Planning Commission Minutes

CITY OF VICTORIA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 1, 2006

MINUTES

Pursuant to due posted and mailed notice thereof, the Victoria Planning Commission met on August 1, 2006, at 7951 Rose in the Council Chambers.

Chair Simanton opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: Chair, Gordy Simanton; Commissioners Bud Hiivala, William Mead VI, and Tom Vogt.

Members Absent: Commissioner James Donadio III.

Others Present: Mark Kaltsas, Consulting Planner; Angie Perera, Assistant Planner; and Tanya Schmieg, Recording Secretary.

A. Adopt Agenda

Chair Simanton added the letter from Walt Chapman under Miscellaneous.

A motion was made by Vogt, seconded by Hiivala, to adopt the agenda as revised. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion Carried.
 

#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A. Minutes of the June 20, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.

Commissioner Vogt asked when changes are made to the minutes what the process is after they make the changes. He asked if anyone goes back and revise the original minutes that are put in the record to reflect the changes. Chair Simanton said that the revisions taken tonight would be reflected in the next packet. Chair Simanton asked if the minutes were maintained electronically. Mr. Kaltsas said they are and the way he has always seen the format done is when you revise the minutes, you don’t actually revise the original minutes, but you put the revisions in the minutes for the next meeting. Commissioner Vogt said there is sometimes misleading statements and he has a problem with that. He asked if the same thing was done with the City Council. Chair Simanton responded yes. Chair Simanton asked if it would be possible to append the revisions to the electronic file, so if someone did pull them up they would be able to note that there were some changes to it and would then be able to review those changes. Mr. Kaltsas said you could put the revisions to the minutes as a revision section just at the front.

On page 4, the first paragraph, first sentence should read: Commissioner Vogt said there is no doubt that the lease agreement would have to be taken into consideration, but his point is that this great project, which is really nice and good for the City, but the fact that the City needs to keep leasing the spaces and needs to use them it is creating a parking problem.

Commissioner Vogt stated the third sentence in the first paragraph of page four should read: He said the whole idea that the ordinance is created unjustly is subjective in the sense that when the ordinance was put together for 1 space per 180 square feet of retail and 1 space per 250 square feet of office, who is to say that whoever came up with that wasn’t taking into consideration the ordinary amount of common areas that would exist in such spaces

On page 4, in the middle of the first paragraph should read: Commissioner Vogt said he is not saying that this isn’t a great project, it is just that this puts us back in the same situation because of the City’s needs for the parking spaces and with the reconfiguration of the building there is a parking problem.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Mead, to approve the Minutes as corrected above. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

B. Review Minutes of the June 19, 2006 City Council Workshop Meeting.

The above Minutes were reviewed.

C. Review Minutes of the June 19, 2006 Joint Parks & Recreation Committee and City Council Workshop Meeting.

The above Minutes were reviewed.

D. Review Minutes of the June 22, 2006 City Council Workshop Meeting.

The above Minutes were reviewed.

E. Review Minutes of the June 22, 2006 City Council Meeting.

The above Minutes were reviewed.

F. Review Minutes of the July 13, 2006 City Council Workshop Meeting.

The above Minutes were reviewed.

G. Review Minutes of the July 13, 2006 City Council Meeting.

The above Minutes were reviewed.
 

A. Request by Lennar Corporation for the re-plat of Laketown 5^th Addition (to be renamed Laketown (6^th Addition).

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-20
2. Exhibits

Chair Simanton reviewed the process that would be followed tonight during the public hearings.

Mr. Kaltsas stated that Lennar Corporation is seeking approval to re-plat Laketown 5^th Addition. The re-plat will be referred to as Laketown 6^th Addition and will accommodate a new configuration with revised housing products. The applicant has experienced slower than anticipated absorption of the row-home product slated for this property.

Mr. Kaltsas showed a map and noted that the brown area is the proposed new orientation and product type and the yellow is the existing.

Mr. Kaltsas stated the petitioner is looking to change the group of lots to allow for two quad-homes and the rest of the row-homes would be platted for twin homes. There are two buildings that are already constructed that would remain as row-homes.

Mr. Kaltsas stated the proposed reconfiguration of this area changes the number of units as follows:

Existing
a.  Twin homes – 4 units
b.  Row-homes – 23 units
              Total – 27 units

Proposed
a.  Twin homes – 16 units
b.  Row-homes – 0 units
c.  Quad homes – 8 units
         Total – 24 units

Mr. Kaltsas noted that this does not change any of the parameters of the developer’s agreement or park dedication.

Mr. Kaltsas stated that the re-plat would require changes to the existing infrastructure including grading, sanitary sewer and water. The streets and utilities have already been installed in this area. The existing street configuration will remain. He said the City’s Engineers comments would be a part of the conditions for this approval.

Mr. Kaltsas noted that Staff recommendation is to recommend approval for the re-plat to the City Council subject to the comment letter that was prepared by Staff and dated July 26, 2006. He said there is one item in there that the petitioner is trying to resolve with the City in regard to walk-out lots. If the petitioner can show the City how the walk-out lots can work on that particular lot then they would take that condition off.

Commissioner Vogt asked where this part of the development is. Mr. Kaltsas showed a map and said the area they are talking about is in green. He also showed the line for the Deer Run Golf Course. He said it is in the part that is already somewhat developed.

Chair Simanton asked if the private streets are the responsibility of the association or the homeowners. Mr. Kaltsas responded that those streets that service the quad-buildings and the existing streets that service the row-homes or the proposed streets are homeowner maintained and private. Everything else that goes around the block would remain as public streets. Mr. Kaltsas said that it is essentially driveway.

Chair Simanton stated the last time they were here they expressed concerns about the density. He noted that this development started out as single family. Chair Simanton said they are down three units and in his opinion that is not a big number to overcome.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 6:49 p.m.

Chair Simanton closed the Public Hearing at 6:49 p.m.

A motion was made by Vogt, seconded by Simanton, to approve the request by Lennar Corporation for the re-plat of Laketown 5^th Addition (to be renamed Laketown 6^th Addition). Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.

B. Request by Richard Gannon for a Variance from the Shoreland Setback at the property located at 9472 Smithtown Rd.

1. Agenda Statement No. 06-21
2. Exhibits

Mr. Kaltsas stated that the owner of 6472 Smithtown Road is seeking a variance from the shoreland setback to permit the construction of a new residence in place of an existing residence on the aforementioned lot. The property is located just west of Smithtown Road and north of State Highway 7. The property is zoned LMR – Lake Minnetonka Residential and is also covered by the S- Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant is proposing to raze the existing home on this property. The proposed new home and the existing home are similar in overall size and dimensions.

Mr. Kaltsas reviewed the setback requirements for Riparian Lots in the LMR and S districts are as follows:

Mr. Kaltsas stated there is an exception to the minimum shoreland setback that says when a dwelling is located on adjacent properties on both sides of a proposed dwelling or addition and the location of the dwellings and adjacent shoreland with the ordinary high water level (OHWL) are designed on a certified survey, the minimum setback may be determined by using the average setback to the OHWL of the dwellings on the adjacent properties, provided the setback is not reduced to less than two-thirds of this requirement and does not encroach into the bluff impact zone. He noted that this lot would qualify under those provisions.

Mr. Kaltsas stated that the petitioner has provided the City with a survey indicating the setbacks for the two adjacent properties. He said the property to the north has an existing setback of 70 feet and the property to the south has an existing setback of 83 feet. The average setback for this property is 77 feet which becomes the basis of any variances.

Mr. Kaltsas stated that the ordinance requires that the minimum setback from the OHWL be 66 feet and that was a change that the City adopted several years ago. This was set as a base level.

Mr. Kaltsas stated there is another provision in the ordinance that when there are lots in record that were in existence and they were looking to tear those down or raise the structures and rebuild, a couple of years ago the City talked about the bulk that was put back on the lake. Additional provisions were then put in place. The two provisions established to try and help reduce the bulk was a reduction in width of the property so the setback had to be increased from 30 feet to one foot for each foot closer to the lake that the structure is being proposed from the required setback.

Mr. Kaltsas said that in this case the required setback is 77 feet and the petitioner is looking at a 66 foot setback. Under this variance they would have to have an additional side yard setback of 11 feet. He noted that his is a wide lot and the petitioner has more than that in terms of width, so the side yard setback provision can be met by the petitioner.

Mr. Kaltsas stated that the second provision was to reduce the structure height by one quarter foot for every foot closer to the lake that was requested. In this case there would be a 2.75 reduction in height. The petitioner is allowed to have a 32.25. In this case the petitioner has an average height of 28.7 feet.

Mr. Kaltsas noted that in terms of building alignment it is not interfering with the two adjacent properties. He said the petitioner’s structure is very similar in size to what was already on the lot.

Mr. Kaltsas reviewed the four criteria with variances as outlined in the staff report.

Mr. Kaltsas said there are some grading issues with the way that the lot slopes down to the lake. The petitioner is asking the City to allow him to not have to re-grade significantly, but to fit the proposed home on top of where the existing home sits. He noted there are letters written from both sides of that property in favor of minimizing site work.

Commissioner Hiivala asked what the existing home setback is. Mr. Kaltsas said it is 61 feet is the existing setback.

Commissioner Hiivala said it is diagonal to the lot and said straightening it would bring it away from the lake. Commissioner Hiivala asked about the one big tree to be removed. Mr. Gannon said that is actually the shed.

Chair Simanton asked when measuring the height of the roof where does that start. Mr. Kaltsas said that they measure is to take the average height of the roof from the finish grade around the entire structure, so the front and the back are averaged in. They take the average all the way to the peak of the roof and a lot of other cities take it from the midpoint. Chair Simanton noted that consistent measurements are used for any walk-out. Commissioner Hiivala asked about the mass from the lake. Chair Simanton said the ordinance doesn’t address that.

Commissioner Vogt asked if there was any consideration to the fact that the existing home was a 61 foot setback as to grandfathering. Mr. Kaltsas said no, the City changed the ordinance so even if you kept part of a wall you still have to meet the additional provisions or setbacks. He noted as soon as you tear it down or a portion of it, you are starting over.

Commissioner Vogt stated he had the same observation as Commissioner Hiivala and if the house is slanted towards the lake, the angle creates the difference in the setback versus having an angle that would eliminate this problem.

Chair Simanton asked if it was at 61 feet what the average height of the roof would be. Mr. Kaltsas said it is a quarter of a foot, so it would go down by another 2 feet, which would be about 30 feet. Chair Simanton asked if when it is closer than it is, they require more of a setback from the side yard and they have obtained that. Mr. Kaltsas said that is correct. Chair Simanton said within the ordinances they have satisfied the fact that they are 11 feet inside from a variance standpoint and they have fulfilled that requirement with the side yard setback. Mr. Kaltsas said that is correct.

Commissioner Vogt asked for clarification in saying that the ordinance would actually allow for a 66 foot set back. Mr. Kaltsas said they give some parameters that curtail the amount of a variance that can be granted by a City. The City established some base criteria that if an applicant comes forward and applies for a variance they have taken away from the City the ability to grant a huge amount and they have also added some provisions. Commissioner Vogt said at 66 feet it is closer to the water. Chair Simanton said right, but they have satisfied that by the increases they would require for the side yard setback. Commissioner Vogt stated with the criteria being met, the setback from the lake is not an issue. Commissioner Hiivala said it is a variance, which still requires action.

Commissioner Vogt asked if in looking at the facts, the difficulty is if the house can’t be built in this vicinity there would have to be re-grading and according to the criteria there has to be an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property. Mr. Kaltsas said all of these are subjective and if you look at these as a whole you have to look at if they meet the intent of all of the factors. He noted in this case you look at if there is an impact that is going to affect property owners, the public who gets use of that lake and protecting the health, safety and welfare.

Mr. Gannon came forward and stated that he and his wife, Shelly, purchased the property a year ago. They had a deal with the homeowner that they let them stay for a year, so they are renting it back to them. He noted that they will take procession of it after Labor Day.

Mr. Gannon said that when the surveyor went out there to shoot he had them shoot the existing homes on each side. He pointed to them on the map.

Mr. Gannon stated his wife and him have gone to great lengths meeting with architects and engineers to situate the home on the property where they would have minimal impact in terms of grading and tree loss.

Mr. Gannon stated the house sits the same way as the house to the south and is in line with Smithtown Road. He noted that they align up with the road and it looks like that is the way it should be.

Mr. Gannon stated that they went and met with both neighbors and showed them the plan and the neighbors to the north were concerned that the garage may block his views on Lake Virginia. Mr. Gannon shared some pictures. He talked about all the trees on the property. Mr. Gannon noted that both neighbors on either have redeveloped in the last ten years. He pointed out the only grass area on the map and said with two young children they would like to preserve that area and how important that is to the family.

Mr. Gannon stated he does have letters from the neighbors on each side. Chair Simanton said they did get emails on those.

Mr. Gannon stated that they really tried to preserve the integrity of the property. He said it is not a question of how much he can get or how close he can get, but rather to situate the house on the property.

Mr. Gannon noted they have met all the criteria in the zoning code with regards to the variance request. He mentioned that none of the houses on Smithtown Road are conforming and his neighbor’s house is a foot off his property.

Chair Simanton summarized that it appears to him if they wanted to challenge the 11 foot variance the next step the petitioner would have would be to satisfy that requirement by increasing the side yard setbacks and they can do that easily. Chair Simanton said he personally doesn’t have any issues on this. Commissioner Hiivala also stated he has no issues.

Chair Simanton opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.

Chair Simanton closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.

A motion was made by Simanton, seconded by Hiivala, to approve the request for a variance from the shoreland setback for the property located at 6472 Smithtown Road. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
 

None.
 

Councilmember Tieden was not present.
 

A. Communications.

Ms. Perera stated that at the August 15^th meeting the agenda will have the following topics:

Gallery Second minor subdivision.

A Minor subdivision for the Timberwall area

A Variance request from a resident for a front yard setback.

Ms. Perera is also putting together a staff report for the City Council asking for Staff direction in putting together ordinance amendment for parking in downtown. She said there are a few parking spots they are looking at making 15 minute parking.

Commissioner Vogt asked for an update on the downtown redevelopment. Commissioner Hiivala also asked about Mary Meuwissen’s project. Ms. Perera said they are waiting for the feasibility study report to come in. Mr. Kaltsas stated the City Council authorized a feasibility report to be prepared at the last meeting. He said that part of that report is going to look at the road alignment with two options one keeping Steiger Lake Lane open and one closing it off. Mr. Kaltsas said the feasibility has a completion date of the end of September or first week in October. TKDA is in the process of putting together the base information. Mr. Kaltsas stated the City issued an RFQDP (request for qualifications and development proposals). They sent it out to 35-40 different developers and advertised it in different places. They City will be taking proposals by September 29^th of this year. He noted there will be some site tours. Once those proposals come back in they will narrow down and select a development team to negotiate with the terms.

Mr. Kaltsas said he has been talking to different firms that do land development about workload and some of them don’t have a project for next year.

Chair Simanton mentioned the budget this year for new homes was 150 and he heard a couple weeks ago that aren’t even at 50.

Commissioner Vogt asked for an update on the land swap area and if there are any recommendations on that development. Mr. Kaltsas said that deal was approved at the beginning of July. The agreement has been executed and they are preparing legal descriptions and title work.

Commissioner Hiivala asked what happened with the corner property. Mr. Kaltsas said they are going to move on it. It is a 4,000 square foot small retail area. He said there is a group of developers who are partners on that. Ms. Perera noted that she sent a letter to them telling them to get rid of the weeds and to take down the fence.

Commissioner Hiivala asked if anyone attended the Notermann Building open house. Ms. Perera noted that she was gone that day, but she, David Urbia and Cara Geheren recently met with Matt Crow to talk about parking and he showed them the inside of the building and it is looking really good. Commissioner Vogt asked if on the Notermann Building the building permits have been given or obtained for the inside remodeling. Ms. Perera said that it was approved by the building official. Mr. Kaltsas stated at the August 10^th meeting there will be a proposal to provide tax increment financing for a potential grocery store in that building.

Mr. Kaltsas noted that the Lumber Yard has been for sale and they are looking at splitting those sites and selling them individually.

B. Other

Chair Simanton stated he received a letter dated June 19^th from Walt Chapman. He contacted him on the 22^nd and left a message and has not heard back from him. He did let him now that it was concerning that setback and his view. Commissioner Mead noted that this was in the Watermark area. Commissioner Mead and Chair Simanton drove by the place and some questions that Chair Simanton had were: when did they move in and if they built the current home that is there.
 

A motion was made by Mead, seconded by Vogt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Tanya Schmieg
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.