HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 06 2015 Meeting Minutes
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, June 15, 2015
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Hite called the Monday, July 6, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:01 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite, Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson
and Mark Petersen; Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, June 15, 2015 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JUNE 15,
2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. DEV15-001011 – 5504 Candy Cove Trail – Margaret and David Ostrowki are requesting variances
from the bluff setback and bluff impact zone to a major remodel to a residential property located
at 5504 Candy Cove Trail in the (R-1SD) Low Density Shoreland District. PID: 25-027-016-0.
Planner Matzke introduced variances in order to allow for re-grading and construction of retaining walls
within a bluff impact zone as well as an addition to an existing home on a property located at 5504 Candy
Cove Trail NE. The property is located along the southern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Truck
Highway 13, east of Manor Road. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives
and recommended motions. He provided a draft resolution, location map, existing survey dated April 29,
2015, proposed survey dated May 29, 2015, structural engineer inspection letter dated August 12, 2014
and geotechnical engineering report dated June 5, 2015.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Larson asked if the stairways are going to be cement pads and the impervious impact to the area.
Planner Matzke explained the stairways system material and the impact, stating the walls are failing. He
stated the new plans have been laid out by a structural and geotechnical engineer.
Blahnik asked about reducing the impervious surface.
Planner Matzke explained the applicant’s actions to reduce the impervious surface.
2
Hite questioned if the slopes on the sides of the property were similar to the slope from the bathhouse to
the lake and what protecting the water quality of the lake during construction.
Planner Matzke responded stating the applicant could possibly explain that better. He compared a
neighboring property to the east side as an example and stated staff’s recommendations. He said the
protection of water quality is analyzed through the building permit process and explained the landscape
and the process the contractors take to result in no soil erosions.
Petersen asked for clarifications in the reasoning for above ground stairs and how much soil will be
disturbed in the building process. He questioned the impact of the lower grade and why would it be bad
to flatten this area.
Planner Matzke explained the impact to the bluff/slope and stated stone steps need to be graded into the
slope. He clarified the state standards were created by the DNR for soil and erosion control on steep areas
and the aesthetics. He described the differences in DNR natural slope areas versus man made aesthetics.
Petersen asked if there a mechanism that City Staff uses to look at engineering on projects such as this
and if the engineering would be looked at on this project. He commented on drainage and asked if incorrect
drainage was the reasoning behind failure on this prior project.
Planner Matzke explained the thresholds of a bluff slope and certain walls that would require
engineering. He stated the engineering designs would be reviewed for this.
Applicant
Margaret Ostrowski and Dave Ostrowski, 5504 Candy Cove Trail. Margaret explained they had a
meeting with Planner Matzke, Building Official Hutchins and their Engineer explaining the issues
addressed including complying with the DNR, rift raft material, the elevation and the slope. She stated
they would like to install the proposed stair design, explaining the current situation. She explained her
neighboring property staircases and stated they would like to keep the same look. She stated their concerns
with an elevated decking stairs system.
Dave Ostrowski explained the stone stairs would look more natural and match with the neighbors.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Larson asked if there would be any railings on these steps.
Applicant Margaret replied we haven’t contemplated it at this point.
Blahnik questioned the materials and the impervious surface and asked if reducing the impervious surface
to the required City Ordinance maximum is something that they would commit to.
Applicant Margaret replied absolutely and stated it is already included in their plans, stating it is our
commitment.
Fleming asked the proposed time line to start is and if the large slab of stone would be containing a run
as well as the rise on the stairs.
3
Applicant Margaret responded saying they would like to start as soon as possible and yes it would
contain both the rise and run.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:37 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Public Comment
None.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:38 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Hite stated she is in supporting the grant of both variance requests; understanding that there are practical
difficulties due to the unique configuration of the property, the current repair of the property and the
engineering and hydrology that is needed to correct those issues. She finds that the changes proposed are
in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. She
thinks the proposed changes are for replacing existing features on the property that have failed. She
supports the use of the stone stairs that are formed into the slope as those already exist and also that there
is neighboring properties that also have stones stairs built into their slope; showing uniformity. She also
supports the stone stairs due to the engineering that has already been completed to include the construction
type of stair into the slope and configuration of the retaining walls.
Larson stated he echoes Commissioner Hite’s comments and would like to add the condition of the bottom
slope being at twenty percent per City Staff’s recommendation.
Blahnik is in support of both variances for the same reasons given by fellow Commissioners; the photos
of the area look like a disaster. He explained the one variance is a 25 foot setback, which is required due
to construction of the entry way. He supports the stone stairs versus above grade stairs for the same reasons
as previously mentioned by other Commissioners. If the applicant was installing a stairway that did not
exist and digging into the earth, then he would have a different opinion, but it is already there so you are
replacing a dilapidated stairs already and also he would like to insert one of the conditions being that the
impervious surface be reduced to thirty percent as planned
Fleming stated he would not call it the area a disaster, rather an opportunity and for all the reasons,
particular the findings of fact that the fellow Commissioners have listed, he will be supporting the request
for both variances and does concur with the additional conditions of the 30% or less for the final
impervious surface.
Petersen said it seems like there was good give and take on this project through the City and the owners,
which is great. He will be supporting both of these variances; it seemed to him that there would be more
of an impact bringing that stair area back to the original slope then there would be to just replace the stairs.
Atheistically it is much more pleasing to the eye, especially since the neighbor has the same system.
MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED
BY THE APPLICANT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4
1. ELIMINATE ANY WORK BELOW THE 904’ ELEVATION WITH EXCEPTION TO RIP RAP ROCK MATERIALS
WHICH ARE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DNR SHORELINE REGULATIONS.
2. INSTALL RETAINING WALLS LOWER IN ELEVATION THAN THE “BATH HOUSE” WHICH MAINTAINS A
SLOPE OF 20% OR GREATER TO MORE CLOSING MATCH THE CURRENT SLOPE (27%) AND
RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS (THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IDENTIFIES APPROXIMATELY A 10%
PROPOSED SLOPE FROM THE 904’ TO THE RETAINING WALL INDICATED AT A 907’ ELEVATION).
3. THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE REDUCED BELOW THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT
ALLOWED UNDER CURRENT CITY ORDINANCE.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
B. Ordinance Amendments – Consider allowing outdoor storage over 50% of the building area by
Conditional Use Permit in the General Industrial (I-1) Zoning Use District.
Planner Matzke introduced the consideration to recommend certain amendments to Subsection
1102.1400 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to the City’s (I-1) General Use District. He
explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. He provided
a proposed Amendments to Section 1102.1400 (Redlined).
Commission Comments/Questions:
Hite asked in regards to a comment in paragraph B, what is the outdoor storage class two.
Planner Matzke explained the Dimensional Standards 1102.1405 to answer Commissioner Hite’s
question.
Petersen asked if this was our only restriction on fencing and if there is anything more specific in writing
than this.
Planner Matzke replied it has to be fencing material, it cannot be a stacking material. He stated that there
is not really anything more in writing as an applicant would be expected to use fencing classified material;
if an applicant wanted to use other things they can challenge the zoning administrator’s decision and come
to the Planning Commission for an interpretation.
Petersen asked about class five in the storage area and shared his concerns regarding a buffer zone
between these areas.
Planner Matzke explained what staff recommends and what outdoor storage businesses have in regards
to a buffer zone between the storage yard area and street.
Fleming asked questions regarding to paragraph 11B with the language including the word “shall” and
asked if this is an applicant reason to challenge for an exception or variance.
Planner Matzke replies it does as outlined and has been in the ordinance and is trying to be definitive to
buffering between uses and it would preclude adjustments; meaning an applicant would have to seek a
variance and can be done at the same time as a Conditional Use Permit and the Planning Commission
could grant that variance request, but being in the ordinance this way it would be an ordinance that would
have to be met.
5
Fleming asked if Planner Matzke could think of any current storage areas adjacent to residential that have
a variance or exception to the setback.
Planner Matzke replied he could not think of any in the industrial zone. He stated most of our industrial
properties are large enough that they have a good distance separation.
Hite asked if any of the conditions here would apply to outdoor storage from past applicants and gave
examples of a few.
Planner Matzke explained the differences between outdoor sales and outdoor storage land uses.
Hite expressed her feelings of the curb appeal of a recent outdoors sales area and how it turned out and
stated this makes sense to her.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:59P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Public Comment
None.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:00 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY HITE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO
APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1102.1400 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE CITIES GENERAL USE INDUSTRIAL USE DISTRICT AS
PROPOSED.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
A. DEV15-001010 – 14259 Shady Beach Trail Variance. Consideration approval of a resolution for
a variance which was approved by the Planning Commission on June 15, 2015.
Planner Matzke explained a variance that was approved and stated there is not a report for this as
it was present on the June 15, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting. He explained the variance
request and stated the Planning Commission did approve this variance based upon a yay vote of
three commissioner, Hite, Petersen and Larson with Commission Fleming abstaining and Blahnik
being absent would also be abstained. Staff did not have a resolution ready, therefore the minutes
were reviewed in consideration of comments and findings of fact and they were put into a
resolution, therefore the intent of this item is for the Commission to review the resolutions findings
of fact that went into the approval of the variance and affirm the vote to approve the resolution
with the same votes as at the June 15, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting.
6
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS
PRESENTED TONIGHT.
VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen with Commissioner Blahnik abstaining due to
absence. The Motion carried.
6. New Business:
A. No New Business
7. Announcements / City Council Updates:
Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions
• City Council last meeting tabled discussion to a future meeting on:
o Jeffers Pond Eight Addition
o SuperAmerica PUD Application
o Eagle Creek Estates Commercial PUD Application
• Future Planning Commission Meeting on July 20
o Public Hearing for a small preliminary plat application
o 2030 Vision and Strategic Planning Update if all in attendance
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE JULY 6, 2015 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant