Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 22 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, January 22, 2013 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the January 22, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Blahnik, Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Engineer Larry Poppler and Planner Jeff Matzke 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 22, 2013 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Hite, Phelan, and Spieler. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of January 7, 2013 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 7, 2012 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Hite, Phelan, and Spieler. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. EP# 12-129 5290 Candy Cove Trail Variance. Highmark Builders is requesting a Variance from the minimum lakeshore setback and the Bluff Impact Zone setback on Lower Prior Lake in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The subject property is located on Candy Cove Point southwest of Candy Cove Bay off of Candy Cove Trail. Planner Matzke presented that Highmark Builders, on behalf of the owner, is requesting variances from the minimum lake setback and minimum bluff setback on a property located at 5290 Candy Cove Trail. The property is located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk Highway 13. A single family home exists currently on the property. The variances that are requested include a 5.9 foot variance from the required minimum 50 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties, and an 18.4 foot variance from the required 25 foot bluff setback. Commissioner Questions: Spieler asked about concerns with erosion from the back of the house going into the lake? Engineer Poppler responded that water should not be directed in concentrated flow paths and should be dispersed over a larger area. Staff has not looked at the specifics of this yet. Spieler asked if there could be landscaping requirements that block water flow from the lake? 1 Engineer Poppler responded that staff can look at that at the building permit time. Hite asked about the new impervious surfaces with the home and how this could be affected if a pool is added? Planner Matzke responded that the applicant has about 27 percent impervious coverage with just the proposed house, garage and driveway. They have about 900 square feet they could add and still be under the maximum 30 percent impervious surface requirement. Blahnik asked whether the purpose of the 25 foot bluff setback is to keep runoff from the lake or to keep the house from possibly sliding into the lake? Planner Matzke responded there are multiple reasons for the setback; erosion control and structural safety of the home are the primary reasons. Also, the DNR has set the 25 foot standard to keep the aesthetics of lake shore property natural and to protect the native vegetation and natural slopes. Phelan asked for clarification as to whether the house is being torn down completely? Planner Matzke responded in the affirmative. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:19 PM. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Blahnik, Spieler, and Hite John Anderson, Highmark Builders stated that removing the existing house allowed them to move the new home further back from the shoreline. They conducted geotechnical reports and are aware of the situation on the site. The garage needed to be pushed back to allow for an easement around the lift station on the property. They are granting the city a 20 foot easement around the lift station and over the service lines. Hite asked whether they will ensure that all drainage is directed and controlled on the applicant’s property? Applicant Anderson responded that they plan on designing it so that all stormwater and run off will be handled on site. Those plans will be submitted with the building permit. Lauren Jones (5282 Candy Cove Trail) stated support for the variance. He is looking forward to getting new neighbors and seeing the finished product. Ronald Lenling (5298 Candy Cove Trail) stated concerns about the height and size of the proposed house. He did not want to see the character of the neighborhood change too drastically. Matthew Bearden (Southview Design) stated that he is in the process of revising plans and designing to treat water on site, minimize runoff and limit the amount of excess water going back into the lake. 2 MOTION BY PHELAN SECCOND BY HITE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:22 PM. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Blahnik, Hite, and Spieler. Commissioner Comments: Spieler asked whether the driveway will be replaced as part of the project? Planner Matzke responded that driveways are usually replaced with this type of project. He believes the applicant stated their intent to replace the driveway. Spieler asked whether the driveway is used by other residents to access their homes and whether it is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and allow access to the other residents? Planner Matzke responded that the builder will work with the other homeowners, letting them know when they are going to do certain parts of the project that may block access. Spieler asked if there are any city requirements applicable to driveway access? Planner Matzke responded that there are easements across the driveway, so it would be between the property owners and not the city. Spieler stated support for the project; his main concern is that the builders must work with the neighbors and make sure the erosion control is always in place. Hite stated support for the variance; practical difficulties do exist with the current shape and configuration of the lot. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; designing the project accommodates the utilities and easements on the lot. Blahnik asked whether the existing house is currently 38 feet from the lake and the proposed house will be 44 feet from the lake? Planner Matzke responded affirmatively. They are moving the home back to 50 feet. The averages of setbacks in the ordinance would allow 55 feet. Blahnik asked whether other homes in the area have similar setbacks. Planner Matzke responded that it varies some but for the most part they are similar to the proposed house. Blahnik stated support for the project. There are practical difficulties and the structure that is being proposed is of reasonable size for the lot. He does sympathize with the neighbor with the increased height and decreased view. Phelan asked how is “changing the character of a neighborhood” defined? Planner Matzke responded in regards to changing the character of the neighborhood, staff looks in relation to the type of variance request. Staff looks to see that the variance request 3 will allow the proposed home to be reasonable with the other homes in the area. For example, when Commissioner Blahnik asked earlier about the other setbacks of the neighborhood, they are similar to what is being proposed. Phelan commented on the impervious surface and not showing the pool on the plan. He wants to make sure that the reason for the pool to be left off is not to limit the number of variances being applied for at one time. He was glad to hear that the builder stated that if the pool is to go in it will be under the impervious surface requirements. He does not want the applicant to come back in this summer asking for an impervious surface variance. He stated his concern about the home being close to the bluff. He does not like setting the house so close to the bluff but if engineering and soil reports state that it will support it then he won’t disagree. Hite stated she wants to reiterate Chairman Phelan’s comment about the impervious surface, and if a variance request is presented for that, it will be strictly reviewed. A MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE A 5.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT REQUIRED STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE O.H.W. OF PRIOR LAKE AND 18.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT REQUIRED BLUFF SETBACK. VOTE: Ayes, Phelan, Blahnik, Hite, and Spieler. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: A. EP# 13-103 PUD Concept Plan. K. Hovnanian Homes is requesting a review of a proposed Planned Unit Development concept plan within 45 acres located west of County Road 18 and south of County Road 42, on the northwest shore of Lower Prior Lake. The subject property is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and guided R-LD (Urban Low Density). Planner Matzke presented the purpose of this agenda item is to share the concept for a Low Density single family residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a 45-acre site and to provide the Commissioner’s with an opportunity to provide in-formal, non-binding feedback on the concept to the applicant.The city’s zoning ordinance allows applicants to review their concept plans with the Planning Commission to help direct them in the preparation of their land use applications. Applicant Kevin Clark (K. Hovnanian Homes) presented the goals and objectives of proposed PUD Development. He touched on the unique topography and geometry of the current parcel. Clark described how there plan will fit on the site. Phelan asked about the proposed lot sizes; are they smaller than city standards? Planner Matzke responded they are proposing 90 foot wide and 15,000 square feet lots on the lakeshore that does meet our minimum lot size. For the non-lake lots, they are proposing 75 foot wide and 10,000 square foot lots and our minimum is 86 feet wide and 12,000 square feet. 4 Phelan stated his concern that they are proposing less than the minimum standards. Although he understands it is a numbers game with margins, he would rather see the lots correctly sized to city current standards. Phelan asked the applicant about their plans for grading the site; they had mentioned that the topography is interesting and has a lot of unique features. Applicant Clark responded it depends on how they can engineer the roads and lots on the parcel. They would try to preserve the natural features by custom grading but it will be difficult. Spieler asked how long will the construction take of this site? Applicant Clark responded that they are planning on developing it in phases. The sales of the phases will determine how quickly they are able to move through the project. Spieler asked about accessing the site with construction equipment without a major access off of County Road 42? Applicant Clark responded Carriage Hills Parkway is a collector road and is designed for heavier traffic use. They would be using and would be that best way to access the site. Spieler asked for further explanation on the type of houses. Applicant Clark responded that these homes would have a minimum of 60 x 60 foot building pad; they are still looking into the architectural design on the homes. Square footage is between 2,000 and 3,000. Price range will be around $300,000 for 2-story homes with 3-car garages. Spieler asked what lake access will be for the three homes on the lake, and the rest of the development will not have lake access? Hite asked how many different owners are they working with on the east parcel? Applicant Clark responded there are three owners. Hite asked is there any discussion with the owners on the west parcel? Applicant Clark responded no. Hite asked if grading of the site will require import or export of soils on the site? Applicant Clark responded that they have not gone to that extent to know the details of grading. Hite asked whether there are only two stormwater ponds being proposed? Applicant Clark responded that they will have more detail on that as they get into to project. They did not want to spend a lot of time engineering a certain way only to have to change it. 5 Hite asked whether the current wetland will be protected or changed? Applicant Clark responded that they are not proposing any impact to the wetland. The area around the wetland is very steep and heavily treed, it would be more beneficial from an ecological and marketable standpoint to not put any trail or amenities around the wetland and keep those to the outside of the development. Hite asked whether Carriage Hills will be constructed all the way through both parcels? Applicant Clark responded no; it will be constructed to the west side of the east parcel. Hite stated that it is disappointing to see that three proposed riparian lots meet the current lot standards, but that the non-riparian lots do not meet the current lot dimensions. Blahnik stated he would like to see the starting point of the lot sizes meet the current standards. Overall the concept plan looks good. Blahnik asked whether they are only developing the east parcel and whether that is why Carriage Hills cannot go all the way through? Applicant Clark responded yes; they will bring it through the east parcel but end it on the western boundary. Blahnik asked about the number of significant trees on the site? Applicant Clark responded yes; there is a significant amount. Blahnik stated do your best to preserve the trees. Blahnik asked about the estimated start date? Applicant Clark responded that it depends on the feedback they get from the planning commission and city council. If it is encouraging, then they could pursue a preliminary plat. To gather the necessary material, it takes about three weeks; they would need to get on a possible March meeting and hopefully get going early to mid-May. Blahnik stated overall, the plan looks good, but it would be nice to see the lots meet our current standards. Phelan asked about ghost platting the west half parcel, is their intention to eventually enter into an agreement with those owners? Applicant Clark responded no; they ghost platted on the recommendation of staff. Phelan asked about whether Meadowlawn Trail is a winter access road; what will become of that road? 6 Planner Matzke responded it will more than likely be a trail. The applicant stated that access to the properties will be off of Carriage Hills Parkway. Phelan stated if this were to move forward, he would ask the applicant to consider the neighboring property and be respectful when developing the east parcel. Phelan asked with the phasing of the project would they start on the lake side and work toward County Road 42? Applicant Clark responded the lake lots in themselves are a unique situation. The plan is to put up models north of Carriage Hills and sell both on the south side and north side of Carriage Hills. Phelan stated the reason he asked that is it will preserve the natural setting and buffer from 42 and create less of a disturbance to neighbors until necessary. Phelan stated on the north side of the wetland it looks like building will be close; he wants to caution about building too close to the wetland. Applicant Clark responded that they did a complete delineation this fall, the approval process has been completed and validated. The lines on the map take into account the delineated edge along with the buffer. Phelan stated it is great to have an eager developer in talking about development in Prior Lake, it is good for the economy and the city. He does echo fellow commissioner concerns about lot size dimensions on the development. Spieler stated an idea about possibly redesign of one cul-de-sac to no back up to Carriage Hills since it is a collector road. Applicant Clark responded that they first thought that frontage would be allowed on Carriage Hills, since it is not, they had to completely redesign how originally the development would be laid out. Hite asked who owns the gravel road today? Applicant Clark responded it is a joint easement that allows it to be vacated when another access is brought in. Phelan stated once closer to preliminary plat, he would like to see Mr. Poppler’s comments addressed and the lot dimensions closer to the current standards. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A: Recent City Council Discussions/decisions Director Rogness presented the vacation on Spring Lake was approved by Council. He stated that Monique Morton was the appointed Council Member as the Planning Commission liaison. A special meeting will be held to discuss the appointment of the new council member. 7 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Hite, Phelan, Spieler. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant 8