Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 06 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 6, 2014 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Phelan called the Monday, October 6, 2014 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jeff Phelan, Adam Blahnik and Eric Spieler; Community and Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, September 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY SPIELER, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTMBER 15, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.DEV14-000020 – 2860 Spring Lake Road – Jeff Bester is requesting approval of a variance from the minimum impervious surface requirement of 30 percent in the Residential Low Density Shoreland (R1SD) Zoning District. Mr. Bester proposes to construct a new two car garage in the rear yard. The property is located at 2860 Spring Lake Road located northeast of Spring Lake and southwest of Upper Prior Lake, between Center Road SW and Spring Lake Road SW. PID 25-133-059-6. Planner Matzke introduced the variance and explained the current circumstances, issues, conclusion and alternatives. He explained options to limit the hard surface area, if necessary; however, that would only reduce about two percent of hard surface. He stated the applicant doesn’t have many options if he would like a garage on this lot. He provided a resolution, location map, photograph and survey. Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan asked what kind of substance the driveway is currently? Planner Matzke replied that the applicant has mentioned they will be looking to resurface this driveway with bituminous surface. Spieler asked if the shed was considered permanent or portable? Planner Matzke replied the shed is permanent; he stated that a condition of approval could be to remove it off the site. 1 Spieler asked if the garage could expand more vertical for more storage? Planner Matzke replied correct; especially with an attached structure, the possibility of adding on a second story for more storage or living area is a possibility and would not increase the impervious surface any further. Blahnik asked if the entire existing driveway counts towards the impervious surface? Planner Matzke replied yes. Applicant : Jeff Bester resides at 2806 Spring Lake Road, Prior Lake, MN. He explained his reasoning in applying for this variance and his desire to build a two-car attached garage, suggesting it would aid in parking and storage. He mentioned the existing shed does have proper permitting; however, he is willing to dismantle and move the shed as well as reduce the width of his driveway, if necessary, to be accepted for this variance. He stated details of his lot reduction which was acquired from the County for a County Highway 12 improvement project that runs parallel to his front yard. He stated his intentions in updating and improving his home and yard and how he felt it would improve the neighborhood. He explained his research in the placement of the garage and he showed examples of other lots that are over thirty percent impervious surface with approved variances in his area. In closing, he stated he is ready to start construction with finances in order, and he has understanding of the processes if approved. Blahnik asked when the applicant acquired the property and if the applicant acquired or lived at this property before the County acquired some of his property? Applicant Bester replied he acquired the property about two years ago; however, he has lived there for over six years with contract for deed agreement. He stated the owner is fully on board with this variance and improvement and will be investing in part of this project. He said he purchased the property right after the construction from the County was completed and was not aware of the property lines. Blahnik asked the applicant which choice he would pick: keeping the shed and reducing the garage, or losing the shed and building a larger garage? Applicant Bester replied he would prefer to build a larger garage and pay the cost to demolish the shed. Spieler asked if he would be building this fall and asked for more information about the narrow driveway. Applicant Bester replied he would like to get started on block work and footings, weather permitting. As far as the driveway, he is using feedback from city staff to attempt to reduce overall impervious surface, including the narrowing of his driveway. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:27 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. 2 Public Comment : Julie Smith resides at 2883 Central Road NW, Prior Lake, MN. She stated her property adjoins the applicant’s property at the back yard. She stated her support for the applicant to build a garage. She had concerns about the exact location of the property line in the alley. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:29 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Phelan asked Staff for clarification regarding the property survey exhibit and questioned the property lines as mentioned by Ms. Smith. He asked if this is immaterial to the discussion of the variance other than the accuracy of the survey plat? Planner Matzke replied the survey was prepared by a private professional surveyor, and the legal description is correct. He mentioned the possibility of reviewing Scott County records; however, he is aware of City records stating this was vacated in 1990 in part of a vacation of the entire alley. Typically, title searching is something that surveyors research when they survey property. Phelan suggested that because the lot line doesn’t pertain specifically to the variance application, both property owners should look for those stakes and resolve the matter outside of this particular planning commission meeting. Spieler stated he does support this variance and feels the applicant has done a good job working with the City trying to figure out different options to reduce the amount of impervious surface. He would like to see the applicant stay with the existing driveway width. He agreed with the proposed garage site being in the backyard and mentioned the applicant can still build upward for more storage. Blahnik stated he is supporting this variance request with a few concerns about the impervious surface. He stated a few options that could have been done to stay under the impervious surface if the land was not acquired; however, since land was acquired by the County, he does sympathize with the applicant. He mentioned other concerns such as size of the garage and what upcoming applicants may ask for if this is granted. Therefore, he stated he would be fine with the 24 by 30 foot garage as long as the shed is moved or demolished, and he would also like to see the driveway narrowed. Phelan stated he would be supporting this application and feels there are practical difficulties on the site that is not a result of the current property owner. He said the granting of this variance would improve the essential character of the neighborhood and mentioned the other neighborhood lots that are already in the 30-42 percent impervious surface calculations. If this was a standard lot, the applicant would still be below the required minimum impervious surface. He requested that the driveway stay at 11 feet for safety and practical use concerns, and he is okay with the shed staying in its current location. Phelan is not comfortable imposing a restriction that the applicant occurs additional costs and remove extra storage. Spieler is in agreement with Commissioner Phelan and feels the applicant has done a good job trying to put in a garage next to a house; a garage is needed in Minnesota. 3 Blahnik stated he agrees the applicant is doing everything correct in improving the property; however, he feels that a larger garage is not necessary. He stated if applicant keeps the shed, there should not be a need for an oversized garage. Therefore, Blahnik suggested keeping the shed with a smaller garage or removing the shed and building a larger garage. He does agree that the driveway should be 11 feet wide. He stated he would not support this variance with the garage at 30 by 24 feet along with the shed on this parcel. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT: (1) FILE A VARIANCE WITH THE RECORDERS OFFICE NO LATER THAN 60 DAYS OF APPROVAL, (2) REQUIRE ALL PERMITS, AND (3) REMOVE THE EXISTING SHED OR REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. Planner Matzke asked to verify the motion for the resolution. He stated that the motion made is THE APPLICANT MUST REMOVE THE EXISTING SHED OR REDUCE THE EXISTING GARAGE ACCORDINGLY? Phelan replied correct, the two options would be: REMOVE THE SHED OR REDUCE THE GARAGE DESIGN TO 26 BY 24 FEET RATHER THAN 30 BY 24 FEET. He stated it will be up to the applicant to confirm with the City which way he intends to choose. Phelan also said they would not require any additional modifications; the driveway can stay at the existing 11 feet width. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements: A.Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions. th UPDATES (9/22/14) - Approved final plat of Hickory Shores 5 Addition. o Staff thanked Commissioners Phelan and Spieler on their service, as they are o retiring members. Director Rogness stated it has been wonderful having both of them on the Planning Commission and said they will be missed. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO ADJORN THE OCTOBER 6, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Phelan, Spieler and Blahnik The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 4