Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 11 2017 PC Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 11, 2017 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, September 11, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Mark Petersen, William Kallberg and Dan Ringstad; Tieman was Absent. Also present were Planner Jeff Matzke, Planner Amanda Schwabe, Project Engineer Nick Monserud, Community Development Director Casey McCabe and Community Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, August 28, 2017 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV17-001033 – 3844 Green Heights Trail SW - Variance – The homeowners are requesting variances from the minimum lot area, minimum lake setback, sum of the side yard, building separation, and maximum impervious surface to construct a building addition to the existing house in the R-1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 250940070. Planner Schwabe introduced the request to consider approval of variances from the minimum lot area, minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevations, sum of the side yards, building separation, and the maximum impervious surface requirement to allow the expansion of a non - conforming structure on property located at 3844 Green Heights Trail SW. The property is located along the southern shores of Upper Prior Lake, west of Dunkirk Avenue SW. The property contains a single- family home that is a single story with basement walkout. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended approval of a resolution in support of the requested variances. She presented a resolution, location map, proposed survey dated July 26, 2017, a building elevation dated August 3, 2017 and letters of support from adjacent property owners. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming asked the height and distance from the lower level of the deck; is it consistent with what is current. He questioned the impervious surface on the adjacent properties. Planner Schwabe said she doesn’t have that exact distance; however, the applicant might have that information. She stated the deck is in the same location as the current deck. She explained the average lake setback is approximately 35 feet for the fifteen parcels along Green Heights Trail. Fleming stated this proposal is slightly above the average impervious surface requested. Planner Schwabe replied yes that is an accurate statement. Kallberg asked for calculations on the square feet of the home as it is almost doubling the footprint with reducing impervious surface. He commented on the driveway reduction and parking area added. 2 Planner Schwabe explained the reduction of impervious surface on the driveway as well as under the deck. Petersen asked if only two of the five requested variances relate to the new structure. Planner Schwabe responded that is correct; it is already a non-conforming lot. Ringstad stated it is nice to see an addition with a reduction in impervious surface and thanked staff for the report. Applicant Darin Wampler and Laura Horne, 3844 Green Heights Trail. They introduced themselves and stated they were available for questions. Petersen asked if there are going to be any significant changes to the grading; will the water flow change. Wampler replied it will be similar if not improved. He explained the elevation of the driveway which creates a lot of water that is routed around the house and said the garage would be constructed about six inches above the road to get drainage out to the road. Petersen questioned if the water was still draining on both sides. Wampler explained they are installing gutters to keep the water from getting in-between the two houses. Petersen asked staff if the city is aware of the drainage on the property. Planner Matzke said yes; he explained permitting, drainage and cities responsibility during review of the building plans. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:22 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:22 P.M. on ITEM 4A. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. Commissioners Comments Ringstad commented on driving by the property, reviewal of neighbor’s approval letters and three of the variances that are requested tie to the non-conforming lot and the fourth variance being a reduction of impervious surface. He stated he is in favor of all five variance requests tonight. Petersen agreed with Commissioner Ringstad; therefore, he is in favor of this agenda item. He mentioned his appreciation for the applicant being open to suggestions from the City and reduced the amount of impervious surface in their plan. Fleming stated he is in support of the proposal regarding all five variances. He said it meets our variance threshold 1108.400; the five-point threshold and echoed appreciation to the applicant for working with City Staff to improve the neighborhood. Kallberg commented on the owners making a significant improvement with no setbacks changing and the only real change is the impervious surface being reduced. He said this is a great move and he supports this agenda item. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIVE VARIANCES, (THE MINIMUM LOT AREA, MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK, SUM OF THE SIDE YARDS, BUILDING SEPARATION AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT), REQUESTED FOR 3844 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL SW WITH THE THREE LISTED CONDITIONS ON ITEM 4A AT 6:24 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. 3 B. PDEV17-001035 – 17098 Adelmann Street – Variance – Dan Stanley and Larry Raasch are requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet within the I-1 (General Industrial) Zoning District. PID: 254440010. Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider approval of a Resolution granting a variance from the minimum front yard setback for a property in the I-1 (General Industrial) Zoning District to allow for construction of a building on a site located at 17098 Adelmann Street, south of Cottonwood Lane and west of Greystone Court. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a Resolution, location map and site plan dated August 22, 2017. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming questioned the proposed timeline for construction and completion. Planner Matzke replied construction is expected to begin this fall; breaking ground within the next month, with final construction this winter. Kallberg questioned the setback with relation to the setback of the building that is to the east. Planner Matzke explained the building setback requirements and stated this building would not have off- street parking spaces in front of the building. Petersen questioned the parking lot setback. Planner Matzke responded the parking setback is ten feet. He explained the ten feet setback is from the front property line. The boulevard area is approximately another ten feet behind the curb. Petersen asked if the owner of Versatile Vehicles is aware of this plan. Planner Matzke replied he has not spoken with Versatile Vehicles directly; but there were no comments back from Versatile Vehicles on the plan. Ringstad confirmed that Versatile Vehicles was notified in writing for their requests. Planner Matzke responded yes, all property owners within three-hundred-fifty-feet are notified. Ringstad stated the variance request is for truck access to the back. Planner Matzke replied correct. Applicant Dan Stanley, representing SR Property Development located at 5833 Meadowlark Lane. Fleming asked for the type of materials or items that will be housed in the building. Stanley explained the building is for our offices and will have some flatbed trailer storage; however, it is primarily for maneuvering to access doors in the back of the building. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4B AT 6:35 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Stephanie Renslow, 17414 Deerfield Drive SE. She said she is the president of the Deerfield Coach Homes Association. She acknowledged other members of the board and residents who were in attendance, commented on her concerns about the proposed development and felt property notices were not mailed out, as was her contention from a previous mailing she did not feel was sent property in 2014. Fleming asked if she was referencing an improper notice in 2014 or with the current request. Renslow responded she was referencing the 2014 notification that was made for the recreational building; however, since that ship has sailed she wanted to communicate to the Planning Commission that she did not get appropriate notification for this meeting either. Fleming confirmed she was referencing 2017. Renslow replied yes, 2017. Fleming asked Staff to address this. Planner Matzke replied variance notifications go out to property owners addresses on record within 350 feet of the property; commercial and residential, any property. He explained the mapping system and stated a few mailings were returned to sender that staff keeps on file. He offered to check the list for the 4 Association and mentioned these mailings do go to common areas as well; anyone that is listed on the tax records. Renslow commented on obligation, the homeowners not being the property owners, Association being the property owners, the Board/Commissioners/Planning Commissioners needing to be educated on any of these opportunities to notify the entire Association, City Staff talking to the property manager at Cornerstone, receiving notifications when they were with another property manager, and protesting not getting notification in 2014 as well as not getting notification for this meeting. She said we are here, but there is that piece of due-process that needs to be addressed. Fleming said yes, there is a finer, more granular distinction between notice and due-process; however, your point is still well taken. Renslow shared concerns of being good neighbors, respect, previous recreation vehicle building, noise, pollution, close to homes, lighting, barriers, fencing, tree ordinance, impervious surface, structures, nice properties, drainage, zoning, impacts to the wetland, water fowl, impact of another industrial business coming in, and the facility being huge. She asked questions of when construction starts in the fall, what the hours of construction would be; and if the loading dock is an end loader. She expressed they will be meeting with the Association within the next couple of weeks and would like this information. Petersen commented on lack of proper notification and asked Mrs. Renslow if they would peruse that angle if the result isn’t in their favor. Renslow replied possibly. She commented that more diligence is needed in knowing what the obligation is for the City Planners and that organization, the importance of letting their homeowners know, prices of the homes in the area and little turnover. She answered Commissioner Petersen’s questions, stating we don’t know yet, we will see and commented on the mailing not being efficient. Fleming said if the applicant would like to address the concerns and then he has questions regarding the photometric plan and layout. Dan Stanley replied to the question regarding the use of the rest of the building; stating it has not yet been assigned to a tenant. He offered his contact information to Mrs. Renslow and the Association. Fleming asked about the photometric plan and how this would impact neighboring properties. Planner Matzke stated a full site plan review was done and explained the drainage that would be required to be up to State and City Regulation Standards. He explained other standards: landscaping, trees, lighting, noise and air pollution as well. He said we put it to task when we do our reviews for those various components through our administrative procedure. Fleming suggested that the Staff continue with the Developer to coordinate a series of opportunities to provide feedback within a reasonable amount of time as the property moves forward; it would be a great show of faith to make sure that Stephanie and the Association are receiving timely feedback and updates. Walter Ostmann, 17508 Deerfield Dr. SE. Mentioned trees as his main concern as the trees screen the subject property. He asked if there is some way of more leaving of the trees and asked how many trees would be removed. Stanley explained the primary impact of the trees and parking. Ostmann asked about the location of removal of trees, parking lines and drainage. Stanley explained where the trees would be removed; and parking stalls installed with City direction. He explained the design for the parking lot and city requirements for stall width and proof of parking as potential parking lot expansion area. Ostmann said when you are talking about proof of parking, you are leaving it open to take the trees. Stanley replied there are a few trees that may be impacted in a corner of the parking lot. Ostmann commented on the trees being a barrier for them, screening the property and that being the reason he bought the property. Fleming said as staff iterated there are standards that the Staff will be monitoring. Ostmann asked that the wetland not be encroached on. Fleming explained Staff will be updating as it becomes available, the project must comply with local ordinances and regulations. He suggested this is not the appropriate venue for the developer to mention formal language of what he is going to do, because the process is a fluid one. Ostmann asked when that would be appropriate. Fleming said that would be up to Staff to update you with that. 5 Renslow explained that the homeowners are interested in the barriers, expectations and trusting of good will. She gave her business card and mentioned there are 222 homes. She asked Commissioner Fleming if he understood what she is looking for; that being input. Fleming said he understands and mentioned that we need to be careful about balancing the tension between property rights and soliciting and incorporating feedback; our role is not to tell a developer how much feedback, when to get that feedback and how much of that feedback to integrate, but we certainly have always been fostering the open and reasonably time communications between developers and community. Tom Ross, 5414 Deerfield Cir SE, He asked about the setback to the adjacent property [Versatile Vehicles]; is this comparable to that setback. Fleming suggested this was a comment that was raised by Commissioner Kallberg. Planner Matzke addressed the question regarding the setback from the rear yard property line. Ross corrected, stating the front property line. Planner Matzke explained the reason for the variance; being setback is proposed at 15 feet opposed to the thirty-foot standard that we have. Versatile Vehicles building does meet the 30-foot standard leaving the building further back, closer to the residential homes. This one would be further away from residential properties, towards the street. Ross clarified that this one would be further back from the homes than the existing property right now. Planner Matzke said correct. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSETHE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:58 P.M. ON ITEM 4B Commissioners Comments: Ringstad questioned if it wasn’t for the 15-foot variance request and the proposed building would be 30- feet; we wouldn’t even be talking about this tonight, is that correct? Planner Matzke said yes, he explained the reasoning for tonight hearing on this f 15-foot variance request. He explained how the rest of the project is reviewed; Staff Review through Ordinance that were approved by the City Council over the years. Ringstad said there is very little discussion on the actual variance request. He commented on the 15 - foot setback rather than 30-foot setback and stated this benefits the homeowners as the building is closer to the street and further from the homes. He stated there is no zoning changes; it is I-1 and has been for a long time. He stated he will be in favor of this agenda item. Petersen agreed with Commissioner Ringstad. He suggested/encouraged the applicant to stay in communication with neighbors. He commented on how this helps the property owners in the rear, other options of what could have gone in on this property, the odd shape of the lot and stated he believes this is a reasonable request. He shared a concern of hindered site lines, but felt this is not the case. He stated he is in support of this agenda item. Fleming stated he will be supporting the resolution and commented on communication for the record and the developer that we do take pride in being one of the few Planning Commissions in the entire seven County Metro Area that fosters open communications between residents, builders and developers; so, any feedback would be appreciated. He made mention that the proposal for the variance request does meet our five-point threshold in Section 1108 and the two conditions are standard conditions; therefore, he is satisfied that the proposal is in good order and will be supporting it. Kallberg stated the issue of notification is not what we are discussing here tonight; rather the change in setback and this setback appears to be doing as much as possible to create a worthwhile building with an increased setback from the private homes to the southwest and even though we had many notification letters come back undeliverable, they were sent to the owners of record. He mentioned the responsibilities of the notices and said City Staff can only send out to the record on file. He said he supports the variance request for changes in setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. He added there is a long list of conditions that must be meet; he explained these conditions and said these things must be complied with or the project gets shut down; the applicant has no reason to violate any of these requirements. That is all part of the engineering staff on review the people that issue all the different permits and this is all covered in all the ordinance. 6 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WITH THE TWO LISTED CONDITIONS WHICH ARE THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE RECORDED AT THE SCOTT COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AND THAT THE VARIANCE OBJECT TO THE INSURANCES OR REQUIRED PERMITS FROM ALL APPLICATBLE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AT 7:04 P.M. ON ITEM 4B VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business 6. New Business: 7. Adjournment: Announcements: - Next meeting in two weeks from tonight (September 24, 2017) has been cancelled. Instead, there will be an open house for the Land Use and Housing chapters of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan from 5:00-7:30 P.M. o Fleming asked if this time could be changed to 5:30 o Planner Matzke said we will work with our consultant MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. Tieman Absent. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Community Development Service Assistant