Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 February 21 2017 Meeting Minutes - Rough DRAFT 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, February 21, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, Mark Petersen, and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Liaison Zach Braid, Planner Jeff Matzke, Project Engineer Nick Monserud and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AT 6:02 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTED TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AT 6:04 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-000002 – Maple Park Shore Acres Second Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat – (Continuation from canceled February 6, 2017 meeting) GreenWood Design Build is requesting approval regarding a combined preliminary and final plat into a three-lot subdivision. The plat will change from the original Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Subdivision of Outlot A, C.O. Hannen’s Maple Park Shore Acres to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Maple Park Shore Acres Second Addition. Property address is 15242 Edinborough Avenue NE. PID: 25-038-003-0. Planner Matzke re-introduced the request to consider recommending approval of the Maple Park Shore Acres 2nd Addition combined preliminary and final plat to be developed as a 3 lot, Low Density Residential Subdivision. The property is located east of County Highway 21 and south of Lords Street. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated January 23, 2017 and an engineering/public works department memorandum dated February 2, 2017. Project Engineer Monserud explained the outstanding items; filtration basin and the location of the filtration basin being over the Watershed District outlet channel pipe. He explained they moved the filtration basin and said they needed permission to put that there and have since received permission to do so. He talked about public testimony and mentioned there was one concern with location of the outlet structure. He shared an exhibit pointing out where the location of the outlet structure is proposed right now and said the applicant would need to verify that it is located within the drainage easement on this property, otherwise he explained where else it would go. Commission Comments/Questions: 2 Petersen stated the adjoining property owners concerns. Project Engineer Monserud agreed and said it would not be in the neighbor’s property. Fleming said to Project Engineer Monserud that he would like to affirm for the record that you are satisfied that the concerns that were raised at our last meeting has been fully satisfied. Project Engineer Monserud said that is correct. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:09 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Grace Shawl representing Eileen Marquart which is currently in hospice. Eileen resides at 15265 Edinbourough Avenue which is directly across the street from this development. She asked about the issue that the individual was concerned about and where it was moved to or if it was infringing on anyone else’s properties. She thought it was in another location. Project Engineer Monserud pointed out where the structure is to be located and said there is an existing culvert that they would build this structure over. Shawl asked if anything was changed or moved in a certain area. Project Engineer Monserud said nothing has changed on that side of Edinborough. Applicant: Scott Laher with GreenW ood Design Build; 5555 W est 78th, Edina, Minnesota. He asked if there were any questions regarding this property. Fleming said there was no questions for the applicants. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:15 PM ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringberg. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad said based on Project Engineer Monserud comments a few minutes ago regarding all the engineering concerns have been meet as far as the City is concerned which seemed to be the outstanding item; he will be for this tonight. Petersen said he concurs, as there were just the few issues and they have been addressed so he will be for this as well. Tieman stated all the issues have been address and it looks like it will be a good project; he is in support. Fleming stated he too will be supporting the application. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR MAPLE PARK SHORES SECOND ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS LISTED IN THE FEBRUARY 2, 2017 PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM OR OTHERS THAT MAY BE ADDED OR MODIFIED BY THE COMMISSION, ALSO FOR THE RECORD CITY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS ARE FULLY ALIGNED THAT THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES PREVIOUSLY RAISED HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORLY ADDRESSED AT 6:16 PM ON ITEM 4A. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringberg. The Motion carried. B. DEV17-000002 – 5308 Candy Cove Trail SE – Variance – (Continuation from February 6, 2017 meeting) Pebble Creek Custom Homes, LLC is requesting approval of variances from the building separation, bluff impact zone, and front yard setback requirements to construct a new home. PID: 25-936-071-0. 3 Planner Matzke re-introduced the request to consider approval of a resolution approving a variance from the minimum front yard setback, minimum building separation, and grading in the bluff impact zone for a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The subject property is located along the southern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, east of Manor Road and is currently containing a single family home. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. He presented a resolution, location map, existing survey dated August 19, 2017, proposed survey dated February 3, 2017 and a conceptual building elevation. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming asked about the improved rear setback; what is the dimension of that improvement from the existing home to the proposed home. Planner Matzke said about five feet he explained the five-foot area change. Tieman asked about the impervious surface being under the thirty percent. Planner Matzke said they were seeking a variance for this; however, by moving the house forward they shortened their driveway and also changed around the stairs and some other features and by doing so they brought the impervious surfaces to thirty percent or less which allows them to not need that variance request. Petersen asked if they shrunk their house front to back. Planner Matzke explained the adjustments that were made in a little more detail; the house moving forward, the configuration of the deck stairs and impervious surface. Petersen said if it wasn’t for the large easement area, their front setback would be fine, leading to no variance being needed. Planner Matkze said the front setback, that is correct. He explained if the boulevard was around five feet they would be the twenty-five feet away from the front property line. Petersen asked if Planner Matzke knew about the easement use, if it would be effective long term and why it is so large. Planner Matzke explained the reasoning of this easement being large; due to all the properties coming together with a curve and metes and bounds property. When alignments come together sometimes there is an expansion right-of-way along with some utilities in the boulevard a little bit further out from the back of the curb rather than underneath the street. Ringstad asked if the engineering and soil studies that go into the approval with this being on a significant bluff. Project Engineer Monserud said when they get the building permit that is when engineering really dives into looking at this in depth and will require soil borings. He said the applicant did provide him with some structural analysis before the meeting and has not had the opportunity to completely review it yet . He said the applicant is going down the right path in looking into the soils and how to support the neighboring properties during construction. Ringstad said it is more of the building permit process not truly worth studying or talking about tonight. Project Engineer Monserud said that is correct Petersen wondered if there was any concern about the retaining wall with the demo of the old house and building of the new that would be compromised and would need further engineering or is it far enough away where it will not be a concern, Project Engineer Monserud replied this is something that will be reviewed at the building permit review process and will be reviewed in depth and may even have a structural consultant look at this as well. Applicant: Jerik Brumm with Pebble Creek Custom Homes, 7486 W hite Hall Road, Shakopee. He said Planner Matzke went through the variance request and mentioned that they did talk with the neighbors east and west of the property and got their concerns with the structure, mainly dealing with the water drainage and height issues of the structures even though it was mentioned by Planner Matzke that it does meet the height requirements. 4 MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4B AT 6:32 PM VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Ron Lenling, 5298 Candy Cove Trail SE. He said he owns the property just west of this property. He commented on how long he has lived at this address and expressed concerns on tear downs in the neighborhood, replacement home size, character of the neighborhood and larger homes. He gave the history of the current home on the proposed property and the sale of the property stating it is the least expensive 2016 lake sale. He commented on limiting the type and size of the home, proposed house, bluff lot and views diminished by the last teardown; more-so with this teardown. He said some suggestions; including reducing the proposed length, hillside water management due to steep pitched roof, swale on his property to handle rainfall, gutters direction of water, erosion control, protection of his fence which encroaches on the neighboring property during the construction process, protecting the trees, screen porch being reduced and size/features. He thanked the commissioners for holding a public hearing on this matter; and especially for the help and assistance from Planner Matzke and Building Inspector Hutchins. He said points two, three and four of the copy of his letter will be major issues, but would like them to focus on point number one and changing the screened in porch to an open deck. Fleming asked Mr. Lenling if he could clarify regarding his points two, three and four. Lenling went over each point again stating point number two regarding water management solution, point number three regarding an easement that has been signed off on and point number four is regarding trees/natural forest. Fleming asked if Ron attended any of the meetings that Pebble Creek also participate in. Lenling said no and Fleming said the only comment he would make and he appreciates all the work that was done by Mr. Lenling; however, speaking as a sole commissioner, it is very difficult for the Commissioners to dictate to a property owner whether they should consider and then act upon the wishes and desires of the adjacent neighbor, particularly when that property or project falls squarely within the bounds of our ordinances and regulations. He thanked Lenling to bring his concerns forward and is happy to hear many sides of the condition. Petersen asked Mr. Lenling about the water run-off; the gable is basically shedding water on your side. Lenling explained where the existing house/garage compared to the proposed house drains water. Lenling’s Son brought a picture forward and showed where water is already running off. Lenling commented on the bluff aspect of the property, erosion risks, vegetation and tree removal. He said some trees will be lost on this project. Petersen asked staff if the pitch of the roof and said the same amount of water falls in the same spot and from the sounds of it essentially if there were no houses there the water would drain towards the same spot as it is right now or are they changing where the water is draining to; is more water going to drain this way on the new plans. Project Engineer Monserud explained with reduction of impervious surface theoretically it would be less water; right now, they are over the thirty percent impervious area and they are proposing to reduce this area so it will reduce the amount of runoff. Ringstad asked staff based on the discussion that just took place; if he is correct in any new construction or new property, all water needs to be contained on that property and should not affect any neighboring to the east or to the west in this case, so when we are talking of a swale, he believes this all happe ns at the building permit process, but the concerns of looking at where water is going and draining is a big part of what will occur at the building process so neighbors to the east and the west don’t suffer in theory a drop more water on their property with a new home and a new design, is that correct? Project Engineer Monserud said that is correct and looking at the grade it will be directed all straight to the lake. Dave Haider, 5322 Candy Cove Trail SE. He said he lives in the property directly to the east. He stated concerns like Mr. Lenling’s such as, water drainage and runoff, issues that he has is the previous property owners directed runoff to his property and shoreline erosion. He presented a picture of his backyard where the retaining wall was lowered and explained the elevation, slopes between the garages, retaining 5 wall separating properties, roofline directions and adding roofline to his side of the property. He asked staff to bring a landscape plan, drainage and elevations and what they plan to do for the property to this meeting. He would like to not have this battle after construction. He commented on issues with elevation changes, structuralizing of the property, retaining wall up his driveway that will be affected, soil stabilization testing on the property at hand and not adjacent properties. He asked to see the engineering plan at this meeting and has not seen this yet. He said the third variance that they are asking for is for a variance to allow grading on a bluff impact zone; that is vague, he asked that there is something that tells him what they are doing as far as the re-grading of the impact zone. He commented on sharing several trees on the property line and would like this addressed as well on how they are going to regrade/landscape. Tieman asked if his main concern is around the engineering of insuring that the bluff zone on the walls. Haider said correct; his main concerns are the drainage, watershed, and impact on his garage and retaining wall to the added structure up and out. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:53 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: RINGSTAD thanked the public for public comment, particularly the neighbors on each side. He said with respect to the drainage he firmly believes that during the building permit process and thus the approval of the building permit process when that time comes that his comment a few minutes ago regarding drainage being contained to the lot in question with the new home being built will be addressed. He said the City has done a very good job in the past on issues such as this; they recognize the importance of drainage not affecting neighboring lots and thinks that with both concerns on both sides of the new proposed home that will occur. He said it sounds like this building project, even though there are concerns, it could be some welcome relief with correcting some of the things that do need correcting on both sides. He commented on respect to the three variances, which was originally five and due to meetings with the staff it now is reduced to three. He said all three variances could be made great examples for the need on all three which is why he will be supporting them tonight; the front yard setback with the right of way encroaching more so than the neighbors, the building separations the new building will be seven and a half feet on each side some neighboring homes are closer than that and the majority of this lot is affected by a bluff, so with careful engineering concerns, with careful appro val on drainage plans he will be supporting all three variance requests. Petersen concurs with a lot of what his fellow Commissioners said and commented on the drainage being a concern; however, mentioned that Staff has been good about that in the past in making sure that that is corrected. He would like to point out in regards to the one photo it is clear that the property is draining where it should not be and not only with the drainage of the immediate ground where this building is going to be placed and the new one removed maybe even if it isn’t too much of a hardship and it could be done, this would be the time to do it, to fix some of the drainage issues down below if there are serious issues. He said the engineering he does agree that there should be some effort made, not just engineering on the existing retaining wall on the proposed property, but the retaining wall specifically with the neighbor with the garage, he is close and should have insurance by engineering stating this is not going to tople your wall or cave in your garage. He stated he is in favor of these variances with stipulation that engineering for the adjacent property is provided and drainage is looked at including existing drainage further down the road. Tieman is in support of these variance. He commented on the builder going to good length to try to minimize the impact, variances are minimal considering the lot size they are dealing with and this is quite an improvement from the structures there. He said he assumes that they will continue to do due diligence with the landscaping plan and the engineering piece so will take it in good faith that this will continue and he will support this. 6 Fleming stated he will be supporting the three variance requests with the addition of some language for the record, this is not a strict condition, rather a recommendation to the builder that a dialog that has begun with the community, particular the two neighbors most impacted, to continue the dialog even though you are not required by Statue or Law to share the ongoing plans/thinking and propose to mitigate some of the issues that were raised and explicatively recommend that you keep engaging the neighbors as the project proceeds and in the absence of open dialog he found that as human beings we are kind of left to our own assumptions and we know what happens when we make assumptions, so he stated he really encourages leaving the dialog open with the neighbors as you proceed. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD APPROVING THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR 5308 CANDY COVE TRAIL WITH THE LIST OF CONDITIONS ON ITEM 4B AT 6:59 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. C. DEV17-000001 – Pebble Creek Shores – Combination Preliminary and Final Plat – Pebble Creek Homes, LLC is requesting a Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Pebble Creek Shores in the Low Density Shoreland Zoning District to construct two single family homes. PID: 25-133-011-1 Planner Matzke introduced the consideration to consider approval of a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as Pebble Creek Shores to be developed as a 2 lot, low density residential subdivision. The subject property is located on the southern shores of Prior Lake, north of County Highway 12 and west of Terrace Circle. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. He presented a location map, development plans dated January 25, 2017, engineering/public works department memorandum dated January 25, 2017, community and economic development department memorandum dated February 15, 2017 and city attorney memorandum dated February 16, 2017. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming said his first impression was that is a lot of trees that will go away and his second thoughts that there are fifty plus comments from our staff to about this issue which suggests to me if there are a lot of trees being removed and fifty-one comments, to slow track this and be very careful in our deliberations about the plat. He said he will be pretty forceful that we make sure that we are being very careful in our recommendation to Staff and to the City Council and there is legal considerations that we have to be very careful about if for whatever reason the court did not approve private use of the public rightofway that is a very complex matter that our City Council would need to weigh into. Petersen questions Planner Matzke statement of we have a situation elsewhere with more than one house to share a lift station and a driveway and asked has that not been a big issue or can you expand on your experience with sharing these. Planner Matzke said generally our engineering departments deals with it more than he does or the building department because of the construction activity or the public works due to the maintenance aspects; we do have routinely, especially on the lakeshore properties because of the elevation differences of some of them; sometimes we have lift stations that are in the rear yards or back yards of the lake and we have a twenty foot easement that we have to use between houses to get down to service a lift station and we do like to have more of a vehicular access to them. He said we have other ways were their shared driveways, or driveways close in proximity together happens a lot with the pie shape lot when you have coves or bays; we do navigate those abilities, when it all comes down to it, it is a lot easier when you have agreements/easements or something in writing through the years put in place to handle the obligations or expectations behind it, hence is why we would have discussion about the agreement with these property owners because when you don’t and you just have the gentleman’s agreement and switch property owners then things change and obligations and assumptions do change. That causes issues. He said we do resolve and work with these things if they got the agreements in place. He 7 commented on Commissioner Flemings concern regarding the trees saying even the amount of trees that they are removing on the site they are actually showing replacement with the property for the aspects of the trees on the property, there is about a dozen trees, which is not far off from typical properties to have four to six trees per property within a landscape plan so they are doing some significant tree removal and it is also somewhat common to find this in some vacant undeveloped areas; there would be perhaps even more significant tree removal would they propose a cul-de-sac as it would be a wider street with a possibility of more of an impact area as well. Petersen asked if it was possible for each house have their own lift station; why just one lift station? Project Engineer Monserud gave explanation of why there is just one but mentioned they could have one for each household. He said having one lift station for multiple lots is more of a common situation. Lift stations need to have flow into them to operate properly and this would maximize flow into that lift. Petersen said so it would work better. Project Engineer Monserud replied yes. Applicant Derrick Walgrave, Pebble Creek 7504 Whitehall Road. He commented on the impact of trees, and explained that is why there is a shared driveway and push towards the private shared driveway because a lot of the trees on the right-of-way on the south side there is quite a bit of mature trees, so we suggested to push it over to the left side of the right-of-way, leaving less impact on the trees. He said they brought some slideshows of the homes they plan on building. He commented on the shared driveway being a better fit with a less impact on the trees. Tieman questioned the water runoff. Walgrave said they have Matt Pavok here with Civil Site Group that could comment on some of the engineering and drainage on that. Petersen asked about the property owner to the west; and if there was any dialog with them about possible development with the lake lot behind them looks like it is big enough to split off and if that was the case, it looks like it would need a right-of-way on this property. Walgrave explained they have meet with the property owner and talked to them about subdividing the property; at this time, they like the property the way it is. He said as far as vacating of right-of-way he thinks there is further discussion with the homeowners if they would like it vacated to their property, but we did talk to them several times about the opportunity of developing. He said City Staff also talked to them about some of the savings of fees, if they were to join in on this development; city fees that we would have to pay regardless and as of right now they just are not interested in subdividing. Petersen said thinking about the right-of-way, now is the time to do it, even if they wanted to add on later. Walgrave said correct and that is one of the reasons we designed the private driveway split like that so it could be pushed off on the side and go into their property if someone decided to subdivide that. Ringstad commented on the fifty-one comments and said a lot of these are not cheap; what is the cost of this unique project to the significant items. Walgrave replied the rightofway street and said they have worked close with staff as far as working with this. He said there has been challenges with the elevation and of course the road going in access the property because it is behind other properties. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4C AT 7:19 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Daniel Hedin, 2952 Center Road SW. He said he is located directly south of the area and stated concerns of tree removal, wildlife, impact on view and breezed off the lake. He said no matter how you slice it putting two homes on property is going to lose a significant number of trees. Petersen said Prior Lake does have a pretty rigorous tree replacement policy, probably more-so than other cities, correct Planner Matzke? 8 Planner Matzke agreed and said this is a through our tree preservation ordinance. He said we do have strict regulations when it comes to tree preservation areas. He commented on this being a private lot. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:22 PM ON ITEM 4C. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman said the preliminary plat looks acceptable and becomes more of a City Council action concern on the side street and vacating that. He said he thinks this is okay as far as the plat. He stated his concerns as trees and water run-off and is hopeful that the plans are addressed accordingly. Fleming repeated his initial comments regarding the tree and he understands fully the tension between private property rights and our standing regulation. He stated a challenge to the developer to get that list of fifty-one down about to ten percent of that which would be five and then a word of caution and a plead to the City Council to deliberate carefully on the legal issue which Sara, our City Attorney will properly inform them of. He will be supporting the application. Peteresen agree to vacating of this property doesn’t pose any issues; and the way that it is laid out right here seems like it makes sense. He said having a City build a cul-de-sac for two parcels would be expensive and the City lift station the same; if the developer is willing to pay for that then he thinks it would be silly to not do that if there are no other legal questions. He stated his concerns of the property to the west that land locking the land back if that was worked out beforehand that would be a great idea. Ringstad stated he agrees with his fellow Commissioners and thinks moving this forward to the City Council for their deliberations and on a lot of the key items that they need to take up that we are not going to be taking up tonight is important and he stated he will be supporting this agenda item. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR PEBBLE CREEK SHORES SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS LISTED IN THE MEMORANDUM AT 7:25 PM ON AGENDA ITEM 4C. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. D. DEV16-001034 – 15211 Edinborough Avenue NE – Variance – John Gleisner is requesting variances from the side yard and maximum impervious surface requirements to construct a new home. PID: 25-036-035-0. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration of approval of a resolution approving a variance from the minimum side yard setback and maximum impervious surface for a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to allow for the construction of a new home on property located at 15211 Edinborough Avenue NE. The property is located south of Lords Street and west of Quaker Trail. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. He presented a resolution, location map, proposed survey dated January 26, 2017 and a conceptual floor plan and example of housing elevation. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman confirmed the gravel driveway to the west that goes down to the lake is a private driveway. Planner Matzke explained it is a platted driveway and is on the 1924 plat to the aspects of the properties within the plat; more of a public driveway to the property but the City as well as the Watershed District have easements or rights to use that for their access as well. Tieman asked if it was kind of semi-private. Planner Matzke said it is not for the joint use of the entire public, yes. Tieman asked who is responsible to the maintenance this drive. 9 Planner Matzke said the City as well as the Watershed District have maintained that access. He believes the Watershed District did add some gravel; their main concern is that is a major access to get to one of their outlet structure for maintenance reasons and have a very invested interest in maintaining it. Petersen said the gravel road coming off Quaker Trail NE would be the road used correct? Planner Matzke said yes that is correct and for the aspect of a property would be recommending this direction due to a more achievable access to the property than what has been used in the past decades for it. Petersen said looking at the elevations it is in a valley; how will this stay dry? He said that is a lot of water running right through that property; through that house. Project Engineer Monserud said they have not have conversation now and will review this more thoroughly when building permits come in and it perceives forward. Petersen asked if there is enough room on either side of this property to create some type of swale; so, the water would go around. Project Engineer Monserud explained some options for the site; gutters etc. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4D AT 7:37 PM VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant: John Gleisner, 4270 Quaker Trail NE however owns three four houses down from this site. He said in relation to the variance for the thirty-foot wide structure would be to allow for a tuck under garage and then still ample a walkway of six feet for the entry way to the house and then for the driveway being the same width for the point of the driveway as it is a twelve foot drop off that would go down towards the valley it would leave extra room to maneuver cars out of the driveway based on the neighbor to the north as his shed is on the entrance way. Fleming asked a question regarding Commissioner Petersen’s comments on the water; what sort of thought have you given to how you might mitigate that. Gleisner said they would consider that at a future time; with retaining walls, we feel we are comfortable to relocate it where it wouldn’t be an issue going down where the gravel would be for the access road to the water outlet on the bottom. Fleming asked about the impervious surface reduction and what implications if this is strictly enforced the thirty percent. Gleisner said as the number goes lower it just doesn’t work as well for the house with the tuck under garage that makes something feasible to build there. He said the tuck under garage leaves limited space in the house which is the reasoning for the extra impervious surface. Fleming asked if you are open to something reduced in impervious surface; between thirty percent and thirty-four point seven. Gleisner said yes, we would reduce the driveway; however, it would be easier for maneuvering cars if the driveway was larger. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 PM ON AGENDA ITEM 4D. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman stated he sees no reasons why the two minor variances would not be approved for this. He said the challenges will be there on the engineering side. He said he is fine with the variances. 10 Fleming said he is supporting the request and would like to again recommendation to reduce to at least thirty-three percent impervious surface, if possible. He doesn’t want to take away the structural fidelity of the project, but is not comfortable with thirty-four-point seven percent impervious surface. Petersen is in support of this variance with the condition that the impervious goes down to thirty-three percent. Ringstad stated he will too support this and both the applicant and staff should be congratulated to basically get the variances down to where they are on what is a challenging lot. He is in support of this and congrats the applicant and builder specifically the impervious surface to not exceed thirty-three percent. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR 15211 EDINBOROUGH AVENUE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION WHICH IS THAT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY-THREE PERCENT AT 7:41 PM ON ITEM 4D. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: A. DEV16-001003 – GriffithWoods - Concept Plan – Pulte Homes of Minnesota is requesting a discussion of their concept plan for a residential/I Homes, is requesting a discussion of their concept plan for approximately 55 acres that would include 133 single family homes on smaller lots and 16 acres of open space. The site is located east of County Hwy. 18, north of County Hwy. 42, and south of Whispering Oaks Trail in Shakopee. The property, owned by Frank Muelken, is currently guided for Urban Low Density (R-LD) in the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoned Agricultural (A). PID: 25-924-0 01-0 and 25-924-002-0. Planner Matzke re-introduced the request to review a concept plan for a low density single family residential development on 54-acre sit submitted by the proposed developer, M/I Homes. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and stated there is no formal Planning Commission action required at this time. He presented a short video from the development team, location map, concept plan, developer narrative and Summit Preserve Preliminary Plat. Paul Heuer with Pulte homes 7500 Office Ridge Circle, Suite 325, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. He introduced his team as Rick Harrison, Frank Hagen, Lucy, Richard Palmer. He presented an agenda of a background, neighborhood vision, site attributes/constraints and city goals, Rick Harrison explained the section of the agenda regarding creating the concept plan. Heuer continued with key plans, city goals, key facts, homes, PUD benefits, schedule and phasing and questions. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming stated his concern; Pulte has received mixed reviews about construction in workmanship. He asked who you are recruiting and who do you hire. What type of internal controls and processes do you have recruiting good foreman’s/superintendent’s that will be overseeing these projects. He gave an example of an experience he had and said he has a personal connection with quality and doesn’t want any resident of Prior Lake to go through what he went through. Heuer explained they have no reports of bad workmanship in the Twin Cities or familiar with any elsewhere; however, he has heard of difficulties finding trades and venders. He talked of shortages of 11 labor. He talked of the economy and the struggle of labor shortages. He said they haven’t had this issue in this market and talked of their quality control of their sites and homes. Tieman said it is an exciting opportunity for the city. He appreciates the single level houses. Petersen said he is extremely excited about this. He thinks it will be great for the city. He asked about setbacks and if five is typically for a setback with their homes. He said he likes the connecting sidewalks. Heuer said they are typically ten, but in some cases, some would be five and ten with HOA’s at the nearest points. Palmer said the five foot is on the garage side. He commented on the setback averages increasing due to building a lot less right-of-way. Petersen asked about the smaller houses and smaller lots. Heuer said yes, that is true and commented on yard sizes. He said Prior Lake is strong on ten and ten setbacks and five was something they considered and explained why. Petersen asked if there are some at five on grades and eight foot setbacks? Heuer said yes. Petersen commented on the setbacks and water in basements. Heuer said the truth is ten and five side setbacks is very standard and five and five is not uncommon. He said they like to keep the standard approach. Ringstad said he looks forward to this coming back in May with a preliminary plat. He asked a few questions: are all the roads in the PUD public or private. Heuer explained which would be public and what is private. Ringstad asked the density differences between what we are looking at now and what you planning in doing back in 2014. Heuer explained the differences as the zoning code is older and commented on the lot widths; he talked of density significant differences. Ringstad asked about the oversized cul-de-sacs and said is there planting/greener in the middle rather than just black top Heuer explained where the oversized cul-de-sacs would be located and why they would have the planting. Fleming said he has been waiting for this too and it is exciting to see us pivot as a community and head into the right direction. He thanked Pulte and their team. B. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - Tabled 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:29 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant