Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 14 2022 PCM Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 14, 2021 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tieman called the Monday, February 14, 2021 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Dave Tieman, Jason Tschetter, Bryan Fleming, William Kallberg, and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Liaison Kim Churchill, City Planner Jeff Matzke, Development Director Casey McCabe, and Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Monday, February 14, 2021 Agenda: Director McCabe: Stated item 4B is to be removed at the request from the applicant. He said this item will be moved forward to the next agenda. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2021 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of November 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 22, 2021 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV22-000001 – 2733 Spring Lake Road SW – Variance – The property owner, David Fox is requesting variances from the minimum front yard setback and maximum driveway width to allow construction of a new dwelling on a non-conforming property located at 2733 Spring Lake Rd SW. PID: 251330750. Planner Matzke: Introduced the public hearing to consider approval of a resolution approving a variance from the minimum front yard setback and maximum driveway width on a property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The subject site is located along the northern shores of Spring Lake. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a resolution, location map, and proposed survey dated December 21, 2021. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Pointed out plans for proposed patio and asked if there are future plans for a deck on the rear/lakeside of the property. Planner Matzke: Replied that the applicant doesn’t show a deck on the proposed plan; however, could fit over the proposed patio. He suggested asking the applicant. Applicant: David Fox: Resides at 2733 Spring Lake Street SW. He answered Commissioner Flemings question, stating yes, they would like to add a deck. He explained where the deck would be located and reasonings for the desire of a deck and for moving the house forward. He commented on an unsuccessful County Right-Of-Way being the reason for this next step moving forward to rebuild and stay on the property. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY TSHCETTER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 2 Public Comment: None. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:13P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Stated he will be supporting the proposed setback variances. He said this agenda item request does meet the five-point threshold in Section 1152 of Prior Lake’s City Code of Ordinance. He commented on the proposed deck and is pleased to hear that the deck will conform to setback requirements. Ringstad: Said he will be supporting due to the lake setback improvement and commented on the lake lots being challenging in square footage and other restraints. Tieman: Stated he will also be supporting this variance as it is in accordance with the similarity of the area and shared appreciation of meeting the criteria with the challenging lot. Tschetter: Said he has no issue with this variance. He commented on this being like a normal property line and how then this property would be within the bounds. He shared his appreciation of the investment being made in the community. Kallberg: Stated this is logical and he is pleased to see that the lake side setback is substantially increased. He commented on the removal of the driveway and stated he will support this agenda item. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO ADAOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCES REGARDING THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH REQUESTED FOR 2733 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. PDEV22-000002 – 15100 Martinson Island Road NE - Variances – The property owner, Margaret Lang Revocable Trust is requesting a variance to build a second-floor sunroom at the location of an existing second floor deck. PID: 259350220. Planner Matzke: Mentioned that this agenda item is to be removed from the agenda and would be seen on a future agenda for the Planning Commission to review. He stated this was the applicant’s suggestion for this agenda item to be removed. C. PDEV21-000037 – 15357 Breezy Pont Road SE – Variance – The applicant David Charlez Designs, on behalf of the property owner is requesting a variance from the minimum front yard setback, minimum lake setback, and maximum impervious surface allowed on a non-conforming lot to allow the demolition of the existing home and to construct a new home with an attached garage. PID: 250260041. Planner Matzke: Introduced the public hearing to consider approval of a resolution approving variances from the minimum front yard setback, minimum lake setback, and maximum impervious surface on a property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The subject site is located at 15347 Breezy Point Road SE along the southern shores of Lower Prior Lake. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a resolution, location map, existing survey dated November 6, 2020, proposed survey dated December 21, 2021, proposed rendering dated October 20, 2021, and a street view photo. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad: Asked when the existing structure was built. Planner Matzke: Replied 1980. He said a lot of these areas were redeveloped in the 70’s and 80’s. Fleming: Asked about the current dwelling’s finished square footage. Planner Matzke: Responded the approximate size is 40 by 26; about 1050 square feet. 3 Fleming: Questioned what is proposed. Planner Matzke: Replied the proposed square footage is listed at 2,183 for the house and garage; footprint wise. Fleming: Made mention of his appreciation of the graphic that showed the setbacks in comparison to the setbacks for the seven other properties. He asked if there is a similar comparison of impervious surface for any of the seven subject properties that are used as comparison’s sake. Planner Matzke: Replied yes, the comparison of the area properties were over thirty percent and a couple in the fifty percent, particularly the house to the north that is on a smaller piece of property. He commented on lot sizes, square footage and ratios on the properties in the area. Fleming: Stated he wanted to confirm this information. Planner Matzke: Commented on receiving variances over the last twenty years. Fleming: Said he wanted to make sure we were not setting up a precedent for average increases. Kallberg: Asked if the answer could be repeated for the question regarding when the structure was built. Planner Matzke: Replied the current structure was built in 1980. Kallberg: Asked if this then, would be the second structure built on this parcel. Planner Matzke: Responded yes. He explained the past cabin lots that were designed in the mid 1900’s, remaining early cabins, redevelopment in the seventies and eighties and new home being built on Breezy Point in the last decade. Kallberg: Said this is a non-conforming lot that predates the current ordinance. Planner Matzke: Confirmed. Tschetter: Stated in addition to the impervious surfaces, the 12.75-foot setback looks like it is from the curb, not from a property line. He asked about concerns with snowplow removal operations and a structure that close to the curb line. Planner Matzke: Explained the uniqueness of Breezy Point when it comes to snow removal. He explained how snow removal is done in this area, stating some snow gets trucked out of this area, even. He said Public Works Department highlighted the driveway depth’s as they don’t want cars hanging over the end of the driveways during snow removal. Tschetter: Said this subject property looks closest to the curb, regardless of property lines. Tieman: Asked what the elevation is on the property. Planner Matzke: He said due to low floodplain elevations, homes in this area do not have basements which then leads to multi-level homes. He pointed out rebuild properties along Breezy Point as examples. He explained the elevation, flooding, sandbagging, and stated the rebuilding of this house would need to be above the floodplain. He commented on the amount of fill would be needed to the area to get above the flood plain. Applicant: David Zweber: Stated he is here with David Charlez Designs and on behalf of the applicant, as well as serving as the Architectural Designer for this project. He resides at 18190 Jannevar Court in Lakeville. He thanked Planner Matzke for laying out each of the details of this project and commented on the City Staff meetings, trying to better the project by reducing the impervious surface, garage size, driveways, pull back from the lake, attractive structure when rebuilt. Tieman: Asked how they will address the run-off to stay away from the neighbor, especially the one to the north. Zweber: Explained the current hard surfaces will be replaced with grass and that will absorb and channel the water. He made comments regarding snowplows in this area, snow storage, and the tight corner being grass as well. Ringstad: Asked additional questions regarding runoff and slopes on the sides of the house. Zweber: Replied they have not calculated what the exact grade will be; however, said it is a flat lot as it stands today, as the 908 mark that is desired is not much different that it currently is right now. He said there will not be a steep build up from elevating the house, there will be no basement as the house will be a slab on grade condition with the side yards being relatively flat. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 6:38 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4 Public Comment: Cathy Carlson: Explained the location of her property and asked about the flow of water away from the new structure. She mentioned flooding on her first level and questioned how many feet from the property line to the north side of the structure. Planner Matzke: Replied the applicant is proposing ten feet, which is the City’s typical setback. He explained the setbacks on the south side as well. Carlson: Questioned if that is standard. Planner Matzke: Replied correct. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 6:40 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad: He commented on the challenging lot and congratulated the applicant for addressing all the items fulfilled in the Staff Report. He said this is a nice improvement and reduction in impervious surface. He stated due to the size of the lot and the constraints, the variances requested are legitimate; therefore, he is in support of he requested variances. Fleming: Stated he will be supporting this agenda item with a slight caveator with explicit encouragement to Staff and the Developer that the grading issues are paid close attention to as the final platting is approached. He stated it does meet all our threshold criteria. Kallberg: Commented on the unique shaped, other variances along this peninsula, logical place to be upgrading, and off-street parking by adding the garage addition. He said this is not a huge difference from the adjacent properties and will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Tschetter: Commented on new construction/remodeling would most likely involve variances. He said he would like to emphasis that during the construction phase this would be the opportunity to build up neighborhood relations and permitting/inspections are working in the applicant’s favor, to make sure grading issues are addressed. He welcomed the applicant to the neighborhood; however, reiterated the importance of building good relationships in the process. Tieman: Stated he agrees with fellow Commissioners, as this is a very difficult lot. He shared his indifference of when he first saw this variance; however, he now sees the amount of good effort in making the right decisions for this neighborhood. He thanked the applicant on being a good neighbor. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCES REGARDING THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROEPRTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AT 15357 BREEZY POINT ROAD SE WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: A. Consider the proposed disposal of City-owned property at 17232 Sunset Trail SW – Proposed Disposal of City-Owned Property – Consider the proposed disposal of City-owned property at 17232 Sunset Trail SW and adopt findings as to compliance of the proposed possible disposal with the Comprehensive Plan. PID: 251340031. Director McCabe: Introduced the consideration of the proposed disposal of City-owned property located at 17232 Sunset Trail SW and adopt findings as to compliance of the proposed possible disposal with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a general location map, and property survey. 5 Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman: Asked who is responsible for maintenance on this property. Director McCabe: Replied the City is responsible for maintenance, as the City is the owner of the property; however, the two neighboring properties owners have been maintaining this property. He explained what maintenance issues the Public Works Department addresses, rather than the neighboring properties, but overall, the neighbors have been taking care of most maintenance on this property for many years. Tschetter: Shared his surprise in the initiation of this matter by the neighboring property owners and questioned if there is a process regarding what we have posted this site for potential disposal by the City. He questioned if the adjacent property owner knows about the City’s considering a sale and if so, is there any interest from other neighboring community associations or HOA’s to use this as a common property. He commented on appraisals, real estate market and asked for additional information regarding these issues. McCabe: Explained how the City was approached by the property owners to the South, Staff’s conversations with neighboring property owners regarding the property sale, that Staff is working with the City Manager and that this item has also already been presented to Council. He mentioned that Staff was not in support of selling this lot to an open market and pointed out the issues that could arise from that type of sale. He said presenting the offer to one of the two adjoining property owners would be the best option. He explained the difficulty with getting the appraisals, stating it is a non-buildable lot with existing utilities on it. Tschetter: Commented on the appraisal being flawed against the open market and thought it should be discussed with an open market. He mentioned the condo’s being constructed around town and commented on the pricing structure in the open market than on an appraisal. McCabe: Explained the different types of appraisals, pointing out there would be more than just one appraisal. He shared recommendations shared by the City Staff and City Council. Tschetter: Mentioned that he was exploring the extreme scenario; however, appreciates this parcel being adjoined with one of the adjacent properties; however, wanted to make sure it didn’t fall into a blind transaction that excluded the rest of the community from participating. He asked if the other adjacent property owner passed on this opportunity to pursue. McCabe: Replied that is correct. He explained the benefits for the property owner to the south to purchase this parcel rather than the property owner to the north. Kallberg: Shared concerns regarding an easement with a sanitary sewer line that is not in the easement. McCabe: Said very perceptive. Kallberg: Explained that the Watershed District had a lot of issues that were established in the early 80’s regarding an outlet channel. He explained the area that aerial photos were taken to point out these issues and stated in recent years a lot of upgrades were made along the channel. He commented on the channel being surveyed and property described and how much detailed work that took to get that straighten out. He said we can’t sell this lot to anybody for the purpose of building an addition to a home without correction of the easement situation. McCabe: Agreed and mentioned Staff’s awareness of the situation. He explained that is why it was surveyed, and the surveyor identified that area. He pointed out the Planning Commissions role tonight is only for conformance of this lot with the Comprehensive Plan; however, there are two other agreements. He explained the other agreements, stating it protects everyone from potentially buying/selling this lot to someone else. Kallberg: Said a new easement will be described to show the line in the center of that easement. McCabe: Replied correct, yes. Kallberg: Questioned if this new easement will be properly recorded. McCabe: Commented on Staff preparation of a vacate and explained the location of the pipe on that parcel. He said the legal description is accurate, except for a particular angle of the pipe, which will be corrected on the updated survey. Ringstad: Commented on the City’s approach regarding the replating of the parcel into one larger lot, stating this will allow the property to not be sold or built on, which resolves any issues immediately. He questioned having two appraisals, one from each party, and how do you reconcile the difference and get to an agreement. McCabe: Said due to the appraisals being public information, he could share the outcome, stating they were both close to the same amount. He explained the need for a second appraisal, stating both appraisal companies had qualified appraisers and pointed out what would have happened if the appraisals differed from one another. He explained the reasoning for a second appraisal. 6 Fleming: Congratulated his fellow Commissioners Kallberg and Tieman, stating he was also thinking about the appraisal puzzle as well as the issues that Commissioner Kallberg raised. He asked for clarification on what charge the Planning Commission is to determine if disposal of the parcel is in compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. He said just to be clear, he asked Director McCabe if he could explain why Staff believes that disposal of the parcel follows the Comprehensive Plan. McCabe: Explained what is being asked of the Commissioners action tonight, stating Staff doesn’t feel that the sale of this property would have any conflicts with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Fleming: Asked why this went to the Council before coming to the Commissioners. He asked if it is to have the Commissioners say, dispose of it as it complies. He asked if there is any context for this matter. McCabe: Explained the steps that this request went through, stating if a sale was approved at time of Council, Council would have approved a resolution; however, since there was additional time and this is an unique situation, and the Planning Commission may see similar items in the future, Staff decided it would be best to come to the Commissioners as well. Tschetter: Expressed his feelings of “going down a rabbit hole” regarding how the property is valued; however, explained how the Commissioners charter for this item is for the alignment of the Comprehensive Plan and this being a valuable discussion regarding the future of City owned properties in the Community. He said we have been talking about the predominance of park land in the community, etc. He commented on reducing operating expenses for the City being a goal we all share and residents taking on a formal obligation for this property. He said this is a great outcome. Fleming: Commented on the uniqueness of this item; stating, this does make sense. He said he will be supporting this agenda item and is hopeful a more relevant use of the parcel might have some mutual benefit for everybody concerned. Ringstad: Stated he will be supporting this agenda item. Tieman: Said he is in support of this agenda item being passed. He said he see no relationship between this and the total Comprehensive Plan; therefore, he supports this resolution. Tschetter: Said this is a great opportunity for us to lean out the operating obligation for the City and continue to shore up where our assets lie. Kallberg: Mentioned the limit of our authority is to find that it has no relationship to the City’s Comp Municipal Plan in light of the other issues, and according to the previous slide, believes the City Council can dispense with our review if it finds it has no relationship to the Comp Plan; therefore, it makes him wonder why it came to the Commissioners in the first place, especially since it was already heard at City Council. He said he agrees though, that it does not conflict with the relationship to the Comp Plan. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR DISPOSAL OF 17232 SUNSET TRAIL SW PROPERTY HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Tschetter, Fleming, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: Announcements: McCabe: Mentioned there are four public hearing items set for the March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting; therefore, there will be a meeting on that night. Fleming: Asked how many variances there will be. McCabe: Replied at least one, possibly two. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:03 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Absent were Fleming. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.