Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 October 5 2015 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 5, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Larson called the Monday, October 5, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, September 8, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO TABLE THE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Approval of Monday, September 21, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO TABLE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001020 – 5322 Candy Cove Trail - Variance – David Haider is requesting a variance from the bluff set back and the bluff impact zone to construct a building addition in the (R1- SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District located at 5322 Candy Cove Trail. PID: 25- 936-069-0. Planner Matzke introduced a consideration for a request regarding approval of a variance from the minimum Bluff setback and grading in the bluff impact zone for a property in the (R1 -SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a Resolution, location map, survey dated September 11, 2015 and conceptual building plans stamp dated September 14, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik asked if there bluff set back requirement when this house was built in 1974. Planner Matzke replied there has been steep slope requirements but not adopted until the 1990’s. Blahnik asked if any work was done, would it need a variance. Planner Matzke yes, that is correct. 2 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:11P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he is supporting this variance. He commented on the location of the home not being ideal, and how it is situated on the bluff as well as the home being built before the current restrictions. He said practical difficulties and the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He stated the new construction does not impact the earth and doesn’t create an erosion. Petersen concurs with Commissioner Blahnik and supports this variance. Fleming stated he will be supporting this variance. Larson said he is in support of the variance as there is minimum removal of the ridge area. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN, APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BY APPLICANT SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCES OR CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY STAFF. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. B. DEV15-001021 – 14380 Watersedge Trail - Variance – Copper Creek Real Estate Group is requesting a variance from the minimum lake setback to allow for construction of a single family residential swelling in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District located at 14380 Watersedge Trail NE. PID: 25-165-088-0. Planner Matzke introduced a consideration for a request regarding approval of a variance from the minimum lake setback on a property in the (Bluff setback and grading in the bluff impact zone for a property in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a Resolution, location map, survey dated September 11, 2015 and conceptual building plans stamp dated September 14, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik questioned the increase in elevation and if fill would be brought in. Planner Matzke replied the lot is somewhat flat and fill would be brought in. He explained the elevation of the existing structure, possible sloping needs and drainage control. He mentioned applying for a building permit would not allow for fill to exceed standards. Fleming asked if there was a basement. Planner Matzke replied there is not a basement due to the lowest floor elevation staying out of the flood plain. There is only two stories; the main floor of the home is at the 910 elevation. Larson stated that it was nice to see only one variance and commented on the driveway situation. 3 MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:24P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Jim Goodchild, (14450 Watersedge Trail NE) He shared concerns of variances in general and asked for an understanding in regards to variance guidelines. He stated he worked on the Burnsville Planning Commission some 20 years ago and believes there are some guidelines that is referred to as practical difficulties. He shared his comments of structures being built larger than allowed for the parcel. Fleming asked Goodchild if he felt the house is too large. Goodchild replied yes, but also referenced the deck and asked how far away the actual house is. This should be constructed in such a way that it is fits the lot. Fleming asked Goodchild if he thought the foot print should be reduced. Goodchild replied it should be the size the lot allows, as well as the setbacks from the lake allows. Planner Matzke pointed out the lot depth from street to the 904 stating the Front and Lake Setback would take up a majority of the buildable area. He explained the existing house versus the proposed and pointed out why the staff recommends approval. Fleming asked if the depth dimension of the existing principal structure is 36.3 feet and the depth dimension of the proposed home is 51 feet. Planner Matzke replied that is correct but that measurement doesn’t including the deck. Blahnik asked is it true that the purpose of variances is practical difficulties means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by a zoning ordinance. Planner Matzke replied that is true and stated there is actually a definition in our Section 1108. Larson said the square footage will not truly increase due to the removal of the existing shed. Greg Schweich, (14322 Watersedge Trail) He stated the house is within the City Ordinance and not overbuilt. He stated his history of working in Prior Lake and mentioned they are only asking for one variance. He mentioned this house is a two-story, slab on grade, centered on the lot and note exceeding impervious surface. He described the garage situation and gave other examples in the city that have asked for more variances. He explained the current house condition and said they feel they are improving the property and the area. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:34P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated this is a reasonable project size and appreciates applicant working with Staff. He commented on this being in line with neighboring houses and an improvement to the area. He stated the reasoning for the variance is a practical difficulty, so he will be supporting this variance. Blahnik stated he is in support of this variance as this house was impacted by the flood from last year and mentioned there are practical difficulties due to the flood plain. He said the house needs to be adjusted 3 feet, leaving the house protected better and it is warranted having a larger footprint due to no basement can be added. He stated this is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and has not altered the essential character of the neighborhood, it is consistent with the properties in the neighborhood. Fleming stated the proposal does meet the threshold set out with the Zoning Ordinance in our City Subdivision. 4 Larson said he will be in support of this variance. He stated the builder has worked with the practical difficulties in raising the house with no basement and one variance. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. C. Fish Point Park CUP Water Resource Engineer Young introduced a consideration for a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading in excess of 400 cubic yards at Fish Point Park, 15111 Fish Point Road. He explained the history, current circumstances, site characteristics, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a draft resolution, location map, engineering plans dated September 14, 2015 and PLSLWD project fact sheet. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked where the water drains into and is the phosphorus is removed before this water gets to the lake and if so, is this filtration done with limestone. He questioned maintenance and asked about the replacement of trees. Young explained the erosion sediment control and restoration, stating it is a two phase treatment, first to hold back water and then filtered. He commented that it does need maintenance but is easier to maintain. He stated they are not proposing to replace trees. Planner Matzke added projects that are for drainage and utility, easement or drainage purposes public infrastructure such as streets and other piping systems are not subject to the same ordinances as private development. There is no specific requirement for tree preservation ordinance for this. Young stated 54 trees over 6 inches will be removed and of them 35 are ash trees. He stated the restoration that they are doing on the rest of the site is a positive impact. Blahnik questioned why this project came before the Planning Commission and asked is it due to the amount of fill moved. He stated the purpose of this project and said it should look nice too. Young said yes, correct and explained, in addition to the water quality there is the educational component and actually possible trail extension in the future. Larson asked for more clarification where the discharge is happening. Young explained the area and stated there is a ravine right below it and a trail next to it. He mentioned the maintenance that is preformed now and said the proposal will approve the area and give a better channel to flow through. He explained the drainage and pointed out the storm water pond. He said this project will treat the water. Larson asked will it settle in the holding pond. Young replied yes that is right. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:51P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:52 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 5 Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he supports this conditional use permit; they are fixing this area to hold and filter the water before it enters into the lake. He said it is a nice beautiful park and is put to good use for filtration system. He commented on the amount of dirt being moved, but felt it was for good use. He mentioned it is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit. Fleming echoes these comments, compliments staff and stated the conditions are spot on and will help underscore the eight point Conditional Use Permit analysis; therefore is in support of this Conditional Use Permit. Petersen said will be supporting the conditional use permit for similar reasons as commissioners. Larson expressed he will be in support of this conditional use permit, for the purpose of cleaning the water for Prior Lake and also being fiscally responsible. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMTI SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN STAFF REPORT. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. DEV15-001016 – 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue – Highmark Builders, on behalf of the owner, Chris Dahl, is requesting a variance from the minimum lake setback to allow construction of a single family dwelling on a property in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. PID: 25-930-112-0, 25-930-115-0, 25-118-008-0. Planner Matzke introduced a consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the minimum lake setback on a property at 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue located along the Shore of Lower Prior Lake, north of Seven Acres Street in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a resolution, location map, survey dated August 12, 2015 and Conceptual Building Plans dated August 7, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked about the ridging question brought up from the last meeting. He stated if the ridge went away and it became a bay according to the DNR, it still would not affect the setbacks being discussed. Planner Matzke replied as long as the 904 does not change the setbacks requested are the same. Fleming stated he reviewed the letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and is having real difficulty reconciling paragraph two; he read this paragraph along with Jennie’s response to his comments regarding compliance. He stated his concerns with the statements made by the DNR and suggested verification. He said he feels these items are related and both needs to be addressed. Chris Dahl explained the differences between these issues as one covers the jurisdiction under the 904 and the other is above the 904; we are talking about a variance above the 904 tonight. He explained what was going on under the 904 and said they hired a well-known contractor that specializes in riprap walls. He explained why they have not done the planting or the grading, stating they thought they had a year to complete this. He mentioned there has been surveyors out on the site on a regular basis. Mark Vyvyan, Council on behalf of the Dahl’s. He stated Mr. Morris, the builder, just pointed out to him that they believe an As-Built Survey is in the packet that was submitted to the City in connection with the variance request. Fleming asked was it submitted to the DNR. 6 Jim Moras stated included in the packet is the drawing that Jennie has reviewed as part of her recommendation for the variance; this is an As-Built Survey of the site conditions and also proposed grading. He stated Jennie has seen the As-Built. Fleming stated we have an issue here. Moras said the plantings are not complete therefore Jennie could not inspect this part. The survey that we are currently reviewing is an As-Built of what is done on site on the shoreline including the riprap and also the proposed grading for the home. Fleming re-iterated his very strong concern. Dahl pointed out the reasoning for not being aggressive in moving forward. He mentioned everything was done below the 904 with the guidance of the DNR and above 904 was with the guidance of the City and sometimes both; this is a very delicate process. He proposed the City’s concerns being compliance and the owners concerns being doing everything right with neighbor’s consideration. He stated we have done nothing different than what we have been guided to do. Fleming stated he appreciates Mr. Dahl’s statement; however his concerns remain because he cannot reconcile conflicting information within the DNR own communication and the one step that he had hoped would have been taken, wasn’t. He said Jennie doesn’t have the As-Built survey as of this afternoon and the history of this whole area is all related. Vyvyan commented on the possible reason why Ms. Skancke’s and the DNR support of this variance without regard to the survey. He mentioned they have photos to share. Blahnik asked the applicant if they could make 30 feet variance if asked. Dahl said they would have to review with the architect and ask Planner Matzke. He explained it is a documented wetland and a variance does not even need to be required. He explained the difficulties to build on this lot. Blahnik said it is clear to see that this area is hydrologically connected and your reasoning of asking for the variance is to assess based on the high water mark. He asked could you push the house in five feet if necessary. Dahl replied we would find a way to do this, but stated they are already 45 feet from the wetland delineation. Commissioner comments Blahnik stated he supports this variance with limitations of 45 feet. He said this body of water is hydrologically connected and this is why we are here today assessing the under the 75 foot lake setback requirement with the understanding that this is unique and not like the rest of the lake. He agreed there are practical difficulties and this is unique, however it is a large house at 5,100 square feet and feels like it could be reduced a little. He mentioned a suggestion on behalf of B&T Development, LLC regarding the difference in defining wetland high water mark. He suggested pushin g in the house another 5 feet and stated he feels the comments of Commission Flemings concerns are valid, he also would further his condition that the applicant complete what has been asked of him in the past with the DNR. Fleming stated he also supports this variance but does concur with Commissioner Blahnik regarding the condition of the setback variance should be 45 feet and an As-Built survey to be provided to the DNR as quickly as possible, with the DNR signed off on the three actions required. Petersen stated he will be supporting this variance. He said it is a large house, however it doesn’t affect the shape of the neighborhood and the setbacks are a unique situation as it is a large shaped lot. He mentioned the ridge is a separate issue in his eyes. Larson asked Planner Matzke if the pictures are available. Planner Matzke replied he does not have these pictures. Larson asked Vivian if he has these pictures, as he would like to review them. Vyvyan provided pictures. 7 Dahl presented the pictures stating they are from Scott County’s overview and he explained the riprap and removal of trees; all which were approved. He mentioned the riprap wall was added for erosion purposes. He stated why the pictures were not presented earlier in the night. He mentioned he has the survey from 2013 that shows the 904 contours. Larson asked if the 904 is shown on the County overview pictures and said he understands Fleming and Blahniks comments about the work being done, but also realizes that we as a City are reviewing this from the 904 high water mark of the property for the building plat. Planner Matzke replied there are no photos with the 904. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 45 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE BODY OF WATER SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT COMPLIANING WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE DNR FOR THE PERMITS FOR LAST YEAR AND PER THE VARIANCE BE RECORDED WITH SCOTT COUNTY AND ACKNOLWEDGE CITY CONSENT FORM BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT; THE SURVEY BE REVISED TO INDICATE ONE DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE AND THE GRADING PLAN SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PROJECT ALONG WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carries. 6. New Business: No New Business. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates:  September o Carriage Hills 5th Addition Final Plat (Landau Lane)  Final Plat Approved o Super America PUD  Continued and tabled and denied.   No Planning Commission meeting schedule for October 19, 2015. o Next Meeting is on November 2nd  Assigning Chair and Vice Chair  Last night for Commissioner Blahnik. o Comments and thanks you’s to Commissioner Blahnik. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE OCTOBER 5, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant