Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082498REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1998 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: Ao Case #98-094 Timothy Boeck is requesting a 909 square foot variance to permit a 6591 square foot lot area instead of the required 7500 square feet to be buildable for the construction of a future single family dwelling on the property legally described as Lot 3, Fairview Beach. Bo Case #98-093 David O. Hansen is requesting a variance to roof-top screening of utility equipment and a variance to waive the irrigation requirement for new construction. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L A98FILES'OSPLCOMM~CAGENrDA~AGO82498.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota SS372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424S AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 1998 1. Call to Order: The August 24, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Absent Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Planning Director Don Rye, pointed out the statement at the bottom of page 2, third line, Mr. Johnson states there is a law suit against the City for the failure on his property. (Fact: There is no law suit at this time.) The Minutes from the August 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved with the amended note. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case 098-094 Timothy Boeck is requesting a 909 square foot variance to permit a 6591 square foot lot area instead of the required 7500 square feet to be buildable for the construction of a future single family dwelling on the property legally described as Lot 3, Fairview Beach. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated August 24, 1998, on file in the office of the City Planner. Staff has concluded the hardship criteria are met and the variance request for lot area is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot the applicant has no control over. The DNR is opposed to the variance because of the State standard minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. feet on a sewered general development lake. This variance is for a lot size of 44% of the State minimum. Minnesota Code of Agency Regulation 6120.3300, regarding lots of record, require lot combinations and this lot was recently in common ownership with the adjacent lot and could have been combined. However, under the City's i :\98files\98plcomm\pcminknm082498 .doc I Shoreland Ordinance, the lot is an existing lot of record and was legally conveyed to a different property owner. Comments from the Public: Tom Huntington, 17410 Sunset Trail SW, stated he was opposed to the request. He feels the lot is too small for today's standards. One of his concerns is the garage is located 6 feet from the property line. Mr. Huntington also does not like the fact they have to request variances because the lot is too small and it is not appropriate to have another small house in the neighborhood. Dave Hansen, 17001 Fish Point Road SE, is in favor of the request. The lot was platted several years ago with the intention to build a house. Neighborhoods have to compromise. A house could have been built a long time ago. Scott Shanesy, 3000 Fairview Road, feels the pictures presented are deceiving. He is the immediate neighbor and objects to the proposal. It is a substandard lot like his own and will crowd his home. Mr. Shanesy stated there have been numerous complaints on his own lot. There is no parking and no place to turn around. Shanesy said he also has the same house plan. Another problem is outside storage. He does not like the looks of cars parked in a driveway. He does not understand why the City would allow this proposal. Tim Boeck, 17394 Sunset Trail, stated he owns only one lot. He does not own the surrounding lots as stated by Mr. Shanesy. Mr. Boeck concurs with staff and pointed out Mr. Shanesy has a smaller lot. Bob Boeck, 17394 Sunset Trail, said the neighbors commented on a buildable lot. Mr. Boeck explained his house sits on both lots and there could not be any more building. The proposed lot is 900 feet larger than the neighbors'. It has been a lot of record since 1926. There are many lots in the area just like it. The public hearing was closed at 6:55 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · The lots are not in common ownership. · With regard to the variance request, the four hardship criteria have been met. · A condition of approving the variance based on the Staff Report stating no additional variances will be requested. A letter from the applicant should be submitted indicating no other variances will be requested. Kuykendall: · Concurs. Supported staff's recommendation. · Add the condition with no additional variances. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn082498.doc 2 Cramer: Agreed the hardship criteria have been met. Impressed that with the number of variances before the Commission, especially with smaller lake lots they usually come before the Commission with numerous variances. Attempts have been made to keep it to one variance. · Agreed with Vonhof's amendment. Stflmson: · Concurred · Variance hardship criteria have been met. · Commend design of the house. · The DNR opposed this request based on lot ownership, however this is not in joint ownership. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 98- 22PC APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO LOT AREA BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES WILL BE GRANTED. Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #98-093 David O. Hansen is requesting a variance to roof-top screening of utility equipment and a variance to waive the irrigation requirement for new construction. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated August 24, 1998, on file in the office of the City Planner. Staff concluded the variance requests are not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot and alternatives exist for compliance with the ordinance. Comments from the public: Dave Hansen, builder for the office warehouse on 17001 Fish Point Road, said time was of the essence. His company started the work program and many things were presented that he was not totally familiar with at the beginning. Mr. Hansen said he did not submit a screening plan with the intent in mind not to put them in. His company took a lesser role in construction in the property. He disagrees with the Planning Commissioner's findings regarding screening and feels the ordinances are outdated. Today rooftop units are clean and technologically advanced. He knows of no other fencing that would enhance the property. Neighboring businesses have smaller units like his on the building and look fine. Hansen said there is nothing less intrusive than what he has now. He has a large investment in Prior Lake and wants the building to look attractive. Mr. Hansen stated he will comply with the new ordinance. With regard to the underground sprinklers: Hansen feels the underground sprinklers are not effective. On one side we are trying to be resource smart then on the other side we l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhmn082498.doc 3 are wasting water. Hansen asked to strike the inground water system because he feels it is a total waste. Kuykendall asked if there were other landscape alternatives. Hansen said there was not. He feels he has the best and needs his Certificate of Occupancy. Tovar explained requiring a Letter of Credit for two years versus the irrigation system. She also read the Business Park requirements regarding screening. Gary Horkey, owner of neighboring Keyland Property, said he complied with all the screening and inground watering system and did not receive any additional variances to comply. The public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Both points raised by the applicant have a lot of merit. · Supports staff recommendations based on the face of the information presented. What is reasonable? When there are architectural considerations that are not tightly defined, it leaves a lot in the eyes of the designer whether or not they meet that definition. · We should look at this ordinance again. · Regarding the water: Standards are imposed so no matter who owns the property it is maintained. There is no assurance if the property is sold the next owner will comply. Support the staff's recommendation in regard to the inground water system. · Tovar pointed out the City Council has considered Mr. Hansen's suggestion. City Manager Boyles contacted Mr. Hansen a few weeks ago with alternatives which Mr. Hansen did not agree. · Mr. Hansen said he did not comply with the City Manager's suggestions because the funding was very expensive. He also stated he told Jermi Tovar and Don Rye he would be happy to give them a letter indicating he would comply with the new ordinances. · Does not support the variance as is and feels he does not have all information. Cramer: · Asked applicant if he would be amicable to a condition on the variance such as painting the equipment to match. Hansen responded he would do it immediately. Agreed with Kuykendall, could approve the variance with conditions to meet the intent of the ordinance. · Adding any additional rooftop screening will look worse than it already is. · Shared the concern with the inground sprinkler. The propose of the ordinance is to attract new business to the area. · Will deny that part of the variance. l:\98files\98plcoram\pcmin~mnO82498.doc 4 Stamson: · Agreed with arguments to some extent by the applicant. The rooftop units could be painted and provide efficient screening. · The applicant makes good arguments about the irrigation system, however what we are working with and our legal definitions for granting a variance and the conditions put forth just do not warrant a variance. Applicant should negotiate with the City. The variance is not an appropriate vehicle. · Does not support granting a variance. Vonhof: · Agreed with Stamson on the rooftop screening. The Business Park has higher standards than the rest of the City. It was intentional. · Applicant brings up good points. Sometimes in affect, we can not see every building, obviously. Perhaps variance condition//4, does not violate the intent and spirit and may be met. Agreed with that point. · Agreed with Chair Stamson that this is not the proper vehicle. Applicant is bringing up valid points, this is not the proper vehicle. The standards are the standards we set up. · The first three variance hardship criteria are not met. The fourth is. · There are other options. · Sympathize, but this is not the vehicle. Kuykendall: · Supports staff's recommendation and would deny the variances for the reasons stated. Encouraged the applicant to reconsider the suggestions by the City Manager. Cramer: It is apparent his condition will not pass and will support the rest of the Commissioners in denying both variances. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-21PC DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF-TOP SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE HANSEN. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. 5. Old Business: 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcminXmn082498 .doc 5 6. New Business: Kuykendall suggested the City re-visit the screening ordinance. Council has discussed the options and will be addressed. There was a brief discussion on screening. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Rye explained the City Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nnO82498.doc 6