Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.28.24 PC Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 28, 2024 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tschetter called the Monday, October 28, 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, Michael Tennison, Michael Pasquarette and Christian Fenstermacher. 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, October 28, 2024 Agenda: MOTION BY TENNISON SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2024 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Tennison and Kallberg Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Monday, October 14, 2024, Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY JOHNSON SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2024, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Tennison and Kallberg. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV24-000031 – 14535 Pine RD NE – Variance Application - The property owner Bradley Rixmann and applicant, Warren Israelson, are requesting variances for an encroachment in the side yard setback, rear yard setback, front yard setback, adjacent structure setback, and an increase in impervious surface above the maximum 30% allowance (PID 250400060) Planner Moretto: Introduced the public hearing to consider a request for a variance for an encroachment to the front yard setback, side-corner yard setback, rear, ordinary high-water level, setback, adjacent structures setback, and impervious surface maximum of the property to construct a new house. Moretto also gave a detailed explanation of the current neighborhood and where the average setbacks are for the neighborhood. Moretto explained the current circumstances, physical site characteristics, future outcome, and is recommending approval of the variance. Commissioner Comments: Tschetter: Inquired about the location, condition and plan for the wall that retains the bluff on the east side of the lot and if there will be a deck on the new structure. McCabe: Reviewed the bluff condition, explained the conditions that constitute a bluff and regulations for walls and bluffs. Mr. McCabe described the limited nature of the bluff on this parcel. Mr. McCabe responded that there would be no further encroachment into the bluff beyond the existing condition. Tschetter: asked if there was a deck proposed on the rear of the home. McCabe; stated it would be a lower level patio, not deck is proposed. Pasquarette: Expressed concern about the stability of the wall and if the correction would be needed if there are issues. 2 McCabe: State the applicant would be required to complete an engineering study to identify how to stabilize the wall. This would be a requirement prior to the existing home being removed. Fenstermacher: Asked if the five-foot setback on the east side of the property is helping to stabilize the bluff. Moretto: That is correct. Tennison: Asked what the total square footage for the proposed new home would be. Moretto: did not have the information available immediately and will follow up with the information. Johson: Asked if a patio is being factored into impervious surface and about ordinances related to two driveways in one parcel. Asked about the dead-end to the lake and who controls this. McCabe: Stated the property owner would not have a paved rear patio but would add a platform decking material that would not be considered an impervious surface. Ordinances do not limit a parcel to one driveway; however, engineering standards recommend one driveway. Criteria is used to determine if a second driveway is an option and, in this case, the parcel would not meet those criteria. Two driveways were proposed by the applicant to decrease the total amount of impervious surface and to allow for three total garage stalls. The sum width of both driveways cannot exceed 24 feet. McCabe explained that the lake access near this lot is not a public accesses area and was dedicated as a platted access for the benefit of property owners within the subdivision. Ringstad: Answered Tennison question that the plan calls for about 2,100 sq. ft. which is about 500 sq. ft. larger than the current structure’s footprint. Kallberg: Expressed concern about the size and location of the home, the retaining walls on the neighboring property, and topography. Tschetter: Ask if these concerns will be addressed through the building permit. Moretto: These concerns would be addressed through the permitting process and conditions of the resolution. Johnson: Asked for clarification on the amount of square footage for the home. Moretto: The structure footprint area would be 2,178 feet based on the survey. Johnson: Asked how many stories the proposed house will have. Moretto: City code limits homes to three and a half with the levels starting at finished grade. Basements are subgrade. The applicant is proposing 2.5 stories above grade. Johnson: Questioned what the total square footage of the house is. Moretto: Deferred question to the applicant as to the overall total square footage. Applicant: Luke Israelson 14535 Pine Rd NE: Was in attendance representing the applicant. Israelson discussed how he understands the challenges that come along with the demolition of the house. He reviewed and understood the lot conditions including the soils, home and walls. Stated that there is nothing salvageable concerning the lot. 3 Tschetter: Asked for the applicant to expand on their plan for the stability of the soils, protecting the neighboring property as well as site logistics during construction. Israelson: Explained how the basement is not the full width of the home. Will be working with a soil engineer to determine how to address soil stability. Stated the home is two stories with a bonus room in the attic space. The roofline will be a standard roofline. Described the plan for site logistic and safety of the properties around the site. Materials will be brought in immediately prior to installation. Will be working with subcontractors to keep the site safe and clean. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:33 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Tennison and Kallberg Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: Jason Ramsey, 5994 150th St: Stated that he owns the neighboring lot and expressed concern about the lot being buildable and feels this is a self-created hardship. The property was purchased at a good price and now a request is being made for an impervious surface variance. Commented about the access to the lake being a deeded access for multiple people in the neighborhood. Concerns about traffic and the impervious surface coverage. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Tennison and Kallberg Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Questions and Comments Pasquarette: No additional questions or comments. Fenstermacher: Commented that this is a difficult lot to build on. The proposed project would improve the site but the home looks larger than needed. Understands difficulties with retaining wall and had concerns for the neighboring property. Understands this is a unique lot. Tennison: Challenging lot. Commented about 2,100 sq. ft. is not a large home. Johnson: Lots of challenges presented due to the lot size and location. Feels the size of the house is excessive compared to the size of a lot. Does not want to send a message that a small lot can be acquired and ask for any variances the property owner wants. Anticipates the home will be over 4,000 sq. ft. on a small lot. Is not supportive and feels the home needs to be downsized. Tennison: Asked for clarification on the total square footage. Israelson: The total home square footage is a little over 4,000 square feet. Tennison: Stated he misunderstood the size of the proposed home and agrees with commissioner Johnson that the size of the house is large compared to the size of the lot. Ringstad: Commented about there being an improvement in the overall impervious surface coverage and does not have a problem with the size of the home. Feels the variance criteria has been met and will be supporting. 4 Kallberg: This would be an approvement to the house that is there although standard setbacks are not being met. Stated this lot might be a better fit for a smaller house as this might not fit the size of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Israelson: Clarified the total square footage number includes the space above the garage. Commented on the lower level being narrower than the rest of the home. The applicant worked to reduce the footprint of the home. Trying to take a reasonable footprint and pack as much value and usable space as they could. Tschetter: Commented on the feedback received from the neighbors. Explained that this is a challenging lot to build on. Believes the variance criteria has been met due to the unique lot and unique challenges. This is a buildable lot and will be supporting. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FROM THE FRONT YARD AND CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK, THE SHORELAND SETBACK, ADJACENT STRUCTURE SETBACK, AND IMPEVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM TO ALLOW A SINGLE- FAMILY HOME ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT AT 14535 PINE ROAD NE. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, and Tschetter and Nays by Tennison, Kallberg and Johnson. Motion does not carry 2-3. Tschetter: asked if there was a motion to table the item to give the applicant time to adjust the plan. Planning Commissioners: discussed what additional information, such as floor plans or cross sections would be helpful for the commission. Johnson: Commented about his desire to see the overall footprint be reduced. Ringstad: Commented on giving the applicant and staff direction on a specific reduction in the size of the footprint. Pasquarette: Commented about getting more information about the surrounding properties to see what is comparable in the neighborhood; informational and not directional. Tschetter: stated the commission does not want to prescribe house design. MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO TABLE THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT TIME TO UPDATE THE PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS COMMENTS THEY HAVE RECEIVED RELATED TO OVERALL FOOTPRING AND SETBACKS. Vote: Ayes by Tschetter, Ringstad, Tennison, Johnon. Abstained by Kallberg. Motion carried 4-0-1. 5. Old Business: None. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: Commissioner Tschetter thanked Commissioner Kallberg as today was his last Planning Commission meeting and acknowledged his many years of service on the Planning Commission. 5 MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:52 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Tschetter, Tennison and Kallberg Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant