foreign welcome to the Monday January 9th 2023 Planning Commission meeting please rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all welcome to the meeting everyone uh one note today commissioner cheddar is not with us so commissioner Tennyson will be a voting member tonight with that any additions or changes to the meeting agenda today no seeing none can I get a motion in a second to approve today's agenda oh a second we got a motion by kohlberg second by Tennyson all those in favor say aye aye today's agenda is approved that item number three approval the Monday December 12 2022 meeting minutes any changes deletions seeing none I will take a motion to approve the Monday December 12 2022 meeting minutes okay we got a motion and a second ringstad and callberg all those in favor say aye aye aye the meeting minutes are approved tonight we have two public hearings uh one of those is a variance request with that on behalf of my fellow Commissioners and staff I'd like to welcome everyone to review the procedure we'll use tonight first staff will present its report on the request and the planning Commissioners will have an opportunity to pose questions next applicant we'll have the opportunity to address the commission and Commissioners can respond to the applicant with comments and questions following the applicant's presentation that will open the floor to a public comment if anyone would wish to address the commission I'd ask that they please approach to Podium press the red button to turn on the microphone and clearly State the name and address for the official record we please ask that you limit your comments to five to seven minutes this meeting is the official public hearing and your primary opportunity to be heard on the matter the city council has no obligation to accept further public comment in many cases do they not so please speak up one of the items of tonight is a variance request in the variance request acting as the board of adjustment has the authority to prove or deny the request without sending the matter to city council however any affected party can appeal the decision of this board all appeals are heard by the city council if you choose to file an appeal you must forward your appeal and writing to the planning department within five business days from the date of this evening's hearing and with that I will turn it over to staff for 14 500 Shady Beach Trail variants thank you very much Mr chairman members of the Planning Commission as you said this item before you tonight public hearing is in fact for a variance application request at 1400 or 14 500 Shady Beach Trail a lot of our variance requests that we have do involve Lakeshore properties in many cases they involve pretty unique shaped in uh shaped and sized properties this is definitely fits the bill for that situation of a uniquely shape and size lot as you can see here from the aerial photo this address at 14 500 Shady Beach Trail is located at the end of what is a peninsula that hangs out into lower Prior Lake Shady Beach Trail comes down to the South here actually winds around turns around back to the north and is this looping cul-de-sac here if you would that comes out into lower Prior Lake so that there's a shallow bay in between the mainland and in this area here and what is proposed tonight is the house that's at the very end of this um at the very end of this cul-de-sac and at the very end of this peninsula that hangs out into the lower Prior Lake so the property is not quite 9000 square feet 89.58 square feet and it's zoned R1 low density residential and obviously is within our Shoreland District since it's on the shores of Prior Lake the applicant tonight's requesting three variances I'll go into a little more detail but they're listed here the first one is from the lake setback or the setback distance to the 904 to the structure they're proposing a 25 foot variance or basically half of what the required 50 foot is the impervious surface maximum is 30 percent of the total lot area above a 904 elevation and there it's they're proposing 37 and a half percent and then the other one is the vehicular access elevation for a flood plain and before I switch the slide I'll just explain that one quickly because I have it on the screen here that one is due to the fact that our floodplain elevation which sits at 9-0 um 905.9 or 906.9 actually basically it's saying that it shouldn't be any lower than two feet below our floodplain elevation so that if you were driving a vehicle into the area um the uh the access to the property would not be lower than two feet of the Prior Lake flood plain in the case of this entire Peninsula and this whole cul-de-sac the street has been at that elevation on this 905.3 or around that elevation for the better part of more than a decade uh or I'm sorry more than at least a half a century actually these houses were built in the 1950s a lot of them were cabins at that time but that's when this area of Prior Lake was developed and so you may recall that when we did have flood waters in 2014 this place was inundated a little bit with those flood waters along the street areas but at this time we haven't upgraded any any Street improvements so pretty much this is their access into the site so that's why that variance is there because if this was a street bill today we would be building this street a little higher elevation obviously for this for this property to get into um more more so that floodplain ordinance code is there so that we don't set new standards for new streets and new properties that are being constructed below that elevation to get into the access so to look first at the existing site and the existing house that is there today the existing house a little bit more of a sprawling house it is basically the 1955 existing house that has been added on to with a garage and some various additions over the years to modernize it into a more Four Season house it has pavers on the on the back side of it as well as some extensive decking system it also has a very large driveway that driveway is this whole area that you see right in here goes all the way over here towards the the 906 elevation it's much wider here as it approaches the the uh cul-de-sac a Shady Beach Trail and so there's a lot of impervious surface in involved with this area in fact looking at the impervious surface numbers this area has got closer to 65 to 70 percent coverage of impervious surface on the lot when you're counting up the pavers the house the driveways some of the other sidewalk areas that are included with the property so the what the applicants proposing to do is to basically restart with a new housing pad new driveway removing the pavers in the decking area as well and basically re-grading the the lot making it a little bit more efficient not only to the flood plain but to the for the housing pad generally overall so as you go to the proposal the applicant has selected a house design that's more centrally located on the lot you can see the driveway as it comes out is much more narrower at 12 feet as it approached Shady Beach Trail so it's a lot more linear area so reducing the driveway considerably and eliminating quite a bit of hard surface there removing the pavers removing the decking system in the back that would probably most likely look to put some other Landscaping in some platform Decks that are more at grade those decks do not count as part of structure setbacks so you can put more of a platform in the in the backyard to do that for some sitting areas usually advantageous on that especially with these impervious surface variants Lots because the decking material is not impervious surface whereas if they used a patio that would be impervious surface percentages and so the applicant's aware of not looking to put any paver patios in the in the rear yards along the uh Shoreline of Prior Lake so as you can see that the house is put a little bit closer to the the side property line 5.83 feet actually would be their minimum setback given this house because they do have a longer wall here but they don't need the variance to this this is this does meet our city code from a from a house side yard setback standpoint but what they're looking at more is the Lakeshore and the setback distance to the lake I'll go back where I'm sliding as you can see the existing houses it says today is about 18 feet as its closest point to the lake but it does sit around that at that 23 22 though those ranges of setback distance as you go around the existing house so the newer house the proposed house pulls that back a little bit further from the lake so it's 30 feet on the north side of it you can see 27 and a half here as close as 25 on this side and as you can see the other houses in the area have very similar setback distances to the lake so the applicant was 2 choosing to mirror what is more in within character of the neighborhood here as far as setback distance to the lake and trying to bring the house as far as they could to the interior of the lot with bringing that that proposed design they even share show kind of a stair-step back house design as the 904 comes around here on that area as well the uh this right here in front of you is is just a conceptual rendering that the applicant has provided us again it's a two-story home but this house as I mentioned with the floodplain access the house has the same situation in looking at a lower level it cannot have a lower level because of the flood plain situation so when you're looking at these types of houses you need to build a multi-story type of situation to get your square footage in the house in other words they don't have a basement to put storage in or other aspects of that so that's why the the house design um looks looks like this and to be a little bit bigger in the floor plan in some cases we do see these a little larger floor plans that might include an impervious surface variants for the rationale or reason that they they can't get square footage on three floors or at least a lower floor plus two main floors because of that that flood plain requirement and that would that's something that we're very firm on as well as FEMA is we would not allow a finished basement today in in the actual flood plain to be constructed for a new home so looking at the variance criteria that's uh before you tonight it's the same criteria that we use to analyze all of our variance requests there's four set criteria here basically that variances shall only be permitted when they're in harmony with the purpose of our code there can need to be consistent with our comprehensive plan they're granted when the applicant establishes what we call practical difficulties and those difficulties as a result of the shape size of the lot the lot conditions the general character of the neighborhood is not altered and economic considerations or costs are not the the alone thing that constitutes the the need for our variance because something might cost too much to do otherwise so when looking at those criteria before you and and the house design that the applicants chosen staff does support this design as you saw in your report tonight we do feel that the the house is of a reasonable size even though the variances do show to be seven and a half percent above our impervious surface requirements and as close as 25 feet to the lake we feel the applicant has chosen a reasonable size house and put it in a location that best suits that property the longer driveway is part of the reason that constitutes a little bit more impervious surface that you would find on a typical driveway but the applicant is choosing a design that's drastically reducing that driveway with and and area as much but they they just can't bring it forward to reduce that driveway any further because then it would make a closer setback and pinch that corner as well so with that the applicant is here tonight if you have any questions for them and we'll take any questions you have for us thank you thank you Jeff um I have no questions commissioner Colberg yeah where is the point where the vehicular access is below the floodplain I don't understand that point sure commissioner kalberg basically it's at the uh at the uh cul-de-sac exactly this radius here it shows at a nine 905.3 so the street itself is actually below that uh vehicular access as it sits today so where basically where the driveway meets the street is the low point they're raising the grade coming up from the driveway so the house driveway as it runs across 906 here and gets higher that area is all going to be set out of the flood plain the house will be out of the flood plain will be built to to flood plain standards so in essence if we had a hundred year flood event similar to what we nearly had in 2014 these houses this house would be elevation high enough to not be impacted although the street might once again be impacted but again the Street's been there for the better part of a century so so the solution to that problem would be to raise the street that is correct that would be so the long-term solution would be to eventually raise the street and consider that yeah all right thank you uh commissioner Johnson I just have a question on the a platform deck setback are there any existing setbacks from the 904 platform decks commissioner Johnson yeah that's a good question so platform decks by definition both from a building code perspective as well as our city code are is a deck that does not have a floor elevation of the decking to be above 30 inches off the ground and it cannot be attached to another structure so it could be attached to the house or or garage or building um the by doing so they don't need to uh have a building code requirement to have a building permit they can be placed you know on floating footings themselves and since it's not defined as a structure by our both our building code and our city code it doesn't need to meet those structure setbacks that including the Lakeshore uh they cannot be built over the 904 but they could be built and up to it or nearby the 904 elevation as I said as well they're not impervious surface so a lot of people utilize them as a possibility for a sitting area when they're pinched for impervious surface limitations like this and then is the the existing decks I believe were counted as part of the current impervious surface calculation because they are attached to the house the existing decks were counted because in and around some of those existing deck areas um there are some hard surface areas below them as I said this kind of has been modification over the years and remodeled um so what was once more hard surface and patios they started converting to decks sometimes you cover up a patio with a deck and those type of things the applicant I'm sure can go to a little more details but I believe they're they're planning to remove all of that material from the site okay no further questions commissioner Tennyson I have no questions to mucker my only question is more of a curiosity I think but the access gone to the the Shady Beach Trail it appears it's going across the neighbor's property and I noticed in the in the in the discussion there the uh the report there was mentioned that the neighbor is a part of it but I'm just curious with that going across the property is there normally a access easement required for that yes that's a good question we are in talks with the applicant on that through the building performance process about looking into it acquiring that type of an easement situation now in some cases um I'm obviously not a legal attorney myself but there are um situations where you have um access and it's been there for quite some time um that uh those types of prescriptive rights are are set for for Access through an area but the applicant as mentioned in the narrative has been in discussions with the neighbor I think they said the neighbors actually uh in in favor of it or it likes the fact that uh the driveway will be considerably reduced across that property and further with that is is that when a neighbor's driveway comes across your property like that does that account against your own previous service yes it can and I think that's the very reason why the neighbor would be uh in favor of reducing that impervious surface as it approaches across that property onto uh onto this site no other further questions and commissioner ringstead no questions would the applicant like to address the commission on anything please press the red button and then state your name and address for the record Pinnacle family homes and I live at 5100 Condon Street in Prior Lake in regards to the easement we've looked at the title work and there was an easement that was created the buyer of the property um looked into that before he actually purchased so there there is uh easement already for that it does count against your own impervious because I have that on my own property which is kind of unfortunate but that just is what it is but with our new driveway you know we're going to be positively impacting the neighbor by about three four hundred square feet of impervious service that he will pick up okay so um in regards to the impervious we move the house as far forward as we possibly could um to try and lessen that amount of hard surface I looked like a normal driveway in Prior Lake you know if it's 26 feet wide 25 feet from the curve would be about 625 square feet you know we're closer to 900 and some square feet because of our setback and um from Shady Beach Trail so this is about our fourth rendition on plans trying to get us Compact and work within the guidelines that you know were given by the city so we hope can work for everybody thank you anybody any questions for the applicant see you then thank you very much all right thank you with that I will take a motion in a second open the public hearing on this agenda item so move second we got a motion by ringstead second by Johnson all those in favor say aye aye aye motion we have public hearing open I see no one else in the chambers so I'll ask one more time anyone want to approach the podium I just don't see anybody still so I think we can take a motion in a second to close tonight's public hearing almost second a motion in a second Tennyson and Johnson all those in favor say aye aye aye public hearing is now closed nope okay uh let's go to commissioner comments and let's start with commissioner kalberg um and I just want to clarify the removals include a deck a porch a paver area and a concrete area the proposed House shows no Dex are we going to be looking at another variant someday for a deck on this house or is there yeah if you could that'd be good I'm not clear on what appears to be some platforms or something Our intention is to remove all the hard surface that is currently there um all decks all patio pavers um we understand with receiving this variance if we get it we cannot do any Decks that can be attached to the property Our intention is to put a platform um outside of the not attached to the building so that people would have a deck not a deck but a low-lying platform no more than 30 inches off the ground so um yeah we understand there's no we don't have any wiggle room as far as a hard surface to deal with on this perfect this platform doesn't count as impervious if it's at the gaps as long as we've got a quarter inch Gap in between the the boards were generally good thank you all right and I have no concerns with this uh variance uh pass it on to other Commissioners commissioner Johnson got I guess just maybe more comments than anything I I know Pinnacle builds beautiful homes and I have no doubt that this will be one of them I do like the fact that this is an improvement over current situation um I I do think that reasonable you know square square feet is is a relative term I'm also not a big supporter of going too far over the impervious limits um I know that if you've got you know a conforming lot that there's absolutely zero um usually zero room to go over the 30 percent so to be going uh uh from 30 to 37 percent uh 20 percent um seems a little bit excessive but I believe that the lot you know as it stands there's probably not a lot of ways to get around that other than reducing the size of the house I have no further comments commissioner Tennyson uh the only thing I'd say I just appreciate the um you know the improvements with the the setbacks and the you know the impervious service the best you can do with the lot like this it's kind of a strange lot commissioner fence democker I do think these uh variances are very reasonable and seem to really make an improvement he's especially um the slot as well as like the neighbor as well so sounds like a good solution and commissioner ringstead I agree with all the previous comments 8 900 square foot lot presents challenges by definition and when we see a reduction in impervious surface beyond that looks like a win for everybody so I'll be supporting it tonight great um with that and I also want to point out that we did meet all the normal standards for our variances so with that I will take a motion in a second to approve the variances for 14 500 Shady Beach Trail Northeast with listed conditions second we got a motion a second carlberg and Tennyson all those in favor say aye aye motion is approved with that we will go to item 4B text amendments Prior Lake City code sections 1142 and 144. turn it over to Casey thank you chair good evening commissioners so a little background this item or some versions of it has been in front of the Planning Commission over the past few months it started as a result of Staff identifying a few challenges with commercial buildings that were proposed for Prior Lake that didn't meet our our current design criteria and in a couple of these examples were buildings that were built in several other communities so as staff we felt it was time to take another look at our design standards we brought that to the Planning Commission during their October 24th meeting Commissioners discussed discussed potential revisions at that meeting and ultimately direct approved emotion directing staff to initiate proposed amendments to sections 1142 and 1144. the Planning Commission also held a work session on November 14th to discuss potential amendments and with that direction staff prepared the red line changes that are attached to your reports so the only real change in 1142 was removing the Town Center design standards entirely and placing them in 1144 which is our architecture standards so the the Town Center the commercial the industrial and the multi-family standards are now all proposed to be located in the same place the meat of the changes was in section 1144 so attached to your reports you had a red line document showing all the changes it was almost entirely Redline so we also attached a clean copy maybe for easier easier review 1144 as it exists today includes a combined design standard category for multi-family commercial and Industrial properties we are proposing to amend that so there is one section specific to multi-family one section specific to Commercial Business Park industrial and then also adding the Town Center design standards from 1142 into this section previously 1144 only had a reference to where the Town Center design standards could be found elsewhere in the code so it just kind of cleans it up a little bit to put them all in the same location so I'll go through each of the multi-family and then the commercial in the Town Center uh the the primary changes for so for multi-family we created its own section eliminating the Commercial Business Park and so some of the language that was in there related to types of roofing materials outdoor storage areas fuel tank canister regulations that didn't apply to multi-family were removed we're also proposing that fiber cement siding be added as an approved exterior material it was not previously listed provided that no more than 50 percent of any exterior wall abutting a right-of-way are no more than 75 percent of a wall that does not have butter right away would be that material architectural accent materials we're proposing pre-finished metal or wood that we see from time to time would be allowed provided no more than 25 percent of any individual wall we added a few X exterior materials that would be prohibited plywood reflective or mirrored glass aluminum siding vinyl siding that were not previously in there and we also proposed adding a color section uh previously no color regulations are in the code this would require subtle neutral muted Building colors allowing for bright primary or accent colors to be on a Max of 10 of the building facades for Commercial Business Park and Industrial design standards here you see a couple examples of discussions we've had as staff commercial buildings that didn't quite meet it but you do see elsewhere throughout the Metro again fiber cement siding which is the predominant material on both of these would be allowed up to 50 percent of any wall that abuts a public right-of-way and no more than 75 percent on walls that do not abut right away accent materials again pre-finished metal and wood were added as a permitted materials provided that no more than 25 percent of the wall was made of those materials again the same prohibited materials were included as well as the same proposed color section for Town Center design standards so the current ordinance and all of our town center which is our our downtown core area requires a minimum of 80 percent of facades to be brick stone or glass and 20 can be other accent materials we are proposing that would provide greater flexibility with Building Materials in other areas of the Town Center not on Main Avenue and Dakota Street and we'd you know welcome a discussion with the Planning Commission on what area if you feel is appropriate what area of these boundaries should be so for buildings on Main Avenue and Dakota Street staff is proposing to maintain that same requirement of 80 brick stone glass and allowing 20 percent of other materials um we did it add additional materials for 25 percent of the facades just to provide a little more flexibility whether that's stucco or Eaves um architectural concrete panels fiber cement siding or color impregnated block side or rear facades not a budding public right-of-way would have a minimum of 60 of those principal materials and forty percent of accent and that's the same requirement that exists today the 60 40. um not a budding public right away but we've added a few more eligible materials so for properties without Frontage on Main Avenue Dakota Street so the rest of the downtown core staff is proposing a 50 percent of facades on public right-of-way Shelby Brickstone glass allowing 50 percent uh not a I'm sorry 50 not a budding public right away could be stucco Eaves Precast panels some insiding or block a Max of 25 percent of all facades may be constructed a pre-finished metal or wood and what we're seeing a lot of time is the architectural enhancements they want to use different types of material to create contrast so we would allow up to 25 of those side of rear facades not on public right away would have a decreased percentage of 35 of the primary materials and up to 65 percent of the accent materials we added the same prohibited materials in the Town Center um and also included a requirement for including a minimum of two Design Elements and that's so the examples listed here are included elsewhere in our code they just weren't in our town center yet so we're encouraging contrasting complementary exterior Building colors accent materials material textures window coverage combination of horizontal and vertical design features accenting a front entry varying the roof line varying the wall depths Etc so the policy for amendments in our city code States recommendations of the Planning Commission and final determines determinations of the city council shall be supported with findings uh in the case of amendments to text it's the Planning Commission and Council should find there's a public need for the amendment or the amendment will help accomplish one or more of the purposes of the zoning code the comp plan or other approved plans or policies or the adoption of the amendment is consistent with state or federal requirements in this case staff feels that the proposed amendments would help accomplish several purposes of the zoning code including maintaining the stability of the business and Commercial areas of the community promoting appropriate and orderly development of business and industrial areas enhancing the aesthetic character and appearance of the city providing effective Administration and amendments of the zoning code which is the act that we're doing right now as well as a continuing system of review of the code to ensure it can be amended to meet the changing needs of our community in addition to that staff feels the proposed amendments will help achieve the following objectives that are identified in the city's 2040 vision and strategic plan under the desirable and sustainable development goal including intentional land use planning that facilitates commercial development for an expanded tax base preserving and enhancing Prior Lake small town feel and exploring ways to encourage downtown as a vibrant destination so in summary the Planning Commission should review and discuss the proposed amendments provide any comments and make a recommendation to the city council for final approval and City staff would welcome any suggestions from the Planning Commission related to the proposed amendments whether it's materials or areas and I guess with that I'd just be happy to open it up to discussion thank you uh thank you Casey very detailed I think it's good changes um let's start with commissioner Johnson uh I have no questions I I think this is a great uh proposal as well laid out well well thought through and is a nice update to include uh newer building materials which I which I think have a have a good look to it I think it also affords a little bit more flexibility and hopefully will help to drive more commercial construction in downtown commissioner Tennyson you know I agree with everything that um Doug said before the one question I have is about the the 10 percent on the secondary colors how did you land on 10 I'm just more curious yeah um 10 was selected if there is a certain franchise color sometimes businesses have like mobile is a good example like bright pink right yep they would allow a use up to 10 it's just a number we picked okay um to avoid an entire wall being you know neon green or sure yep commissioner fence demiger I think all these uh changes seem pretty reasonable I wasn't at the previous discussions obviously but they seemed pretty reasonable commissioner ringstead commissioner Johnson uh stole my two bullet points agree completely with the flexibility that will give the city and potential projects that may come to town using the newer uh and better building materials that are available now as opposed to 10 20 30 years ago so I think it's a great document to put before the city council great commissioner kolberg you folks have done your homework again appreciate that you have apparently included the comments that we have submitted earlier the consolidation of these sections as you continue to do this throughout so that you don't have to repeat things so uh I find it certainly meets with the requirements of the policy I also feel this is giving me good changes with that I will take um well we'll have to open a public hearing so I'll take a motion and a second to open the public hearing on this item still moved second we have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye aye anyone in the public want to comment on this item councilwoman Churchill no okay I guess we got no one in the audience that wants to comment on this then so with that I'll take a motion in a second to close the public hearing don't move second we have a motion in a second all those in favor say aye aye all right with that then we will close the public hearing and with that then we already kind of dig comments so I think I can just go to can I have a motion in a second to recommend the city council approved amendments to sections 1142 and 1144 of the Prior Lake City code I'll make a motion I have a motion by Dennis in a second motion and second by kohlberg all those in favor say aye aye aye motion passes that I see no old business or new any new business or announcements just one announcement for the commission at this point we don't have any applicants applications for consideration at our February meeting so stay tuned there's still a couple weeks before the deadline to submit for that but we'll notify the planning Commissioners if there will not be a meeting in February great with that I will take a motion in a second to adjourns tonight's meeting so move second got a motion by Ringston a second by carlberg all those in favor say aye aye aye motion passes tonight's meeting is adjourned thank you all