Loading...
2/10/2021 - Planning Commission - Regular - Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ...------.—....."--------%----",lii 'dur"n FEBRUARY 10, 2021 — 6:00 PM SPRING PARK SPRING PARK CITY HALL On Lake Minnetonka 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL Present: Hoffman, Kaczanowski, Avalos, Mason Remote: Homan 4. ADOPT AGENDA Avalos motioned, being seconded by Mason to approve the agenda as presented. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Avalos motioned, being seconded by Kaczanowski to approve the January 13, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved. 6. CONSIDERATION / DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Setback Discussion City Planner Brixius reviewed current setbacks requirements. He stated the way the Comprehensive Plan reads as part of the City policy we like to promote reinvestment in our existing housing stock through renovation or expansion. Brixius reviewed the lot area map and lot width map and stated most of the lots have a greater land value than home value. The way the ordinance is written we consider a substandard lot buildable if it has sewer service and meets the required setbacks. The last few years we have not had a single- family home or duplex expand without a variance. Brixius reviewed nonconforming rules and lots of record. Lawful nonconforming buildings and structures may be expanded to improve livability and/or utility, provided the structure is not expanded into the required setback areas, for uses which conform to the provisions of this chapter. Vertical expansion of the house above the existing footprint of a structure shall not constitute an increase in the nonconformity. Mason inquired to how much building must remain to rebuild, and discussion was had on state statute. Brixius reviewed variance criteria and stated a variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Brixius stated Spring Park has multiple lots that are legal nonconforming. Recently every application for expansion and total redevelopment submitted to the City require variances which has led to this discussion on if setbacks should be changed. Sunset Drive and other existing properties were reviewed along with some recent variances. Brixius reviewed setback requirements for other cities and discussion was had on options for the City to consider. Standards in Excelsior were also reviewed. Kaczanowski left the meeting. Brixius reviewed some building examples and Spring Park examples and asked what the City wants and should allow for house width. Avalos inquired to what a safe wall to wall distance would be. Brixius stated that by building code any building that is less than 5 feet within each other have additional requirements. Those concerns are satisfied through the building permit process and discussion was had on safety. Hoffman stated that Long Range Planning and public consensus was to not have houses so close to one another and the reason the current standards were made was to slowly get to that point. Discussion was had on vertical expansion, proper spacing between homes, and the main goal of the City. Brixius stated our ordinances tend to favor the property owner as the City recognizes difficulty of the small lots. The City also recognizes the value of land is so great it justifies improvements adding to the value of homes. After further discussion and consideration, Brixius stated when looking at the expansion of existing homes the current variance process is probably the best method moving forward. The process of a variance requires a hearing, giving the City input from neighboring properties and allows the City to make additional conditions. Discussion was had on the front yard setback and how people use their property. Brixius would like the commission to consider coming up with a minimum house width. It would not require ordinance change but would give a model for staff to look at when property owners come in to plan their expansion or build. He would like to discuss further next month and come up with a plan to guide people in their planning. Hoffman is also in favor of coming up with a plan to justify their decisions and consensus of the commission agreed. Brixius updated commission members on the 4000 Sunset property survey. Mason inquired if City costs have been exceeding the cost of the variance. Tolsma reviewed the process of variance costs and discussion was had. Tolsma will look at the base fee and escrow costs and bring a recommendation to the Council in March. Discussion was also had on other permit fees that should be established. 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. MISCELLANEOUS a. Planning Commission Duties Tolsma brought forward a discussion at the request of Mason regarding the Planning Commission duties. Mason inquired if the Planning Commission also serves as the Park Board. Tolsma stated the code does not specifically state the Planning Commission is responsible for parks or beautification. Tolsma asked the commission to review the current code as to bring forward a recommendation of changes to Council. The reappointment process was also discussed and will be brought back. Mason stated his main reason for bringing the discussion forward was to inquire about park improvements and the plaques. Tolsma gave an update on plaque fabrication and installation. Discussion was had on short term rental inspection and Tolsma updated the commission on where the City is at in the process. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Mason motioned, being seconded by Avalos to adjourn. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved.