HomeMy WebLinkAbout1127002.
3.
4.
So
w
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Ao
Case File #00-077 Angie Marie Cawley is requesting variances to lot area,
impervious surface area, minimum structure setbacks and yard encroachment
within 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 4260 Grainwood
Circle.
Bo
Case File #00-079 Brian and Heather Compton are requesting variances for
impervious surface area, minimum structure setbacks and encroachments to
within 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 16466 Inguadona
Beach Circle.
Co
Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum structure
setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less than 5 feet
of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case #00-080 Freedom Development & Consulting, LLC is requesting an
Amendment and a Final Plat to allow the construction of 102 units for senior and
assisted living housing for the property located at the north end of the intersection
of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM~00PCAGEIq~G 112700.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Stamson called the November 27, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Stamson and Lemke,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Absent
Lernke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the public
hearing.
Case File #00-078 (4C) Robert Jader Variance was heard first. See page 6.
Public Hearings:
A. Case File #00-077 Angie Marie Cawley is requesting variances to lot area,
impervious surface area, minimum structure setbacks and yard encroachment
within 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 4260 Grainwood Circle.
Zoning Code Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated
November 27, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Angie Marie Cawley for
the proposed construction of a 24 x 24 foot detached accessory structure (garage) on a lot
with an existing single-family dwelling. The following variances are being requested:
A 2.3-foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 22.7 feet from a
property line abutting a public street rather than the required 25 feet [City
Ordinance 1102.800: Residential Performance Standards; (8)].
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINWIN 112700.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
A 5-foot variance to permit an accessory structure to be setback 5 feet from a rear
property line rather than the required 10 feet [City Ordinance 1102.800
Residential Performance Standards (8)].
A 1-foot variance to permit an accessory structures cave to encroach 4 feet from a
side lot line rather than the required 5 feet [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard
Encroachments (1)].
4. A 1.66-foot variance to permit an accessory structures eave to encroach 3.33 feet
from a rear lot line [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard Encroachments (1)].
o
A 582.6 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 2,847
square feet (37.7%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage area of
2,264.4 square feet (30%) [City Ordinance1104.306 Impervious Surface
Coverage; (1)].
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Hydrologist Patrick Lynch stated in his
letter dated October 31, 2000; attempts should be made to keep impervious surface to a
minimum, ideally no more than 35% without treatment.
The Planning Staff determined variance requests 1 and 5, met the stated hardship criteria
needed to approve a variance request. However, variance requests 2, 3, and 4 did not
meet the hardship criteria as described in conditions 1 thru 9, and are contrary to the
intent of the City Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore recommended
approval of variance requests 1 and 5, and recommends denial of variance requests 2, 3,
and 4.
Comments from the public:
Chris Roberts, 4260 Grainwood Circle, explained the road encroachment and the
proposed driveway to the proposed garage. They will actually park one car in the garage
and use the rest for storage. Rather than leave the garage at 22.7 feet from the road they
will move a foot and still meet the 5-foot rear setback. Roberts said they could make the
garage less by reducing the width to accommodate the side yard encroachment. Roberts
felt it was not necessary to remove the existing oak tree. He also added there were other
structures that did not meet the setbacks. New retaining walls will be constructed in the
back yard, which will help reduce the runoffto the neighbors' property.
Kansier clarified applicant would move the garage to the east 6 feet with the eaves at 5
feet and remove part of the driveway. Roberts said that was correct. The edge of the
soffits will remain at 5 feet. The applicants are reducing the garage from 24 to 22 feet to
meet the setbacks.
Ray Beauvais, 4230 Grainwood Circle, stated he appreciated the applicant trying to
upgrade his property.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM1NXMN 112700.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: · Horsman explained the reduced setback.
· Roberts said he would construct 12-inch soffits and stay 6 feet from the property
lines eliminating variance #3.
· Drove by and applauded the applicant for working out the design and saving the
oak tree.
· Questioned Lot 5's structure setback. Horsman said there was quite a bit of
distance, not anywhere near a 15-foot setback. The applicant concurred.
· The applicant is flexible on adjusting the garage size.
· Concurred with staff, variances 1 and 5 met all the hardship requirements.
Number 3 is eliminated.
Stamson:
· Concun'cd with staff and Atwood meeting the hardship criteria for variances 1
and 5.
· Without these variances a garage would not be possible.
· Agreed with staffthat variances 3 and 4 were not necessary to get a garage on the
property.
· Did not agree with staff on thc mar setback. In order to get a garage on the
property it has to be 5 feet from the line, not 10. Support granting a variance to
the rear as well. Keep it 5 feet. It will not have an impact on the neighbors. This
is a comer lot, which do you call rear or side?
· Supported variances 1, 2 and 5.
Lemke: · Appreciated applicant's desire to save the oak tree.
· Viewed the property.
· Supported variances 1, 2 and 5, keeping the structure 5 feet from the property
lines.
Kansier suggested the applicant submit a revised survey to staff. The Commissioners can
direct staff to draft a new resolution and bring it back at the next meeting for review.
Commissioner Stamson confirmed the garage and eaves are to be setback 5 feet from all
sides of the property.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO HAVE STAFF REVISE THE
RESOLUTION BASED ON THE REVISED SURVEY AND BRING IT TO THE
DECEMBER 11, 2000 MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\00FI LES\00PLCOMM\00PCM 1N'dVIN 112700.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
B. Case File #00-079 Brian and Heather Compton are requesting variances for
impervious surface area, minimum structure setbacks and encroachments to within
5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 16466 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Zoning Code Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated
November 27, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian & Heather
Compton for the proposed construction of a 20 x 28 foot attached garage addition to an
existing single-family dwelling. The following variances are being requested:
A 1.3 foot variance to permit a structure to be setback 23.7 feet from a rear
property line rather than the required 25 feet [City Ordinance 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (3)].
A 5-foot variance to permit a structure to be setback 4.4 feet from a side property
line rather than the required 9.4 feet for a minimum combined yard of 15 feet
[City Ordinance 1102.503 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 1.6 foot variance to permit a structures eave to encroach 3.4 feet from a side
property line rather than the required 5 feet [City Ordinance 1101.503 Yard
Encroachments (1)].
A 483 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface area of 1,983
square feet (39.6%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage area
of 1,500 square feet (30%) [City Ordinance1104.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage; (1)].
The Planning Staff determined a revised variance request number 2, (a 5.5 foot setback),
and variance request number 4 (impervious surface area) do meet the stated 9 conditions
of hardship criteria needed for the Planning Commission to adopt variance approval,
because the subject lot is substandard and does not have an existing garage. However,
variance requests 1 and 3, do not meet the hardship criteria as described in conditions 1
thru 9, and are contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff therefore recommended approval of variance request numbers 2 (revised) and 4 as
requested, but recommends denial of variance requests 1 and 3.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Hydrologist Pat Lynch stated in this letter
dated October 31, 2000 that every attempt should be made to keep the impervious surface
down.
Stamson questioned if the 483 feet impervious surface is after the applicant removes part
of the driveway. Horsman clarified it was correct.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMIN'xMN 112700.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
Stamson inquired if there were any other variances required with the addition of the
property. Horsman said the room addition was straight up above the house and did not
change the impervious surface.
Comments from the public:
Brian Compton, 16466 Inguadona Beach, said they did not just go ahead and pour the
footings. They assumed the building department approved the plan. He also clarified the
footings were poured for the front and back, not sides. Compton said he did not want to
create any future problems for the neighbor. He felt reducing the garage width to 18.6
feet was okay, but does need the depth. Moving up the structure is not an option. A
window is one-foot away from the proposed garage. The rear yard setback is necessary.
Compton said he did not understand the 25-foot setback compared to the previous
applicant's 10-foot rear yard setback. Compton felt they are trying to comply with the
City's ordinance and are willing to cut down the driveway as much as they can.
Horsman explained the difference with detached accessory structures and setbacks.
Jay Irvine, 16478 Inguadona Beach presented his survey showing the applicant had a 16
x 16 foot shed with an extended driveway. There was no problem before the storm a few
years ago, which damaged the shed. He felt the garage should be larger.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· This is unique with the existing footings.
· Questioned Horsman on the revised plan. Horsman explained applicant's options
of redesigning or moving the structure. This is the time to redo the footings
before a structure is started.
· Questioned the applicant's window size on the house plan. Compton responded it
is 13 inches from the front garage wall to the window.
Stamson:
· Concurred with staff's analysis. The criteria have been met with the impervious
surface. There will have to be some kind of variance to construct the garage.
· Agreed with staff on variance #2, which essentially allows a 5-foot setback. Hold
tight to encroaching 5 feet to the lot line. It is appropriate and does not affect the
structure.
· Variances 1 and 3 do not meet the hardship criteria. A 28-foot garage is very
deep. It is just a convenience.
· Recognizing the applicant poured the footings, the Ordinance specifically states
not to consider construction or economic costs.
· Supported variances 4 and a modified #2.
Lemke
· No comments at this time.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM~N 112700.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
00-017PC APPROVING A 3.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 5.5 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO A SIDE YARD, FOR A 10.1 FOOT SUM OF SIDE
YARDS RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SUM OF SIDE YARDS;
AND A 483 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 1,983 SQUARE FEET (39.6%) RATHER
THAN THE ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AREA OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET (30%)
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
00-018PC DENYING A 1.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 23.7 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; A 1.6 FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A STRUCTURE EAVE TO ENCROACH WITHIN 3.4 FEET FROM
THE ADJOINING SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5
FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. Case File #00-078 Robert Jader is requesting variances for a minimum
structure setback, less than allowed combined side yards, and encroachment less
than 5 feet of an adjoining lot for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier explained the applicant's survey was incomplete
which did not accurately reflect the building dimensions for the requested variances, and
recommended the Planning Commission continue the matter to the next scheduled public
hearing on December 11, 2000.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING TO THE DECEMBER 11, 2000 MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
A recess was called at 7:34 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:37 p.m.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case #00-080 Freedom Development & Consulting, LLC is requesting an
Amendment and a Final Plat to allow the construction of 102 units for senior and
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINNMN 112700.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
assisted living housing for the property located at the north end of the intersection
of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 27,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
Freedom Developing and Consulting, LLC, has applied for approval of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Final Plan for the property located at the north end of Five Hawks
Avenue and Priorwood Street. The total site area includes 12.7 acres, zoned R-4 (High
Density Residential). The development consists of 102 units of senior housing and one
outlot.
On September 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution #00-88 approving a
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan for this site, as well as a preliminary plat.
The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. The developer has
generally complied with the conditions of approval. There are some revisions required to
the site plan and the landscaping plan. All of the plans must be complete and in final
form before this plan will proceed to the City Council.
The staff suggested the following findings:
The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan.
The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section
1106.100 and 1106.300 oft he Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with
the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #00-88 and #00-100.
The staff also recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer must provide a set of plans specifically labeled "Final PUD Plans" and
including the following information:
a. A complete site plan including all phases of the project, the dimensions of the site,
setbacks, and sign locations.
b. A landscape plan and an irrigation plan.
c. Building elevations.
d. Sign elevations (these may be included on the site plan).
e. Lighting plans (these may be included on the site plan).
A land surveyor, an architect and/or a registered landscape architect must sign all
plans.
2. The landscaping plan must be revised to ensure the minimum separation between the
plantings and any fire hydrant or P.I.V., and to ensure there are no plantings within
the public right-of-way.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM INWIN 112700.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
3. All plans must be consistent with one another, in terms of the locations of buildings,
signs, lighting and other features.
4. The developer must submit any necessary revisions to the covenants required by the
City Attorney in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
5. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and
maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the
developer for their files.
6. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
7. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council.
Atwood questioned if staff was expecting a response from the City Attorney soon.
Kansier said it would be this week.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Dave Bell, Freedom Development & Consulting, agreed with the staff's
findings and conditions and asked the Commissioners to approve the request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· This is consistent with the Preliminary Plat. Most of the changes are details. It is
consistent with the criteria of the PUD.
· It is consistent with City Council findings.
· Recommend to City Council for approval with conditions.
Atwood and Lemke:
· Agreed to support.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT AND PUD SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter is temporarily scheduled to go before the City Council on December 18,
2000.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier pointed out January's holidays.
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCMINWIN 112700.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 27, 2000
Welcomed Mr. Vaughn Lemke to the Planning Commission.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\00FILES\00PLCOMM\00PCM1NWIN 112700.doc 9