Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 March 21, 2016 Meeting Minutes Draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 21, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, March 21, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Mark Petersen and Dave Tieman, Commissioner Kallberg were absent. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff, Director Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, March 7, 2016 Meeting Minutes: Larson suggested one typo in the meeting. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Abstained by Fleming. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-001005 – 5333 160th Street SE – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning – Steven Schneider is requesting to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Urban Low Density Residential (R-LD) to Community Retail Shopping (C-CC), and to rezone from Low Density Residential (R-1) to General Business (C-2) on a 1.10-acre property located at 5333 160th Street NE. PID: 25-901-003-0. Planner Matzke introducing the request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan and Amendment and Rezoning to allow to change the 2030 Comprehensive Plan designation from R-LD (Low Density Residential) to be designated C-CC (Community Retail Shopping) and Change Zoning District from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-2 (General Business). He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a location map and a C-2 Zoning District Land Use Table. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman asked for a confirmed lot size. Planner Matzke replied it is 1.1 acres, approximately. Larson asked how this parcel is currently being taxed by the County. 2 Planner Matzke suggested confirmation from the applicant and explained how it is typically taxed by the type of business use and zoning; this has been a legal non-conforming land use type for some time now. Petersen questioned the limitations, current allowances and what changes is desired. Planner Matzke suggested applicant confirmation and explained the expansion to the south dock area. He said how the current use doesn’t allow for expansion; this change will bring them into compliance. Petersen said they are limited and cannot do anything right now. Planner Matzke replied that is correct; they are very limited even to their existing operation. Petersen questioned if the setbacks of the existing building are conforming what would it be if changed. Planner Matzke replied they would be conforming to the C-2 setbacks in the existing building. Applicant Stephen Schneider, (5333 160th Street SE) He explained the years the commercial business has been at this location, what was here prior, reasoning for rezoning, appraisers comment and stated it should have been rezoned years ago. He stated he was taxed as commercial and commented on the new owners. Larson asked if the appraiser had any other comments. Schneider said there were no other comments by the appraiser. He explained his process of purchasing the company. Petersen questioned the size of the expansion, the use of the building, customers coming/going and the amount of traffic flow. Schneider said he wasn’t sure about expansion; but did know there are some restrictions. He explained his customers traffic flow is low. He stated the new owner wants to stay in this location and explained how he worked together with the current owner’s father. Tieman asked if there were any concerns from neighbors in parking, traffic or anything of that nature. Schneider explained the neighbors; the ones to the east don’t say much (cemetery), the senior building to the west call when any additional activity is going on and commented on the good neighborhood. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC EARING AT 6:23P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Verda Russo, (5384 160th Street). She stated she lives right across the street. She said she doesn’t mind an addition to the building as long as it is not a big addition and would like the business to stay the same business as the one that is there now. She complimented the current business as being considerate. 3 Kurt Pegors, (5324 Bounty Street SE). He said he lives directly south of the proposed property and this business is like it is not even a business. He has no big objections, as long as there are no dramatic changes. Bill Corby, (5333 160th Street SE). He addressed issues that came up tonight; building not being built up, expansion in back and business being internalized. He explained the amount of traffic coming and going. Terry Logelin, (16183 Itasca Avenue SE). He confirmed with everyone stating the business is a good neighbors. He shared concerns of changes to this land and being unlike what it is now. Art Yeske, (5333 Bounty Street SE). He stated he is right across the street from the business and said they have been good neighbors but would like the general manager of the current business to state his intentions. He understands the limits for the property, but stated some concerns of cleaver endeavors; leaving the neighbors to having something we don’t enjoy having. Corby explained the reasoning of going through this process; as this is a long term investment for them and have no plans on going anywhere, especially with expansion of the building. He explained they have looked at other properties and this location is very central to the current customers and retail market. He stated their intent is to stay right where they are. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:32pm. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman stated this seems like the right thing to do, is supportive of the community and the business wants to stay in the community. He stated these are the right changes to the ordinance. Larson said he would like to get more input; tax assessment on property, proper zoning and clarification on warehouse/industrial. He suggests tabling this Item. Petersen stated his concerns about future businesses. He said the shape of the business as the City Staff has mentioned is not intrusive to become a gas station with a lot of traffic. Fleming stated he will be supporting both the recommendations to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the recommendation to the Zoning Amendment. He said the applicant does meet the threshold of our Comprehensive Plan and explained this threshold. He returned the floor to Commissioner Larson, due to his concern to table this Item. Larson explained his concerns with the statement in the C-2 general business; permitted uses with conditions. He explained he would like to get the zoning and recording done right within the County Records and would like input from the City Assessor regarding market conditions, zoning and tax entities and the development of the land and classifications. Fleming asked Staff about timing and added burden on the application/applicant if we were to ask for additional information. Planner Matzke explained the timeline and said this matter will proceed to the City Council for a final approval. He explained this operation has a variety of intertwined land uses; he explained some of these 4 uses and said these are all permitted uses. He stated this business is more of a service and said the information could be gathered from the County if a condition is made. Fleming made some suggestions of conditions for the City Council. Larson said he felt it would be beneficial to get the County Assessor to come before the Planning Commission and appease some of the questions that the residence have and also for the du-diligence to the City to be able to get this right the first time, rather than coming back 2-5 years down the road and correct something that was miss-done. Petersen said he would keep with his initial statement with supporting this. Tieman agrees that there is enough information to move forward and still supports this. Fleming stated he would like to add a minor condition that the information that Commissioner Larson is sharing concerns of; is gathered and deems to be acceptable by Staff, then this information should be shared with City Council. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH THE ADDENDUM THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CITY COUNCILS REVIEW FROM THE COUNTY ASSESSORS ASSESSMENT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen and Tieman. Opposed by Larson, Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried 3 to 1. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE REQUESTED ZONING AMENDMENTS WITH THE ADDENDUM OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CITY COUNCILS REVIEW FROM THE COUNTY ASSESSORS ASSESSMENT. AT 6:21P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen and Tieman. Opposed by Larson, Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried 3 to 1. B. Amendment to Section 1101, General Provisions: 1102, Use District Regulations and 1104, Shoreland Resolutions of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to Dedicated Waterfront. – The City of Prior Lake along with Assistant City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff proposed a consideration to amend Sections 1101 General Provisions, 1102 Use District Regulations and 1104 Shoreland Regulations of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to dedicated waterfront. Assistant City Attorney Schwarzhoff introduced the consideration recommending certain amendments to Sections 1101 General Provisions, 1102 Use District Regulations and 1104 Shoreland Regulations of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to Dedicated Waterfront. She explained the history, current circumstances, Zoning Ordinance Amendment findings, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. She presented proposed redlined amendments, MNDNR Conditional Approval of Shoreland Ordinance Amendments and Sunfish Bay Resident Letter. Commission Comments/Questions: 5 Petersen stated he would like clarification of the three descriptions; controlled access lot (HOA monitored), dedicated waterfront (meets certain restrictions) and non-conforming controlled access. He questioned the number of docks/slips and asked for definition clarification on docks/slips. Schwarzhoff explained the current City Code only has Controlled Access. She explained Controlled Access and the requirements and the current code on the non-conforming (Dedicated Waterfront). She said they cannot meet the conditions and the outcome of this is continue what they have but cannot expand, which is where the question led to on how many boat slips they can have. She continued with an explanation of how many boat slips they are allowed and mentioned the property owner who wants a ten dock limit. She explained this new proposal would create a new category called Dedicated Waterfront which would cover the Non-Conforming Controlled Access lots. She said the current number of dock/slips and explained the history of this. She said if we start putting a limit on size it makes it difficult. She explained how the Task Force recommended boat slips. Larson asked if the Legal Counsel has been examining any of the deeds from some of these property owners; that had something on their deed that possibly said they had access to the lake. He questioned the properties that are adjoining the lake and if there is a case of homeowners putting out docks on the lake that other homeowners were objective about. Schwarzhoff replied it is not the deeds that created the issue; it was is the original plat and explained why; stating the plat is the rule. She said there also has been a number of legal cases between property owners and their rights of access. She explained the real issue is beyond the City’s authority and stated it is a dispute between the property owners. The City’s only issue is how many boat slips are they allowed. She stated some details are not one specific; this would apply to everyone. She explained the issue with this case and said the property owners came to the City looking for a solution. She said we explained commercial renting is not allowed, but it is difficult to prove, given proof and it will be enforced against. She stated other than the rental issue; it is an issue of how many boat slips they can have. Tieman asked how do you define a boat slip. Schwarzhoff replied we do have a definition in the Zoning Code, but it is fairly open to interpretation. She defined boat slip according to the City’s Zoning Code, stating it is not as clear as we would like it to be; however would like to work on coming up with something more clear. Fleming asked if there were any sense of how many property owners that are seeking to utilize the dedicated space and how many actual boats would be represented by the aggregate number of property owners. Schwarzhoff said the number in the subdivision is thirty-one, but not sure how many people own more than one lot and mentioned the number that has regularly using the docks as ten. She explained a new property owner who would like to put docks out and said she is unsure of how many additional homeowners who would like to do the same, but can say for certain there are at least a dozen that are interested. Fleming asked if each of the property owners would be wanting to utilize one of their own boats and not be renting out for commercial use for other friends, neighbors, etc. 6 Schwarzhoff explained the history of dock usage as personal use but unsure of how many boats they utilized and suggested asking some of the property owners this question. She stated the consensus has been there is one property owner indicating an intent to use the docks commercially; we have not received any evidence or allegations that this is true. Petersen said with several of shared waterfronts around the lake, how are they handling matters like this; is there a waiting list, is this a common thing and is this a civil matter; and the ones with a HOA’s, is the HOA handling these types of situations and if so how. He questioned floating docks. Schwarzhoff stated we have no idea as there has not been an issue, until now. She explained different situations of people not knowing they have access, sharing agreements, or they have enough area. She said this is the first one that has come to the City in a dispute of this manner. She explained with an HOA, the City would go to the HOA for enforcement. She explained the situation of the Dedicated Waterfronts, stating it is a much more difficult situation. She explained the problem of one individual wanting to use the docks as commercial as they were going to be floating docks. She stated the City treats all docks the same; it is a matter of slips. Petersen clarified stating he meant recreational floating docks. He mentioned a letter from the DNR regarding compliance and asked if the DNR is okay with what is being proposed. Schwarzhoff stated these are regulated by the DNR. She explained per the DNR they cannot interfere with navigable water, have to be in the property area and still needs to follow the standard regulations. She commented yes on the DNR being okay with what is proposed and stated everything we do that touches the shoreline has to go through the DNR. She mentioned that we have been working very close with them since the very beginning including on this ordinance. She explained what the DNR looks for including number of boats, navigable water, interference with property and such. Petersen said so classifying these as Dedicated Waterfront is fine with the DNR and asked has the Lakes Advisory Committee had input on this. He questioned clarification of an access road and the intended use per the letter wrote from Gene Simpkin’s father. Schwarzhoff replied yes and the ordinance will have to go through the DNR for final approval. She replied yes and no to the input from the Lakes Advisory Committee, due to a time crunch or trying to get the moratorium lifted. She said the Lakes Advisory Committee has been involved with establishing the rule of the Controlled Access Lot of 1 per 18.75. She commented on the access road intensions from the letter stating she believes it has been to court. She explained the happenings of the court case and stated the outcome was, everyone in the development did have access to that Dedicated Waterfront and the access road, but mentioned she was not personally involved in that case. MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:08 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Bernice Schwab, (1555 Lone Oak Road, Eagan, MN). She stated it wasn’t established, how many feet of lakeshore there is. And asked how much lake shore there is. 7 Schwarzhoff said she doesn’t know off the top of her head, but doing the math backwards, because it was determined that 23 slips were allowed, 23 times 18.75 is the approximately measured… Schwab said she has explained this situation to Casey from the City and she shared her concerns of establishment of the docks, what can be put on a shoreline, congestion, docks, equipment and chairs in front of her house, four wheelers, restriction of boats, dumping of sand and more restrictions now than prior to asking for help. She said she has put up no trespassing signs and they have been ripped up in front of their faces and some survey monuments have been pulled out and replaced. She stated it is helter skelter, utter chaos out there and they cannot sleep, not knowing what is going to happen. Larson asked Schwab if she was aware of any vacant lots on this shoreline. Schwab replied there are seven owners on the front. She explained a gentleman from Florida bought the property down by the trestle to turn it into commercial, by putting docks in and renting boats out. She commented on the number of docks and how this will play in if it is not commercial property. She shared concerns of this turning commercial. Larson asked if she knew which lot the new potential person from Florida purchased and about the access road. Schwab pointed out where this new owner purchased a lot. She explained her history of being a boat owner and mentioned Conroy’s Bay in the 40’s and 50’s. She mentioned selling her property and said she has no idea what anybody is going to end up with here, but it is more restricted now than it has ever been. She asked how the Commissioners define as the boats and docks and said generally you have two boats per dock. Audience said explained the access road as in the middle and down to the water. David Celski, (Lot 7, Sunfish Bay) He stated he is on the Lake Advisory Committee for Prior Lake. He stated he has the same concerns as Ms. Schwab pointed out. He commented on a letter Cory wrote, Dedicated Waterfront, comments from City Staff on Legally Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lots, three codes that Non-Conforming defines, Schwarzhoff comments of ten current docks, City Council Work Session on January 25, 2016 regarding Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lots, City Council meeting outcome on February 7, 2016 regarding Dedicated Waterfront property, Controlled Access formula and Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lots, enforcement of Controlled Access Lots, development on the lake, provision for dock setbacks, Amendment 114-12 and stated we don’t meet the requirement; the entire lot must be twenty feet from the ordinary high water mark. Petersen said we have a similar situation that are not having a problem with this; he asked Mr. Celski in his own words, what is going on. Why is it a bad thing to be classified as a Dedicated Waterfront. Celski explained why this is a bad thing. He commented on being classified as the Legal Non-Conforming Use, being a Dedicated Waterfront classification, being uniquely different, being riparian, the rights and the Controlled Access rights, not meeting the requirements, who maintains the beach area, the new person with the commercial marina and what City Staff has labeled them as. He shared concerns of what they are, what steps to take, they are different, apply all the regulations and the whole lot is nonconforming and stated we maintain it, we invest time and money, and we have a problem with someone wanting a commercial marina. He said City Staff said we are legally non-conforming. 8 Fleming said he appreciates all the research and time Mr. Celski has put in to this and asked him how he thinks this area should be used; how many slips should there be, in his personal opinion. Celski explained the current use from the date of the ordinance. Fleming said he understands that there are thirty-one lots; so what happens if thirty-one legitimate property owners represents by two boats each and say we all want to ride in our boats; with no HOA, no documents controlling; in a neighborly term how would you reconcile this? Celski explained how this would be reconciled. He commented on date of the amendment being enacted, the number of slips and docks that were there. He said there was a waiting list and commented on number of docks from the Workshop Session, rights or riparian and non-riparian lot owners and expansion. Fleming asked Celski what he would say to twenty-one potential boater enthusiasm that didn’t meet the certain date. Celski replied that is what the ordinance currently says. Fleming asked Mr. Celski how would you personally reconcile this; would you say that is what the ordinance currently states and hold that position with twenty-one potential legitimate property owners that want to ride in their boat. Celski said as it currently stands, yes. Petersen asked Mr. Celski how the have agreed up until this point who docks and who doesn’t on the confirmed ten docks. Is it written, or a handshake. Celski explained the situation stating it is the people that maintain, use the beach and share the waterfront that have had the docks down there for a number of years. He has been there over 20 years and it has been pretty much the same number of docks within one or two. Petersen said if a house is for sale in Lot 31, would the new homeowner who bought this house be told that he just doesn’t get a dock or how does that work. Celski replied it would depend on what parts of the ordinance you’re going to use. He commented on the ratio of Ordinance 1102 and a development stating they don’t qualify for that. He commented on waiting lists all over the lake, and the ten docks grandfathered in and if one gets removed they would have first choice. Petersen asked if they have an official waiting list and asked City Staff how do you start an HOA and would solve this situation. Celski replied no waiting list. Fleming stated he thinks that an HOA would help. Schwarzhoff replied yes an HOA would absolutely make situation easier; the problem is establishing one. 9 She explained how a new development creates a HOA and how a HOA works. She commented on Dedicated Waterfront having nothing in place with an exception of something in your deed. She explained looking at the plat gives you clarity of if you get to use waterfront, but not how or who gets to use it. She commented on Dedicated Waterfronts and HOA waiting lists, explaining the differences. Petersen said if anyone agreed on an HOA it would be great, but if there was one person against it, it would be null. Larson said he would like clarification and Table this Item for the Lakes Advisory input. There are a lot of issues that are grey and they need to be defined or it will create more havoc and more situation on this. Fleming asked Staff for more information on this due to he believes there have been many City Council Work Sessions and some task forces had opportunity to consider all of these variables. Schwarzhoff said this is correct. She said this issue has been dug into significantly. She commented on the Controlled Access Lot Task Force, the City Council Work Session and her office has provided quite some time on this with no outcome. She commented on the way she views this and the way the analysis is the same. She clarified the definition of Controlled Access Lots and said these lots fall into this definition, and they get to continue, but not expand. These are currently Legal Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lots. It is not a different designation; it is a controlled access lot that doesn’t fit and she explained the intent. Petersen clarified a dock is one slip/one boat and if there are ten docks; each dock has two boats that technically is twenty slips, correct. Schwarzhoff replied correct. She explained that is the problem. She said there is no way to really tell how many boat slip was there. Petersen mentioned the letter stated they can confirm by areal views how many docks; they can confirm the docks, but not the slips. He explained during the day there could be ten boats that are gone and asked how do we define slips; do we have it in writing. Schwarzhoff replied that is correct we can only confirm the docks, not the slips. She explained the definition in the Code book, stating this was one of the new definitions adopted with she believes the marina section, although it could have been the controlled access section. Petersen asked Mr. Celski how many boats are on each dock. Celski said per registered watercraft, there are about two to five slips per dock. Some docks don’t have a boat on their docks; Schwab doesn’t have a boat currently there, either. But there are some that have four to five registered watercraft, which would be a slip. Petersen said if there are four boats on each, that is too many already. Celski said Ms. Schwarzhoff talked of us being controlled access lots and said if we are going to use a formula, why wouldn’t we use all of the formulas that apply to us? 10 Schwarzhoff replied the area being used here is not the lot, the lots are not the riparian lots; it is the water front is being used, that is what is being used to put docks on, so if we were to apply that it would apply off of the waterfront. Celski asked about the elevation; the twenty feet from the high water mark; the entire lot. Schwarzhoff replied explaining the Controlled Access Lots regulations and stated they cannot meet these. She explained the requirements and said it simply doesn’t meet any of the regulations, which is why they are Non-Conforming due to they legally existed prior to the ordinance, don’t fit the current ordinance, therefore treating them as a new conforming use which is clearer and easier to understand. Celski stated the reasons why it wouldn’t qualify right now; overcrowding and overuse of that area. Schwarzhoff explained yes, and explained one of the reasons why. She read the boat slip definition from the ordinance. Petersen said they have ten docks with thirty to forty slips… Schwarzhoff said they have an aerial of approximately the time the ordinance came into place showing approximately 10 docks, this is the position they take and that is based off of one aerial. There is no way to determine how many slips existed, they could have had anywhere from one to a dozen slips on each dock, which is why the Council went with a more generous interpretation of one per 18.75… Petersen questioned the language of the Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lot; the language of that is typically docks not slips, correct. Schwarzhoff replied no, it is slips; everything moved to slips. She said it used to be dock regulations and everything moved to slips because there are too many options of docks and too hard to regulate. Petersen said right now the way this is being used if they had ten docks, it would need to be reduced to one watercraft per dock. Schwarzhoff said she would not have an answer for that right now, because the City would have good evidence to say this is the total you cannot expand. She explained the situation if it ended up in court, stating we really cannot prove what they have, it would be incredibly difficult. She said usually we see these with setbacks, which is why the Council went with this decision to go with the maximum that would have been allowed on that date; one per 18.75. Celski asked if this can be calculated by licensed and registered watercraft we have now. Schwarzhoff explained why this could not be done; pointing out continued use as an example. Celski said but if you looked at Sunfish Bay right now, you could have a list of how many registered boats are per slip. 11 Schwarzhoff explained it is not what you own today; it matters what you owned last year and the year before and so on and we would have to look at all thirty-one lots because they all have a right to use this, and boat slips included not just restricted watercraft, but all watercraft. Celski said correct. Schwarzhoff continued saying there is no way to work back to this number. Cory Postle, (4322 Bass Street SE) She wanted to say a couple things that Ms. Schwarzhoff mentioned regarding the notarized letter, good interruption of the intention of the deed, rational for the City to create a new category, coverage by the ordinance as determined by the City Attorney’s office and their request being upheld. She commented on limitations and slips versus docks. She passed out a handout and talked about the letter that was submitted. She commented on this being a simple and straightforward matter that is getting convoluted; she would like to summarize this and ask for assistance in creating a long term solution that is in the best interest of shoreline management for the future as well as for the residences at Sun Fish Bay. She stated all the members here are in an agreement about their desires to have the ordinance adhered to. She read the letter (attached to the end of these typed minutes). Larson mentioned a comment in the letter that Ms. Postle read regarding wanting to not enforced; he explained the City wants to be a blanket policy for the lakes and said clearly this is one development that some of the homeowners are worried about definition for their particular Lots. He said what was clearly stated by Council; that being the calculations on the waterfront area. He commented on the current docks/slips is above the allowed and a conclusion for this issue. There are some clarifications that we could look at. He asked about the number of lots on this plat. Schwarzhoff explained this current slide is of Green Heights plat. She mentioned how many lots there were and stated it is a very similar situation and explained why this was included in tonight’s presentation. Postle said to clarify we didn’t request different rules, all the dedicated waterfront as assigned by the City are Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lots and therefore all are already covered by the ordinance. She commented on not asking for different regulations rather be applied to us, enforcement of this ordinance, appreciation for Ms. Schwarzhoff’s viewpoints and the number of enforced slips. Petersen asked Staff how do we enforce; what is the policy going to be on that. Schwarzhoff said she was not there and certainly would never recommend the City take a position of trying not to enforce our ordinance, however this is a difficult enforcement issue, because no matter what number we select, nine docks or fifty boat slips, the issue of enforcement is, who do we enforce against and how do we enforce. She explained the difficulty in dock matters, Controlled Access Lots, HOA’s, counting slips or docks, finding who is in charge, who to enforce against and no agreements. She mentioned Ms. Postle comment of a unanimous agreement and said if this was true we would not be here today. She talked of getting an agreement in writing or an HOA in place as this is a difficult enforcement issue. She said it is separating what the City would enforce versus the private property matters and continued explaining what the City can enforce versus private property matters. She commented on Commissioner Larson’s question regarding the definitions in 1101 for watercraft. 12 Petersen said that was his other concern is the retro actively changing an ordinance, but technically what your Ms. Schwarzhoff is saying is they are not covered by any ordinance right now; so Non-Conforming is not an ordinance, it is a non-ordinance. Schwarzhoff replied exactly and she explained they were not considered when the various Task Forces were going through. She explained the four options of putting in a dock and how the proposed property would fit closely into; Controlled Access Lots. She said they are Non-Conforming, therefore Non- Conforming Controlled Access Lots; meaning they are a Controlled Access Lot, but don’t fit and explained why they need to now fit. Postle said she would like to address this and explained why. She stated what they are abiding by and asking enforcement on and asking why is the City amending this ordinance. She asked what is the rational for modifying the ordinance when it already covers all the dedicated waterfront? Fleming asked wasn’t there a precipitating event involving one or more owners that caused this to bubble up. He verified this was not an affirmative decision or declaration on the part of the City to refuse enforcement. Postle replied yes… Schwarzhoff replied yes, absolutely the residents came to the City and asked for help regarding a new property owner who wants to put a lot of docks out. She explained what enforcement was taken place and that is why the moratorium was put in place; the memo, the various meeting and etc. Fleming said he doesn’t want to be disrespectful or elementary about this as this is serious stuff, but he mentioned this reminds him of a time when he was a former teacher/school administrator and said this comes down to sharing. He explained what he is hearing and what he thinks about this situation but still is concerned about the real issue of the remaining twenty-one other perspective lots. He commented on getting an HOA not happening and the City’s good faith in what we can and cannot control by Statue. He said he will not subside, nor accept or let you put his name to the avoidance of enforcement as this is not the genesis of our actions; we are trying to control the space and bring order to this space in good effort. Postle said she appreciates that and is hopeful news. She shared concerns of the feedback, time and effort, enforcement being a non-issue, number versus being reasonable, ordinance of no expansion, reasonable representation, too many boats and docks, swimming and fishing, joint use, interpretation issues, integrity of the lake and majority use. She said when you have one guy that wants twelve docks, that is not helping. Fleming said he would have a huge issue with that and believes that our City Attorney would too, we would not allow that. He said he doesn’t see as a… Postle said they already started installing them. Fleming … said he doesn’t see that as a reasonable use… Postle said I don’t either. Fleming replied explaining we have to find a way, with also honoring the realness of how people want to live their lives. He said it is about how we are going to share this space in a reasonable way that is going 13 to protect and preserve to keep our small town feel and to be ecologically responsible and not be reckless but at the same time, bring some order to this situation and others on the lake. He commented on the HOA and said the impetus for this was not us saying we don’t want to enforce. Postle said there is no unanimous agreement in terms that we can never get an HOA; there is one individual that will never agree, so it is not going to happen; but that would be her preference. Keeney said he would like to apologize for some of the confusion and clarify what is going on. He said the Planning Commission has been away from this for a while and a lot of other people have worked on this a lot. He explained why they got into this situation, what the DNR would consider for this area and said so if we don’t change the ordinance we are either stuck calling them Non-Conforming Controlled Access Lots with all the problems that has or call it a residential lot and they would get six boat slips. He spoke of enforcement, ordinance regulations, how to regulate these lots, back when the plat were made, litigations on this matter, Green Heights litigations, how to regulate this property, moratorium lifted, rush to get boat slips in before regulation and grandfathered in, as well as reasonable limits, DNR recommendations, too many boats and floating configurations. He wanted to clarify the history behind all of this and said it is important for us to lift the moratorium. He said he would love to come up with a solution to the sharing problem, unfortunately they have thirty-one owners owning a piece of lakeshore. He stated he doesn’t feel first in wins is a real fair way and doesn’t believe it to be legally defensible. Fleming offered a suggestion of sharing, but was unsure if it would actually work. Schwab asked about the control of the shoreline. She stated when the document was written in 1921 there was nothing but land and farms on this lake and these people couldn’t conceive what this looks like now; when they wrote this document, they were thinking bathing and fishing, not sci-fi boats with motors and watercraft. She explained what it looked like in the 1940’s and 1950’s and said the things that have changed since then. She shared concerns of the shoreline, regulations, taxes for waterfront, motor craft, fire pits, four wheelers and chairs. She said she cannot even see the lake anymore. She said the police even say it is a private matter and asked if the DNR regulate the beaches. Dan Shower, (4395 Quincy Street SE). He stated he missed Mr. Keeney’s comments as he was watching this meeting on Public Access TV. He commented on being before this committee in May of 2014 and said the quote was, “As long as the status quote did not change we are all grandfathered in and the ordinance would go ahead”. He just wanted to add that and talk about expansion beyond what was as of the date this ordinance was enacted would be upsetting that status quote. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:27PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman commented on this being a very difficult and emotional issue for many people and stated it really comes down to one key word which is “use”. You really are sharing the use of this area amongst the people in this group. He is not quite sure what the best answer is; is there a great answer, he doesn’t know, but believes there should be something put in for this season if nothing else. He is supportive as what is being proposed, for some sort of ordinance should be there. 14 Larson said he keeps looking at the document from the son of the original deed owner and his intentions for the use of this area. He commented on this letter regarding the lots that have access to the lake, the access road, boat launch and access to swim and fish; however, the bigger picture for what we are looking at tonight is the number of slips. He said if we separate these two issues; the letter still states that there is access for all thirty-one lots. He spoke of what this intention might have meant. He shared concerns with how do we enforce violations accruing of homeowners having more slips that what is allocated for the lakefront measurements. He said go forward with slips that was allocated to be fair amongst all homeowners on the lake and the separate issues as having the access 8 to 31; this needs to be worked out, maybe there is a boat launch that they can still utilize or was it intended for Lots 1-7? Petersen mentioned a comment by Councilor Keeney and shared his concerns of retro actively changing one ordinance to another, but really it wasn’t under and ordinance as it was Non-Conforming and we need something to bring it whole. He mentioned concerns of possibility of crowding the beach with many docks, and technically they are at the max. He said the City cannot go in and enforce this as we don’t have the jurisdiction to say who gets what. He commented on the lack of enforcement saying it is not the lack of enforcement or the avoidance of enforcement that the City is looking at. There is nothing the City can do about these types of disagreements. It is a tough decision, but he is in support of recommending to City Council the change in the ordinance. Fleming said he is supporting the proposed ordinance for the City Councils consideration on March 28, 2016. He commented on his fellow Commissioners comments stating this is very difficult and he thinks there can be a workable solution for the ten or eleven property owners who have been using the waterfront with some regularity as others potentially twenty-one other property owners with one or two boats come on line and want to assert their rights, to have some on-going conversation or dialog either amongst neighbors themselves or with the assistance with City Staff to find a way for everyone to have access which was as Commission Larson pointed out was the spirit of the original deed. He commented on the point of how can we control fire pits and chairs and he appreciates the thinking of this; it is life and life happens around us. He used an example of technology changing and said life evolves, people move, people migrate, people’s choices change, technology changes and rightly or wrongly there is going to be a Planning Commission that comes after us ten or fifteen years from now; there will be another set of problems that need to be address because people and the way that they are going to live their lives become busier and want to come to Prior Lake and there will be another set of challenges. Again, we are not trying to avoid the problem of enforcement, we are trying to go straight down the middle as much as possible and be responsible with the Statue, property rights, ecology and Prior Lake as an asset. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1101.1000; 1102.401 AND 1104.307 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion – Director Rogness stated he has a short update regarding this agenda item. He mentioned the meeting on April 4, 2016 would be a better opportunity to have a larger discussion on this. He stated the one updated item from the last meeting. He mentioned a follow up meeting for that item, leading to more updated information on the April 4, 2016 meeting. 6. New Business: 15 A. DEV16-001008 – Estate Avenue SE – Vacation – Estate Avenue Realty, LLC is requesting a Right-of-Way Vacation to vacate the drainage and utility easement on the lot to change the storm water management on this lot from an infiltration basin to an underground storage system. PID: 25-480-002-0. Planner Matzke introducing the request for approval to vacate a drainage and utility easement located within the Eastwood 3rd Addition Plat. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a general location map location map and a C-2 Zoning District Land Use Table. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked to define maintenance. Planner Matzke explained the maintenance requirements. He said the city can inspect this area and make sure it is maintained. The property owner however would need to maintain and clean it out. Petersen asked if it was a manmade pipes/catch basin. Planner Matzke replied yes, correct. Larson asked about the water feature that would enhance some of the drainage and such that is occurring now. Planner Matzke said they are looking at a combination thereof for that aspect. He explained why rain gardens and other things don’t quite meet the storm water regulations to the degree as necessary and said they will need a little bit more than just a rain garden, but is sure the homeowner will want a feature that will look reasonable on their property. They are working with our engineering department on those discussions and City Staff from the engineering perspective seems satisfied with this at this time Tieman asked if this slope would be done immediately or once there is an agreement on the homeowner. Planner Matzke said it is intended to be done immediately and he explained there is already a building permit in to be processed if approved. He stated they are asking for the consideration of a vacation due to a design that they have been looking into. It is something that will meet the requirements of what the easement was intended for, it is not an exception to the rule. They are achieving this through a different means of storm water regulations. Fleming said this makes sense as a report and would like to underscore this for people who are viewing at home, but the vacation of the existing easement does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the public drainage and utility easement are proposed to be vacated in this case are not needed to provide adequate storm water service. He thinks this is all in good order. He thinks this is all in good order. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THE PROPOSED VACATION. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 16 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: • The R-2 ordinance amendments and the encroachments. o The city council said why not go the PUD option  This was more specific to the R-2; city council did not approve • Asked that the encroachment be brought back to the Planning Commission. o Coming back soon to the planning Commission 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY PETERSEN, TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Absent by Kallberg. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant