission's role is to follow the ordinances. The City
Council has the right to override those decisions.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 00-007PC GRANTING A 4.12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
VEHICULAR ACCESS ELEVATION OF 903.78 FEET RATHER THAN 907.9
FEET AS REQUIRED TO BE NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW THE
REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION OF 909.9 FEET; AND A
37.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 37.5 FOOT
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH
WATER ELEVATION OF 904 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Cramer explained the appeal process.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
Be
Case #00-021 (continued) Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval of a
preliminary plat for the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd
Addition, for the property located on the west side of Northwood Road north
of Hawk Ridge Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 2000, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
Northwood Oaks, LLC., has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
west side of Northwood Road, north of Hawk Ridge Road and south of Arctic Lake. The
preliminary plat consists of 23.96 acres to be subdivided into 33 lots for single family
residential development.
The Planning Commission considered this preliminary plat on March 27, 2000. At the
time, critical information was missing, incomplete, or incorrect. The Planning
Commission tabled action on this preliminary plat to allow the developer to submit the
necessary information.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
II.
III.
Show the 100 year flood elevations for each of the wetlands and stormwater
ponds and identify the required 30' structure setback.
Identify driveways and garage locations on the grading plan.
Revise the plans to include the following Engineering changes and requirements:
a) The Proposed NWL on the plans for the south wetland, on Lot 9, is shown as
915.9. The outlet pipe invert for this wetland is shown as 916.87. These two
elevation must match each other.
b) The outlet pipe elevation for the above wetland is called out on sheet 5 of 5 as the
overflow elevation, this should be called the inlet elevation.
c) The plans call out to "Cut Swale To Adjacent Wetland" from the small wetland.
The plans need to show this swale being stabilized with riprap underlain with
erosion control fabric.
d) The outflow hydrograph and associated water elevations for the south wetland are
incorrect. The numbers should form a smooth curve instead of erratically going
up and down as shown. Check the outlet pipe used in the calculation, it shows as
0.1 inch diameter pipe. The spillway is shown as 916.91, but the grading plan
shows 920.0 contours around the wetland. This needs to be resubmitted correctly.
e) The Pond Outlet Elevation on the hydrograph file for the south wetland must
match the NWL for the pond. These two numbers currently don't match.
f) The above comments, 4 and 5, also apply to the NURP pond hydrograph file
calculation.
g) The outlet invert of the pipe coming into the NURP pond on Lot 19 needs to
match the NWL of 915.5. Move ST MH 2 accordingly to make this work.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
h) Show a plan & profile for the outlet pipe from the NURP pond.
Comments from the Public:
Developer Kurt Larson, Egan, said this plat was originally approved in 1997. In
reconfiguring the 5 lots they decided to construct the development into a two-phase
project.
There were no other comments from the public.
The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Comments from the Planning Commissioners:
Cramer:
This plat was approved before. The builder met all of staff's conditions.
· Approve the preliminary plat with the conditions and recommend the cul-de-sac be
approved by the City Council.
· Based on all the plans that have been presented for roadways, the cul-de-sac seems to
have the least impact on the steep slopes.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Cramer.
Stamson:
Concurred. There is no definition at this time.
This is the best compromise with the cul-de-sac length ordinance and steep slope
ordinance.
· The balance of the preliminary plat is essentially the same.
· Recommend City Council approve the plat with staff's recommendations.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS
INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO THE
CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The plat will go before the City Council on May 15, 2000.
C. Case #00-030 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to
the requirements for fences located within the front yard.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 2000, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
l:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mnO508OO.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the requirements for fences located within a front yard. This amendment was
initiated by the City Council on April 3, 2000.
Staff has reviewed the notes from the workshops where the City Council debated the new
zoning ordinance. The City Council discussed the issue of height and opacity for front
yard fences at some length during the public hearings on the Zoning Ordinance as well.
The Council determined at that time the present standard would allow decorative fences
in the front yard and still provide public safety protection.
The height and opacity of a front yard fence are policy issues. The staffhad no objection
to increasing the allowed opacity of the fence but recommended some limitation on
opacity, probably 50 percent. Staff also recommended the height be retained at four (4)
feet.
Stamson said there is nothing in the ordinance clarifying "decorative". His concern was
for a chain-link fence in the front yard.
Kansier said most front yard fences are for decorative reasons. It has not been an issue.
Comments from the Public:
There were no comments and the public hearing closed at 7:45 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Agreed with staff on the opacity, reasonable and necessary.
· Felt the definition of decorative fencing should be addressed.
Stamson:
· No problem with the 50% opacity. It is reasonable.
· The intention was decorative fencing.
· Does not want to allow chain-link fences in the front yard.
Cramer:
· Remembers this discussion regarding decorative fences.
· Agreed with staff the fence should remain at 4 feet for safety reasons.
· 50% opacity is okay.
Kansier suggested making a recommendation excluding chain-link fences. A chain-link
fence is not a decorative fence. Or add language stating front yard fences are limited to
decorative fences such as picket fences, split rail fences, iron, not exceeding the opacity.
Staff can bring the recommendation before the City Council.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL INCREASE THE FENCE OPACITY TO 50% IN SECTION 1101.504 OF
THE CITY CODE. IN ADDITION HAVE STAFF DEFINE DECORATIVE FENCING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on June 5, 2000.
De
Case #00-035 Consider an Amendment to Sections 1101.400, 1102.306,
1102.405, 1102.505, 1102.605 and 1101.503 of the Zoning Ordinance relating
to the definition of a building face, the required sideyard setback for
structures with walls exceeding 40 feet in length if the RS, R-l, R-2 and R-3
Districts, and allowed setback encroachments to the required lakeshore and
bluff setbacks.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 2000, on
file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider two amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. The first amendment pertains to the required setback for walls greater than
40' in length in the RS, R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts. This amendment also includes a
revision to the definition of a building wall. This amendment was initiated by the
Planning Commission in response to several variance requests to the setback requirement.
The second amendment clarifies the allowed encroachments into the required lakeshore
and bluff setback requirements. This amendment was also initiated by the Planning
Commission in response to an appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator
denying an encroachment into the bluff setback.
Comments from the Public:
Marv Mirsch, seasonal home of 15432 Red Oaks, stated his encroachment appeal was
denied and pointed out the City's 75 foot lake setback versus the DNR's 50 foot setback.
With the 25 foot bluff setback added to the lakeshore setback it makes the setback at least
75 feet. Mirsch explained the encroachment ordinance definitions and stipulations stating
this affects 950 parcels around the lake. Mirsch felt by the way the ordinance was
written, there would be no encroachments in the yards such as flood or security lights,
flag poles, birdbaths or other ornamental features. He also felt by approving this change,
Prior Lake will have the most restrictive ordinance in the State of Minnesota, probably
the Nation. Mirsch is protesting items 7 and 8 the most because of the discrimination to
heating ventilating, air conditioning, sump pumps, compressors, outlet encroachments,
balconies and storage equipment, etc.
Kansier said the DNR agreed with staff on the encroachments on structures, specifically
eaves, gutters and balconies which should not be permitted as encroachments in the bluff
and lakeshore setbacks.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
Mirsch suggested to redefine what a yard is for the lakeshore.
The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· What is important is that the ordinance is not changing - only clarifying yard
encroachments. The paragraph will clarify allowable yard encroachments for these
districts.
· The intent of the ordinance was not to include eaves, gutters and porches. If the
sentence is amended (101.53 paragraph 1) it will clarifying specifically what it does
not include. The amendment would not exclude flag poles and birdbaths.
· Good solution to the 40 foot side wall.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Stamson on the side wall setbacks.
· Mirsch brings up some valid points on interpretation. It can be confusing.
· Staff interprets the same as the DNR.
· Maybe this issue (encroachments) should be brought to the City Council to discuss.
· Kansier said the issue is defining a yard in the riparian lot. This proposal can be
brought before the Council and reschedule a public hearing and look at the language.
Atwood:
· Agreed with the Commissioners.
· The definition of yard needs to be defined.
Mirsch said the City cannot govern with intent, they have to govern with what is written.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF A BUILDING FENCE AND AMENDING THE REQUIRED SIDE
YARD SETBACK FOR WALLS EXCEEDING 40 FEET IN LENGTH AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK
INTO DEFINING YARDS FOR RIPARIAN LOTS AND WHAT ENCROACHMENTS
ARE ALLOWED IN RESPECT TO BLUFF AND LAKESHORE DISTRICTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The side wall portion of the amendment will go before the City Council on June 5, 2000.
l:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2000
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Discussion for Comprehensive Plan - Density.
Kansier explained the Comprehensive Plan's residential districts and density. With all
discussions regarding Deerfield and other developments, the City Council has asked staff
to bring this issue to the Planning Commission to discuss. Kansier gave a brief history
of the discussions back in 1996 by the City Council. Staffwill bring the issue back
before the Planning Commission in early June.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
At this time there is no agenda for the May 22, meeting.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
I:\00files\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn050800.doc 10