Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 05 2016 PC Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 5, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, December 5, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, David Tieman, Mark Petersen, William Kallberg, and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Liaison Monique Morton, Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, November 21, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY RINGBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. Island Development – Ordinance Amendment – Consideration of certain amendments to section 1104.309, Island Development of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider recommending amendments to Subsection 1104.309 (Island Development) of the City Code to include clarifications to what is considered a legal lot of record for buildable purposes and the minimum structure setback to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented a proposed amendment to Subsection 1104.309 of the City Code, Twin Isle plat showing original lots, Aerial photo showing parcels (SS refers to Spreadsheet data), June 9, 2016 Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding buildable lots in the Shoreland District, MN Statutes 462.357 and comments from John Meyer (email dated 11/30/16). Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming asked for examples of non-principal structures and structures that would not be allowed on the shore or the bluff impact zones. Planner Matzke explained what are/are not allowed on the shore or bluff impact zones and commented on sheds type structures. He said we do not have a tally of shed type structures and explained the placement of some shed type structures; stating some have been there for decades. Fleming asked for other examples for shed like structures. Planner Matzke gave examples and said permanent structure that is accessory to the cabin use. Kallberg questioned setback explanations and averaging with no neighbor existing principal structure. Planner Matzke explained the setback averaging with/without neighboring existing principal structures. He commented on character of the neighborhood and variance criteria. 2 Kallberg said if there are not two principal buildings on each side of the property; you cannot use the averaging and would need to use the one-hundred-fifty-foot setback, correct? Because if there is not two principal structures on either side there is no averaging; then we go back to the seventy-five feet, correct? Planner Matzke said right, you are trying to look at it within the one-hundred-fifty-foot area. Kallberg commented on making the wording clear. Planner Matzke said we would look into the wording to make sure this is clear. The averaging that you are using is within the one-hundred-fifty-feet of the area so it has the neighborhood feel. Tieman asked about the private road, the smaller lots and being more than 75 feet back; would the private road taken out of their lot perimeter. Planner Matzke said it is not included in their lot area. He explained the private driveway on the plat, what could be included in their impervious surface calculations and lot combinations. He said this is clarified in our ordinance; however, if lots are combined together they are seen as separate with a private drive in-between. Petersen questioned non-conforming lot of records that may be deemed buildable or required to be combined. He gave an example of owning two lots, building on one and selling the other and the city say no, you have to combine those lots to be able to build. Planner Matzke said that may or may not arise. He explained the comments from our City Attorney and the readings from the Minnesota State Statue stating it could be deemed unqualified if it is not something that the City mandates; it is a state created rule with the city putting clarification in our ordinance. Petersen said it seems confusing and asked for clarification. He gave examples of owning two lots and they want to build a small little cabin on one of the two lots. And they own both lots, the city has the power to say no you have to combine these two lots to build anything. Planner Matzke explained the situation of where and why the city would say the lots need to be kept together. He commented on common ownership and the size of the lot and stated the State Legislator sets these rules and mandates them. Petersen asked if someone owns two lots the city/state would prefer one building be built for both lots. Planner Matzke replied correct. If they are substandard or non-conforming lots of record as of today. Petersen commented on awareness for homeowners. Ringstad asked if nonconforming lots are required to abide by current setbacks and variances then would be needed for a long narrow lot. He gave an example of a long narrow lot with setbacks on each side and questioned if this would come before the Planning Commission still. Planner Matzke said yes, and explained if setback requirements are not met they would have to go through a variance process. Ringstad asked how many islands greater than one acre do we have in the City. Planner Matzke replied explaining the stipulations of the one acre on other islands and the reasons the standards have changed such as: comparisons to mainland lot sizes, minimum requirements designated for future subdivision, older and modern lot sizes and the differences in them, building standards and people having different needs. Kallberg once lots have been combined by deed they cannot be re-separated. Planner Matzke said not unless they meet the current minimum lot sizes. Kallberg said so each would have to meet the minimum in order to be split. Planner Matzke said correct. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:33 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Dawn Schulberg, (3431 Twin Island Road) She thanked everyone for the public hearing. She asked if the Commissioners have visited the island to see the topography, why we are including mainland regulation with seasonal recreational environment and lastly she would like to make a correction of there is only fifteen to seventeen cabins on the island. 3 Planner Matzke said the residents would know best how many cabins there are on the island. He commented on the three new builds on the island, how staff came up with their count of twenty-two, mainland regulations, current setbacks, average setbacks on the island now, DNR stipulations in their policy between island and non-island development areas, staff’s consultation with the DNR hydrologist on regulations and the DNR’s response to that. He said he is aware there is differences between seasonal cabins and mainland, neighborhood feel for setbacks, being a little more consistent for future developments, variance requests with the lack of depth of the lots, legal buildable lots deemed by the platting of 1925 and single lot ownership. He stated we were being a little more consistent in to what standard development or what the planning commission having approved three variances of fifty/fifty-five and thirty-five/forty feet in the last eighteen months is consistent within that range. That is the logic behind this. Fleming asked to what extent was the consideration of the high water mark. He said he would believe this to be a pretty significant consideration. Planner Matzke said yes it was a significant consideration. Kim Schoen, (3413 Twin Island Cir NW) asked if they can have a copy of what the proposed changes? Planner Matzke said yes, we can email it to you or make you a copy to send or pick up. Schoen requested the information for tonight for a better picture of what is being proposed as it was not legible on the screen. Planner Matzke enlarged the wording on the screen and went over individual changes and the reasoning behind the changes. Dave Olson, (3420 Twin Island Cir NW) asked for clarification on the road; is it public roadway and if so what is the definition. He questioned combing the roadway with the square footage of your lot(s). Planner Matzke enlarged the overview of twin isles slide and explain the areas between lots; stating the twenty-foot-wide private roadway/driveway is not maintained by the city and all of the island residents have common access from this private roadway/driveway. He explained why it is private and explained it is for accessibility. If you own an adjacent lot to the private roadway it is not part of your property. Olson explained where his lots are located and asked if this access road could be blocked off by the neighbors. He said it has always been considered a public roadway to his knowledge. Planner Matzke explained there is common ownership to this roadway. They cannot block this off unless every owner in twin isle decided to not have it there. Olson stated common ownership doesn’t always go along with common sense. Fleming asked if it is feasible to clarify common ownership versus private. Good clear communication. Joe Schoen, (3413 Twin Island Cir NW) mentioned the comments of current cabins are fairly close to the lake; one thing he didn’t think was taken into consideration is the erosion over the years. He asked if there is any consideration or research taken in for setbacks. Planner Matzke said it is the DNR that regulates the erosion; not so much the City. He commented on the DNR having information to help keep erosion from occurring and said the City has looked into this, considered this and even have other areas on the mainland that experience this type of erosion; he said it is a moving target and is hard to put stipulations on this. He commented on years versus decades of significant amounts of erosion and variance requests with historical perspectives; but stated it is difficult to prove. He said that staff had discussions with the DNR on this ordinance change and when they look at their lake setbacks they are taken into erosion control or ordinary high water mark elevations and how they might change throughout the years. It was considered how it is really identified, it is a hard point to hit. Schoen asked how much research has been put into if we push properties closer to the lake if that development promotes additional water runoff from the island to the lake to cause more erosion. Planner Matzke explained the impact zone, how the DNR is more stringent, current building setbacks, buildable lots, design stand point through a variance application, redesign of cabin for better runoff, and impervious surface. Dawn Schulberg, (3431 Twin Island Cir NW). She commented on lack of information which leaves her confused and lack of being prepared, changes that have occurred over the past several years due to more watercraft, destruction of shoreline, protection of shoreline, no change in the buoy from the sh ore, no changes for the high water mark and wave runners being fun to watch but are huge destruction 4 makers. She said it’s too late when you call the 903.9, the damage is already being done and agreed they are a target; however, the target is getting smaller and it is not just decades; in her eleven years she has lost so much and has no shore any more. It’s gone. Fleming asked to point out her parcel. Schulberg said yes, and explained where she is located, stating it is a small width between her and the access at the Willows and explained how much activity goes on there. She mentioned the 200 feet and the 903. She explained how she is not alone and she can no longer put her dock on the shoreline, it needs to up on top of her property, which indicates that she has lost about 3-4 feet and stressed that it isn’t decades that this is happening. She stated she would like this thought about and to visit the island to see how it looks and operates. Fleming asked if it would be appropriate to have the Lakes Advisory Committee (LAC) to formally adopt a practice that reviews and studies this and bring some recommendation. Planner Matzke said we can offer up some comments to the LAC; however, the LAC has looked into no wake zone in the last year, and that could be added to the commentary. Fleming agreed that he would like this to happen. Kallberg commented on a committee already addressing an ordinance called the Water Surface Use Management that deals with the no wake limitations and suggested that is the group we would want to address this issue. He commented on some changes made on making Spring Lake and Prior Lake having similar regulations, some changes in the permanent no wake zones and LAC, the City and the Watershed District participation. Schulberg said it was split off, the information was separated. Kallberg said it has not been formally made a regulation or a rule; It hasn’t been formally announced and has an effective date yet; they had hoped to make it effective in 2016, but now we are into 2017 and it is still not a rule. Olson questioned the Scott County map lines, as they seemed to be all wrong. Planner Matzke said the lot lines should be correct; the location should be correct, and explained why the lines are off. Olson said it should not be used for changes. Planner Matzke said yes, Mr. Olson is correct, we don’t use this changes and exact documentations. Olson said it is a pain for him. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BYTIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 7:02 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg, Tieman and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Rinstad asked if this is similar to shoreland lots on the mainland and gave an example. He questioned if rebuilding on the same footprint would be okay or not if tragedy should occur. Planner Matzke said yes and explained how the legal nonconforming structure would be allowed for reconstruction based on our ordinance. Ringstad said he thought the staff report was complicated topic, yet very concise; he agrees with the proposed amendment changes and will be supporting this item tonight. Petersen said he agrees with his fellow commissioner; he doesn’t see anything controversial; however, would like to clarify one point being, all the lots on Twin Isle was bought with the understanding that they were buildable lots and what the City cannot do is say you cannot build on that property and this is why we are going over this ordinance. He said the more clarification the better. He asked Planner Matzke if this is correct. Planner Matzke said that is correct Tieman said overall he believes the amendments make a lot of sense and they are a good addition. He stated the one thing he wonders about is since there is so much interest from the public and the changes and they haven’t had a lot of time to review these changes; maybe we should table this until a later meeting to give everyone a chance to get this right the first time. 5 Kallberg mentioned John Meyers email expressing confusion over the provision that the minimum lot size for all island without municipals sewer and water is one-acre period; on twin island the minimum lot size requirement is twelve thousand square feet. He said Mr. Meyers believes this is confusing to the general public and should either be debated or changed. He said it was suggested that we take the period out and add except on twin island because that is what it really is, but doesn’t say it that way. He thinks this should be clarified and said other than that he would agree with the proposed amendment; it simply otherwise it will just generate more variance requests and the final result is going to be the thing anyways so, it makes sense to handle it on a broader basis. Fleming asked comments on tabling per Commission Tieman’s request. Petersen would not be in favor of tabling Ringstad he would be in favor of voting on this tonight. He stated he feels the information that the City typically does for public hearings like this was met and information was available and out there; so he will be ready to vote on this agenda item. Kallberg said he agrees with Commissioner Ringstad and Petersen that we have had enough opportunity to discuss this; we haven’t heard any great opposition on clarification discussions so he would not be in favor of tabling Fleming mentioned the public hearing role and the ordinance recommendations are supported by findings/addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the following policy. So there is a public need for the amendment and the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purpose of the amendment or comprehensive plan or adopted plans or policy with the city. The adoption of the amendment is consistant with the state and federal requirements. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGBERG TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS 1104.309; THE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AT 7:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion – Director Rogness requested to reconvene to the conference room. 6. New Business: None. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg, Tieman and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant