Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 November 16 2015 Meeting Minutes draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, November 16, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, November 16, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, William Kallberg, Wade Larson, and Dave Tieman; Development Director Dan Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVMEBER 16, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, November 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO TABLE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001025 – 4633 Lords Street NE - Variance – Justin Hanratty is requesting a variance from the 50 foot lake setback from Prior Lake to construct a deck catwalk on the Southwest corner of the house located at 4633 Lords Street NE in the Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1SD) Zoning District. PID: 25-935-006-0. Planner Matzke introduced a request to consider approval of a variance from the minimum Lake setback for a property in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. He explained the histor y, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a Resolution, location map, and survey dated May 29, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked if there is any other improvements other than the deck. Planner Matzke explained some other modifications and said these would not need a variance. Applicant Hanne Hanratt, (4633 Lords Street NE). She explained the 5 inch variance for the catwalk and the reasoning for the variance, stating it is the only access to their back yard from the deck. 2 MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Elizabeth Wright, (14964 Pixie Point Circle SE). She stated she is the daughter of Dennis and Kathryn Wright, (4613 Lords Street NE) neighbors to the left of the applicant; she is here on her parents behalf. She shared concerns of the reviewal of complete information before a final decision, on-going construction, grading, patio elevation and detail of property lines, as well as concerns of her parent’s property for grading, contours, construction of a large boulder retaining wall, impervious surface and drainage. She pointed out the current survey does not show contour lines. She asked if these projects have been permitted by the City. Larson asked about the timeframe the grading would be taking place. Wright explained the timeframe and the grading permit. She said she felt there was more mov ed than the grading permit allowed for. Larson asked if there were concerns raised to the City at that time. Wright replied no, as her parents didn’t know it wasn’t permitted and didn’t want to rock the boat. Kallberg asked if there is any record of this contour to show the before/after and a record of fill. Wright explained why the original survey file from the construction permit should not be used. She commented on the ordinary high water mark and slope of the lot line; stating you can see the changes. Kallberg asked for the natural drainage documentation, including how drainage will come onto her parent’s property. He also asked for existing and proposed survey prior to this grading. Wright explained that a 1993 survey shows contour lines and is not the same in comparison to what the elevation is now. She shared concerns of water run-off/drainage, elevation of deck/patio, added driveway and a wall on the property line. She mentioned she didn’t know they needed an updated survey, but felt there was enough information on the prior survey to show the boulder wall did not exist prior. Kallberg asked staff if there is ordinance consideration in regard to the grading, construction of boulder walls, the proximity of the driveway to property line and any other ordinances that need to be considered. The variance by itself, is so minor. He mentioned concerns of other projects that may not be within Ordinance. Planner Matzke explained it is a variance request that is being presented at this meeting and if there are other projects with issues they should not be overlooked, however these other projects would need to be investigated. Tieman asked staff if there is a total number of impervious surface with the addition, catwalk and patio. Planner Matzke explained the survey submitted for the variance request is at 37.9 percent impervious surface coverage. 3 Fleming asked so it exceeds in excess of the Ordinance. Planner Matzke replied correct, according to the survey submitted it is in excess of our requirement, however with the variance application is for decking material; this variance does not alter the existing impervious surface. Wright stated the catwalk is to connect to the patio. This patio is already imposing on the impervious surface that happens to be along the neighboring lot; he said he feels this should be relevant and sited together. Fleming stated this doesn’t fall within the similar lot setbacks of the neighborhood and asked for recommendations from Planner Matzke on how to navigate this variance with impervious surface already at an overage. He read the five variance criteria’s. Planner Matzke explained the comment of similar lot setbacks and conditions. He said the other projects would need investigation. He stated staff recommendations and mentioned approvals can be placed with conditions. Applicant Hanne Hanratt pointed out that all the permits are up to date as of today and they are currently working with the Building and Engineering Departments and are aware of what they can/cannot do. She explained the on-going projects and why they are on-going. She confirmed her impervious surface is at 37 percent, but said it has nothing to do with this variance request; she said they have plans for the impervious surface to be at 30 percent, due to the patio being under construction and changing of the yard. She explained location of deck stairs versus catwalk would be in the exact same place. She stated with the current weather, there will be no changes right now; in the spring there is plans to work with the City and contractors to finish up the project and it will then be to code as we pulled the permits. Fleming asked the applicant to explain how they will be reducing to the 30 percent impervious surface. Applicant Hanne Hanratt explained the yard will be changing as we work with the City Engineering and Building Departments to reduce the impervious surface to 30 percent. She explained their contractor quit in the middle of the project which has been frustrating for both them and the neighbors. Justin Hanratt explained the extensive lengths they went through to get permits and do everything right. He expressed frustration in not having a back yard for a couple years. He explained the procedure of what they went through, confirming the statement Hanne Hanratt made about the City Engineers reviewing the projects and all permitting has been done through the City Engineers. Larson asked Justin Hanratt when the retaining wall/driveway was done. Justin Hanratt explained it was done by the previous owner and the retaining wall was put in last year. He pointed out a discrepancy with the neighbor’s patio. Kallberg stated the variance is for a half of a foot for a very small segment for the catwalk. It appears that there may have been other variances for the property such as side yard setbacks. He said the other issues are beyond this request. The variance request is so minimal, that he feels this should have been an administrative variance. 4 MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:41 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman variance is relatively minor and he supports the variance. Larson stated we are looking at the scope of variance for the catwalk, however believes other things that occurred at this property should be looked into for permits, impervious surface and fill. He would be inclined to table this item, until further research is complete on some of the other permits for projects that have occurred on the property. Fleming stated earlier tonight this was a simple matter, now it is complex. He said technical fabrication of this variance should be done, however it is good practice to consider the content. He commented on the applicant stating publically for the record their intention to meet 30 percent impervious surface ordinance requirement and continually working with the staff is convincing enough that we can move forward and support the variance. He is supporting the variance request of 6 inches. Larson asked if we could set conditions such as make sure impervious surface is reduced to 30 percent and to make sure all permits are applied for and all items are in line. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON, APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. B. DEV15-001026 – 16640 Inguadona Beach Circle SW – Variance – Dawn Rahbain is requesting a variance from the minimum front yard setback and impervious surface to allow for construction of an attached 2 car garage at 16640 Inguadona Beach Circle SW located in the Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1SD) Zoning District. PID: 25-095-002-0. Planner Matzke introduced a request to consider approval of a variance from the minimum Front Yard setback and maximum Impervious Surface 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, and survey dated October 20, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming asked about the reducing impervious surface and how the applicant’s conversations were on this. Planning Matzke said the applicant did seem okay with reducing impervious surface. Applicant Dawn Rahbain, (16640 Inguadona Beach Circle SW). She asked if there were any other options rather than the removal of the stairs down to three feet; and made some suggested options. Planner Matzke explained the impervious surface stating there is really no other place to remove impervious surface. 5 Kallberg said having a garage is desirable in Minnesota and stated this house was built before garages were common. He mentioned other impervious surface areas that could be removed/adjusted. He stated he worked with the Water Resource Department and suggested a rain garden. He commented on a storm drain catch basin, suggesting conversing with Pete Young on this subject. He commented on practicality of the variance, shared comments on parking, additional improvements to the home and the shape of the lot. He doesn’t find this variance to be objectionable. Tieman commented on removal of the gravel surface and asked if this is currently a parking space. Rahbain replied yes and stated this will be eliminated. Tieman suggested approval of projects being done to this property, but would like to get the impervious surface down to 30 percent. Larson asked for other material not counted as impervious that can be used. Planner Matzke explained the materials that are not included as impervious surface. He mentioned certain areas where impervious surface could be eliminated and pointed out, the lot is very small. Larson asked the applicant what their thoughts of landscaping rock. Mr. Rahbain questioned versus the sidewalk? He asked for direction from the Commissioners. Planner Matzke gave some options of non-impervious surfaces. Mr. Rahbain said they would take that into consideration. Kallberg suggested programs for the rain garden. Planner Matzke added not the entire impervious surface would need to be removed, rather just partial areas; he gave examples of these areas. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:11P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:11P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson is in favor of approving with the impervious surface being reduced; not the whole sidewalk, rather sections, if homeowner is open to this. He commented on the driveway back out and traffic flow. He mentioned the easement on the opposite side of the street should be included in the conditions. 6 Tieman is in support with conditions of reducing the impervious surface to 30 percent and making exchanges with the easement for utilities. Fleming is in support of the variance from the minimum front yard setback. He stated the property does present some practical difficulties and the findings of fact does meet the five point threshold that is set forth in the staff report and zoning ordinances. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: A. DEV15-001028 – 15609 Calmut Avenue NE – Vacation – Sharry and Thomas Schmid are requesting the City Council vacate a 16.5 foot wide easement in the front yard and driveway portions of the parcel located at 15609 Calmut Avenue NE in the Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1SD) Zoning District. PID: 25-035-001-0. Planner Matzke introduced a review of vacate regarding a portion of Calmut Avenue Right-of-Way adjacent to 15609 Calmut Avenue NE 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 location map, and existing survey. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman asked if all utilities were covered. Planner Matzke said they would all remain within the 100 foot Calmut right-of-way. Larson asked if Parcel C was included in the ownership of the property or what is it utilized for. Planner Matzke explained the property owner owns the property across the street. He mentioned what was on this property and stated it is private property and does not impact this right-of-way. Larson replied it looks like a driveway or parking area. Planner Matzke replied it does include some of those features. He explained the driveway situation. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS PROPOSED VACATION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDIT IONS: THE APPLICANT PROVIDE AN EASEMENT OF THE PROPOSED VACATED RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA, THE APPROVAL RESOLUTION SHALL BE RECORDED AT SCOTT COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE CITY COUNCIL’S APPROVAL. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. 7 Director Rogness suggested moving 6C up before 6B due to representative regarding 6C. Commissioners agreed on moving 6C before 6B. C. Concept Plan Discussion – Amending the Summit Preserve Area D of the Planned Use District to Include 100% Medium Density Residential. Director Rogness introduced the Concept Plan to review a conceptual change to the Summit Preserve Planned Use District (Sub-Area D) that would replace the existing guidelines of 25% Commercial / 75% Medium Density Residential with 100% Medium Density Residential. He expl ained the history, current circumstances and issues; stating this is a discussion only agenda item. He provided a 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use map amendment, a 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Planned Use text amendment, Market information from site broker, CBRE and Market information from Maxfield Research. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming mentioned he was on the Planning Commission in 2007 and remember this pretty vividly; he said it is interesting to see the passage of time change with market conditions change. He stated life cycle demographics is the only information that he didn’t see on the Maxfield Report and questioned who would be driving the residential demands. He commented on the 2040 Vision and Met Council’s outcomes of accommodations in the seven counties and Metro Area. He shared concerns about removing the orderly annexation area and the question of economic liability. Director Rogness replied in the last four years, he has gotten the sense from the City Council that they would prefer not to take away what commercial we already have designated. He commented on the OAA (Orderly Annexation Area), Summit Preserve and the 42 Corridor stating the 42 Corridor would be more immediate type of development area than the OAA. He answered the question of the housing types and who might benefit and suggested the baby boomers that are looking to downsize. Jeffers development suggested recently that it is more of the retiring or retirees looking to downsize. He mentioned we also lack first time home buyers opportunity. He said whenever you see higher densities, it typically equates to more affordable housing rather than larger lots. Kirk stated they are looking at what is marketable; what is the market going to drive and what the demand is. He spoke of offering variety of products; not focusing on one with flexible and valuable to the market conditions. He mentioned what they typically view for home buyers and what the market is demanding, starting with affordability. He said this is a concept plan and not the end product; an idea of the direction they are going. Larson asked Kirk if he is aware of the baby boomers wanting healthcare or retail close by. Kirk replied they do, maybe not the retail as much as the healthcare. He explained how the commercial component has changed dramatically and mentioned they have looked at commercial however it is hard to find without the absolute guarantee. He stated he doesn’t see a market for commercial there; more healthcare, senior housing or higher density. Kallberg asked where they would like to keep as commercial. 8 Kirk replied there is no specific area for commercial; if there were to be commercial given the access given to us by the County as a major intersection, the twin homes is the most likely area to consider. Kallberg asked Kirk in your opinion, commercial would not be appropriate here? Kirk said correct. Kalleberg asked what would be there, as he cannot image something appropriate to fit into this space. Kirk replied he is unsure too as the area is small, about 5-8 acres. He explained the difficulties in finding a commercial developer to provide a solution for a commercial space like this. Director Rogness suggested Fountain Hills as an example of what it might look like. He explained what typically would fit this area; a gas station, convenience store and a daycare. He explained the challenges to build in this small area. Tieman asked if the concept of getting commercial on the east side would be difficult due to a lot of residential already on this side. Kirk explained why that residential would make a better fit at this location and mentioned some raised issues with commercial. Kallberg mentioned an office condo development to the east; and suggested that would fit better. Director Rogness agreed, but suggested these are not seen constructed much anymore. Kallberg stated the offices doesn’t create as much traffic. Director Rogness said yes, that is correct. He mentioned a comment that Commissioner Fleming brought up relating to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. He said how the Met Council may view the population growth, amendment, nation growth demand and Stemmer Ridge getting purchased by SMSC. Fleming said he agrees with Director Rogness and would like to see the larger picture. He stated he would like to see as many residence living and working here as possible and not leaving the city to find work. He would like to see Prior Lake have a large company to help out with employment. He stated you cannot argue with reality and the reality is what the market is dictating. He stated he would like to be very thoughtful as a Planning Commission and City Council in asking staff about making sure that we are retaining optimal balance given what the market forces are saying we should be doing. Larson stated push back of smaller commercial areas in the residential. He said this is a smaller development and is best appropriate for residential, however doesn’t want to rule out the opportunity of healthcare facility, clinic, nursing home, etc. He asked confirmation of acres. Director Rogness replied he is using the 8 acres as the 25 percent. He mentioned this is just for feedback to staff and Council and this is informal discussion. Fleming said he agrees this makes sense in all of the variables that these acres be residential, however looking at the larger vision of the city, all variables would need to be reviewed looking at the 2040 Vision 9 process. He stated he is hopeful that we continue to be mindful and balanced about optimizing not just residential land uses, but uses that we designate as commercial and industrial are attractive enough to promote potential commercial customers. Kallberg asked if we have a current conceptual view of the 2007 presentation to compare and what are we comparing this to or changing from/to. He spoke of idea areas to see the water feature and/or commercial area. He stated he was on the Watershed District during this time and mentioned what he liked about the water feature. He asked if there is a water feature concept for residential. Kirk explained the recirculating system, association maintained areas and the commercial areas in relation to distribute afterwards. He explained the storm water; maintaining and handling water due to commercial and amount of impervious surface. Tieman stated looking at the map for the areas designated for commercial development, this is the one site that make sense to convert it to residential; it would be difficult to put anything commercial in this area. Director Rogness mentioned the next steps this concept plan will go through. He mentioned it is at a time where the applicant is listening to what is being said and decide if they want to propose this type of land use amendment. They are preparing over the winter to get their plan together and get approvals. B. 2015 Accomplishment & 2016 Goals Director Rogness introduced a consideration approving a list of the Planning Commission’s 2015 Accomplishments and 2016 Goals. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided an attachment of 2014 Accomplishments & 2015 Goals from the boards and commission associated with Community Development (as presented to and approved by the City Council). Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming explained why he thinks the first two goals make sense for 2016, expressing the subdivision ordinance didn’t make the attraction that was hoped for in 2015. He stated how critical and what a great opportunity the Comprehensive Plan updating process is. He spoke of hopes for an active role with the City Council members engaging Prior Lake residents with a robust dialog that is frequent, regular and engaging to determine how we are going to shape the vision for the City. Larson spoke of working together, improving relationship in committees and council, as well as a great understanding of each other views to move forward on progressing Prior Lake as a community. Kallberg said we need to keep in mind that we are a Planning Commission; not a variance board. He explained variances come along as needed and having that as a goal is not under our control. He spoke of a more positive action in 2016 goals being we have the opportunity to take part in creating something new or advancing improvements. Tieman stated he agrees and believes being more proactive and putting in more effort to subdivisions and ordinances with avoidance of some variances before they get to the Planning Commission is a good goal. 10 Director Dan asked for a representative at the Monday night meeting to present accomplishments and goals. Fleming replied it is in his calendar to present. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE STAFF PROPOSED LIST OF TOP THREE ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 2015 AS WELL AS THE THREE GOALS FOR 2016 WHICH WILL BE SHARED ON THE NEXT MONDAY MEETING AT 5PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson and Tieman. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates:  November 9, 2015 o Two new  Appeal of the Oakland Beach property variance (neighbor appealed)  Council supported Planning Commission decision.  Wild’s request permit for security camera  Approved and agreement signed.  Reminders o Monday the 23rd, 2013  All welcome.  Email to RSVP for head count. o December 7th and 21st  No meeting on the 7th as far as we know.  21st would be more of a meeting. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE NOVEMBER 16, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. No New Business. The meeting adjourned at 8:21p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant