Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN040113 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, April 1, 2013 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairman Roszak called the April 1, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Hite, Roszak, Blahnik, Planner Jeff Matzke, Public Works Director Katy Gehler, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE APRIL 1, 2013 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak and Hite. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of March 18, 2013 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE MARCH 18, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and Roszak. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV-2013-1008 14354 Watersedge Trail Variance. Scott Wold, on behalf of Robert Johnson, is requesting variances from the minimum impervious surface requirement and lot setbacks on Prior Lake. The property is located on the north end of Lower Prior Lake along Watersedge Trail. Planner Matzke presented that S. Wold Construction Inc., on behalf of the owner, is requesting variances from the minimum lake setback, minimum front yard setback, minimum sum of the side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, minimum lot area, and maximum impervious surface on property located at 14354 Watersedge Trail NE. The site is currently vacant. The homeowner plans to build a residential home, hence the need for the variances. The exact variances that are needed include: (1) a 15 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard setback using the average front yard setbacks of the adjacent properties; (2) a 10.5% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a residential property in the Shoreland District; (3) a 13.3 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; (4) a 3.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot separation between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot; (5) a 4.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yard requirement; and (6) a 1,830 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area required for development of a nonconforming lot of record. There would not be a lower level to this house because it is located in the flood plain. The house will need to be built above the 910’ regulatory flood protection elevation. 1 Commissioner Questions: Blahnik asked whether the two adjacent homes are built below the flood protection elevation? Planner Matzke responded yes; the flood plain regulations did not come into effect until the late 1980s. Blahnik asked about the approximate impervious surface of the adjacent properties. Planner Matzke responded that he did not know the neighboring properties’ impervious surface; however, the aerial photo shows that they appear to look similar to what the proposed development will be on the applicant’s property. Blahnik asked for a reason why the proposed house is proposed to be closer to the street? Planner Matzke responded that the applicant can answer that question better, but part of that is to match the other homes in the neighborhood and keep it further from the lake. Roszak asked whether the proposed 3.5 foot wall will be 3.5 feet taller than the neighbors’ property on both sides? Planner Matzke responded yes because of the flood plain regulation. Blahnik asked whether raising this home’s elevation will create any drainage issues on the neighboring properties? Planner Matzke responded that through the building permit review process, the drainage is reviewed and approved; the arrows on the survey show the drainage flowing to swales along the property and being directed to the lake and the street. Roszak asked about the proposed building height in comparison to neighboring homes. Planner Matzke responded that this home is proposed to be two-story; the neighboring properties are single level rambler styles. Hite expressed concern about having all the drainage go to the lake and the potential creation of drainage problems for the neighboring properties. Planner Matzke responded that they try to create drainage swales to direct water to the front and back of the lot. The front half of the property is usually pitched to go to the street, and the back of the lot is directed to the lake. Roszak asked about recent storm sewer projects in this area and where that water is directed. Planner Matzke responded that there was a recent city project for this area; the storm water is directed to ponds and/or rain gardens, treated and then drained to the lake. 2 MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:56 PM. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motioned carried. Applicant/Contractor S. Wold (9457 State Hwy 10 Ramsey MN) discussed the drainage and requested variances. The drainage will be directed by swales to the lake and street. The retaining walls will not be encroaching over the lot lines. Blahnik asked why the house be moved closer to the street? Applicant Wold responded that the house was pushed further from the lake to a setback that conforms with other properties in the area. Blahnik asked about the finished square footage of the house. Applicant responded that there is about 1,310 square feet for the house and 646 square feet for the garage. Hite asked about construction of the retaining walls to allow for drainage. Applicant Wold responded that they will be keystone with a rock base and gravel behind to drain along the wall. Hite asked how close will the retaining walls be placed to the neighboring properties? Applicant Wold responded that it will be constructed a few inches within the property line. Hite asked whether there is any vegetation on the neighboring properties that could be impaired by the construction of the walls? Applicant Wold responded that they will do everything possible not to impact vegetation along the property lines, but that may not be avoidable. Hite asked whether mitigating the drainage from entering the lake is possible considering the amount of impervious surface? Applicant Wold responded that the soil will be sloped to encourage permeation on the property before it sheet drains to the lake or street; grading will also help contain the water on the property to be absorbed as much as possible. Hite asked if the applicant had a cut/profile sheet of the slopes and the retaining walls? Applicant Wold responded no, not but the survey does show elevations. Hite asked whether a cut/profile sheet could be provided? 3 Applicant Wold responded that it would be easier to show other properties in the area that have done similar grading with retaining walls. Hite asked if the applicant had been working with the city engineer on the grading and drainage plan? Applicant Wold responded yes; he has been working with staff through the entire process. Roszak asked whether the retaining walls will be constructed without going on the neighbor’s property? Applicant Wold responded that a small back hoe will be used with access to the site through the center of the lot; the work will be done from the inside out. Cherry Burnhaman, 14360 Watersedge Trail stated she is concerned about the drainage of the property, the increased drainage to the lake. The area is low and any additional runoff needs to be handled very carefully. Mark Danes spoke on behalf of Betty Burnham on lot 15 the adjacent lot. He was concerned with the drainage. The neighboring property has a basement and currently has water issues. The height of the proposed house was also a concern. Kay Minnich, 14390 Watersedge Trail stated she has a lot about the same size as the applicant. They built a new home recently and the foot print was able to fit on the lot without variances. A 1,900 square foot house is not a modest house in her mind. The house foot print should be sized down to fit on the lot. Ike Iverson, 14329 Rutgers St . stated the waterfront is for the association of Boudins Mannor. Other homes in the area have been rebuilt larger, but combined on two lots to have more area. Bev Lundgren, 14325 Rutgers St. stated she built a home across from the proposed lot. The proposed home is too large for the lot, and it will negatively affect the neighborhood. Annette Thompson, 14349 Watersedge Trail stated she wanted to build a cement patio for a hot tub but was not allowed for impervious reasons. She asked whether the requested impervious surface variance is 40 percent? Roszak responded that it is a 10.5 percent variance for the impervious surface. Blahnik asked Thompson if she knows her lot’s impervious surface percentage? Thompson responded no. Bob Miller, 14359 Watersedge Trail stated that the majority of the homes in that area were built in the 1950s, and most probably have a lowest floor elevation of 906 or 905 feet. There have always been water issues in the neighborhood. It is an old neighborhood that has a lot of issues. When something new is to be built, it should conform with the rules in place. The 4 regulations are there to protect the area and the lake. A more reasonable house should be built to better fit within the requirements. Linda Burnham, 14306 Watersedge Trail . Stated her concerns of impervious surface, the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and that the home will be built from the street to the lake. There are three trees that are along the property that will likely be affected. Earl Drangstveit, 14279 Rutgers asked about current standard setbacks for the lot. Planner Matzke responded that a normal lot requires 10 feet for the sides, 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and 25 feet from the street. On a non- conforming lot, the side yards can total 15 feet as well as setback averaging from the ordinary high water mark up to 50 feet. Drangstveit asked if there are any fire issues for a house that close to a neighboring property? Planner Matzke responded not in this case no, the proposed building meets the fire code. Drangstveit stated that since 1983, he has lived in the neighborhood and has seen the water levels be very high. His has concerns about impervious surface, and he stated that the home owners in Boudins Manor have deeded access to the lake, and the access runs all the way along the shoreline in front of the subject property. Hite asked if there is an association for this property and if anyone is present that represents this group? Drangstveit responded that there is not a specific association for that area, but rather, he read language from the deed that described the area along the shore. Roszak asked for further information about the waterfront? Bob Miller responded thatit is the waterfront in front of all the homes on the bay. Mary Miller stated she is a realtor and that some properties have lots that go out into the lake and some go to the shoreline. Some lots have a platted area as public between the property and the shoreline. Ehtian stated his concern with the rock wall and the drainage. He was also concerned with the old trees along the property because it will be very difficult to not damage those trees. He stated he is a builder, and he has never been allowed to go over the maximum impervious surface percentage. Blahnik asked what his impervious surface area is for Lot 15, the square footage of his house, and whether he has a basement? Ehtain responded that he did not know the impervious area or square footage, and he does have a basement. 5 Mike Von Arx, 14346 Rutgers asked if gutters will be installed on the home since it is important to have gutters to keep the runoff on the property. Judith Paine, 14424 Watersedge Trail stated she has a 40 foot lot. It is difficult to clean the side of the house. Her home is a tight fit on the lot, and she felt that the proposed house would not fit well on the lot. MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motioned carried. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Hite stated she appreciates all the residents coming out and voicing their opinions. This is a non-conforming lot, and it is evaluated different than a conforming lot. It has been assessed as a buildable lot. She said it is hard to see change, but it is a buildable lot and at some point somebody will want to build on it. She felt there was not enough information to make a decision tonight. She would like to have staff, specifically the city engineer, answer storm water concerns. She also would like more information on the deed with the association as well as a cut/pofile sheet that shows the elevations of the proposed house and retaining walls. Her recommendation is to table the variance application. Blahnik stated that six variances are numerous for this lot. He is concerned with the side yard setbacks and the runoff leaving the subject property and going onto the neighboring property. He agrees with the front yard setback to increase the rear yard setback to the lake. This home does seem consistent with the neighboring properties. His concerns are with the side yard variances. Blahnik asked if the side yard setback variances were eliminated, would it eliminate the building to building setback variance? Planner Matzke responded that if the building to building was eliminated on the garage side then in might not be possible to eliminate the side yard setback variance. Blahnik stated he supports all variances but the side yard variance. Although it is a narrow lot, he felt it is possible to eliminate the side yard setback. Roszak stated the variances in general are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. He has concerns with impervious surface and where the water will go. He felt he needed more information and would like to table this to another meeting. Planner Matzke asked commissioners to clearly list the requests for the applicant to bring to the next meeting. Hite stated she would like to see a cut sheet showing the elevations, information about the deed of the piece of property along the lake, and to have the city engineer present to discuss stormwater. Blahnik stated he would like to see a rendering of a reduced house footprint by 4.4 feet to meet the side yard setback and to reduce impervious surface. 6 MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH RESPONSES NEEDED TO THE FEEDBACK FROM COMMISSIONERS. VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Hite, Roszak. The motion carried. th Planner Matzke stated the next anticipated planning commission meeting is April 29. The public hearing has been closed so the public will not be notified of the meeting; however, the agenda will be posted on the City’s website and in the Prior Lake American prior to the meeting. B. DEV-2013-1010 Welcome Avenue Stormwater Pond Variance. The City of Prior Lake is requesting a variance to allow grading and vegetation removal within a bluff impact zone for construction of a storm water pond in the I-1 (General Industrial) Zoning District. The subject property is located north of CASH 21 at the end of Welcome Avenue. Public Works Director Gehler presented information that the city is proposing to construct a stormwater pond to manage stormwater runoff from the planned Welcome Avenue Industrial Development. The stormwater pond serves to protect Markley Lake from direct stormwater runoff and associated water pollution risks; it is designed to meet current City design standards that are protective of surface waters. The stormwater pond also incorporates approximately 41% of the compensatory flood storage volume that the City will create as a result of the Markley Lake Study. The current City Ordinance prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones on steep slopes: the proposed stormwater pond would result in intensive vegetation clearing within these regulated areas. Planner Matzke presented the variance criteria on which variances are evaluated by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Questions: Hite asked how you measure intensive vegetation clearing? Planner Matzke responded that it is somewhat subjective. The city looks at how much grading will take place with 50% to 75% or more seen to be intensive. Hite asked what new grasses that will be planted to mimic 1937 grasses, and why was 1937 picked? Director Gehler responded that starting in 1937, the mining operations began to remove native grasses and plant life. The goal is to have the oak savanna look that matches the other natural areas nearby. Blahnik stated his support; it is necessary to re-grade the property and native vegetation will be reinstalled Roszak stated his support; it makes sense to restore to natural plantings, and it is important for water quality. 7 Hite stated her support; the property will be improved with this stormwater pond, and it will be protecting the Wellhead area. MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECOND BY HITE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM THE VEGETATION ALTERATION REQUIREMENTS OF A RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENT LAKE IN THE I-1 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT) VOTE: Ayes Hite, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A: Recent City Council Discussions/decisions Planner Matzke presented an update on the current moratorium that is in place on the County Road 42 corridor. thth Planner Matzke stated the next meeting will be April 29 and in lieu of the 15 meeting; a SCALE Legos meeting will be held from 4:30 – 6:30 that day at City Hall. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes, Roszak, Hite, and Blahnik. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Community Development Assistant 8