Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 February 1, 2016 Meeting Minutes draft 1 PPRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 1, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, February 1, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Mark Petersen and Dave Tieman, Commissioner Kallberg was absent. Also present were City Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, January 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson and Tieman. Abstain by Petersen. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-001001 – 6430 Conroy Street SE – Variance – Copper Creek Real Estate Group, Inc. 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 located in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District. PID: 25-114-012-0. Planner Matzke stated the public notices in the paper had the correct date on them, however the legal mailed notices had the wrong meeting date and explained there was another mailed notice sent, but due to legal time frames, it was suggested to table this meeting to the next meeting. He explained the process we could take tonight and then introducing the request for approval of a variance 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 (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming requested comments in the conclusion he would like announced for the record tonight. Planner Matzke explained these comments which relate to conditions of approval; increase awareness to drainage and grading plans. He read through these comments and explained the outcome possibilities. 2 Fleming asked if there were any conversations with the applicant on these two points and if so what was the level of receptiveness to these comments. Planner Matzke replied he has not had any direct communication with the applicant on this; knowing the applicant beforehand, he believed they are familiar with these types of details as they have worked in Prior Lake for quite some time and would not have problems adjusting and may already have plans to do so. Petersen asked if the existing building would be torn down and how much soil is going to be added/removed. Planner Matzke replied this project is a tear down and rebuild. He explained the flood plain/grade differential per the survey stating 910 would be the flood plain elevation. He explained the elevation of the walkout and the altering of the retaining wall. He stated they would have to grade in some swales on each side of the property to control drainage, but not drastic importation of fill would be required to raise the site up. Petersen asked if there were swales and if the house to the east was a walkout as it appears to be on a hill. Planner Matzke said there is a little bit of swales and he explained where they are and how this property drains. Larson asked Planner Matzke how many previous variances were asked for. Planner Matzke said there was seven last fall and seven today. He explained each setback. Applicant Greg Schweich, (14332 Watersedge Trail) He stated he is a principal with Copper Creek Development. He said he didn’t bring in his presentation due to the understanding this Item was being Tabled. He did talk of drainage, the window well, grading, setbacks, location of deck and views. He stated he was not involved with the prior variance application, but did watch the Planning Commission meetings and had discussions with staff; thus leading to coming back with another plan to appease. He explained the situation before was related to the homeowner’s client that wanted to purchase the house. He said they are working with the neighbors and staff and stated the material will be exported. He explained his history of his business and is willing to work with the neighbors, Staff and Commissioners. Fleming stated he appreciates the care, consideration and diligence that the development company, Copper Creek, has given. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:19P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Amy Cutter, (6436 Conroy Street) She stated she is the house directly to the east. She commented on her house design, stating it is a walkout on the east side of her house, not in a flood plain but the other lot is in a flood plain. She explained her house and location of her screen porch and deck. She explained 3 how she changed the current plan, how the proposed house is thirteen feet farther out than theirs and there is no green space. She stated concerns of run off and consistency. She would like to see a smaller house as it is a smaller lot and commented on impervious surface. She presented photos and plans for a smaller home. Fleming asked what the square footage that Ms. Cutter reduced. Cutter explained she took Copper Creek’s plans to scale and redesigned a new plan; she presented the plans, house pictures in the neighborhood and compared different interior sizes to reduce the proposed home as she said a smaller house would be better. She explained how the neighboring houses are placed on the lot and stated the proposed house would come out pretty far. Petersen asked Planner Matzke if we could have setbacks and impervious surface of the two adjacent houses on the lake and possibly even a couple more on the lake. He stated he did drive by the location and it seemed that all the setbacks are pretty close and are not the proper setbacks. Planner Matzke replied that we could have that information and stated there are a lot of similarities on the setbacks on the lake houses. Cutter stated her husband could not be here tonight and wanted the meeting extended so he could go to the County and get proper setbacks as there have been mistakes; like their house is wrong. She stated her husband wants all the percentages and facts on each house so we can try to keep this in line. Fleming stated more information would be helpful and he is curious and asked Ms. Cutter to explain how her or her property could be harmed by this proposed plan from the applicant. Cutter explained her reasoning of how she could be harmed; possible run off, lack of privacy, huge house right on top of the lake, but overall doesn’t seem to fit the lot and doesn’t seem correct. She said she could live next to it, but doesn’t seem feasible for a house that size to be on a lot that small and stated they would not have bought her house if they knew the City would allow a house that big. She stated the house should be in line with the other houses and doesn’t want a house engulfing hers. Fleming explained there are numerous variances set before the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission concentrates on balance in fairness as well as equity that neighbors raise and yet need to be in Compliance with City Ordinance and what they are legally, by Statue, empowered to allow. He mentioned to Ms. Cutter that she did a great job and respectfully commented, it would be easy to take umbrage to someone imposing their scenario on another person’s private property; we need to be mindful and careful about being neighborly and respecting the property rights of our neighbors. He explained the Planning Commission will review the additional information as he has concerns about overage on impervious surface. He applauds Ms. Cutter for her efforts, but explained we need to be careful as a Planning Commission on balance, fairness and what we are Statutorily empowered to allow on private property. Applicant Schweich commented on the impervious surface, history of the other lots in the area, flood plain, setbacks and elevations. He mentioned getting the impervious surface on Lot 51 from a professional Civil Engineer. He shared concerns of impervious surface and shared some of his past experiences. He stated the proposed house is downscaled/smaller and the setbacks are less than the prior variance request 4 for this Lot. He explained the layout of the proposed house and asked Planner Matzke the size of the boat house. Planner Matzke replied the boat house is 137 square feet. Applicant Schweich stated even though the owner has a good amount of money invested into the boat house, he will probably remove it; he talked of issues with the boat house such as blocking views. He reiterated the point of having impervious surface for the Commissioners at the next meeting. Petersen asked if there were any stakes out on this proposed property right now. Applicant Schweich replied yes, he believes so. He gave personal comment on control and ownership of property. He stated the property has been for sale for over three years. Petersen asked about it being a speck house Applicant Schweich said yes, but has 2-3 people interested, but makes a point not to do a contractual deal until all proper variance are in line. He mentioned another project in the City he is currently working on and would like to see all in compliance, however there are many small lots. He said they are paying for sewer and water/taxes on this lot and it is a buildable lot. Petersen asked about parking in front of the garage for two off street vehicles. Applicant Schweich explained there is a 20-foot easement in front of those properties; he commented on easements, right-of-way. He made statement of the neighbor’s deck being a covered surface and is part of impervious surface. He stated there was a permit pulled not too long ago with important information. He complemented the Planning Commission on doing a good job for the City. Fleming asked City Staff to get feedback on dimensions and impervious surface ratios for lots 47, 48, 49, proposed lot 50, 51 and 52 before the next meeting, as we need this information to balance what makes sense. He said each application deserves full equity and full weight. He applauded Applicant Greg on working with staff. He understands there is emotional tension, but stated we are not an arbitrator board that is going to look at one property versus another, we are going to look an entire, much broader spectrum of information. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6PM OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: A. 2016 Amended Bylaws 5 Planner Matzke introduced a discussion item related to a recent amended bylaw for the Planning Commission as approved by the City Council on January 11, 2016. He explained the history, current circumstances, noting the changes, as well as the conclusion and issues. Commission Comments/Questions: No Comments/Questions B. 2016 Goals Planner Matzke introduced a discussion item related to a recently approved 2016 Goals for the Planning Commission as approved by the City Council on January 11, 2016. He explained the history, current circumstances, noting the changes, as well as the conclusion and issues. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming questioned the public involvement and asked if these goals are posted on the internet for public to view what the Advisory Committees are working on. Planner Matzke said he will review with Director Rogness as that is a good idea. Fleming stated he would like to see the goals of the Planning Commission be put on the web page; as well as the City Council consider having a conversation of endorsing or recommending that all of the Advisory Committees Goals be made available to the public. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: No updates. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant