Loading...
4/14/2021 - Planning Commission - Regular - Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 2021 — 6:00 PM SPRING PARK SPRING PARK CITY HALL On Lake 9,tinnetonka 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL Present: Hoffman, Kaczanowski, Avalos, Mason, Homan Others present: Adam Rowan 4. ADOPT AGENDA Kaczanowski motioned, being seconded by Homan to approve the agenda with three additional items. Park board, tennis court, and 4000 sunset drive. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Avalos motioned, being seconded by Mason to approve the February 10, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved. 6. CONSIDERATION / DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 3900 Northern Avenue Variance Request i. Staff Presentation City Planner Brixius reported Adam Rowan is seeking a variance from the R-1 district side yard setback requirement for the single-family property located at 3900 Northern Ave. The variance is needed for the eastern side yard to construct an attached garage with additional living space on the second floor. The proposed addition is on the rear of the existing house. The property is located within an R-1, Single-Family and Two-Family Residential District. The request was to allow a 9.7-foot setback from the eastern lot line. After further review and discussion with Rowan, Brixius stated there are concerns with ease of access to the garage. They are presenting a slight alteration to the plans that would change the side yard setback to 7.5 feet. The new plan would allow for an 18-foot-wide garage door and ease of access. Brixius stated the variance is justified but they do need a site plan, grading plan, and a storm water management plan. He stated he would like the commission to discuss if they would allow a 7.5-foot side yard setback and give direction on a variance of two additional feet. Mason inquired if this would require an additional public hearing. Brixius stated you could continue the hearing and not close it. Hoffman inquired if they have the option to approve the variance contingent on staff review. Brixius stated you can do that or wait and approve after all plans are in place. Hoffman stated it would add an additional 30 days to the timeline and asked if Rowan is ok with waiting. Rowan stated he is ok waiting and discussion was had on his options moving forward. Brixius stated he outlined in the report the conditions that would apply regardless of the setback decided on. Further discussion was had on the parking stall layout, options to ensure there is no trespassing, hardcover, and a drainage plan. Tolsma stated a neighbor asked about driveway requirements from the lot line. There is a section of code that says minimum curb cut is 5 feet. Brixius stated there is no other requirements in the code, but his recommendation is a one-foot setback from the lot line. Discussion was had on a previous variance in comparison. Kaczanowski inquired, in being devil's advocate, if is there a possibility of a compromise and have an 8.7-foot setback, as our overall plan is to not get houses closer together. Brixius stated Rowan can make it work with the current request but any amount you can give him will approve the condition. He stated the commission has options. They can approve as originally presented, approve with the alternative at 7.5-foot setback or anything in between. ii. Open Public Hearing iii. Public Comments iv. Close Public Hearing Avalos motioned, being seconded by Kaczanowski to open the public hearing. There being no public comment Avalos motioned, being seconded by Mason to close the public hearing at 6:30. v. Discussion / Recommendation Hoffman inquired whether the commission is ok with acting tonight and further instruct staff to act without having to review or to continue the public hearing and the applicant comes back in 30 days. Discussion was had on public notice, Brixius stated they comply because it was advertised as reduced side yard setback and that is what is being discussed. Hoffman is in favor of deciding tonight and not put further time delays on the applicant. Consensus is to decide tonight along with conditions being satisfactorily addressed. Brixius stated two additional conditions need to be added regardless of the setback decided on. 1. Submission of the plans will be subject to review and approval of staff(Planner, Engineer, and building inspector). 2. Removal of existing driveway and relandscaping of that area. Hoffman stated those two additions will be added to the current three conditions being met prior to issuance of a permit. Hoffman stated there are three proposals in front of the commission. The original application, proposal to shift the building two feet over, or a compromise of shifting it one foot over. Kaczanowski is in favor of an additional one foot. Avalos is in favor of the original proposal. Homan is in favor of the new request for the 7.5-foot setback because of allowing it a couple properties down. Mason is in favor of the 1 foot additional. Hoffman stated previously the commission allowed a 7.5-foot setback so is in favor of allowing this applicant the same privilege and moving the building 2 feet over. There being a tie the option of the original proposal is being dropped so Avalos is now in favor of the additional 1 foot. Hoffman motioned, being seconded by Homan to recommend a side yard setback of 8.7 feet from the east lot line with the following conditions: 1. Submission of a complete site plan showing the expanded building, driveway location, design, configuration, and automobile turning movements accessing and egressing from the garage. 2. The driveway shall maintain a minimum of a one-foot setback from the west lot line and demonstrate that automobiles will not travel beyond the property line. 3. The site will exceed 30% hardcover. The applicant shall be required to meet the conditions outlined in Sec. 42-279 (4) b. in order to mitigate the storm water impacts of the building expansion and the driveway construction. • The applicant will submit a site grading and drainage plan to ensure proper stormwater management practices. This plan will be subject to review and approval by the city engineer. • All runoff from the house and the proposed driveway shall direct runoff away from the adjacent properties and into one of the stormwater management options listed in sec. 42-279. 4. Removal of existing driveway and relandscaping of that area. 5. Submission of the plans will be subject to review and approval of staff(Planner, Engineer, and building inspector). On roll call vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved. Discussion was had on bringing the recommendation forward to the council. Brixius stated he would draft a resolution to bring to the council. Hoffman stated next time a variance comes forward they would appreciate a complete package to review, and discussion was had on the process moving forward. Brixius stated he would like to table the recommendation to the council until the first meeting in May to get all the documents in order. That would allow for Rowan to expedite his project and allows a thorough application to be brought forward. Hoffman motioned, being seconded by Avalos to add condition number six to the previous recommendation: 6. Submission of all recommended documents are submitted to the council prior to the meeting. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved. 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. MISCELLANEOUS A. Business Appearances i. Dumpsters ii. Signs iii. Store Fronts Mason inquired to peeling signs and store fronts of local businesses. He stated the commission has been taken out of the loop and inquired if new businesses have applied for sign permits. Tolsma stated they have,and if the sign meets the requirements of the code Brixius and himself approve the permit. Hoffman stated the commission requested the current process. Mason inquired to the dumpster aspect as far as appearance and fencing, and discussion was had. B. Park board Avalos inquired to who is responsible for the parks and if the Planning Commission is the Parks Commission. Tolsma stated it is not clearly laid out in the code, but council is under the understanding that the Planning Commission is the park board. Avalos inquired to the Community Garden process and discussion was had. Tolsma described the process and stated responsibilities of the gardeners. C. Tennis Court Kaczanowski inquired if there is a sign for the tennis court out by the county road. Tolsma stated there is not a sign but one could be put out and discussion was had. Mason stated there is a sign advertising for tennis lessons at the court. Hoffman stated private advertising on public property is not allowed. Tolsma stated he will investigate. D. 4000 Sunset Kaczanowski inquired to hardcover at 4000 Sunset Drive. Brixius stated the code was updated several years ago but a lot of Spring Park properties are pre-existing. He reviewed conforming and nonconforming regulations. Tolsma updated the commission on the public access in that area. Tolsma stated he met today with someone that specializes in boat access points. He suggested a flexible concrete ramp with several interconnected pieces of concrete and feels it will be a good fit for that access point. Further discussion was had on the purpose of the access, signage, and improvements. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion,Mason motioned, being seconded by Avalos to adjourn. On vote being taken, the motion was unanimously approved.