Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - 10.14.24 PC Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 14, 2024 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tschetter called the Monday, October 14, 2024 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those presents were Commissioners Jason Tschetter, Dan Ringstad, William Kallberg, Doug Johnson, and Christian Fenstermacher. Absent were Michael Tennison and Michael Pasquarette. Also present were City Council Liaison Victor Lake, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Planner Paul Moretto, Assistant City Engineer Luke Schwarz and Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman. 2. Approval of Monday, October 14, 2024 Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2024 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Monday, September 23, 2024, Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY KALLBERG SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2024, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV24-000029 – 2883 Spring Lake RD SW –Variance Application – Conrad Anderson of CLA Construction Inc. is requesting variances to encroach 5.2 Feet into the Ordinary High Water (Lakeshore) setback and 3.2 feet into the side yard setback (PID 251330860) Planner Moretto: Introduced the public hearing to consider a request for a variance to encroach 5.2 feet into the ordinary high water and 3.2 feet into the side yard setback. Moretto also gave a detailed explanation of the current neighborhood and where the median setback is for the neighborhood. Moretto explained the current circumstances, physical site characteristics, future outcome, and is not recommending approval of the variance. Applicant Conrad Anderson with CLA Construction Inc. and Mike Schipper, property owner: Stated property owners on both sides of the property will not be impacted by this variance. Explained they would like to enclose the current deck and construct a new deck in the rear yard. They explained the layout of the existing home making additions on other parts of the home difficult. Tschetter: Questioned why this wouldn’t work at the front of the home. Schipper: the addition will provide extra living space in the home and create a covered outdoor space. Explained that because the house is a split level and they only have about 12 feet to work with on the street side. The addition would provide laundry service and access to the outdoors on the same level. Tschetter: asked if staff explained the setback and why setbacks exist. Schipper: Yes, they did. Commented on the placement of the house in the center of the when it was initially constructed. They plan to remove impervious surface coverage to stay within 30% impervious allowance. Questioned the 52 ft. setback that was determined for the lot. Tschetter: Questioned if the shoreline was adjusted. Schipper: Not to his knowledge Tschetter: confirmed the average setback is 52 feet. 2 Commissioner Questions: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:19 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment None MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Comments: Fenstermacher: Commented on area being available for an addition and room for an addition without the need for a variance. Johnson: Commented on the lake setback averaging already providing a benefit to this property. Setback averaging is intended to slowly move houses back over time, not get closer to the lake. The request goes against what the city is trying to accomplish with setback averaging. Existing setbacks and house placement allow for an addition without the need for a variance if the plan was scaled down. Believes we need to stay within current setback averaging. Ringstad: Commented on the lot conforming to city standards and an addition can be done without the need for a variance. Stated this request seems like more of a want than a need. He doesn’t believe practical difficulty standard is being met and he will not be supporting the application. Kallberg: Commented on the existing house not meeting lake setback requirements and the placement of a house in the center of the lot is not a unique condition. Tschetter: Echoes fellow commissioner comments. Approval of variances is bound by statute and he does not believe variance requirements are being met. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM SUBSECTION 1130.403 OF THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2883 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW VOTE: Ayes Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. B. PDEV24-000030 – 15211 Edinborough Ave NE – Variance Application – Property owner Pamela Karahalios is requesting variances for 0.1-foot encroachment into the side yard setback and a 3% increase in impervious surface above the maximum 30% allowance (PID 250360350) Planner Moretto: Introduced the public hearing item 4B. Discussed that variance is for Pamela Karahalios Property owner. Mrs. Karahalios is requesting a variance for 0.1-foot encroachment into the side yard setback and to allow 33% impervious surface coverage. Moretto explained the current circumstances, physical site characteristics and recommended approval of the variances. Commissioner Questions: Moretto: Believes that this lot is being taxed as a Residential buildable lot. Tschetter: confirmed city code requirements for the combined setback is 15 ft. The applicant is proposing 5 and almost 10. Moretto: Correct 3 Tschetter: Asked if there was a reason the home is closer to one side yard setback. Moretto: Assumed the slope on one side of the lot may have impacted the home’s placement. Ringstad: Questioned if the lot is being taxed as a residential buildable lot. Moretto: Yes. Johnson: Asked if five feet is the minimum setback allowed. Moretto: Five feet is the minimum setback. Johnson: Asked about the maximum wall length. Moretto: Explained that Prior Lake requires a wall break for a long wall exceeding 60 feet; the applicants are proposing a 50-foot wall. Kallberg: Asked about the side yard setback request and if that impacts the impervious surface request as well. Moretto: The impervious surface issue is related to the driveway. Kallberg: Commented about the address on Edinborough Ave. and the access is from Quacker Trail. Moretto: Explains the original plat and the access being provided by a private Drive. Staff is recommending an address be assigned from Quacker Trail. history of the lot. Decided that the best route for the address. Tschetter: Questioned if the Quacker Trail is a public or private street. Moretto: A city street. Applicant Pamela Karahalios, 14440 Round Lake Blvd. Andover MN and son Ryan (son) lives on Lords St. in Prior Lake: Told commissioners that Planner Moretto’s summary of the site and request is accurate. Tschetter: Asked the applicant to explain the request for an additional 1/10th of a foot setback. Ryan: Explained that is was mainly functional to get a decent size garage, driveway and house. The plan was evened out at 30 ft. by 50 ft. Tschetter: Questioned why nothing happened since this variance was originally approved in 2017. Ryan: Stated he was involved in the previous variance and was working for that applicant who decided not to build. He purchased the property and is selling it to his mother for her home. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:35 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: Keevan Simmons, 15325 Edinborough Ave: Does not support the variance requests and does not feel anything should be built on this lot. Unhappy with how close to the house is proposed to the side property line. Asked about how the property will be accessed and if the property owner will be paying for the use of the roads. Commented on property values being lowered by this home. Ryan: Explains that house will be very minimal and functional. Explains that the road referenced is used by the watershed district for access to the outlet structure. Wants to work with the neighbor to make sure this project does not impact them. Tschetter: Asked about the style and construction of the home. Ryan: Explains the details of the home. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:40 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tennison, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. 4 Commissioner Comments: Fenstermacher: Commented on the lot size and lot standards when the property was platted in the 1920’s creating a difficult lot to work with. He understands the limitations on the lot and feels the proposed variances are minimal Johnson: This is a small and narrow lot and the variance requested is nominal for a modest home on a small lot. The house is being matched to the size of the lot. No problems with the variances requested. Ringstad: this is a buildable nonconforming lot. The request is modest, and the applicant has brought forward a product that will fit well. He will be supporting. Kallberg: Commented on the unusual location of the lot. Request is minimal and he will be supporting. Tschetter: Commented on previous construction projects in this area requiring a variance. Supports reasonable construction and will be supporting the request because it meets the requirements in statute to approve a variance. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY JOHNSON APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIDEYARD SETBACK AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SUFACE FAR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Old Business: A. PDEV24-000024 – 13755 and 13855 Crest Ave NE – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan - Prior Lake Development, LLC is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan for a development to be known as The Villas at Crest Woods, consisting of 90 single-family, villa and rowhome lots (PID 259240025 and 259240023) Planner Moretto: Shared a presentation highlighting revisions the applicant has made to a residential subdivision plan that was reviewed at the last planning commission meeting. The overall density was reduced from 98 to 90 units. Moretto commented on the units that were removed, parking that was added, highlighted revised plans provided by the applicant and acknowledged neighborhood feedback city staff and the planning commission has received following the public hearing. Questions: Johnson: Asked about the density calculation which includes the larger single-family parcel with only one home on it. Johnson confirmed that land area is included in the density calculation and asked how large that parcel is. McCabe: confirmed that land area is included in the density calculation and estimated the parcel to be approximately 3 acres. Johnson: commented on a large portion of the buildable area is being calculated in the net buildable area but will only be occupied by one residential unit. Fenstermacher: Questioned the access to the rowhomes north of 138th along and asked if there was another access option along 138th instead of Jackson St. Questioned if there were restrictions for an access close to an intersection. Schwarz: Replied the city does have spacing requirements that must be met near an intersection. If access was allowed on 138th it would likely need to be right in and right out only. Fenstermacher: Commented on an access option along 138th would be a way to isolate the rowhome portion of the development from the rest of the neighborhood and convert the rowhomes along Jackson St. to villa lots to address safety concerns related to the number of driveways near the Jackson St./138th intersection. Understands the separation requirements from an intersection. Understood the previous plat proposal had single family homes proposed along 138th St. and the rowhomes now proposed along 138th eliminates conflict points with multiple driveways. 5 McCabe: commented the previously recommended plat for 61 lots was found to not be economically viable by the developer so they need to evaluate what density is needed to fund the street and infrastructure cost. During the review of the revised site plan, public works staff recommended the single- family homes previously proposed along 138th be replaced with rowhomes to eliminate driveway conflict points. Kallberg: Asked what the minimum number of dwelling units is to make this project feasible. Also asked about area of existing home being incorporated in the overall density for the development. McCabe: Stated the previous plan by the developer was to remove that home and construct two new single-family homes. Discussed access issues for that portion of the development and stated the developer has since made repairs to the home and is now proposing to sell the parcel. Kallberg: asked if there was an option to further subdivide the large single-family lot in the future. McCabe: Yes, there would be an option to further subdivide that lot in the future. Applicant: Adam Seraphine, applicant: Discussed the stand-alone house proposed for resale. Commented on a desire to remove the house or add more units in that area, but it is not an option. The level of infrastructure required is substantial and more units are needed to fund those improvements. They have been through several plan revisions, and they have put their best foot forward with this plan that is financially feasible. The project must be profitable to the company for them to proceed. Tschetter: Goal is to get this project going and have harmony with the existing neighborhood. Spoke on the challenges with infill development. Asked about the existing home proposed for resale and asked if improvements were made to the home. Seraphine: They struggled with previous plans and requirements to keep the driveway access 500 ft. from the intersections. Trouble is getting density in that area, so it made sense to remodel the home. Tschetter: Commented on that being a potential location for some of the rowhomes. Seraphine: Stated due to topography and grade elevations, rowhome construction would be difficult in that area. Tschetter: Questioned circulation in the rowhome area off Jackson Street. Acknowledged units have been removed and parking stalls added but asked about pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Seraphine: sidewalks and walking paths provide pedestrian access. Parking was added to the north side which could be connected by pedestrian trails. Will work with public works and fire to look at creating emergency vehicle only access from rowhome area to 138th. Tschetter: asked about the proposed screening and other transitions between existing homes on 138th and rowhomes and existing villas to the north and this development. Seraphine: Stated they have removed units and increased tree cover to protect the view corridor. Villas along Wildflower way will be a like type to exist and there is a distance between Jarett Ct. and other units to the south. Also mentioned significant distance between existing villas and proposed new units with wetland and significant vegetation between. Tschetter: Asked about the transition between single family homes and existing townhomes on Lupine Trail. Seraphine: The developer will need to create harmony between those units. Tschetter: Asked if there was consideration in having rowhomes along Lupine. Seraphine: yes, a previous plan did have rowhomes along Lupine. With new wetland buffering requirements, rowhomes do not appear to work along Lupine Trail. Tschetter: Questioned the number of driveways proposed in the area of Jackson St. and 138th and asked if those can be reduced. Commented on the six unit building being repositioned to a private drive to eliminate conflict points. Seraphine: There is about eight feet of elevation change which creates sone issues for a drive. An old concept plan included a clubhouse in that location but that did not work due to parking and driveway issues. Tschetter: Asked if there was an opportunity to use the greenspace near the existing single family home to accommodate some of the density needed to make this project work without a concentrated density in one spot. 6 Seraphine: commented on the appearance of more buildable area than actually exists when grade changes are factored in. Additional density is difficult in this area due to the wetland buffering requirements and steep slope of land. Fenstermacher: Asked if it was possible to access the rowhome units north of 138th from 138th and convert the rowhome units along Jackson St. to a villa product. Seraphine: believes the intersection of 138th and Jackson is as far west as it is allowed to be. Schwartz: confirmed the intersection spacing. Johnson: asked to confirm this was originally approved for 61 units. McCabe: Correct. The development had preliminary approval for 61 units. Johnson: Asked why that project did not move forward. Seraphine: Due to the economy and Covid. Ringstad: Asked if a builder has been identified for the project. Seraphine: Commented on a builder he has been working with and who is a preferred builder but has not formally been selected. Tschetter: Commented on a desire to find a path forward and asked if the revisions discussed at the meeting can be made and keep the project financially feasible or is that pushing it too far. Seraphine: We are on the boarder of pushing too far and making this not feasible. Commented on difficulty keeping everyone happy. Reducing units would be helpful but would make the project not financially feasible. Tschetter: Acknowledged not everyone will be pleased. Commented on it being important to the city and the neighborhood that 138th and the connecting streets get completed. Would like to find a way with the least amount of disruption and doesn’t think it is fair or realistic to expect no townhomes in this development. Does feel there are opportunities to improve the plan. Seraphine: Commented on this revision being their best effort. Units have been removed and he is unsure what else could be given on this project and still wanting to proceed. Does not want to have an approved project they cannot afford to develop. Tschetter: Asked if tabling this action to allow further revisions would be helpful. Seraphine: Does not believe so. Commissioner Comments: Kallberg: We cannot ignore the feedback we have received since the public hearing. Many unsatisfied concerns. Rowhomes along 138th reduce driveways but not units or cars. Commented on traffic circulation issues in cluster rowhome area north of 138th. Ringstad: Acknowledged the applicant has made effort to revise the plan. Financial consideration is not a reason to approve a project. Feels significant revisions are still needed, too many rowhomes are still included in the plan and he cannot support the plan presented. Johnson: This is a tough development. Neighboring property owners have shared reasonable concerns. Residents understand development is needed and are only asking for a project that has harmony with their current neighborhood. Thanked the developer for their efforts to address the concerns expressed. The development is too dense and overall density is skewed. Supports a plan closer to 60 units. Will not be supporting this proposal. Fenstermacher: Appreciates the developer’s effort to address concerns. Commented on removal of driveways along 138th and the rowhome product makes sense there. Still has trouble with transition from villas to rowhomes. Understands need for density to pay for additional infrastructure. Acknowledged need for 138th to be completed for the benefit of the neighborhood. Tschetter: Commented on a site visit to the property and terrain of the land. Commented on the likelihood of a future development being more dense than the 61 unit plan previously approved. It is already a dense neighborhood. Safety, access, flow and harmony need to be addressed. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PUD TO BE KNOWN AS THE VILLAS AT CREST WOODS. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, and Kallberg. Opposed by Fenstermacher 7 Motion carried 4-1. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: None. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:33 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant