Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 September 9 2019 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 9, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, September 9, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Dave Tieman, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Also present were Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Planner Jeff Matzke, Planner Amanda Schwab, Assistant Engineer Nick Monserud and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, August 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TSHCETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV 19-000023 – Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church – Preliminary Plat, Re-Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMCON Construction on behalf of Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church is proposing a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat to separate one existing parcel into three parcels and to rezone the parcel from R-1, (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to a R-3, (High Density Residential) Zoning District to allow for future townhomes and a Child Care Facility on the property at 16840 Highway 13 South. PID: 259021040. Planner Matzke: Introduced a consideration of a recommendation for approval for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Variance request to separate one existing parcel into three parcels and rezone the parcel from a R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to a R-3 (High Density Residential) Zoning District. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, resolution, Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendment exhibit and a New Creations addition site plans. The area for consideration is located at 16840 Highway 13 South, east of Five Hawks Avenue on the shore of Lower Prior Lake, north of CSAH 21 and east of Sunfish trail. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Questioned if we had any parking requirements, and the viability of the townhome parcel. He shared concerns regarding the sizing of this of what is envisioned, as he doesn’t want to end up with a parcel that is not viable for what the land owner is intending to use it for in the future while we are subdividing it; specifically, is that number of townhomes viable with the amount of guest parking that is available and do we have other examples of single parcel accommodating 12 townhomes in a configuration like that, that would raise comfort on this concept. Planner Matzke: Replied there are some extra stalls proposed and explained the requirement for parking stalls. He said this is schematic and conceptual for their needs. He stated they could install a few more parking stalls on the east end of that site. He said this fits the needs for the site and gave 2 examples such as stormwater managed for impervious surface, units meeting density required for zoning district. Tschetter: Said he appreciates the concept of the shared parking. He commented on the third townhouse being compact in comparison to the ones down the street. Ringstad: Asked we are not approving a preliminary plat for the 12 townhomes tonight, correct? Planner Matzke: Explained what would happen if the preliminary plat would change, what could happen with a final plat to the City Council; however, if it was increasing in density it would necessitate a public hearing for the preliminary plat. Kallberg: Said we need the rezoning for the daycare center, correct? Planner Matzke: Replied correct. He explained the zoning for R-3 and the expectation of the zoning of daycare/schools. Kallberg: Asked if any rezoning cannot take effect until the Met Council has approved the 2040 Comp Plan and everything we say will still be based on that approval and then if we recommend approval of the rezoning then it would go through after that. Planner Matzke: Replied yes, and stated the applicant is aware of that situation with our draft Comp Plan. Applicant Wade Johnson: Stated he is with AMCON construction and the applicant in this case with Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church. He stated he would like to underscore that they are not townhome developers. He commented on the townhome layout, what the density might look like, and focus is the daycare. He said he would like to have the team comment. Roger Toomey: President of Faith Lutheran Church. He stated he wanted to comment on the townhome situation stating the drawing is preliminary. He mentioned conversations with the local builder and commented on what type of environment, price range and sizes of the townhomes. Tschetter: Commented on the financial expectation on how many units or what kind of density they would be able to get. And stated it doesn’t sound like what he just described. Toomey: Also commented on the townhomes being free standing, doing esthetics. Ringstad: Asked about the churches involvement to sell the lot. Toomey: Replied that is our full extent as we are not a developer. Ryan Carlson: Stated he is one of the owners of New Creations Childcare and Learning Center and he introduced the rest of the group and stated they are all here for any questions. Tieman: Asked how large and how many students will be at the Child Care Facility. Ryan Carlson: Explained the way it is designed right now, they would be looking at 140 students. Planner Matzke: Commented on City Staff questions regarding some of the site details around the daycare. He explained the City’s extensive ordinances and said these ordinances would need to be followed and explained that some of these details have not been submitted; however, we will go over them during their applications to make sure they meet all the requirements for City standards. Tschetter: Asked for clarification on a religious institution can existence in a R-1, Low Density; however can’t a daycare existed in the R-1 Zoning as well. Planner Matzke: Replied that it is not a listed Use in our Low Density Residential, it is in High Density Residential. He mentioned that schools are listed in all three districts and have similar land use types and needs. Tschetter: Replied stating that he is hung up on the rezoning of this entire plat in order to accommodate the childcare facility and not the religious institution and the 1.3 acres for the proposed townhomes are still a proposal and is far off. Planner Matzke: Replied correct and explained the Low-Density Use and the allowances in the Low- Density Use. Tschetter: Said that he is assuming that a small of stand-alone townhomes would not meet the density requirements for R-3 and would not be eligible for that parcel once we rezone it. Planner Matzke: Replied that would be correct if it was to remain lower density, so they would have to achieve at least the high density racial. 3 Kallberg: Said if we rezone that to accommodate this density of townhomes, they will have to come back again another date to the Planning Commission if they want to have a lower density and have a different zoning again, correct? Planner Matzke: Replied yes, they would have to come back if they wanted to have lower density in the townhome portion. Kallberg: Said he doesn’t want to keep zoning back and forth and would like to have some long-term understanding. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Amanda Greeney: Resides at 16726 Creekside Circle. She shared concerns of safety, traffic, school traffic safety, events at Five Hawks, churches proposal generating more traffic, zoning, public review of the 2040 comp plan, and how adding a day care and housing increased the traffic volume. She asked what the standards are, and have they been met. She believed these standards were not shared with the Commissioners or the public. Jessica Pruszinske: Resides at 16754 Creekside Circle. She stated she lives right behind the church. She stated concerns of safety, traffic, accidents, school events, lack of parking, senior’s safety, adding so many extra people, intersection, children waiting on the highway for school bus. Intersection will not handle the traffic. Matthew Adair: Resides at 16784 Creekside Circle. He lives directly behind the church, east of where the proposed daycare would be. He shared his concerns regarding lights shining in his house, snow plows, dumpsters smells, and mosquitos in the pond. He stated he is a Pastor for a church in Bloomington so he understands growth of a church and he supports them with there mission and wanting to develop their land; however, he would like to petition to everyone who also lives here in Prior Lake to think about the residents that live around to enforce the natural barriers and help the neighbors to continue to enjoy the quality of life that we currently have. Aaron Kientzle: Resides at 16681 Creekside Circle. He asked if the lot is going to be split into three lots can they be zoned individually. He shared concerns of traffic, safe walking space for the community (sidewalk), proposal of no on-street parking on Five Hawks Avenue to try to decrease issues that might arise with children and congested road. Also asked if the variance is evaluated differently for the shared parking lot between commercial and residential zoning. He asked if there have been any utility/sewer aspects taken into this proposal with all the extra residence and businesses. Phillip John Schmelzer: Resides at 16617 Creekside Circle SE. He said his concerns he has with this project are the same as neighbors, including safety of the children at Five Hawks School, traffic and sidewalks. He said he is really questioning the townhouses, as a 1.3-acre lot with 12 townhouses being sold for $400,000 doesn’t make sense to him. He gave his house value as an example and asked how they could be priced so expensive. Concerned about townhome values, potential crime, and decrease in property values. Planner Matzke: Explained the market value of property cannot be evaluated as part of a zoning request since market values could change. The impacts of land use types is appropriate for consideration during the request for a zoning change. Phillip John Schmelzer: Asked if another public hearing would be conducted for any low income housing project. Planner Matzke: said that another public hearing would be necessary if a housing project requested City funds or monetary assistance. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:41 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 4 Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked which land uses could be allowed within the R-3 (High Density Residential). Planner Matzke said correct anything that is permitted within the R-3 zoning would be allowed on the site including high density residential, schools, religious institutions, day care, and other residential uses. Tieman: Asked about Five Hawks Avenue traffic counts. Assistant City Engineer Monserud: Commented the road can handle 3,000-5,000 trips per day. He said no parking requests would be handled by the Traffic Safety Committee via a petition. Tschetter: Shares residents’ concerns with traffic and school times. Would like to further consider the traffic impacts. Proposes to table the discussion. Ringstad: He thanked the public for their comments and stated he will be supporting this tonight. He commented on traffic, concerns for the neighborhood and potential petition to the Traffic Safety Committee for no parking if residents feel it is needed. The daycare facility will bring more traffic but this traffic will not continue deep into the neighborhood. Kallberg: Thanked everyone for coming tonight and expressing their comments. He appreciates the applicants changes to the plan following the concept plan review including the parking lot adjustments. He commented on the traffic from the school, time of the drop off versus the school drop off/pick up. Has concerns for peak times for traffic and wondered if this is the appropriate place for a daycare and townhomes. Tieman: said he does share traffic concerns but does have faith in the City to analyze the traffic situation. He does see the need for the daycare and will be supporting this. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM R-LD (URBAN LOW DENSITY) TO R-HD (URBAN HIGH DENSITY), REZONING FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND THE NEW CREATIONS PRELIMINARY PLAT. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman and Ringstad, Nays by Kallberg, and Tschetter. The motion fails. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECOND BY TIEMAN TO TABLE THE DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM R-LD (URBAN LOW DENSITY) TO R-HD (URBAN HIGH DENSITY), REZONING FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND THE NEW CREATIONS PRELIMINARY PLAT TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISION MEETING AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH TRAFFIC PARTICULARY AT PEAK TIMES. Planner Matzke: Explained the separate motions of recommendation to City Council and approval of a variance. Also explained the process to continue discussion as an old business item since the public hearing is closed for the item. Kallberg: Asked about whether any future written public comments could be submitted. Planner Matzke: Explained the public comment period is within the public hearing which has been closed. MOTION BY Tschetter, SECONDED BY Kallberg, TO TABLE THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT FOR 16840 HIGHWAY 13 SOUTH. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. B. DEV19-000022 – 14472 Shady Beach Trail NE – Variance – The property owners, Ronald and Elizabeth Reinsma, are requesting variances for a reduced front yard setback and reduced setback from the ordinary high-water mark of Prior Lake for the construction of a single-family residence. PID: 250460050 Planner Schwabe: Introduced a consideration of approval of a resolution approving variances from the minimum front and lake setback on a property in the R1-SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) 5 Zoning District to construct a single-family residence located along the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake, east of Crest Avenue NE and South of Birchwood Avenue NE. The area for consideration is located at 114472 Shady Beach Trail NE. She explained history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented a resolution, location map, narrative from applicant, revised survey and proposed residence elevations. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad: Asked about the footprint of the prior dwelling on the property; he explained he was asking because of the nonconforming lot size Planner Schwabe: Replied she doesn’t have the exact footprint; however, stated it was a smaller cabin. She explained the rebuild and nonconforming ordinance. Tschetter: Commented that the impervious surface is 29.99% of the total lot area. Asked about the proposed platform as a pervious material. Planner Schwabe: Stated City Staff has met with the applicant and explained the platform would not be impervious due to the spacing between the floorboards. Applicant Ronald Reinsma: 13923 Fond Ridge Way, Apple Valley. He explained he is selling their house and is excited to move here. He commented on the neighborhood being updated, trying to stay with the character of the neighborhood, the lot shape, varied the house profile on the road and lake side similar to other neighboring properties. This is the best they feel they could do. MOTION BY Tschetter, SECONDED BY Kallberg, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 7:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY Ringstad, SECONDED BY Kallberg, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 7:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Applicant was creative in their house design. The impervious surface requirement is met. The neighborhood has very similar setbacks as are proposed with this request. I will support. Tieman: Appreciates effort by applicant to design a proper dwelling that fits the lot. Will be supporting. Ringstad: Agrees with fellow Commissioners on comments of approval. Will be supporting. Tschetter: The applicant has met five points of the variance criteria for approval. Many properties in this neighborhood have similar variance requests. Will be supporting. MOTION BY Kallberg, SECONDED BY Tschetter, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND LAKE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT AT 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL NE WITH THE LIST OF CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. C. DEV19-000001 – Towering Woods – Preliminary Plat – Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Inc. is proposing a preliminary plat for 12 townhome residential units to be known as Towering Woods Townhomes within a R-3, (High Density Residential) Zoning Use District. PID: 252310150. 6 Planner Matzke: Introduced a consideration to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Towering Woods Townhome within a R-3, (High Density Residential) Zoning District to develop a 12- unit high density residential subdivision located at north of 170th Street, east of Toronto Avenue. He explained history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans, Engineering/Public works/WSB Memorandum dated August 30, 2019 and a Community Development Department Memorandum dated September 3, 2019. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked about possible requirements for sidewalk and trails along the street. Assistant City Engineer Monserud: Commented the City does consider trail gaps and collector roads for sidewalk locations. Tschetter: The road does enter into a Community Park. The road is already a thoroughfare an has traffic. This may be an opportunity to include the pedestrian access to the park along with the street upgrades. Assistant Engineer Monserud: The City will consider this in looking at a possible trail gap. Tschetter: Asked about the driveways Planner Matzke: Explained the discussions concerning grading to allow driveways completely within the interior of the lot. City Staff will continue these discussions. Tschetter: Encouraged continued discussion on possible driveway relocation. Ringstad: Agrees with Commissioner Tschetter in regards to addressing the 4 individual driveways. Kallberg: supports points brought forth by fellow commissioners. Tieman: Supports previously stated comments. Applicant Chad Dipman, Habitat for Humanity: The development plan has been through a long process. We are still digesting the City Staff comments, none of which are not possible to overcome. Hopeful to make it work for development. Relocating the driveways could be challenging due to grading impacts and building setbacks. Traffic on the road is generally specific to park event days. Tschetter: Thanked the applicant with the work they have done. Feedback to the developer is he is in favor of a potential building setback variance that may allow altering of the access to the site. Wants a site that represents Habitat for Humanity well in the City opportunity to get this right and be a successful project that works for everyone. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C AT 7:31 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Steven Brozen: 4664 Tower Street Explained his location to the proposed building would be directly adjacent , speaking on behalf of neighbor – neighbor stated “I want to vote no to another condo of any origin or townhome right next door to my condo association. I don’t want to live in Towering Woods without any towering woods.” Steven also expressed concerns over tree removals, noise, access on ponds park road having access for park only. Planner Matzke: Explained the road is a public right-of-way and the only direct access for the development property to a public road. He said the property was originally proposed as a future phase of development for the existing Towering Woods plat (and condos) to the north of the site but it was segmented from that property years ago and not platted at that time and sold to another property owner than the condominiums. Brozen: Shared other concerns of traffic on this access road with kids and already enough traffic. I am against the project. 7 Joseph Fidel: 4664 Tower Street Unit #233 – commented on being the most affected along with Steve. He echoes the previous homeowner’s comments. Believes the changes the quality of life for the neighborhood. Also echoes Commissioner Ringstad traffic comments. The project will change the nature of the park area and nature of the street and natural impacts to the wooded areas. Would argue that while it may increase the tax base, it affects the buffer area for the parkland and the City value. IT will affect a park with trees, the look and feel of the park, changing the character and ambiance. He moved from Bloomington to Shakopee due to over development and then from Shakopee to Prior Lake again due to over development. The developer ownership is not local so it may be difficult to address any issues with the future property owner. The project proposal is too dense to develop, to urban, would involve construction noise, cutting down a couple hundred trees. It is just not the right fit for this area of Prior Lake. Chris Pelzel: 4690 Oakland Circle – Believes he will be the most affected resident as the five driveways would back up into his yard on the opposite side of the street. He did a lot of research and looked to purchase this area. He mentioned major drainage issues was the reason he didn’t purchase this area. He talked of the costs of adding street curb and gutter system, traffic at all times, and issues of parking, width of road. He asked what the current width of the road would be. Assistant City Engineer Monserud: Believes the road design would be 20-24 feet currently and not wider than 28 feet when upgraded. Pelzel: Asked if that included sidewalk. Assistant City Engineer Monserud: Believes a sidewalk may be considered. Pelzel: Said it is a terrible idea to place driveways directly on the road. The area is a hill and there have been vehicle accidents there. Concerns of traffic and housing. He has talked to other developers and sees some serious issues with access and drainage on this lot. He explained the seclusion of the lot is the reason why he bought their house. Believes it may severely impact his property. Please take a hard look at the codes and what is in everyone’s best interest. He is all is for HUD projects; however, it does increase crime in the area according to HUD. Kerrie Bester: – 4666 Oakland circle – birds view of the development and access road area. She is home daycare provider so sees all the park traffic especially in October to conduct sports. There are walkers in the morning and kids walking on grass to and from buses so driveways coming out on the hill does not seem like this plan is a good idea for safety. She is a runner and has a hard time crossing 170th Street due to the traffic. There will be bright lights in windows, traffic, and congestion. She hopes this is reconsidered with better options or the project is changed altogether. MOTION BY Tschetter, SECONDED BY Ringstad, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 7:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Asked questions for Habitat for humanity regarding the organization. Chad Dipman: It is a nonprofit organization to allow for families to purchase houses. Habitat does sell the houses and they then become the lender so the residents would become the property owners, not habitat. Kallberg: How long has Habitat for Humanity own the property? Dipman: 4 years this coming December. It was donated to Habitat for Humanity. Kallberg: Said two things we hear all the time is “we don’ want the traffic and keep the trees”. He explained development will happen on private properties. This organization acquired this property in good faith to develop it. The street would be built to the City standards. Accommodation for walking in the street or sidewalks should be considered. Tschetter: Commented on not being comfortable with approving this project without improvements for sidewalks for safety. Would like to eliminate the driveways on the street. Asked City Staff to look at the street reconstruction cycle and find a way to do improve the street and sidewalk areas for safety. Would like to see additional discussion on the project. 8 Ringstad: commented on widening the street might make traffic move faster. Would rather see one access point rather than individual driveways. Recommends tabling the item to see some of these issues with the access and street addressed. Tieman: Supports the development but has concerns on the traffic flow, driveway. MOTION BY Ringstad, SECONDED BY Tieman, TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TIME TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC SAFETY AND STREET RELATED ISSUES AND CITY STAFF TO CONSIDERED STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. D. PDEV19-000008 – 15402 Forsythe Road SE – Variance – The homeowner, Daniel Dauffenbach, is requesting a variance to allow a previously constructed deck/landing to remain in the bluff impact zone located at a property in the R1-SD. (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 25480120. Planner Matzke: Introduced a consideration to deny a variance request to allow construction within the bluff impact zone on a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District Tschetter: Commented on the photos, stating that one other landings is currently over 32 square feet. Planner Matzke: showed photos and indicated the applicant is currently under construction of redcing the stairway width and landings to 32 square feet. Tschetter: asked for distinction on a landing versus a patio. Planner Matzke: Explained what constitutes and landing as part of a stairway system. Tschetter: said it looks more like a deck than a patio, asked about permitting. Planner Matzke: Mentioned the impervious surface ordinance requirements with a patio material. Tschetter: talked about adding a patio without the need for a permit as long as they met impervious surface requirements. Ringstad: What is the difference between a deck and a platform. Planner Matzke: Explained the difference stating a platform is a stand alone and is not affixed to a structure and has their own footings. Decks are attached to other structures or are higher than 30 inches from the ground. Ringstad: Asked about the bluff and slope access. Planner Matzke: Explained that stairways and landings are allowed within a bluff slope for access. Kallberg: Will wait till after the public hearing to rely comments. Tieman: asked if this platform needs to be this large. Planner Matzke: Explained that landings are allowed within a bluff slope so that access up and down a bluff slope is allowed with breaks in the stairs. Applicant Dan Dauffenbach: 15402 Forsythe road SE – Commented on meetings with the planning commission previously. He had no idea what a bluff was until this issue was brought forward. He commented on tearing out the three-season porch and will be tearing out the upper landing per the Planning Commission direction. He commented on what he would have to do to make that area a deck. And how this would be a very elaborate removal to reduce the deck. Tschetter: Asked if the applicant was a contractor correct? Dauffenbach: Stated he is an asphalt paving contractor. Tschetter: Stated he doesn’t have a lot of sympathy for his frustration. He does understand the give and take for the landing area. Believes the applicant’s frustration is getting in the way of finding a way forward to address the issue. Dauffenbach: Stated he removed the three-season porch because he violated the City Code. That removal was a huge expense. He believes has complied with the direction of the Planning Commission and corrections made, and now he is being told to address a deck that was smaller tan the previous deck in 1999. 9 Tschetter: Has no further questions for the applicant, but cautions the applicants frustrationwith the process because he feels the frustration could have been avoided 19 years ago when the construction stated. That has been the intentof this Commission. Dauffenbach: Stated he has come to terms that this issue needs to be remedied but he felt that the remedy took place months ago by the final determination of the Planning Commission. Now this deck situation came up after the fact and he believes in his opinion the deck should be allowed to stay. The ramfications of tearing it out are substantial to get the grades to work. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4D AT 8:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comments: None MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4D AT 8:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commissioner comments: Tschetter: Stated he believes the request for variance does not meet the criteria that “the practical difficulty “ He is sympathetic in time and money invested to the project but while we have the opportunity to remedy the stairs, we have the opportunity to remedy the entire stair structure. This is an omission from the previous discussion. The deck is not mentioned; that’s an error that needs to be corrected. Ringstad: A sentence in the Staff report mentions consistency and setting a precedent in bluff variance request. He believes, if approved, the Planning Commission needs to be ready to approve a bunch of similar variance requests. He is not ready to do that and as a result will vote to deny the request tonight. Kallberg: Stated the 3rd bullet point in the conditions of approval from the May 13, 2019 Planning Commission resolution states the stairway and landings (that’s plural) should be brought into City Code compliance. If this is not a landing but rather a deck then where is the other landing that makes the statement plural? All the stairway and landings should be brought into compliance. One of the criteria of variance approval is that the hardship was not of the doing of the applicant. In this case, the applicant built all of this stuff without any consideration of getting permits, what the quotes might be, and he claims ignorance that he didn’t know about the bluff impact zone. Had he gone to obtain the permit properly before construction he would have found out that it was a bluff impact zone and things would have built accordingly. He also shares the City Staff’s view of setting a precedent. He believes nothing has changed, and the applicant wants to change the label of a landing to a deck and that is not how it was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission previously stated the landings must be brought into compliance and he will not support the variance application request. Tieman: Stated he will not support the request. It comes down to the simple fact of lack of practical difficulties in the request even though it may be challenging to bring the construction into compliance with the City Code. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECOND BY TSCHETTER TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDS A LACK OF DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES UNDER THE ZONING CODE CRITERIA. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 10 6. New Business: No New Business. Announcements: Next meeting will be September 23, 2019. Two public hearings are scheduled along with the possibility of old business items that were tabled from tonight’s meeting. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER , SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:25P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Matzke, Planner