Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 17 2015 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 17, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, August 17, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite and Wade Larson; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Community Development Specialist Casey McCabe and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, August 3, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001013 – 6430 Conroy Street NE – Behr Design on behalf of the property owner is requesting variances from the front, side yard and lake setbacks and maximum impervious surface to construct a new home. PID: 25-114-012-0. Director Rogness introduced a request for approval of seven variances from the minimum lakeshore structure setback, minimum front yard, minimum sum of the side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, maximum impervious surface and minimum lot area for a property in the R-1, Low Density Residential Zoning District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a location map, survey dated July 31, 2015 and conceptual building plans stamp dated July 24, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked about elevations on the land and questioned the egress window on one side of the property. Director Rogness explained the reasoning behind the encroachment. He stated options that the homeowner may have to address the egress window encroachment. Blahnik asked what the total number of square feet the house is and asked if it was three stories. Director Rogness replied the footprint is about 1,577 square feet, but unsure of the total square footage; he confirmed it is a three story home being proposed. 2 Blahnik referred to Lot 51 in comparison and asked how many variances would be needed if that property was built with today’s standards. Director Rogness replied about five variances if proposed today and explained the variances that would be required. He stated the differences in the neighbor’s lots and houses. Blahnik asked for confirmation on the side yard setbacks for the applicant’s house and questioned the egress window being approximately 3 feet out. Director Rogness explained the setbacks on the east side proposed at 6 feet, on the west side at 5 feet and stated typically egress windows are 3 feet wide. Hite questioned if the house is built as it is being proposed, does the calculation for impervious include the existing boat house structure. She asked since the foundation is there, they can build a structure on this; therefore is the impervious calculation include both the home and boat house structure. Director Rogness replied the boathouse is included in the impervious calculation according to the survey. Applicant: Mike Barret with Behr Design, 3496 West Two Point Street, Jordan, was available for questions. Blahnik asked about the total square footage in the house. Applicant Barret replied the main level is about 960 square feet, and the upstairs is about 1,367 square feet, resulting in a total of 2,300 square feet for the main and upper level. The lower level would be about 1,200 square feet finished. Hite asked if this application presented tonight is the final plan. Applicant Barret replied yes; nothing would be changing and explained his reasoning for stating the word “about” in his square footage. Blahnik asked about the egress window on the west side in regard to the property line and asked if it was only leaving two feet in between the end of the egress window and the property line. Applicant Barret replied that is correct and he explained the egress window on Lot 51. He stated the property to the east egress window goes right up to the property line and there is no setback on this existing window well. Larson asked how many bedrooms in the basement and questioned the location of the living room and utility room. Applicant Barret replied there is only one bedroom downstairs and it is located in the only spot that would really make sense with the layout. He confirmed the area by the lake is a recreation room along with a wet area, and the utility room would most likely be under the garage. Hite asked about the overall height of the proposed house near the heights of homes on Lot 51 and 49. 3 Applicant Barret relied that the roof pitch on the proposed house, if measured peak to peak for the proposed house would be a little less than what it is to the east. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:34 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Bill Cutter, 6436 Conroy Street, stated they are the homeowners to the east, and they just purchased this home last August. He said in review of the plans, they had concerns, so they talked with Planner Matzke to review them. Mr. Cutter stated some of his concerns, including drainage, egress window, elevation changes, city conclusion on size of home, Scott County’s information on his Lot, complications of a variance, and confusion of plans. He wants someone to be held responsible for any drainage issues. He shared thoughts of how this is a beautiful design, but is squeezed into this lot. He recommended shaving a foot on either side to assist in the setback distances. Amy Cutter, 6436 Conroy Street, shared concerns of the decks being too close together, the unknown area of placement of the stairway down from the deck, living spaces, privacy, and possible view blockage. She stated the front is a little wide for the front of the property. Applicant Barret addressed issues of drainage and explained the intent of the window well. Amy Cutter asked about impervious space and if this includes the patio downstairs. She asked questions regarding impervious surface and the differences in lots. She mentioned some confusion with the Scott County maps for their lot size. Director Rogness confirmed explaining what is considered impervious surface. He said that a spiral staircase is popular to keep it within a setback. Blahnik asked the applicant how close the proposed deck is to the neighbor’s deck, and is there any way of adjusting it. Hite added a question about the size of the proposed deck. Applicant Barret replied the proposed deck is 9 x18 feet. He stated they are trying to minimize everything in order to be good neighbors, and he understands their concerns. He stated there is not much space to work with and pointed out where the deck could be placed. He mentioned the neighbor’s deck being very close to the property line; therefore, they are trying to mitigate as much as they possibly can. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated there are practical difficulties with this lot. He explained the Lot is only 55 feet wide and that practical difficulties are just one factor as we also need to look at the harmony of the property with the neighborhood. He said the standard is met, but the house is a little larger than it needs to be. He 4 explained the lot to the east is very tight in conformance, confirming comments of Lot 51 property owners that this lot should not have been allowed to go through; however, two wrongs don’t make a right. He shared concerns of how tight this fit is with the three floors totaling 3,500 square feet even though it is similar to properties in the area. He felt the front and back setbacks seemed consistent with the neighborhood. He would like to see the house narrowed with more space between the neighboring deck. Larson stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Blahnik’s comments for reducing the size of the building in order to add more space for the side setbacks. The front setback is comparable to the neighbor (Lot 51) and other homes that are on that street. In regard to the 14.7% maximum impervious surface variance, he can see where this home would be difficult to plan for a livable home. He commented on the boat house possibly having upper floor storage and would like to clarify if this is factual. Hite stated the architectural design of the home is very pleasing as it fits into the surrounding neighborhood. She has no issues with the front setback variance, but does have concerns with the side yard setbacks. She feels the structure width could be reduced to fit on this lot without creating some of the adverse impacts to the easterly neighbor. She understands that they are proposing to put the window well on the side of the home closest to the existing lot; however she would like not to create issues for future homeowners. She stated staff’s recommendations of rain gardens or other storm water collection attributes that could be incorporated close to the lake would be a necessity. She appreciates the homeowner’s comments on Lot 51 with respect to the proximity of the proposed deck to their deck and stairs, but their condition already exists today and is held to a different standard . Hite would like to see the home’s width reduced some in order to mitigate the impacts on both side yard setbacks. Director Rogness said if the Commissioners are asking the applicant to come back with a narrower footprint, he feels the best avenue is to table the decision and allow them to come back and decide accordingly. He corrected a previous statement by saying that Lot 51 is larger than the applicant’s lot; however, Lot 51 is still below the 7,500 square foot minimum. Applicant Barret stated the house is 38 feet wide and this 38 feet, which is less than 50 percent of the house structure, which narrows further down to 32 feet. He stated concerns in narrowing this house, mentioning that one foot might be relatively easy. However, if the Commission is asking for 2-2 ½ feet, it is going to require pushing the home back further and actually deepen the house. He would like some guidance from the Commissioners so he is not wasting his time if he needs to rework some plans. Hite stated that the Commission cannot provide further guidance; those are conversations that you would need to have with City staff. She stated the Public Hearing is closed. Bob Welsch, 6424 Conroy Street SE stated he has taken the neighbors into account in the site design in order to create a neighbor friendly living situation. He explained the variance, on paper, appears to be much closer than if you are physically there. He mentioned the proposed home was design to take into respect the value and size of the lot. He stated it is an excellent design, and it doesn’t encroach on property. Furthermore, he has taken all concerns into consideration, and he worked with Planner Matzke for months to get to this point. He said to just have an arbitrary number, with no specific direction makes no sense to him. He asked for approval. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH INSTRUCTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY PER OUR DISCUSSIONS. 5 VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. B. Controlled Access Lots – Consider a recommendation to amend subsections 1102.403, 1102.503 and 1104.307 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to controlled access lots on general development. Community Development Specialist McCabe introduced a consideration of a recommendation to amend Subsections 1102.403, 1102.503 and 1104.307 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to Controlled Access Lots on General Development Lakes as a Use Permitted by Conditional Use Permit within the R- 1, Low Density and R-2, Medium Density Residential Use Districts. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a proposed Amendment to Subsections 1102.403 and 1102.503, proposed Amendments to Subsection 1104.307, Prior Lake Controlled Access Lot Permits and a MNDNR letter of review. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite asked about a comment in the report regarding a future amendment. Development Specialist McCabe replied the last amendment to the Shoreland District changed the regulations, but there is also controlled access Lots referenced in the R-2 and C-2 Use Districts. We could amend the R-2 now because it was published for that, but have not published for the C-2 District. Larson asked if this is the same Task Force that Commissioner Hite was on previously. Hite replied this is a different Task Force. Hite commented she was surprised this came back up again as she thought it was a done subject; however, the whole homeowner association issues have come back again with Spring Lake. She stated she believes this is why a Task Force was commissioned again. Specialist McCabe replied the Task Force was assembled as a result of an application that was approved on Spring Lake, which then started looking at amendments for Controlled Access Lots on Spring Lake. However, at Council’s direction, the amendments are now being considered for all general development lakes, including Upper Prior Lake, Lower Prior Lake and Spring Lake. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Leland Smith, 14358 Lois Avenue NE, stated he is a member of an Association. He stated he is interested to see what is happening and check to see if the existing operations are grandfathered in. Hite replied she believes this is the case and that current situations today are currently grandfathered in. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:22 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. 6 Commission Comments/Questions: Hite said she does find that there is an existing public need in support of the upcoming motion. She feels it lines with the Marina Task Force and their outcomes. She feels that the amendments would accomplish one or more of the provisions that are already set out in the ordinances. Blahnik said the proposed amendments were very thought-out, and it accomplished a goal that was set out by the Task Force. He does have a preference to the 20 feet between boat slips as opposed to the carving out an exception for the 12.5 feet for Upper and Lower Prior Lakes as long as all existing boat slips are grandfathered in for the reasons stated by a fellow Commissioner. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTIONS 1102.403, 1102.503 AND 1104.307 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE IDENTIFYING THE CONTROLLED ACCESS LOTS AS A USE PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE R-1 AND R-2 RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICTS AND RESTRICTING THE NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS TO 1 SLIP PER 20 FEET OF SHORELINE ON ALL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik and Hite, Nay by Larson. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: No Old Business. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: Last Council Meeting: public hearing of the Capital Improvement Program for the next five years. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE AUGUST 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant