Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.08.24 PC Minutes1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, July 8, 2024 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tschetter called the Monday, July 8, 2024 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Jason Tschetter, Michael Pasquarette, Christian Fenstermacher, Mike Tennison, Doug Johnson, William Kallberg, and Dan Ringstad. Also present were City Council Liaison Victor Lake, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Planner Paul Moretto, and Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman. 2. Approval of Monday, July 8, 2024 Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD SECONDED BY TENNISON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 8, 2024 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Kallberg, Ringstad, Johnson and Tennison. The Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Monday, May 13, 2024, Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TENNISON SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 13, 2024, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Ringstad, Johnson, Tennison and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV24-000011- 14756 COVE AVE SE- Variance Application - On Behalf of the property owners. Jeffery and Jamie Belzer, Highmark Builders is requesting a Lakeshore setback variance. PID: 258010620) Planner Moretto: Introduced the application to consider a request from Highmark Builders, on behalf of the property owner Jeffery and Jamie Belzer, requesting a variance from the minimum lake setback to construct a pool. The Property is located at 14756 Cove Avenue SE along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake. Moretto discussed the history, current circumstances, and physical site characteristics of both the lot and the surrounding lots. Moretto also discussed the position of the lot lines and the applicants narrative discussing the modifications to the adjacent shoreline elevation. Staff supports this request and request and recommended the Board of Adjustment open the public hearing. Commission Comment/Questions: Tschetter: Asked if there are any records of permitted changes to the shoreline. Moretto: Replied that no records could be found. Checked with the county and no changes have been made there. The county still shows the original 904 ordinary high water level line. Tschetter: Asked if the same approach is followed when judging a setback on the adjacent property. Moretto: Replied that staff would follow the 904-contour line wherever it goes. McCabe: Described how city staff uses the spot elevations that the surveyors shoot in the field and those were compared to the 904 contour lines on Scott County GIS. Kallberg: Questioned the characteristics of the property and the large pond parcel. McCabe: Explained that the owner previously bought the pond parcel adjacent to Cove Avenue and combined it with their existing single-family home parcel. Kallberg: Questioned when the house was built. McCabe: Replied in the 2000s. Ringstad: Asked about the history of the adjacent property. McCabe: Replied staff did not find any variance for shoreland setbacks on the property to the south. Johnson: Questioned the accuracy of the overlay between the surveyors and the county. 2 McCabe: Explained that the comparison between the 904 lines of the surveyors and the County was to support the applicant's position that the shoreline has been altered. The city staff cannot verify the shoreline was altered. Johnson: Expressed his gratitude for having more than one document, but the survey seems to be the one to use for making these types of decisions. Fenstermacher: Questioned the approval process for changing the 904 line. McCabe: Explained that any work below the 904 line would require a permit from the DNR and above the 904 line would be the city's responsibility to approve. Fenstermacher: Asked if a permit would be needed to alter the shoreline. McCabe: Replied that yes, a permit would be required from the DNR. Applicant: Jim Moras (18591 Mushtown Road, Prior Lake): On behalf of the property owners, explained to the commissioners how the property lines have been altered. He discussed the characteristics of the pool and informed the commissioners about how the house previously on the south lot was closer to the setback than the proposed pool. He feels that this is a very strange situation. Tschetter: Questioned if setback averaging is considered for pools. McCabe: Confirmed that Moras was explaining that the structure on the property to the south was closer to the setback than the proposed pool then explained how they find the setback average for the two properties. Moras: Discussed that the principal structures on either side have a minimum of a 75-foot setback. They are requesting to encroach 8 feet into the setback to put in a pool. Kallberg: Asked what the percentage of the value of property this addition is worth based on the fifty percent of the structural value rule that requires the structure come into compliance. McCabe: Confirmed that if the cost of an addition is more than fifty percent of the principal structure property value, then it is considered new construction and the homeowners would have to apply for a variance, which is what they are doing. Kallberg: Commented on how the proposed pool could have a smaller east-to-west dimension. Johnson: Questioned where the setback is measured from. Moras: Replied from the water's edge in the pool to the 904 line. Tennison: Questioned the location of a second garage. Moras: Showed commissioners on the map where the second garage is located. Fenstermacher: Questioned why the setback is to the water's edge of a pool vs. the apron or wall. McCabe: Explained that a pool under city codes is considered a structure; however, since the walls are four feet or under, the wall does not qualify as a structure. Tschetter: Questioned the approval of a variance for this setback and the purpose of the setback. Moras: Told the commissioners that almost none of the houses in this area meet the 75-foot setback. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:38 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Kallberg, Ringstad, Johnson, and Tennison. The motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: Alice Frank, 6495 Kneafsey Street NE: Concerned about the narrow width of the road with construction vehicles and where they are going to park without inconveniencing neighbors. Tschetter: Confirmed with Frank that this is a construction vehicle concern. Frank: Explained that she would also like a timeline for how long the construction will last. Moras: Discussed where the construction parking will be off Oakland Beach Avenue and on the Belzer property. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:41 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Kallberg, Ringstad, Johnson, and Tennison. The motion carried 5-0. 3 Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Commented that the only thing they are voting on is the natural vs. altered 904 line for the setback. He also stated that the property owner could alter the size of the addition and would no longer need a variance. Ringstad: Mentioned that most variances are given out due to owners wanting to put on two-car garages or other necessities in Minnesota, especially in the winter. He expressed difficulty understanding how a 20 ft. by 40 ft. pool is a necessity rather than a want. Johnson: Commented on looking back at the survey and using that as a controlling document. He feels that the 904 line will change over time for many varied reasons. Tennison: Pointed out that from everything heard tonight, this is a particularly challenging request. He agrees that the house or pool does not need to be that big. Fenstermacher: Brought up the existing conditions of the 904 lines. He sees that as something already valid and does not see a reason to alter this. Notes that he would not be in favor of this variance. Tschetter: Mentioned four points to consider when considering a variance, and practical difficulties are the hard part for this variance. He notes that he would like to revisit this design to see how it will work in the real world. Moretto: Agreed that there are many iterations that have not been given much thought and suggested going back to work on that. Ringstad: Asked if the commissioners must vote one way or another or if tabling is an option. McCabe: Explained that tabling this is an option because they are within their 60-day review window. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD RECOMMENDING TABLING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT: Ayes by Tschetter, Kallberg, Ringstad, Johnson and Tennison. The Motion carried 5-0. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: None. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, JULY 8, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Kallberg, Fenstermacher, Johnson and Tennison. The Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant