Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.14.25 PC Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday April 14, 2025 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tschetter called the Monday April 14, 2025 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners Jason Tschetter, Dan Ringstad, Michael Tennison, Doug Johnson, Christian Fenstermacher, and Kate Yurko were present. Absent Michael Pasquarette City Council Liaison Ethan Hellier, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, and Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman were also present. 2. Approval of Monday April 14, 2025 Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD SECONDED BY TENNISON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY APRIL 14, 2025 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Monday, February 24, 2025, Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TENNISON SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2025, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Old Business: PDEV24-000031-14535 Pine RD NE – Resolution Denying a Variance Request- Approval of a resolution to deny a variance request at 14535 Pine Road NE Planner Moretto: Gave a brief introduction to the variance request. Moretto provided an overview of the previous variance request on the subject property and the previous Board of Adjustments action to deny the variance request in December 2024. Mr. Moretto summarized the proposed action tonight is to formally approve a resolution of denial. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to deny the variance. Commissioner Questions and Comments: None. MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO DENY THE VARIANCES REQUESTED BECAUSE THE BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS FINDS A LACK OF DEMOSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFCULTIES UNDER THE ZONING CODE CRITERIA VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Nays: Ringstad Motion carried 4-1. 5. Public Hearing A. PDEV24-000004 – 2917 Fox TRL NW –Variance – Property Owner, Chinh Van is Requesting an Impervious surface variance of 3.75% (PID 252970140) Planner Moretto: Introduced the planning item to request a public hearing to consider a request for an after-the-fact variance to allow the property owner to maintain an additional 3.75% of impervious surface. Moretto explained the current circumstances, physical site characteristics, and the variance criteria. City staff is recommending denial of the variance due to a lack of practical difficulty related to the land and the condition being created by the homeowner. 2 Commissioner Comments and Questions: Johnson: Asked if poly plastic is considered an impervious surface or if one sheet of plastic is considered pervious. Moretto: One layer of poly is considered pervious per city code. Ringstad: Acknowledged an anonymous comment letter was received from the public and asked if we accept anonymous comment letters. Questioned how many square feet 3.75% over the 30% represents. Moretto: We do acknowledge anonymous letters for consideration. However, it is hard to quantify its value because we cannot verify their relation to the project. In this case ten percent would be one thousand one hundred square feet, so one-third of that would be about 350 square feet. Tschetter: Questioned the removal of the deck and if the city has any guidance on how wet basements should be solved. Do we have a clear picture of what changes are needed to get under 30%. Moretto: No, the deck doesn’t need to be removed. We have multiple sources to help with wet basements but no specific recommendations for wet basements. If they removed the concrete area under the patio, we do think it would be enough to get to the solution (under 30%) we are looking for. Applicant: Chinh Van: Wanted to thank the commissioners for having him here tonight. Gave a brief timeline on when he bought the house and different issues they have run into without that patio under the deck such as mold and animal nesting. Explained the confusion over permits and his understanding that the HOA approval he received was all that was needed. He was unaware of the permitting process at the city and the impervious coverage requirements. Tschetter: Question if he has explored any options or consulted contractors about the water in the basement and if the contractor that put in the slab mentioned a need for City permits. Van: Stated that he has not looked for contractors for resolving the wet basement issue. Also explained that the contractor that put in the concrete never mentioned city permits. Tschetter: Question if there was any conversation between neighbors or the HOA about drainage. Van: Mentioned he did speak with the neighbor. Also noted that his property is the lowest in the neighborhood. Explained different ways he tried to get the water under control. Tschetter: Do the neighbors have concerns with the concrete slab. Van: Spoke to the neighbors to the side and they are okay with the concrete slab. Tschetter: Expressed his sympathy for the confusion. Surprised that the contractor didn’t mention city requirements or reviews. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:25 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Tennison Commissioner Comments: Tschetter: I am sympathetic to the situation that Mr. Van is in. Impervious surface creates a number of challenges with water quality risks and impacts to our community. I will have to vote to deny this. 3 Ringstad: Explained how if they approved of this variance then it sets a precedent for other citizens asking for forgiveness after already doing the project. I will also be voting to deny this project. Tennison: I agree with the comments that have been made and do think there are other mitigations and techniques to use. There are companies that can help support these types of issues and I intend to deny it as well. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM SUBSECTION 10 – 435 OF THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS ON A PROPRTTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2917 FOX TRAIL NE VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. B. PDEV25-000005 – 14535 Pine Road NE – Variance – Property owner, KJ Walk Inc. is requesting variances related to impervious surface coverage, side yard setback, front yard setback, ordinary high water level setback, and adjacent primary structure setback (PID 25040060) Planner Moretto: Introduced the public hearing to consider a recommendation of approval for a variance. Moretto explained the history, current circumstances, physical site characteristics, and proposed plan. City Staff is recommended approval of the request variance with conditions. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Yurko: Asked if the survey verified to confirm the accurate lot dimensions and elevation. Commented on the characteristics of the lot and questioned the timeline for the hardship of this lot. Asked if there was a reduction in square footage from the previous request. Moretto: Explained the survey was taken by a registered land surveyor and that was the current survey. Gave a timeline of event and stated it is up to the Board of Adjustment to decide if this is a reasonable ask for the property. Fenstermacher: Questioned if there was a slide showing what the property owner would have to build within under standard setbacks and requirements. It would be helpful to show what the owner is dealing with. Johnson: Is it possible to provide a summary of all the changes that have been made. How much has the square footage gone down. Did the foundation size change. Moretto: Provided the proposed reductions. Yurko: Commented the garage size was deceased but the driveway took its place so we aren’t seeing a decrease in impervious surface, rather just a decrease in building square footage. Moretto: Correct. Tennison: Questioned if the retaining wall is counted in the impervious surface as well. Moretto: It doesn’t count toward the impervious surface total. Tschetter: Questioned if this was posted and if there were any comments from the neighbors and what the comments were. The house size is a substantial reduction from the previous variance. Questioned about the wall on the side of the property and if the retaining wall is a structure for setbacks purposes and when that would be determined. Moretto: We did receive a comment from one neighbor. Impervious surface was the main issue for that one neighbor. 40.7% net, but gross was 37.03%, existing at 51.12% per survey that was provided. The wall holds back the hill and foundation. It is not considered in the setback variance today. This variance request is just for the home itself. McCabe: Noted the wall is included on the plan so the Board of Adjustments is aware. Portions of the wall will be greater than 4 ft., which is considered a structure in city code. 4 Applicant: Warren Israelson: Gave a brief description of his history in Prior Lake. Explained the changes he has made to the house since the last request. One major change was removing the entire second story. He thanked the commissioners for their consideration. Tschetter: What is the total square footage of the entire house. Israelson: Unsure of the exact number of the square footage. Explained that it is a rambler with a walkout basement. Yurko: Questioned if the finished attic is considered a second story. Questioned if this was still a two- story with walkout vs a rambler with a walk out. Israelson: Stated it is a two-story, if you consider the attic a story. Explained how he does not consider the attic a story from a builder’s standpoint. Tschetter: Questioned if there was any discussion with the neighbors. Israelson: Hosted a neighborhood meeting and only one neighbor came. Only concern was whether he was going to plant trees or not. MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:55 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:56 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner and Comments: Fenstermacher: Appreciates the changes that have been made. Thinks it’s a great use of the lot. Will supports this as he has done in the past. Tennison: Appreciate the reduction of the impervious surface. I will be voting in favor of this project. Johnson: Echo fellow commissioners and thanked the applicant for working with city staff to revise plans for something that will be better suited for the lot size. Overall, will be a nice improvement. Ringstad: I too will be in favor of the 14% impervious surface reduction, which is huge. This is a challenging lot. Thanked the owner for his efforts. Tschetter: You created the harmony we were looking for in the neighborhood. This is a challenging lot, and we appreciate your efforts to make the most of it. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM FRONTYARD AND CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND IMPEVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM RO ALLOW A SINGLE – FAMILY HOME ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENISTY RESIDENTIAL SHORELINE) ZONING DISTRICT AT 14535 PINE ROAD NE VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: 5 Announcements: There will be no Planning Commission Meeting on April 28th. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY APRIL 14, 2025, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:59 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant