Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 April 22 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes DRAFT 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 22, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, April 22, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Also present were City Manager Michael Plante, City Engineer Nick Monserud, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, City Planner Jeff Matzke, City Planner Amanda Schwabe and City Clerk Ann Orlofsky. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tieman, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, March 25, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tieman, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV19-000009 – 6370 Conroy Street NE – Variances – Property owners, Tim and Megan Maher, are requesting a variance to construct a deck with a reduced setback to the lake thereby expanding a non-conforming structure in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 251140060. Planner Schwabe: Introduced a public hearing to consider approval of a resolution approving variances from the minimum lake setback and expansion of a non-conforming structure on a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended a motion. She presented a resolution, location map, survey dated September 6, 2016, narrative from applicant and letters of support. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Asked for clarification on why staff is referring to the property as non-conforming. Was the property non-conforming when it was constructed, or did it become non-conforming as the code changes. Planner Schwabe: Explained the home was constructed back in 1983 and met the requirements at that time because it was considered a new build. The property was platted prior to 1983 and pre dates most of the City Codes. Ringstad: Asked staff if 10 feet was a reasonable threshold for a deck. Planner Schwabe: Explained that a 10-foot-wide deck has been deemed as reasonable for the purposes of being able to place a table and chairs and be able to walk around those chairs. Ringstad: Mentioned that the permitting that was done for some of the other work for this property was done in 2016 and 2017. This is not an extension but rather a brand-new request for a deck of a different size. Planner Schwabe: Clarified that the applicants did apply for permits and did so in the proper order prior to doing any work on the exterior of their home. They had originally planned to keep the existing deck until they discovered that the deck was not in a suitable condition to be able to 2 keep it. After that discovery the applicant considered if they wanted the 6-foot deck they had before or if they would like to request a variance to extend it. Tschetter: Noted that he there was an approved stamp with Planner Matzke’s signature on it. He asked if this permit was already approved once but had expired and now is being brought back, or what is the administrative timeline of this permit. Planner Schwabe: Explained that the stamp of approval on the drawing was a result of the review of the exterior permit change request for the residing. It is not uncommon for staff to ask for that information to ensure that the applicant is not expanding the structure. That stamp indicated that Planner Matzke reviewed that survey at that time and signed off that they were not changing the footprint of the structure at that time. It was not indicative of the deck request. Tschetter: Clarified that the proposed deck on that drawing is not going back to a September request of 2016. The applicant took an existing drawing of the deck in 2016 and the applicant is reusing it today to illustrate the new and proposed deck. Planner Schwabe: Explained that was correct. Applicant Tim Maher: Residing at 6370 Conroy Street, addressed the Planning Commission. He explained that the house was an old stucco home and the stucco was in severe deterioration and at that point they applicant decided to replace the stucco and windows. Upon removing the stucco, they realized that around the windows and around the deck the wood was severely deteriorated to appoint where the applicant could not physically fix the sheeting underneath the deck with out removing the ledger board that was never properly flashed. Upon this discover staff asked the applicant to get a new survey which is the survey that was in front of the commission this evening. At that time, they decided they would like a little larger deck because six feet is very tight to be able to add a table and chairs and safely move around it. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4A AT 6:18 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: No comments from the public. MOTION BY RINSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:19 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Has concerns that this property is just over 50 percent pervious surface and the new proposal will reduce it by 2/10th of a percent. He is concerned about a 600 square foot concrete basketball court, as well as the 10 feet for the deck. He supports the variance. Tieman: Supports the variance they had a similar deck in place when they purchased the house. He had no issues with this variance and was happy the five criteria were met and no impact on the neighbors. Fleming: Has no issues with this variance. It meets the five-point threshold 1108.400 and he appreciates the back and forth and good faith work and collaboration with staff and the applicant. He supports the variance. Ringstad: Supports the variance for all the reasons previously mentioned. Tschetter: Has no concerns with this variance. He appreciates the applicant’s efforts to collaborate with the neighbors. He believes it meets the threshold and is consistent with what else is in the neighborhood. He supports the variance. 3 MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. PDEV19-000008 – 15402 Forsythe Road SE - Variances – The homeowner, Daniel Dauffenbach, is requesting a variance to allow construction in the bluff impact zone located at a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 250480120. Planner Matzke: Introduced a public hearing to consider approval of a variance to consider a Request to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level deck in the bluff impact zone to remain. The property is located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake, south of Fish Point Road. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended motion. He presented a location map, lake photo from 1999, aerial photos from 2003, 2007, 2016, and 2018, photos of property from 2016-2018, survey dated September 25, 2018 and sequencing of events from applicant and email from adjacent property owner. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked staff to explain how this situation came to the City’s attention. Planner Matzke: Explained that this was brought forward through Code Enforcement in the summer of 2018. Fleming: Asked staff how many permits had been requested on this property between 2002 and tonight in 2019. Planner Matzke: Looking at the cities building permit software there was a siding permit, but no permits were pulled for any of this activity in the bluff area. Fleming: Clarified that in 17 years no permits were pulled for this property. Planner Matzke: No, not outside of minor permits or siding permits. Kallberg: Asked if the Commission recommends removal of the porch does the deck surface have to be made pervious because otherwise the City does not gain anything in terms of impervious surface reduction. Planner Matzke: Explained it would be the Planning Commissions discretion as to how they would like to handle pervious versus impervious areas. The applicant currently remains under 30% as the property exists today. That is why the applicant is not requesting an impervious surface variance. Tieman: He asked for staff to clarify what was included in the impervious surface. He understood that concrete patios are included but wondered if the paver patios were considered impervious. Director McCabe: Explained the paver patios were considered impervious. Ringstad: Asked when the rules and ordinances for the Bluff Impact Zone came into play. Planner Matzke: The most recent revisions occurred in the winter of 2016. Ringstad: Asked if it was possible to engineer a retaining wall that currently exists. Planner Matzke: That yes it could be done. The applicant would hire a private engineer to work with the City Engineer to work through that requirement. Ringstad: Was a licensed contractor hired for any of the work that was done. Planner Matzke: Added that they did hire a licensed contractor for the retaining walls, but the City does not know exactly what was done by the licensed contractor. The applicant could answer that question. Tschetter: Has the city done any inspections from a code enforcement perspective on the improvements that were made on this property and found any findings. Planner Matzke: Explained that in regard to the walls staff has not yet determined what was or not done to code. The building inspectors have not done their inspections. The applicant has officially applied for a permit and through that procedure staff will investigate those concerns. Tschetter: Asked what the insert in the packet from Heartland Custom Builders, Inc was for. He was under the impression that it was the contractor who might have been doing some of this work. 4 Planner Matzke: Explained that yes the sequencing of events was completed by the contractor that the applicant hired to do the work. The contractor is in the audience this evening. Tschetter: Has this contractor done other work in Prior Lake with permits. McCabe: Clarified that yes, he believed so. He added that the contractor was in the audience and the Commission could verify that. Applicant Dan Dauffenback: Residing at 15402 Forsythe Road SE, addressed the Planning Commission. He explained that he has employed NTI Technologies to engineer his retaining walls. The porch is a three-season porch, it does have a gas fire place. The Contractor that he used for the porch is Randy Sleeper form Heartland Custom Builders. He is licensed and he has done numerous projects in Prior Lake. Dan would like to address the fact that he bought this house in 2001. Edina Reality showed it to him, and the word bluff was never mentioned. He never realized that he bought a property in a bluff. The City asked him to get a survey and the survey came back that he is within the bluff. The decks that were in place at the time he purchased the home were in violation of this said bluff. The decks were falling apart at the time of purchase. Little by little he replaced the decks over time. He decided to put a porch on the deck because the winds on the deck are so strong that they cannot sit outside. They made an error in judgement and did not pull a permit for the porch. Fleming: He stated that he was extremely troubled. He’s never seen a case more egregious than this one. Permits were never pulled for 17 years on this property. He needs to understand why permits were not pulled for 17 years. Dauffenback: Explained that the land in the backyard was sliding into the lake. That’s what started the retaining walls and it was an emergency fix. He added that he is in the contracting business himself and neither one of them thought they needed to pull permits for those walls. Then they began replacing the decks because they were rotted out and replaced with maintenance free materials in. An error in judgement was made. Fleming: A onetime event is an exception; a pattern of 17 years is a trend. And, now I’ve learned that you’re a contractor too. So, there are two contractors in the community that did not pull a permit and wanting the Commissioner’s to believe that they did not know. He feels this is indefensible. Dauffenback: Explained it was an error in judgement. Fleming: Added for 17 years. He asked to hear from the Contractor Randy Sleeper: Resides at 20576 Jupiter Avenue. He stated he is from Heartland Custom Builders. He addressed the Planning Commission. Fleming: Asked the applicant if he was doing multiple projects in the Prior Lake Community. Sleeper: Responded yes. Fleming: Asked the applicant if he has pulled permits and followed those. Sleeper: Responded yes. Fleming: Asked the applicant how the City would know that. Sleeper: Added that when he started this project, he was brand new in the business. Improvements were made and how do you turn back and pull permits after the fact. In retrospect he realizes he should have done so. This is not typical business on his part. An error in judgement was made from the start. Prior to receiving this violation letter, he had never heard about the bluff. Tschetter, Is with his Chairman on this issue. He is struggling to understand how this property got to this point. He knows that this community is not unique. Several cities have the similar situations and how to approach construction for your customers. Sleeper: Explained that obviously the bluff is unique to the other areas he has done work. Ringstad: Two comments: One, for the applicant, as the applicant mentioned a reference to value in the property, and he wanted to state that value has nothing to do with anything the Commission is here for tonight. And, a comment for the Contractor who admitted being new to the business, that it would surprise the Commissioner if understanding that the need for permitting was not a part of the approval process for contracting licensure. Sleeper: Added that he was young and naive in the business. 5 Tieman: Felt that the other Commissioners had done a great job asking questions. He asked for detail on how this screen porch was constructed. Sleeper: Said there are footings that support the lower deck and point loads that support the upper deck. There is a water drainage system that is connected and tied into a gutter system. Tieman: Asked who came up with this extensive design. Sleeper: Stated that he and the applicant created it. The sizing of the beams was done by the building supplier regarding the loads. Kallberg: Asked what type of contractor’s license they are licensed to do and are they insured. Sleeper: Stated that he is licensed through the State as a General Residential Building Contractor. Dauffenback: Stated he owns Northland Paving out of Lakeville which is a Commercial asphalt paving company and is Licensed with the State and insured. Kallberg: asked for clarification as to why the porch is not allowed. Planner Matzke: Explained that a site photo from the summer of 1999 indicates what was in place on the site prior to the applicant’s site modifications from 2002-2018. Going forward the City looked at the applicant’s improvements since then. The City would allow for exact replacement of a deck as an existing non-comforting use. The City would allow for exact replacement or reductions within a bluff zone because it would be a reduction of a legal non-conforming use. To enclose a deck into a porch is an expansion of a non-conforming use. The expansion requires a variance from the Planning Commission. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4B AT 7:13 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: No comments from the public. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 7:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: He echoed the Chairman’s sentiments earlier. This is an extremely disappointing situation. The residents look to contractors to guide them through the construction process and to maintain healthy relationships with the community leadership. He is extremely disappointed that a local contractor would ignore the code requirements knowing the ramifications of that and what it means for public safety and the value of what was built. Ringstad: Echoed Commissioners Tschetters thoughts. Looking at the staff report he thinks the commissioners should discuss these items one by one. He thought the staff report was excellent and commended staff for walking the Commissioners through this difficult discussion. Thanked staff for putting together an excellent report to help the commissioners navigate this difficult discussion. Fleming: Stated that it was his intent to walk through the conclusions as well, he had not thought about the sub categories. He thought that was a great idea. Tieman: Would agree that the Commissioners should go through the items one at a time. Kallberg: Asked staff to pull the items from the report up on the screen for the viewing audience. Staff Findings: 1) The stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings be brought into compliance with the City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings to no more than 32 square feet each after the property owner obtains a permit. 6 MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION FOR FINDING ONE AS PRESENT ED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TO INCLUDE IN A RESOLUTION AND BRING IT BACK AT FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 2) The retaining walls be allowed to remain if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO ALLOW THE RETAINING WALLS TO REMAIN AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAINS A PERMIT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3A) The water oriented accessory structure be allowed to remain as is. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY KALLBERG, TO ALLOW THE WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN AS IS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3B) The Board of Adjustment provide direction regarding whether the patio pavers within the bluff impact zone should be allowed to remain. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO ALLOW THE PATIO PAVERS WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE TO REMAIN. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4A) A smaller lower deck off the garage be allowed to remain, in an appropriate size as determined by the Planning Commission, as a reduction of a previous nonconforming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO BRING BACK ANOTHER PLAN SHOWING A REDUCTION IN THE FOOTPRINT AND BRING BACK TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR APPROVAL. Ringstad: Could we strike item 4A from tonight’s approvals so that the PC could have some time to revisit this plan. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4B) The variance request for the 3-season porch be denied. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE THREE-SEASON PORCH. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5A) The smaller deck off the garage be allowed to remain as the reduction of a previous nonconforming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO ALLOW THE SMALLER DECK OFF THE GARAGE TO REMAIN AS THE REDUCTION OF A PREVIOUS NONCONFORMING DECK IF THE PROPERTY OWNER APPLIES FOR A PERMIT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 7 5B) The board of Adjustment provide direction regarding the approval or denial of a variance for the upper level deck from the patio door. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO BRING BACK ANOTHER PLAN. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. C. Amendments – City Code Section 1108 of the Prior Lake City Code – Consider certain amendments to the Prior Lake City Code Section 1108 of the Prior Lake City Code relating to the voting requirements for zoning changes. Director McCabe: Introduced a public hearing to consider recommending amendments to subsection 1108 of the Prior Lake City Code. The proposed amendments would require a two- thirds supermajority vote of all members of the City Council for adoption of amendment to any part of the zoning ordinance that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning use district from a residential designation to either commercial or industrial designation. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended a motion. He presented a proposed ordinance amendment. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked staff to clarify the change. He wondered if staff was recommending making it reciprocal if converted to either direction for rezoning it would require a simple majority. Planner McCabe: Stated that was correct. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIELMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 4C AT 7:42 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: No comments from the public. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 7:43 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: No comments MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1108 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING CHANGES AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE SECTION 104; WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENTALY PROVISIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. PDEV19-000007 – 3800 Green Heights Trail SW – Variance Resolution Denial – The Planning Commission considered a request for variances from the minimum rear setback and maximum impervious surface requirements in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District on March 25, 2019. City Staff was directed to prepare a resolution of denial to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. PID 250940030. Planner Matzke: Introduced the consideration for denial of a variance from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum impervious surface requirement. The home owner, Scott Thielen is 8 requesting variances from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum impervious surface requirement to construct a new dwelling on a single-family residence. The property is located along the eastern shores of Upper Prior Lake, south of Dunkirt Avenue. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 25, 2019 and voted to deny the variances, asking that City Staff prepare a resolution of denial based on their findings to be brought to a future Planning Commission meeting for review. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended motion. He presented a denial resolution, location map, and survey dated March 20, 2019. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Thought that the Commission decided it was not a lake shore property. Ringstad: No comments. Tieman: No comments. Kallberg: No comments. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FROM THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT AND MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME IN THE R1-SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Tschetter, and Ringstad. Tieman abstained due to his absence at the March 25th meeting. The Motion carried. 6. New Business: Announcements: Director McCabe: Reminded the Commissioners of the Joint Work Session meeting on May 6th. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:48 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Ann Orlofsky, City Clerk.