Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 07 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY OCTOBER 7, 2013 1. Call to Order: Chairman Phelan called the October 7, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Tom Roszak, Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite and Eric Spieler, Planner Jeff Matzke, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Water Resources Engineer Peter Young and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 7, 2013 MEETING AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Spieler, Blahnik and Roszak. The Motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of September 3, 2013 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik and Roszak. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.DEV-2013-1028 14400 Rutgers Street Variance. Eskuche Design is requesting a variance to allow a 15 foot lake setback for a single family lake home in the R-1 Zoning District. The property is located along the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake, southwest of Watersedge Trail. PID 25-930-072-0. Planner Matzke provided an overview of the property location and the variance requests. Matzke indicated the site as it exists today, has a 2-story single family home occupied on this property and does currently lie within the flood plain of Prior Lake. The proposed new construction of a 2-story 3-car garage onsite with a 5,210 square foot footprint and a reduced impervious surface driveway would be elevated out of the flood plain water areas. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Blahnik asked if the requested setback for the 26 foot variance is from the west (the open air terrace). Planner Matzke responded that is correct, also the shortest structure setback of the interior spaces is 30 feet. Blahnik asked if the driveway is being dug up and is that why the variance on the elevation is being questioned? Planner Matzke replied that the variance is regarding the elevation for the access itself. It is for prevention of this property becoming an island in the case of a flood event. On Watersedge Trail, there are many 1 properties at a 904, 905 and 906 feet elevation. The flood waters flood plain elevation of Prior Lake is 908.9, which results in the road itself sitting below that elevation. Blahnik questioned what is triggering this request. Planner Matzke responded the re-developing of the site and the need that this does not comply with FEMA standards; this same process has occurred on other properties. Blahnik asked if the overall impervious surface is being reduced from the 39 to under 30 percent. Planner Matzke responded that is correct. Hite inquired the mention of some small retaining walls that will be added to the site and asked if Planner Matzke could point out where they are; Hite is understanding that they are on the north elevation but would like to confirm this. Planner Matzke replied yes; flood plain properties generally have small retaining walls of 3-4 feet in height being placed on the properties. One retaining wall will be adjacent to the nearby residential property. The newly grading site may incorporate a few more around the site to achieve a more gentle slope from the elevation of the house at 910 down to the 904 feet elevation. Hite mentioned concerns about the retaining wall to the north and the adjacency to the neighbors, as well as making sure from an engineering perspective that all the drainage from this lot stays on this lot and doesn’t impair drainage or increase drainage on the adjacent parcel. Planner Matzke responded putting a retaining wall on the north side would allow a swale so any water that is flowing off the roof line going to the direction of the adjacent parcel would catch in the swale and route down to the lake. Hite asked if the building the swale is reaffirmed during construction. Planner Matzke confirmed this process is reviewed during building inspection(s) and final grade inspection(s) before the certificate of occupancy is issued Spieler asked what makes up a reasonable lake home size. Planner Matzke replied a reasonable sized house can many things depending on the circumstances; it varies between what the property is (i.e. lake property, off-lake property, size of the property, footprint area). A reasonable size house can be many things and is usually based on what you may typically see in the neighborhood but still allow the property owner to provide value to their own property. Spieler mentioned he was trying to understand the reasonable size family home when the city suggested the applicant could build one on a smaller foot print. Spieler then questioned the assumption that this applicant is now proposing a two story home, anf further asked if the total square footage is 3,000. Planner Matzke confirmed it is a two story house. 2 Spieler stated the information supplied suggested the total square feet is listed as 3,167 and wanted to know if it is just the footprint itself. Planner Matzke believes the 3,167 square feet is on the main level footprint on the house, resulting in a very large house. Spieler asked whether there is still a home on the site, and if so, does it meet all of the city’s ordinances? Planner Matzke responded the existing house does not meet all ordinance standards. Mr. Matzke stated in the case of the existing conditions of this house, the interior space of the house sits approximately about 40 feet away from the lake on the west side and only 13-14 feet on the east side. It does have an even larger envelope overall when taking into account the exterior deck and patio to the west. Applicant: Applicant Adam Brinkton, 18318 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, MN is the owner of Eskuche Design Mr. Brinton continued that he has a narrative of how it would be managed including some filtration basin that are built in between existing proposed structure and lake to filter the water before entering into Prior Lake. Mr. Brinton mentioned his new narrative informs about the existing conditions of the impervious surface as well as the new run off rates; based on calculations, impervious area is being reduced from 39 to 29 percent. Phelan stated he does not have any questions and asks the rest of the commissioners if they have any comments or questions. Everyone declines and Adam Brinkton is thanked for his comments. Applicant Brinton stated that the northern retaining wall would only potentially be replaced but would like to discuss this first with the neighbor and also stated the additional area by the terrace would be only two proposed retaining walls in that area. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:23 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Roszak. The motioned carried. Gil Roscoe, 14392 Rutger Street, explained he built the house next door on the north in 1988 or 1989. Roscoe mentioned concern about the existing retaining wall as well as suggested that this retaining wall is owned by him; it is not constructed of block but timbers. Planner Matzke mentioned the north side setback would conform to the current 10 foot side year setback as mentioned earlier as the side yard setback requirement; therefore, the applicant is not asking for a variance from the side yard setback. Planner Matzke further explained it would be exactly 10 feet; the house is not running parallel to the property line so it would increase in distance and due to this, the front of the garage would be at approximately a 15 foot side yard setback. GilRoscoe asked how close to the lake is the new two story home going to be to the lake on the west side in comparison to his existing home, not including the terrace. 3 Planner Matzke responded the west side of the proposed structure is slightly closer than the existing house and the east side, or bay side, is considerable farther. Gil Roscoe mentioned part of the value to his property is to have a nice view of the lake; his only concern that he has is that the second story would cut off his view to the lake. He would like to have assurance that it will not cut off anything to the south. Planner Matzke highlighted an example on the map showing where the proposed house is compared to the location of the Roscoe house. He verified that the exterior covered terrace is 24 feet and the edge of the existing deck is 28 feet lake setback, meaning a few feet difference between the covered terrace and the deck on the existing house. Gil Roscoe asked about the elevation needed if he builds a new house. Planner Matzke stated that Mr. Roscoe’s existing house elevation is probably at 908.9 feet, which was the FEMA regulation when Mr. Roscoe’s house was construction; now, it would need to be 909.9 feet. This new house has to be one foot higher than the regulation of Roscoe’s house, because Minnesota State Statue Law changed in the late 1990’s. Gil Roscoe stated the new house will have quite a climb from the road up the driveway. Planner Matzke agreed. Gil Roscoe asked where the proposed house would be, considering it will be raised up a foot higher than his as well as being a two story, and then inquired if the second level would be wider than the lower level. Planner Matzke replied the second level would not extend further out than the first level. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:23 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Roszak. The motioned carried. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Spieler asked if there are any variances for height, and what would be the new house height? Planner Matzke replied no; the applicant could construct a three story house based on the ordinance maximum height of 35 feet or three stories. Spieler questioned the roof height of the current house for comparison. Planner Matzke responded the proposed house may get a little higher in the pitch than the current house typically because roof lines of today’s housing standards are a little higher than the typical housing standards of the 70’s and 80’s. Spieler stated overall support of this variance; however, he is concerned about the reasonable size of the house and what makes it reasonable. Spieler states if a house is 4,000 square feet vs. 5,000 square feet, there is quite a bit difference there. Ideally, Spieler would like see the builder come back and make the 4 plan within the 4,000 square feet without any variances. However, he understands it becomes challenging to reduce house sizes, and he appreciates reducing the impervious percentage. Hite mentioned there is no issue with the 4.9 foot variance relating to the minimum elevation for vehicular access. Hite is not satisfied with the 26 foot variance from the required 50 foot minimum; however, she appreciates the fact that the applicant rotated the house from the eastern elevation. She thinks the covered terrace is a little overreaching and feels it could be reduced. Roszak is supportive of this application and feels that the variances are necessary to use the property in a practical manner; the practical difficulty does exist under the circumstances of this unique property. Threfore, he will be supporting this as well. Blahnik states that he will be supporting these variance and appreciates the fact that the applicant worked with the city to reduce the impervious surface as well as rotating the house as requested by the city. In this result of the rotation, the structure was brought closer to the west side which created a greater variance on the east side, eliminating the need for a variance on the east side. Blahnik confirms the unique characteristics of this particular lot with water on all three sides and doesn’t see the structure as anything too much greater than the existing structure. Phelan mentioned to Planner Matzke that in part of the packet there is a memo from staff to the designer, dated 9/24; is staff sufficiently satisfied that those items have been met? Planner Matzke replied yes, but believes there are some tweaks to the overall plan before a building permit will be issued; however, staff is satisfied that they met the intent. Phelan mentioned the need to review part of the memo regarding tree replacement and the concern with water on all three sides of the property; the new house will be a foot above the 908.9 level of the adjacent house; the covered terrace is over reaching; difficulty of the steep driveway; and concern about the 13-14 feet off the water of the current house. Phelan will be supporting this application. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE BOTH REQUESTED VARIANCES. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Roszak. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Recent City Council discussions/decisions. 5 Director Rogness mentioned there is no City Council announcements at this point and introduced Sandy Woods, the new Development Service Assistant. Sandy’s job background prior to the City of Prior Lake, was at a private sector with Sunde Land Surveying. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO ADJORN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Hite, Blahnik, Spieler and Roszak. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 6