HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 March 20 2017 Meeting Minutes rough approved
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, March 20, 2017
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, March 20, 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 RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 20,
2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, March 6, 2017 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. PRV17-0001 – 14332 & 14342 Watersedge Trail NE – Variance –
Copper Creek Real Estate Group, Inc. is requesting variances regarding setbacks and impervious
surface to construct one new home on each parcel (Two Home Total) in the R1SD (Low Density
Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 251190070 & 251190080.
Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider approval of a resolution approving a variance to allow
variances form the minimum lake setback, maximum impervious surface, minimum lot width and
minimum lot area, for a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The properties are
located along the norther shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, south of Rutgers Street NE.
The properties each currently contain a single-family home. He explained the history, current
circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, existing
survey dated June 15, 2015, proposed survey dated March 13, 2017, proposed house renderings and
an applicant narrative dated March 16, 2017.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming asked Planner Matzke if he discussed the Staff’s recommendations with the applicant and if the
applicant is willing to consider the Staff’s recommendation of reducing the square footage and the
walkway.
Planner Matzke replied he had discussed a couple of times, with the applicant, these recommendations
base around the impervious surface. He commented on the applicant’s response stating they wanted
the opinions of the Planning Commission, as they feel the impervious surface variance is justified. He
suggested asking the applicant if they are open to that decision.
Fleming explained his reasoning of asking stating it would have a bearing on opening the public hearing
due to resistivity of the applicant to rework the plan. He commented on Tabling the agenda item, but
2
decided to move and decide whether to open the public hearing , dependent on the response of the
applicant.
Planner Matzke replied it is up to the Planning Commission.
Applicant:
Greg Schweich, (14198 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN) He stated his occupation as the managing
partner with Copper Creek. He commented on just recently getting the information prior to the meeting,
several meeting with Planner Matzke and Director Rogness as well as City Staff and starting with the
DNR’s verbal approval. He said He said he doesn’t recall suggestions to redo his plan and commented
on Director Rogness no longer working with the City of Prior Lake. He commented on the synopsis of
the packet, reduction of the impervious surface including the sidewalk, improvement of the project,
bringing structures back from the lake, setbacks and setback allowances. He explained his research of
impervious surface and variances in the last four years and commented on working with the City most of
his life. He commented on how he thought the meeting was going to happen tonight and asked the
Commissioners if we could continue. He stated he would be open for questions and other solutions if
necessary to move the project forward.
Fleming explained the appreciation for having all the context and the consistency in all the years he has
been on the Planning Commission. He commented on placing high confidence in the recommendations
of Staff.
Petersen asked about the proposed house on the property; is that footprint what you intend to build.
Schweich replied yes that is what we proposed to build, correct.
Petersen said in subtracting the sidewalk, reduces it down to thirty-three-point seven percent.
Schweich replied yes.
Petersen asked about both porches and when they would be built. He said it is unfortunate that the
information got to him late and understands this puts him in a bind; however, felt it would be adaptable
to remove a couple hundred square feet. He commented on Mr. Schweich’s research in impervious
surface and variances around the area and said the total square footage was not listed.
Schweich commented on the outcome of a rain garden two doors down to reduce impervious surface
and suggested his discussions with and engineer to do a raingarden on this property. He explained the
rain garden, gutters, controlled runoff, and the final plans to the City.
Petersen asked Planner Matzke if that is an option.
Planner Matzke said that he would like to have our engineering staff, Project Engineer Monesrud answer
in on this and the long-term monitoring and maintenance of these situations. He explained the historical
perspective approved by the City Council that Mr. Schweich commented on the house a few doors down
and the constraints/issues of this raingarden.
Project Engineer Monserud stated regarding a raingarden and additional impervious areas doesn’t
reduce the impervious area, the area is still there; it merely treats it. He said rain gardens are high
maintenance and likely the City would have to maintain it, so it is an additional piece of maintenance that
our public works staff would have to do and we would like to avoid this.
Planner Matzke commented on a maintenance agreement prior to Project Engineer Monserud employed
with the City of Prior Lake. He explained raingardens are typically more common with commercial
projects and explained the differences between commercial and private, reports, maintenance
agreements, city involvement and explained how monitoring would be complex if this became the practice
throughout Prior Lake.
Petersen asked Mr. Schweich if there is a convincing hardship for the need of the extra footage; is there
something significant that would be lost, that would really change the structure or feel of this home.
Schweich said it would reduce the garage.
Ringstad asked for more follow up for the Project Engineer Monserud and Planner Matzke regarding the
findings/opinions for the City Council and their approval for this to be a potential solution to an impervious
surface exceeding impervious surface when now he is hearing that it truly doesn’t have a solution long
term for exceeding an impervious surface requirement.
Planner Matzke explained the prior project, the one highlighted in the packet, stating a list of conditions
regarding short side yard setbacks and seven variances or more; all leading to issues with drainage,
3
which lead to discussion about stormwater drainage, lot flowage, gutters, direction of water, rain gardens
or basin as part of the impervious surface variance. He commented on how the City Council came to
those terms with grouping of those variances.
Fleming asked if Copper Creek would like to share any additional information before he proceeds with
the public hearing.
Schweich said they would like to proceed with the public hearing and he commented on the raingardens,
neighborhood City projects appears to work, but not private property.
Fleming said he will redirect and asked Mr. Schweich to stay at the podium and stated we have not made
any decisions yet, and he would like this entered into the public record; we are having a conversation,
then stated he will open the public hearing.
Shweich asked if he could submit this packet of all the resolution to the Planning Commission for Public
Record.
Fleming said you may.
Schweich gave Sandra Woods the packet.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
6:40 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
Henry Breeggeman, located in Scottsdale Arizona. He explained he was a Minnesota resident, currently
reside in Arizona but would like to move back to the area. He said he is working with Copper Creek on
this property at 14332. He commented on being involved in conservation, grew up in a farming
community, understands land and how valuable it is, understands prevent runoff, making improvements
to the property, impervious surface, removing sidewalks, improvement of both lots, design of the home,
shrinking it down and the struggle of the current footprint. He explained working with the driveway and
other area; moving the house closer would not be the right thing to do. He commented on the footprint of
the house being long term; no expansions. He thanked the Commissioners and Staff and reiterated the
dramatic improvements to both pieces of property.
Bill Maynard, 14294 Watersedge Trail. He asked if the driveway setback from the road was to be twenty-
five feet and if so, would there be a request for a variance on this.
Planner Matzke explained the averaging of two properties within 150 feet of the proposed property down
to twenty feet; therefore, it does fit under our ordinance to allow an averaging. He commented on how
steep the driveway is already coming off the road.
Maynard asked about the larger property on the setback from the west side and the house being at ten
feet, but the deck gets down to eight point eight two. He stated he doesn’t see a variance on that either.
Planner Matzke said it is ten feet from the lot line and clarified the applicant had the original drawing
which was sent with the public hearing notices; however, the applicant did revise their drawing within the
last week and was changed to meet that setback.
Maynard asked about the setbacks on the smaller property from the two sides being seven point five
feet on both east and west side.
Planner Matzke explained when we have properties that are less than ninety feet wide; which this one
is, the side yard setbacks that are allowed are not our typical ten foot setbacks but a combined setback
of fifteen total feet between the two and so the combined feet of one is seven point five and the other
eight; combined is over fifteen and the reasoning is our ordinance does allow that without a variance, on
those properties that are seen as non-conforming less than ninety feet wide.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
6:49 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
4
Ringstad said the proposed improvements with what you are doing on the lots; changing one from one
hundred to ninety and the other from fifty to sixty, is a terrific idea and can support that as he can support
all the proposed variances except for the impervious surface on the larger lot, that is three point seven
over the sidewalk change, a reasonable house can be built. He said he realizes it is not what everybody
is hopeful for or anybody may want, but based on some of the examples that Planner Matzke showed
tonight, he believes a reasonable house can be built on that lot while staying within the thirty percent
impervious surface ordinance. He will not be supporting that and is unsure if we are tabling or if we are
voting but whether it is tonight he can support the others that were in the report.
Petersen said he concurs with his fellow commissioner about everything being done out there is great
and he likes that the reducing from over fifty, down close to thirty. He said what is frustrating about all
you listed, all the other properties and the variances is they are all unique situations and this is as well a
unique situation. He stated it is hard to go against Staff’s recommendations and hard to go over thirty
percent impervious because what happens is the next time someone comes in and says well they got it
and we didn’t; however, in this case, by the lot being reduced ten feet this house would fit on this lot and
it is a big consideration of reducing the sidewalk and with the considerations it is fair that you get
something in return. He said given all the information that we have his is in favor.
Tieman stated he agrees as this is a good improvement on the area; getting the impervious down and
looking at this to what would it take to get this down to the thirty percent, he said they would be down to
losing the third car garage and that is a big thing for people. He said having a three-car garage is
reasonable in this area with a lot this size. He said with the overall changes that have been made and
the improvements made he is in support as is.
Fleming said this is a complicated one for him. He supports all variances but not the impervious surface
and he would like to see a reconsideration brought to the Planning Staff and then back to the
Commissioners. He asked his fellow Commissioners for comment; we can consider alternative one as
in the staff report which will result in a two to two tie or we can consider alternative number two which is
to Table or we can do both.
Petersen said we have never had a tie; what happens in a tie?
Fleming said the agenda items gets Tabled.
Petersen asked if there was a benefit one way or the other as far as procedural.
Planner Matzke said he doesn’t recall Commissioner Kallberg’s schedule, he believes he may be back
for the April meeting, so then there would be five Commissioners.
Petersen said I will be out; I will be missing that meeting.
Planner Matzke explained the reason mentioning Tabling this item; leaving an odd number of
Commissioner votes resulting in not having a tie; therefore, the option could be to table to a meeting
where all five are present, without that some type of a motion has to be made whether it be approved,
tabled or denied of a three fourth majority tonight.
Fleming said that is right and let me just offer this for the record; so tabling gives the applicant and the
owner some time to consider all of our concerns and comments as well as gives us some time to consider
everything that was mentioned tonight. He said he is never in favor of making quick hasty decisions as
and explained a handed down lesson from his wise grandmother decision making; therefore he would
like to consider a motion and a second to table the discussion of the item for this specific purpose which
it is for consideration of the design of the home or any elements of the design of the lot as directed by us
and he would like to table that discussion to a meeting where we have full attendance by our planning
commissioners. He asked for Commissioner comments on this thought.
Petersen asked if we need to continue the public hearing or we cannot as it has been closed, correct.
Fleming replied that is correct.
Planner Matzke said if you feel that you have the just of the public hearing comments tonight that is of
the option of the Planning Commission; however, you can still ask the applicant at a future meeting to
comment on things, the Planning Commission just needs to direct them to approach the podium.
Fleming said to Mr. Schweich that he will still have the opportunity to approach.
Schweich (in the audience, no microphone) said can I approach now.
Fleming said not at this time.
5
Ringstad asked Planner Matzke if with a Table decision, the applicant could continue with your dialog
and try to find a solution that may result in a something positive before this comes back to us at a future
meeting.
Planner Matzke said City Staff is certainly open to continuing conversation, always.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION TO A MEETING
WHEN WE WILL HAVE OF FULL ATTENDENCE OF ALL COMMISSIONERS AT 6:56 P.M.
REGARDING ITEM 4A
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Schweich (in the audience, without mic) said until December, October?
Fleming mentioned that his commentary isn’t helpful.
Schweich said what is that?
Fleming repeated that is not helpful.
Schweich (in the audience, without mic) Well it is obvious….
Fleming said that is not helpful at all; not helpful at all.
5. Old Business:
No Old Business.
6. New Business:
No New Business.
7. Adjournment:
Fleming asked thoughts about convening for the Comp Plan discussion.
Planner Matzke said it was solely up to the Commissioners on discussion tonight. He offered some
information handed out to be discussed at the next meeting, otherwise a work session on the 3rd of April.
He explained what the discussion would be about and the deadlines for these discussions. He mentioned
emailing information to the Commissioners for studying.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant