Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 25 2022 PCM Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 25 , 2022 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tieman called the MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:0 0 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Dave Tieman, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter, Doug Johnson, Michael Tennison, and William Kallberg. Absent were Bryan Fleming. Also present were City Council Liaison Kim Churchill, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, City Planner Jeff Matzke, and Administrative Assistant Jess Erickson. 2. Approval of MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022 Agenda: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of June 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO APPROVE THE JUNE 13, 2022 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV 22-000021 – Request for Variance at 6500 Glascow Trail SE– Lito Mejia is requesting a variance from the minimum setback for construction on an existing dwelling. The property is located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake at 6500 Glascow Trail SE. Planner Matzke: Introduced the public hearing to consider a variance from the minimum lake setback on a property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning district. Matzke explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended a motion. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad: Asked if the requirement for a variance if construction costs are greater than 50% of the value applies only in the shoreland district or every residential property. Matzke: Replied it applies to every residential property. Tschetter: Asked is it just the structure value that you are considering for the 50% rule. Matzke: Replied correct structure value, not land value. Johnson: Asked does it matter what the proposed addition is. Matzke: Replied no. In this case the improvement is for more living space. Applicant: Lito Mejia 6500 Glascow Trail SE Responded about the need for more livable space, breezeway, wanted to take advantage of his lake property. Tschetter: Asked about future variance requests and about the back patio with no deck attached. Lito Mejia: Replied the front of the addition is the main garage and would be facing street, the rest would be a family room and loft area. The existing driveway would be subject to permits later and the current pavement would be removed. Tschetter: Asked the property owner about the overall intent and direction of the property. Lito Mejia: Replied he doesn’t see a need for any future variances. Tschetter: Asked the property owner if he is updating the existing structure. Lito Mejia: Replied just carpet. Matzke: Replied 50% of structure value changes overtime, making improvements to a structure raises the value higher. The intent of the rule is not to revamp the entire home. 2 Johnson: Asked if the existing driveway be torn out and replaced. Lito Mejia: Replied yes. Johnson: Asked about the plan off the back, would it require a deck. Matzke: Replied it would alter variance request, still not alter the pattern of 35 ft. setback. Johnson: Asked if new variance will include being able to build up to 35 ft from the lake with the new addition. Matzke: Replied correct. Lito Mejia: Commented that the driveway moving to the front would reduce impervious percentage. Johnson: Commended the property owner on improving a site versus tearing down. Kallberg: Asked why there is a green area shown on the plan in front of the garage door and about closing off the existing garage to make part of interior. Lito Mejia: The building design still needs to be completed to go to the next stage after the variance. Tieman: Asked about removing the existing driveway. Lito Mejia: Replied yes, removing the existing driveway will be reducing impervious surface. Kallberg: Asked staff what is the significant limitation for 64.1 ft. Matzke: Replied the Planning Commission can require the setback at 64 ft, give direction to approve allowance for a certain size of deck, stipulate condition of driveway, or you can table discussion of the item to a future meeting. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:33 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:34 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Stated that the motion includes there would be no more that 64.1 on this plan, and he can support the request. Tschetter: Stated he would propose a 50 ft setback. Tieman: Stated he would propose a 50 ft setback and when the new driveway is constructed the old needs to be removed. Ringstad: Stated he supports the variance requests with conditions. Johnson: Stated he agrees with the conditions and requirement for the old driveway to be removed. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED RINGSTAD BY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 6500 GLASCOW TRAIL SE WITH THE CONDITION THAT A DECK UP TO 14 FEET IN DEPTH IS ALLOWED NORTH OF THE PROPSOED ADDITION AND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA BE REMOVED WHEN THE NEW GARAGE LOCATION AND DRIVEWAY ARE CONSTRUCTED. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. C. PDEV 22-000019 – Public Hearing – Request for Variances 3195 Kent Street SW – Dean and Jodi Scholl are requesting variances from the minimum side yard abutting a street on a property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Planner Matzke: Introduced the public hearing to consider variance from the minimum side yard abutting a street setback for the construction of a residential dwelling on a property located at 3195 Kent Street SE. Matzke explained history, current circumstances, issue and recommended a motion. 3 Commission Comments/Questions: None. Applicant: Dean Scholl 3195 Kent Street discussed that they are trying to use the same foundation to speed up the construction process, it will save time and the insurance money is required to be spent with one year. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 6:48 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED KALLBERG BY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 6:48 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad: Stated he will be voting to support. Tieman: Stated he will be supporting. Tschetter: Stated reusing existing foundations to avoid disturbing the earth in the shoreland district. Kallberg: Stated agrees on use of existing foundation and will be supporting. Tieman: Stated this meets our criteria for variances. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED KALLBERG TO APPROVE VARIANCE AT 3195 KENT ST SE WITH STATED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, Tennison, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. D. City Code-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments- Section 1123– Consider amendments to Prior Lake City Code Section 1123, nonconformities, relating to rebuilding nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed by fire of natural disaster. MCCABE: Introduced the public hearing to consider text amendments to Section 1123 of the Prior Lake City Code related to nonconformities. McCabe explained the section of the zoning code related to nonconforming structures which are damaged or destroyed by fire or natural disasters that is inconsistent with Minnesota State Statutes. The intent of ordinance amendment is to address inconsistency between city code and state statute by omitting the need for a variance if the structure does not meet certain provisions of the zoning ordinance and ensuring city code language more closely matches state statue. Proposing zoning ordinance amendment provides necessary correction of an overly restrictive part of our zoning code. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked about why 50% of the required setback is included in the proposed language as to opposed to inside of lake setback or in excess of impervious surface. McCabe: Replied that is the language identified in State Statue . MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4 D AT 6:57 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. 4 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4D AT 6:58 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, Tennison, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Commission Comments/Questions: None. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1123 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. E. City Code-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments-Section 1141 – Consider a recommendation to the Performance Standards, regarding recreational equipment storage. McCabe: Introduced the public hearing to consider amendments to Prior Lake City Code Section 1141, Agricultural and Residential Performance Standards, related to Recreational Equipment storage. McCabe explained Subsection 1141.205 allows for currently licensed and operable winter recreational equipment to be parked on or adjacent to a driveway in the residential districts from November 1st to April 1st, licensed and operable summer recreational equipment may be parked on or adjacent to a driveway from April 1st to November 1st. At all other times, recreational equipment shall be stored in the rear or side yard. Requests for an exception are minimal, city staff feels this exception is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The proposed amendments will help accomplish one of the purposes identified in the zoning code, which is to enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the city , as well as one of the objectives of the City’s 2040 Vision and Strategic Plan, which is to address threats to community standards through code enforcement. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad: Asked if setbacks do not apply to storage or recreational equipment. McCabe: Replied setbacks apply during the off-season times. Johnson: Asked about blended use, such as a fish house and camper with dual season use. McCabe: Replied that is accurate and we take in consideration through Code Enforcement. If dual use than storage is allowed throughout the year. Johnson: Does Code Enforcement receive a lot of complaints regarding this matter. McCabe: Replied 12-20 complaints are received per year on recreation al equipment storage. Kallberg: Asked about travel trailer they could use it all year long. McCabe: Replied we go by case -by-case basis, Code Enforcement will be flexible with owners if the equipment is actively being used. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4E AT 7:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. CHAIRMAN TIEMAN INADVENRTENDLY SKIPPED OVER THE MOTION AND SECONDED AND IT WAS VOTED UNIAMOUSLY TO APPROVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4E AT 7:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 5 Commission Comments/Questions: None. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1141 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. F. City Code-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments-Section 1122-Consider Amendments to Prior Lake City Code Section 1122, Land Use Definitions and Conditions, related to a requirement for first-floor commercial uses in Multi-Family Dwellings within the TC, Town Center Zoning use District. McCabe: Introduced the public hearing to consider amendments to the definition of Dwelling, Multi-Family in Prior Lake City Code Section 1122, Land Use Definitions and Conditions. If approved by the City Council, the amendments would require first-floor commercial uses in Multi-Family Dwellings within the TC, Town Center Zoning Use District. McCabe explained the history, current circumstances, and recommended a motion. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Taking in consideration property next to City Hall, would it be exempted because of PUD. McCabe: Replied yes, the PUD process would allow flexibility. Tschetter: Asked if it were not a PUD, it would not meet the criteria of what is being proposed. McCabe: Replied yes, the Planning Commission would determine if it was a prime commercial lot to determine the amount of first floor commercial. Kallberg: Asked if the proposal next door was a PUD because it did not meet the minimum land area requirements. McCabe: Replied they requested a PUD to allow a few feet in height. increase in setbacks to be further away from sight lines and building materials. Tschetter: Asked if property on West Avenue would also be subject to this. McCabe: Replied yes. Ringstad: Asked if prime commercial lot is subjective for the Planning Commission or is there a hard definition. McCabe: Replied the definition “prime commercial lot” as a lot that due to its location, street or highway frontage, access, visibility, size and/or other features would be appropriate for commercial uses. As the town center expands over the years and other properties to in the transitional town center district are rezoned to TC, Town Center, some of those parcels may not be considered prime commercial lots. Ringstad: Stated the 1½ residential parking spots per unit is a great idea. Tschetter: Asked can we designate prime commercial lots in other parts of the city. McCabe: Replied the Planning Commission could consider it. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY NONE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4F AT 7:23 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Tieman, Kallberg, and Johnson. The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4F AT 7:23 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Tieman, Kallberg, and Johnson. The Motion carried 5-0. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman: Stated this is a good clarification to our City Code. 6 MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1122 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE, AS PROPOSED OR AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. G. City Code-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments-Section 1111-Consider Amendments to Prior Lake City Code Section 1111, Definitions to include a Definition for Watercraft and Restricted Watercraft. McCabe: Introduced the public hearing to consider amendments to Prior Lake City Code Section 1111, of the Zoning Code to include definitions which were unintentionally omitted during a recent code update. McCabe explained the history, current circumstances and concluded that the amendment is needed as there are currently references in the code to Watercraft and Restricted Watercraft: however, no definitions are provided for clarity. Commission Comments: Johnson: Asked if the definitions are taken from the DNR or the State. McCabe: Replied correct. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4G AT 7:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Tieman, Kallberg, and Johnson. The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4F AT 7:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Tieman, Kallberg, and Johnson. The Motion carried 5-0. Commission Comments/Questions: None. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1111 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING CODE. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Tieman, Kallberg, and Johnson. The Motion carried 5-0. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: Announcements: McCabe: Informed commissioners there will not be an August 8th Planning Commission Meeting and next meeting date will be August 22nd. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, JULY 25, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:27 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Ringstad, Tschetter, Johnson, and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Jess Erickson, Administrative Assistant