Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 March 25 2019 PC Meeting Minutes- Draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 25, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, March 25, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid; Absent was Dave Tieman. Also present were Community Development Director Casey McCabe, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. Absent Tieman. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, February 25, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. Absent Tieman. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV19-000007 – 3800 Green Heights Trail SW – Variances – The homeowner, Scott Thielen, is requesting variances from the minimum rear setback and maximum impervious surface requirements located at a property in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District. PID: 250940030. Planner Matzke: Introduced a public hearing to consider a resolution for a variance request from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum impervious surface requirement on a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, 1928 Green Heights Plat, Survey Dated March 20, 2019, Conceptual Building Plans dated February 12, 2019, 1999 Court Order, City Attorney Memorandum and Narrative from Applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Commented on the 1999 court trial and the outcome of the trial and questioned if the other seventeen plats in the community have undergone any litigation or scrutiny. Planner Matzke: Replied per Staff’s understanding there has not. He explained why this situation started, the 1999 court case including the findings, common area with the additional task, obligation of maintain and sole exclusion of docks. Fleming: Expressed that he struggles with the differences between unique circumstances and hardships on this application. He said the design elevation and foot print of the proposed home are creating the impervious surface need. Planner Matzke: Said the proposed home is already over the thirty percent impervious surface with using just the property in itself; however, the proposal is based on the additional obligation of maintenance of the waterfront area. Fleming: Asked if there were any hard surfaces in the extended area on the lake. Planner Matzke: Explaining a small shed that has been down by the lake for years is maintained and utilized by Mr. Thielen. He explained the allowances per the court order for structures on this waterfront property and stated the waterfront area does not have identified impervious surface. Fleming: Asked if it was minimal hard surface on the waterfront area? 2 Planner Matzke: Responded yes, minimal hard surface on the waterfront area. Kallberg: Asked questions about the setbacks for the house to the east side of the applicant’s property, when the house was constructed, and if this current project setback came into play due to the property to the east. Planner Matzke: Replied yes it does come into play from the house to the east and explained how averaging in setbacks work with the neighboring homes. Kallberg: Mentioned he has the same struggle as Chairman Fleming regarding the size of the footprint relative to the size of the lot. He commented on the home still being constructed with the property setback of at least 25 feet and still be quite a substantial structure. Fleming: Asked Planner Matzke to describe any communications he had with the property owners in respect to any efforts or thoughts on how to reduce the size of the proposed home. Planner Matzke: Explained meeting with Mr. Thielen and his architect as well as conversation regarding their design. He commented on Green Heights Trail being a private road/drive area, not as wide as typical streets, lack of parking, and the fact that driveways are larger than typical driveways in this neighborhood, which adds to impervious surface area. He pointed out some of the efforts the applicant is making to reduce hard surfaces such as reduction in the driveway, sidewalk, and patio areas and explained what the impervious surface once was and the steps the applicant made to decrease that amount after conversations with City Staff. Ringstad: Questioned what the common area means and if this allows someone in the neighborhood to be able to conceivably enjoy the common area without owning the property. Planner Matzke: Explained the common area designation, how this area was designed by a court order to allow for a clearer understanding of use. Explained the different types of general common areas, how this waterfront area was defined on the original plat, how the decree of exclusive rights were made by the judge in this court order situation for the lakeshore owners for Green Heights waterfront area. Ringstad: Asked what the phrase “need to maintain” meant in the court order and is it up to the association if somebody is not maintaining the shoreline. Planner Matzke: Explained City’s actions with a property maintenance issue and referenced the included City Attorney memorandum on this situation of maintaining the shoreline. He gave examples of how the situation would be handled with a general waterfront property owner. Ringstad: questioned if all the owners on the waterfront get to enjoy the use without paying taxes. Planner Matzke: Stated he has not advised upon the taxation department as to the valuation of the waterfront area. Ringstad: Said 12,400 square feet is what they are technically paying taxes on. Planner Matzke: Explained how the Scott County Taxation Department generally bases the valuation of property on length of lakeshore ownership as well as property square footage. He explained how the waterfront area is not a parcel and does not have a PID number. Ringstad: Commented on creating a precedent. He said he does not recall a project like this one prior and stated the report on this lot was interesting reading. Tschetter: Asked what the minimum square footage for a legal conforming lot in Prior Lake is. Planner Matzke: Replied the minimum square footage for a riparian lot is 15,000 square feet and the minimum square footage for a non-riparian lot is 12,000 square feet. Tschetter: Commented on looking for a PID number on the Scott County GIS and did not find one for the waterfront property. He asked what the existing home rear lot line setback was. Planner Matzke: Replied it is greater than 25 feet. He commented on the existing home setbacks versus the proposed home setbacks; stating, that the new home would be more conforming in regards to impervious surface and side yard setback. Tschetter: Verified that the existing home does not conform to the 10-foot side yard setbacks; however, does conform to the rear yard setback. Planner Matzke: Replied correct. Tschetter: Said but, it does not conform to the impervious surface, even though they are slightly reducing impervious surface. Planner Matzke: Replied correct, yes. The existing home is at 41.5% hard cover of the 12,400 square foot lot. 3 Tschetter: Said he is struggling with the practical difficulties due to having several homes built in the City that are on conforming lots and are able to maintain a generous structure with still conforming to setbacks and impervious surface. He gave an example of the Boudins Neighborhood with smaller lots that conform reasonably to the impervious surface with having a reasonable driveway. He said he is looking forward to the applicant’s comments. Applicant Kristy Raasch: Stated she is with Alexander Design Group and is helping Mr. Thielen with the design of his house. Scott Thielen: Resides at, and is the owner of 3800 green heights Trail SW . He explained how they got to this point of applying to be in front of the Planning Commissioners. He mentioned confusion in talking with the City on allowances for being conforming, including setbacks and the use of the waterfront due to a court decision. He mentioned reviewing plans, rules, and remodeling plans with the City Staff. He said at that time it made more sense to design a new home with less hard cover; however, the waterfront rules had seemed to change at this point. He commented on the previous owners, what the beach is designated for, maintenance obligations and dock allowances. He mentioned running into new rules and asked for consideration for this variance. Raasch: Explained why the design of the house is increasing in footprint and pointed out that they did improve the setbacks. Tschetter: Mentioned that it is his hopes that Mr. Thielen appreciates the significance in the Commissioners struggle with the presence that they are setting as well as the consideration being taken for his unique situation, as well as the challenges of interrupting a court order that makes this plat a unique situation in the City as well as the State. He asked Mr. Thielen to help him understand how the Commissioners can determine a practical difficulty in maintaining the rear line setback, because that is the edge of the property line. Thielen: Asked Planner Matzke what the minimum square footage for a non-lake front lot. Planner Matzke: Stated a non-lake lot minimum is 12,000 square feet. Minimum lakefront lot is 15,000 square feet. Thielen: Explained his hardship, meetings, increases in setbacks, changes for setbacks over a duration of time when talking to City Staff and being blindsided by change. Tschetter: Commented on the shifting interpretations and asked about neighbor HOA or organized ownership on the property. Thielen: Said he doesn’t know of a HOA or organized ownership for the Green Heights area. He commented on the easement on the east side of them for owners of the back lots to walk down to the lake and shared maintenance. Tschetter: Replied he was speaking specifically about the waterfront area and having a HOA. Thielen: Said there are no fees, no HOA’s or anything. Tschetter: Said he is sympathetic to the back and forth that the applicant has been through and the challenges they had in getting to this point and thanked the applicant for his time. Ringstad: Asked about any thoughts in making the house smaller to allow for less impervious surface. Thielen: Replied they thought they were reducing impervious surface when they were designing their home. He commented on instructions at the first meeting, how it changed when they submitted for the preliminary plans, meetings, reductions in the size of the house, large sized family needs and retirement. Raasch: Explained the difficulties in meeting the 30 percent impervious surface due to the desire to have a main floor master bedroom for retirement purposes. She commented on having a driveway a decent size for visitors and guest to park as there is no parking on the street. Thielen: Confirmed this good point, as the road is a one-way street. Ringstad: Mentioned he has drove down the street stating it is narrow road and agreed on the additional parking in the driveway. He reiterated that there is no parking otherwise the firetrucks cannot get down the street. 4 Kallberg: Asked if the flat area by the retaining wall parallel to the roadway is paved and if this area is currently being used as guest parking. Thielen: Replied yes Sir. Kallberg: Questioned what would happen to that parking area when you build the new driveway. He asked if that parking would then be gone and if this would result in less parking? Thielen: Responded that they gain a garage which would add three parking stalls and there would be two more parking spots in the driveway. Kallberg: Said he didn’t read the court order; however, commented on the attorney memorandum that noted the right to place structures in the waterfront area and the obligation to maintain this area. He also commented on the use of the waterfront area and asked if it was part of the court order. Thielen: Replied he doesn’t have the paperwork with him; but, stated the court order is specific. Kallberg: Mentioned the location of where the homeowners can put their docks and the allowances in-between the two lot lines. Thielen: Confirmed that Commission Kallberg’s comments were correct. Fleming: Agreed; that location and allowance mentioned by Commissioner Kallberg is arcuate. Kallberg: Questioned Commission Fleming if he read the court order and if he did, was it the court order to specify restrictions on this area for non-waterfront residents. Fleming: Commented on the court order, timeframe that has passed since the court order, our City Attorney affirmation on ownership, his opinion on ownership rights, intensions of being malicious or blindsiding the applicant, and stated for him it is simple as the footprint of the home is creating the impervious surface issue and the setback issue. He said he appreciates the improvement; however, still struggles with the size of the home. He suggested reimagining with the architect to reduce the size of the house. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4A AT 6:47 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. Absent Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Ann Rieck: Resides at 3526 W illow Beach Street. She said her family owns the property to the west at 3780 Green Heights Trail. She commented on no HOA or organized community in the Green Heights area, renters, maintaining the property, narrow street, parking, and taxes comparisons for back lot owners versus waterfront. She shared an example of a weekend parking issue and asked about the street being redone. Planner Matzke: Commented on talking with the Engineering Department regarding the Green Heights Trail roadway/utility improvements and said it is included in the Capital Improvement Program. Rieck: Mentioned the road is private; however, the city has access to this road for the lift station. Planner Matzke: Said correct and explained the easement access and the coordination with residents for reconstruction of the pipes/roads. Rieck: Suggested additional comments on the parking, water run-off and said on behalf of her mom they have no objection to their neighbor’s request. Lynn Danko: Resides at 3800 Green Heights Trail SW. She gave her relation to the applicant, commented on the purchase of their home, the understanding that they could build, value into the neighborhood, and her family size. She questioned why there is an issue with the size of their proposed house when the neighborhood houses are relative in size. Fleming: Respectively explained they are talking about this property and each property is different. He commented on the practical difficulty in regard to the design of the home and having the impervious surface too extreme. Tschetter: Mentioned some concerns regarding the increase of the house footprint towards the lot line, ambiguity and legal status of the waterfront property, confusion, feedback to the applicant on legal status of the waterfront property, the Commissioner’s intentions, past precedence, 5 improvements and questioned if there is enough parking with the impervious surface improvements. Ringstad: Mentioned a comment regarding value and said it is not about value, nor has it ever been; rather, it is about impervious surface and commented on the negative outcome of turning a blind eye to impervious surface. Raasch: Gave an idea of reducing the home and increasing the driveway and asked if that would have changed the Commissioners minds at all and questioned if it is all about hardcover and not about setbacks. Tschetter: Stated in his opinion only what he would like to see regarding this project; pointing out optimizing the design to support the footprint of the home on the property, recognizing the setback requirements, and the impervious surface requirements with considering practical difficulties such as parking. He mentioned to the applicant, “Give us a story to share that shows good faith efforts that comply with the City’s zoning requirements in developing an attractive valuable home that enriches our community”. Fleming: Mentioned comments made by Planner Matzke in efforts being made to reduce impervious surface; however, didn’t hear about creativity to the footprint of the living space. He invited the applicant to re-visit their plan at a future session/meeting with the Commissioners. Raasch: Explained this application was based on the initial survey from the remodel meeting with Planner Matzke. She commented on the main floor master being very important. Kallberg: Emphasized on the reduction of impervious surface doesn’t change the setback and commented on using lots to gain advantages and stated he agrees with Chairman Fleming on the footprint of the house creating the problem more so than the impervious surface. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:59 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. Absent Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Said the smaller footprint is desired and commented on how this would then meet the setbacks and reduce the impervious surface, which would also allow a larger driveway. Ringstad: Commented on the past variance requests having hardships with small garages, this lot size in comparison to the house size and said while reduction in impervious surface is admirable he believes a lot more can be done. He will not be supporting this agenda item tonight. Tschetter: Commented on the set of restraints regarding construction on a lakeshore district. He said he would echo Commissioner Ringstad’s comments regarding the lot being generously sized and constraints need to be considered to develop a home that fits on this lot. Fleming: Echoes the comments of his fellow Commissioners and stated the impervious surface variance request is excessive. He said the request is not something he can support at this time; however, he would like to table this agenda item, and have it come back to us as quickly as possible. He commented on balance of property owner rights, comfort, vision and family, as well as creating a precedent on intended consequences for the future. He said he looks forward to seeing what reimagination or creativity that would come up with moving towards that thirty percent requirement. Ringstad: Asked Chairman Fleming and/or Staff regarding suggestion of tabling; would it make more sense to deny this agenda item and look at a new proposal going forward. Planner Matzke: Explained the options dependent on changes/direction that can be given to the applicant to amend by tabling the decision to a future meeting or the Planning Commission could consider a variance denial. He asked if the Staff and/or applicant could have some direction as to whether there is some consideration for an approval of any variance. He said we need to take the Planning Commission’s findings from tonight’s meeting to draft a resolution. Kallberg: Explained the difference in a denial versus going to Council and suggested tabling to be a better choice, allowing the applicant to improve the footprint design. Fleming: Said he concurs. 6 Tschetter: Said he agrees; however, no second public hearing on the same topic, and so if we come back with an updated variance request and asked for Staff’s recommendation on the appropriate course. Planner Matzke: Explained it is up to the Planning Commission and he explained outcomes of tabling versus denial. He said the Commission could ask the applicant what their ideas of making changes would be before making action. Ringstad: Asked if we denied tonight on the requests before us and the applicant came with a new house plan with corrected items regarding comments that were brought up tonight, would there be a brand-new public hearing on the new request. Planner Matzke: Replied yes it would. It would be a new application and would increase timeframes; whereas, in the event of a tabling of the decision the Planning Commission would not have a public hearing and be able to have a meeting sooner. Fleming: Recapped, stating a formal denial would lead to a new public hearing to consider a new design. Kallberg: Said tabling could do the same thing. Fleming: Replied yes, if we specify that we are open to additional commentary from the public. Mccabe: Commented on an open public hearing and notice to all neighbors. Fleming: Said it feels better to table rather than deny. He said he is confident the applicant in good faith will bring something back and would entertain additional commentary at that time. MOTION BY KALLBERG TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING. A SECOND WAS NOT RECEIVED. MOTION FAILED. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO DIRECT CITY STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND LACK OF SUPPORT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tschetter and Ringstad. Nay by Kallberg. Absent Tieman. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: Announcements: • April 22, 2019 • No application for Planning Commission consideration on April 8, 2019; therefore, the next meeting will be April 22, 2019. Fleming: Asked of any updates on the work session held on Woodbury and any progress staff has made. McCabe: Explained that Staff has been active at the Capital working on legislation which would allow the street fees to be statutory; allowed to be collected. He commented on this session not having much traction; however, there is hope for next session. He said the Planning Commission will have a joint Work Session with the City Council in May 2019. Fleming: Thanked Staff for the great work that is done, working with homeowners and absorbing the anxiety and disappointment. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTADTO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:15 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. Absent Tieman. The Motion carried. Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.