Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 07 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 7, 2014 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, April 7, 2014 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Perri Hite, Eric Spieler and Wade Larson,Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke, and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, March 3, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY LARSON,SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2014 MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED ON PAGE 7. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.DEV-2014-0008 1875 Shoreline Blvd NW Ms. Linda Bigut is requesting variances to allow a 38 foot lake setback and an 11 front yard setback for a property located at 1875 Shoreline Blvd. The property is located on the northern shores of Spring Lake, west of Stemmer Ridge Road. PID 25-490-003-0. Planner Matzke introduced the proposed variance and explained the current circumstances, issues, site details, variance criteria, conclusion and alternatives. He stated staff is recommending a motion to approve the requested variances or any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in these circumstances. He provided exhibits, including a resolution, location map as well as a survey and floor plan stamp dated March 7, 2014. Commissions Comments/Questions: Larson asked does the proposed landscaped patio effect any of the setbacks? Planner Matzke replied it does not and explained the situation of the proposed landscaped patio. Larson asked is the deck portion about forty-two and a half feet and are they projecting the deck about five feet? Planner Matzke replied the various points that they are showing with the deck and the proposal location. He stated the location of the house, explained the curving of the lakes shoreline and how this changes the 1 point projecting back to the house location. He said yes, this is forty-two and a half feet from the back deck and the corner of the garage is the 38.5 feet. Larson asked if the ordinance contained anything on the ordinary high water mark referencing this property to indicate where the setback is? He questioned if there was a need to review for the fifty foot setback from the ordinary high water mark? And, he wondered if it states in city regulations that one uses the land mass rather than the ordinary high water mark? Planner Matzke replied based on DNR policy, city ordinances are written to go by the ordinary high water mark. Larson asked about a small sketch on page 8. Planner Matzke suggested asking the applicant and explained the sketch is more of a rendering image of the existing home. He stated that staff uses the survey when looking at the layout and setback issues. Larson asked about the sliding glass door and deck that is mentioned but not shown on the plan. Planner Matzke replied if they were granted a certain variance, and if there are any design changes, it may be in need of a design alteration at the permit level. Spieler asked how far is the existing home from the water level line as of today? Planner Matzke said about 38.5 feet. Spieler questioned the side setback shown at 10.1 feet, and the requirement is minimum of 10 feet; therefore, it is within the requirements? Planner Matzke replied correct. Spieler asked for more detail about the 15 foot variance from the required minimum 25 foot front yard structure setback. Planner Matzke explained the front property line location, which shows a setback from 10 to 10.5 feet; however; the actual distance from the roadway to the structure is approximately 40 feet. Spieler asked if the City would own that property between the road and property? Planner Matzke replied that is correct; that is all within the County Highway Right-of-Way. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:17 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. Applicant : Randy Kubes of Kubes Realty stated he is representing the applicant, Linda Bigot (who is present). He commented that County Road 12 was rebuilt last year including sewer and water being installed, which made this property available to be built on again. He said the area behind the house that appears to be a 2 small deck is actually three small steps out onto a patio and there is no plan to have a deck on the back of the property. He stated they tried to maintain as much distance away from the lake as the original house. The house was a year-round house originally until it was turned into some type of cabin which will be removed. Public Comment : MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY LARSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:19 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite stated she is making a recommendation to approve the two variances this evening. She finds the applicants proposed drawings of the structure to meet the same lake setbacks as the existing structure exists is certainly commendable. She said the proposed new home will not increase the existing non- conformity of that setback, nor is the variance for the front yard setback an issue. She found the granting of the variance is in harmony wi Plan, and due to the unique size of the lake-front lot, practical difficulties do exist. Larson stated he seconds the sentiments of Commissioner Hite and appreciates the homeowner improving their property. Spieler stated he also echoes the sentiments of his fellow Commissioners and feels that this is the correct way to deal with the right-of-way and the two variances. He mentioned that the applicant looked over the property well with a great plan going forward and is not pushing the limits in regard to the variances. MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: (1) ELEVEN AND A HALF FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FIFTY FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEVATION OF SPRING LAKE DUE TO THE AVERAGE LAKE SETBACKS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND (2) FIFTEEN FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF TWENTY-FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD STRUCTURE SETBACK; PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT MEETS THREE CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE VARIANCE RESOLUTION MUST BE RECORDED AT SCOTT COUNTY WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF ADOPTION, (2) PER CITY ORDINANCE, THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT EXCEED TWENTY-FOUR FEET IN WIDTH AT THE PROPERTY LINE, AND (3) THE DEED RESTRICTION OR COVENANT MUST BE FILED WITH SCOTT COUNTY. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. B.DEV-2014-0009 14185 Shady Beach Trail Mr. Tom Keohane is requesting a variance to allow a 38 foot lake setback for a new home on a property located at 14185 Shady Beach Trail. The property is located on the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake, east of Hidden View Road. PID 25-503-002-0. Planner Matzke introduced the proposed variance and explained the current circumstances, site details, issues, variance criteria, conclusion and alternatives. He stated staff is recommending a motion to approve the requested variance or any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in these 3 circumstances. He provided exhibits, including a resolution, location map as well as a survey and floor plan stamp dated March 17, 2014. Commissions Comments/Questions: Spieler asked if the present owner of the current home is the one reconstructing? Planner Matzke replied yes. Larson asked for clarification on something shown on the survey near the right-hand corner. Planner Matzke replied it is a patio/walkway. He stated it is hard surface and is included in their impervious surface calculations. He said there is also a patio by the lake, which is also included in those calculations. MOTION BY HITE , SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:30 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. Public Comment : Applicant Tom Koehane but he would answer any questions. Spieler asked if there are any plans to add a driveway to the garage at the back of the house? Tom Koehane replied no, the garage will actually be a shop and a storage area, as there is not a way to get a road to this area. Larson asked about the existing shared driveway on the west side, and if there are any plans to fill that in with grass or something else? Tom Koehane replied yes, and explained the variance they received last summer. Larson asked if is going to stay? Tom Koehane replied yes, the neighbor did mention at some point in the future that he may change his driveway, but as far as with this project, he is leaving it the same. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:33 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite is supportive of the requested variances from the applicant. She stated practical difficulties including the irregular shape of the property. The applicant is proposing a new home that is not increasing the 4 existing non-conforming setback to the lake and finds that the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City subdivision and zoning ordinances and comprehensive plan. Larson questioned a calculation error on page six. Hite asked staff if this would change calculations? Planner Matzke staff will take note of this calculation and review this at the building permit stage as well. Spieler stated he does support this request as the applicant came before the commission last year to modify a variance in regards to the property; adjustments were made, and now they are coming back to execute this. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE 13.6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 50 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEVATION OF PRIOR LAKE USING THE AVERAGE LAKE SETBACK OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES, WITH ONE CONDITION: THE VARIANCE RESOLUTION MUST BE RECORDED AT SCOTT COUNTY WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ADOPTION. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Sign Ordinance Amendments Director Rogness suggested tabling this sign ordinance amendment since only three of the five commissioners are present tonight. THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING. 6. New Business: A.DEV-2014-0001C Godsons Way Addition Jack Hunter has requested the vacation of a public roadway easement located within the proposed Godsons Way Plat in order to ensure the and West of CSAH 87 (Revere Way). Planner Matzke introduced the purpose of this agenda item is to review a vacation of a public roadway easement. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and alternatives. Planner Matzke also stated that no public need is present since the Godsons Way final plat will dedicate the necessary road right-of- ay, as presented or with changes recommended by the Commission. Presented materials were a general location map and Illustrative sketch of easement area. Commission Comments/Questions: Spieler stated there must have been a preliminary plat six to seven years ago that had a future development and asked if that is now being changed? He questioned if this was taking a step backwards. 5 Planner Matzke explained the process of the preliminary plat versus the final plat as to what is researched in between those two. He stated this is a comprehensive plan check by the Planning Commission, which is why this is being brought back. Since the public hearing is to be held at the City Council, staff typically waits until it is sure that the final plat is going to the City Council. However in the future, staff may bring it to the Planning Commission at the same time as the preliminary plat just for consistency and to talk about one project. Spieler asked for future projects then, should a ghost plat be submitted before plat approval? Planner Matzke replied yes in regards to the ghost plats being done before approval, but in this case, it actually was ghost platted to have this cul-de-sac on the Hunter property. He explained that in 2006, the st Enclave at Cleary 1 Addition included a ghost plat for four lots on this property and the easement was granted by Mr. Hunter (the property owner) to construct the current temporary cul-de-sac. Spieler asked whether the City or the developer intalled the cul-de-sac? Planner Matzke replied the developer; however the easement was granted to the City for a turn-around for plow trucks and vehicles. nd Larson questioned a comment about an easement to the City of Prior Lake dated December 2, 2006; nd filed December 2, 2006 as Document No. A759983 and states the easement description incorrectly describes the property. He also questioned a road and utility easement contained in the warranty deed thth dated August 13, 1992 and filed August 17, 1992 as Document No. 300236 and noted the easement description is not within this property. He asked is this what they were describing? Planner Matzke replied yes. Hite stated she is in support of the request to vacate the roadway easement and finds the public roadway easement to be vacated is not needed to provide adequate street access or utility service to the residential neighborhood since the new plat of Godsons Way will dedicate the necessary right-of-way for this area to City Council approving the final plat of Godsons Way. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO VACATE THE ROADWAY EASEMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF GODSONS WAY. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. Thrive MSP 2040 Draft Comprehensive Development Guide. B. Director Rogness 2040 Draft Comprehensive Development Guide. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. Presented materials were excerpts and highlighted sections of the Thrive MSP 2040 Comprehensive Development Guide, a table comparing Suburban community designations, draft comments for Metro Cities, and a website link for the full document of Thrive for Public Review and Comment. He explained the nine proposed comments from staff. Commission Comments/Questions: 6 Hite asked if each of the nine statements could be reviewed individually? She asked whether the Metropolitan Council has the rights to expend their own jurisdictions by adding services, and who oversees proposed expansion of functions and services? Director Rogness replied that the Metropolitan Council members are appointed by the governor, not elected, which is debated every year. He explained that the legislature identifies what the authority is of the Metropolitan Council and their core functions. He stated the discussion item tonight is the planning functions versus their operational side (i.e., Metro Transit, wastewater treatment, regional parks/trails). They oversee the planning of communities and review local comprehensive plans every ten years. Hite asked if they are going to expand into water, solar, climate energy change and poverty, is there some budget adjustment they get in staffing to handle these additional functions? Director Rogness stated this was also a comment Frank Boyles had that is part of the nine statements. Hite asked in previous experience with the Metropolitan Council, is the Commission or the Council required to to make changes that would impact the City? Director Rogness Spieler asked whether more money potentially comes to Prior Lake if these recommendations are agreed to by Met Council, or how does this help Prior Lake? Director Rogness , but in general the Metropolitan Council provides the largest share of its funds to central cities and those within the beltway system. He further stated that if the Suburban Edge and the Emerging Suburban Edge becomes one classification, that may help get funding further out to places like Prior Lake. Larson highlighted the upcoming public hearings held by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that he is in favor of having the two different variations of Suburban Edge and Emerging Suburban Edge. Hite stated she appreciates Commissioner Larson sharing the meeting dates and would like to encourage people to go to the website to take an active part in the community. She stated that she would like to have her fellow commissioners take a deeper look into this subject individually, including comments, and then provide feedback directly to Director Rogness. 7. Announcements: No City Council Meeting last week no updates Work Session reminder for April 14 at 5:00 p.m. All are invited to this joint work session with the City Council, EDA, and other boards/commissions. The Pledge of Allegiance was suggested to be part of the Planning Commission Meeting by Commissioner Larson. The City Manager was asked of any protocols related to this, as it is already done at the Council Meetings and he felt it was best for the Planning Commissioners as a group to decide what is comfortable for everyone. 7 Hite suggested waiting until all the commissioners were present to discuss this. She felt it is a great suggestion, but would need to table this until next time. nd Vision 2040 meeting reminder for April 22at 5:30 p.m. Director Rogness stated there are over one-hundred signed up so far for this meeting. He stated that he has confirmed attendance of the Planning Commissioners. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Spieler and Larson The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 8