Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101419 PC Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 14, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, October 14, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Absent were Commissioners William Kallberg and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Director Casey McCabe, Planner Amanda Schwabe, Assistant Engineer Nick Monserud and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, September 23, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV19-000026 – 15389 Breezy Point Road SE – Variance – The property owner, Property Buyers R Us, LLC, is requesting variances from the minimum structure setback to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake, minimum side yard setbacks, maximum impervious surface and expansion of a non-conforming structure to add a second story to an existing nonconforming residence located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 250260020. Planner Schwabe: Introduced the consideration of a Resolution approving a Variance from the minimum lake setback, minimum side yard setbacks, maximum impervious surface and expansion of a non-conforming structure on a property in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District, located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake, north of Rutledge Street SE at 15389 Breezy Pont Road SE. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented a resolution, location map, existing condition survey dated July 12, 2019, certificate of survey dated September 5, 2019, proposed house elevation dated June 25, 2019 and a narrative from the applicant. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked if the applicant fully understands the nuances around the proposed/future proposed variance for demolition. Planner Schwabe: Explained in her conversations with the applicant that any significant changes made to this application/plan would need to come back before this group. Fleming: Asked Planner Schwabe if the applicant understands the amenity that needs to occur regarding the twenty-five inches in caliber of trees. Planner Schwabe: Said the tree replacement is part of the Tree Preservation Ordinance that is triggered by building permits. She stated that it is a standard requirement not specific to a variance. 2 Fleming: Asked if the applicant understands the standard requirement of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planner Schwabe: Replied to the best of her knowledge, they do. Fleming: Mentioned reiterating the question to the applicant and asked Planner Schwabe if she thought the applicant has exhausted all creative approaches to this project? Planner Schwabe: Replied the applicants’ options are limited due to the lot size while maintaining the structural integrity of the neighborhood. She said the applicant and their contractor have been receptive to Staff’s recommendations regarding removal of the existing access door/steps on the north side of the home, which would increase the setback to the north property line. In addition, the applicant incorporated a future deck on the plan to eliminate the need to return to the Planning Commission in the future as such time a deck is proposed. She said they have exhausted all their creative approaches for this project. Tschetter: Thanked Planner Schwabe for her report, asked if we are proposing to extend the home on the existing foundation, and mentioned the start of a tree replacement plan. He asked for clarification regarding no other changes to the building outside of the foundation. Planner Schwabe: Replied correct. She explained the only expansion to the existing foundation is the proposed front porch and entry addition. Tschetter: Questioned the front porch being considered a foundation extension. Planner Schwabe: Explained the footprint would be extended slightly in the front entry area and referenced the survey submitted by the applicant, and stated that the remainder of the footprint of the home would be the same as what is today. Tschetter: Said perfect and commented on the home being older and building upon the existing structure. He asked what the limits are for demolition/reconstruction and if there happens to be surprise structural issues in the home, does it then become a variance. Planner Schwabe: Replied someone from the Building Department may be more educated to answer that question; however, she stated she suspected the property owner did their due diligence regarding those items. She said Staff would encourage the applicant to work with the Building Official to ensure they are complying with the State Building Code. If that is not possible, then the property owner would need to return to the Planning Commission. Tschetter: Confirmed that anything needed beyond minor adjustments would need to have a return visit to the Planning Commission. Planner Schwabe: Responded yes, if an issue is identified which would require a change to the plans presented this evening, the require would need to come before the Planning Commission. She explained Staff is trying to avoid having a larger variance requested when there could be a lesser variance needed. Tschetter: Asked if the vacant adjacent lot is the same dimensions as this proposed lot. Planner Schwabe: Replied she believes the lots are similar in size; however, staff does not have the lot dimensions of the adjacent property at this time. She said the vacant property to the south is owned by a couple of property owners across the street. Tieman: Asked is the 22.2-foot waterline to the deck area in line with the neighboring properties and their decks. Planner Schwabe: Replied per aerial photo reviews of the adjacent properties she believes that the furthest protrusion on the rear/lake side of the home is typically a deck or a patio which range anywhere from 21-31 feet from the OHW , stating the proposed deck is consistent with those measurements. Fleming: Commented on a written comment from a resident claiming that the certificate of survey is incorrect. He asked Planner Schwabe if she had any thoughts on if the survey is correct or not. Planner Schwabe: Replied the public comment was received this afternoon and was provided to the Commissioners for their reference. She said she has no reason to believe that the signed, dated survey by a licensed Engineer in the State of Minnesota is incorrect. She said if it is a property line dispute, we would encourage the two property owners to work together as it is a civil matter. Applicant 3 Charles Borrell: Resides at 16153 Northwood Road NW. He commented on looking at different options, the best valuation for this project, reasons why they decided on this type of remodeling, lot being vacant and in very poor condition for some time, previous owners plan, lot size, and keeping the existing foundation and building up. He stated he believed that is the overall general scope of work. Tieman: Asked the reasoning for removal of the trees. Borrell: Explained the reason behind tree removal, stating the roots would cause significant issues, and the front tree is where the future garage access would be; but, knowing the requirements as part of the building permit the landscape is very crucial to the end buyer and to be able to conform to that. Tschetter: Asked if he is aware of any potential survey concerns from discussions of the neighbors. Borrell: Said he voiced that concern due to talk of neighbor comments when they purchased the property. He commented on the survey being accurate and that he is not planning on changing the footprint of the property. He said at this point he is going to go with what the licensed professionals performing the survey gave him. Tschetter: Asked if the applicant was aware of any concerns regarding a fence/fence posts possibly crossing the property line. Borrell: Said he is not aware of this. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:25 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Gene Klun: Resides at 15337 Breezy Point SE. Asked for an abridged version regarding the process from the idea to where we are today to where it looks like a good idea to do. Fleming: Asked Mr. Klun if he is asking staff to clarify the process. Klun: Replied yes and asked is it a good idea to propose a variance for a short distance from the street to the entrance of the garage. Fleming: Asked Staff to describe the process. Planner Schwabe: Explained the process/steps of how a variance gets to the Planning Commission meeting. Fleming: Clarified for the resident the process and what it involves. He verified his variation of the process with Planner Schwabe. Planner Schwabe: Confirmed Commissioner Flemings outline of the process. Klun: Questioned if Engineering reviewed and agreed to the short driveway between the street and entrance to the garage. He asked if anything has changed in the last two years, as he has taken six different tries for this type of variance and Engineering has always denied it. Fleming: Replied Engineering did agree to the driveway and stated he would need to review Mr. Klun’s situation, as he is not sure of the issues he is facing. He suggested Mr. Klun have a meeting with City Staff. Neil Akemann: Resides at 15383 Breezy Point Rd. He stated his wife is here with him and mentioned a survey from 1984 that is different from what is being presented tonight. He said he finds it difficult for the Committee to approve a variance when there are discrepancies in the surveys. Fleming: Questioned the name of the Engineering Company. Akemann: Responded Valley Engineering. Fleming: Asked if there has been an updated recent survey since 1984. Akemann: Stated he does not have an updated survey, no. Fleming: Said they will proceed with the most recent information that is provided to us and asked staff to make an inquiry of the Engineering Company that Mr. Akemann is working with for due diligence. Akemann: Shared concerns regarding variances from a side lot line with inaccurate information and still feels that a decision should not be made when a property line is in dispute. Fleming: Replied we can, and stated they rely on the most recent information. He said he is not a licensed Surveyor or Engineer; however, his assumption is that an Engineer in their process of 4 examining lot lines would also conduct some due diligence on adjacent properties as that information is available to them in the public domain. Director McCabe: Replied that is correct. He explained how the side property setback is not being changed and how the side setback is getting further away from the property line with the removal of the existing wrap around deck. He commented on the property line and the improvements following this project. Akemann: Asked if the fence will be removed as part of the project also. Borrell: (from the audience) Said yes. Akemann: Said they are not trying to hold up the project, they just have an issue with setbacks from a disputed property line. Fleming: Replied he totally understands. Akemann: Explained where he moved her from, his work with his prior City and how variances in that City were deck related. He said if a deck is not done now, the new home owner will be back in front of the Commission. He encouraged the applicant to increase the proposed size of the future deck at this meeting. Fleming: Explained this would need to be applied for prior to this meeting as the Commissioners would need to see renderings; therefore, they cannot formally approve something different at this point. He said it is a great suggestion for the applicant and owner to take into consideration though. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:36P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tieman: Said overall this seems like a reasonable use for this property as it is taking the existing house, raising it and removing a lot of impervious surface. He said it would be nice to get something usable and livable in this area and this will be a good project. Fleming: Stated he will be supporting the proposal and the request. He said he is moved by the reduction in impervious surface and the five criteria outlined in 1108.400 of that criteria are fully met. Tschetter: Stated he agrees as we see quite often with these lakeside lots, especially the older plats, that this is a difficult situation for any homeowner and it is a way for us to preserve and protect the value of this home and the adjacent homes around it by addressing the neglect and the issues that have affected this property. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK, MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT AT 15389 BREEZY POINT ROAD SE WITH THE THREE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. Amendment to Prior Lake City Zoning Code Part 11 – Personal Boat Slips and Mooring Facilities - Ordinance Amendment – Consider amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 1101, 1102, 1104, 1106, 1109 related to personal boat slips and mooring facilities. Director McCabe: Introduced a consideration to recommend certain amendments to Section 1101 General Provisions, 1102 Use District Regulations, 1104 Shoreland Regulation, 1106 Planned Unit Developments, and 1109 Administrative Procedures related to personal boat slips and mooring facilities. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented proposed redline amendments. He commented on Commissioner Kallberg’s written/emailed initial review and suggestions. 5 Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Commented on Commissioner Kallberg’s participation in the discussion. Director McCabe: Stated Commissioner Kallberg was not available to attend the meeting tonight therefore he provided written comments to Staff prior to the meeting including general support for the ordinance amendments as proposed, but Mr. Kallberg would encourage additional discussion around the boat slip to shoreland ratio, which he felt may be too stringent. Fleming: Explained how the conclusion, group/study session, tough questions and feedback for staff were provided by the planning commission regarding this subject. He asked when the ordinance will go into effect if approved. Director McCabe: Explained the next steps to an ordinance amendment. Tieman: Asked for clarification on what a registered watercraft is. Director McCabe: Read from the City Code of Ordinance 1104/page 12, defining Watercraft. Tieman: Thanked Director McCabe and stated he thinks that is information is important to clarify. Tschetter: Stated part of the objective is to address an enforcement challenge. He asked how we intend to enforce the proposed ordinances differently than what we do today. Director McCabe: Explained how code enforcement is handled today versus how the ordinance amendment, if approved by the City Council, will affect the process of code enforcement. Tschetter: Asked what those enforcement actions will be. Director McCabe: Explained the steps of code enforcement actions. Tschetter: Said there is due process in place for violations and mentioned a few traditions around the community regarding different controlled access lots, guest usage or various bylaws and stated there are practices around the community that will become violations of this proposed ordinance. He said he agrees that there is a need for clarification; however, would like to be clear with the residents how we expect this to be handled. He explained his fear regarding this subject, stating we would be driving a wedge in some of these traditions. Director McCabe: Replied this was discussed with the assembled group. He said there were different suggestions made regarding other options for guests, but the administration of a guest slip process would require more staffing than currently available. He explained timelines and the tracking/enforcing of having guest slips. Tschetter: Said he believes there is an element of good faith within our community that we need to protect and preserve. He asked if we know how many properties within the community will be in violation if these changes are approved. He gave examples of circumstances that might fall into the violations. Director McCabe: Replied the city doesn’t have a number that are in violation. He commented on some of the current circumstances that might fall into a legal non-conforming status if the ordinance amendment were approved as proposed. He said this change would go into effect going forward. He commented on single/personal dock complaints/outcomes and said the City does not plan to proactively go out and enforce this, rather it would be addressed in a reactive manner upon receipt of calls and tips from concerned residents. Tschetter: Questioned talk of grandfathering and gave an example of a violation with the homeowner stating it has always been this way. He asked how the City is intending to track the grandfathering. Director McCabe: Replied it depends on the situation and gave an example of grandfathering in versus asking someone to move into compliance. He said if the proposed amendment is approved it will be a challenging year and staff will likely run into a handful of unique situations and we will address them as they come. Tschetter: Said it was mentioned that all the controlled access lots will immediately become legal, non-conforming and asked will that still enable those associations to perform routine maintenance, upgrades, and potential reconfiguration as they maintain the same number of slips. Director McCabe: Responded yes, that is correct and said they have identified all the permitted controlled access lots within our shoreland ordinance have identified their number of approved slips. He said if they want to change their configuration, they can do that by working with City Staff. Tschetter: Asked who the two associations were that plan on making changes. Director McCabe: Replied Boudin’s Manor Association and the Inguadona Beach Homeowners Association. He stated Inguadona Beach is not identified on our current controlled access lot list due 6 to the number of watercraft, as they are currently considered a single dock system. He said once they have seven or more slips, they would need to get a Conditional Use Permit. He said they provided information to show they have sufficient lot area to be an official controlled access lot. Tschetter: Asked if that should be codified into the ordinance along with the others. Director McCabe: Explained if Inguadona Beach were approved they would be added to the City Code; however, until they are approved at seven or more boat slips, they would not be included. Tschetter: Questioned the communications plan, if approved, for when these proposed amendments would take effect. He said he is assuming next year. Director McCabe: Explained the communication plan would likely include articles and notification efforts via the city website, wavelength publication, utility bill inserts, and other social media platforms. He said he is confident that the Prior Lake Association and the Spring Lake Association will participate with the City in distributing information. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 7:06 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Maureen Reeder: Resides at 2850 South Shore Drive. She said she is here on her behalf and on the behalf of Dr. Christian Morkeberg who also lives on Spring Lake as he is unable to be here tonight and had asked Ms. Reeder to reflect his comments for him. She stated Dr. Morkeberg currently serves on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. She commented on the amount of time, voices and leadership on the behalf of the Commission to bring this forward and provide a level of citizen input. She mentioned key areas of focus including shoreline ratio, requirement count must be useable, and the required land count to the shoreline length abutting or inline with 10 feet of navigable water. She said they are appreciative of the process, opportunity to have received so much input and urge its passage in its entirety. She said we are aware that Spring Lake also lies within Spring Lake Township and we hope that the plan is to incorporate Township support of this and approval as well and some sort of enforcement that the Township could provide for that portion of the lake in the Township. Jim Weninger: Resides on Spring Lake. He commented on his parents buying the original land in 1947, meeting his wife on Spring Lake, renting and then owning the property, married and celebrating their residence as a couple on Spring Lake for 47 years. He mentioned he has seen a lot of changes to the lake from back when it was a fishing lake. He asked why it has taken so long to regulate and control the back-lot access. He said he believes this is a worthy project and explained the confusion that might have happened 20 years ago when Spring Lake Estates was started. He commends Director McCabe for the work he has done as it sounds like he is touching a lot of bases. He asked staff to clearly define the definitions of a bog and a marshy shoreline, as one guys marsh may not be the other guys marsh. He commented on proposed development, wetlands being critical for our lakes, attorneys fighting over marshy area and wetland area and the responsibility of a floating bog coming around the lake. He commented on his wife being on the Lakes Advisory Committee for nine years and dealing with the original ordinances, same issues as today, fighting attorneys and legal issues, compromises that didn’t work, charters, attendant in common, associates, and different types of landowners. He asked if the 6 or 7 back lot access marinas are all established or have different associations and said some front-end work can avoid some confusion and conflicts at the end. Fleming: Said comments well taken and suggested to the point that Commissioner Tschetter alluded to this communication plan. He said it is going to be important to communicate and clarify definitions. He referenced a lawsuit regarding a floating blog. He said in this framework of communication between the City Council approving/denying and if this moves forward, we have some good time to incorporate clarity, definitions, frequently asked questions, title and how those are conveyed. Akemann: Asked Director McCabe about a comment made by Dale Stefanisko, Code Enforcement Officer, regarding trespassing and how this will be enforced when access to the property is not allowed 7 as the registration numbers are not visual. He questioned what the penalty would be and what to keep someone from doing this year after year. Director McCabe: Replied to the first question regarding trespassing explaining how information is provided and then explained the complaint process. He replied to the second question regarding the citation and punishment stating a majority of code enforcement actions are misdemeanors processed through the court. He explained the court procedure for a violation and the outcome of an action being a re-violation. Dana Wheeler: Resides at 14126 Orchard Circle. He commented on waiting to find out about this issue all summer, speaking with the Code Enforcement Officer, meeting group being organized, most of the decisions have already been made and said he didn’t feel his feedback will go very far. He asked if the lake is one of the most important assets why wasn’t this open for discussion to more people. He said when he heard the participants to the process and heard associations and city staff but didn’t hear private residential property owners. He said he has some different options he would like to offer. He commented on trying to figure out what the problem is and after listening, viewing the slides he is under the understanding that the problem has to do with safety. He said safety is too general of a term for him. He commented on walking through backyards, company parties, parking issues, events his neighbors have going on, homes being rebuilt around him, blocked and broken roads due to construction projects and stated there are a lot of other issues that I can think of when you talk to me about safety. People parking on the street, but we are not addressing any of those issues here so…. Fleming: Said he would like to pause for a moment to take this into consideration and to expound on safety. He said he has his sense of what the safety issues are, safety to people and safety to the resource of water, but he would like staff to address this. Director McCabe: Replied the primary concern that we hear is on- and off-lake safety. He mentioned what we hear from residents regarding watercrafts and driving speeds. He stated in no way should this be taken that only people that rent boat slips are unsafe on the lake, rather more and more traffic on the lake is creating safety concerns. Fleming: Asked if alcohol consumption is a subset of those safety concerns. He said he was unsure if we had any empirical data from the police department in our report; however, anecdotally that is a concern of his. He asked for comment on that. Director McCabe: Agreed that it is a safety concern and again in no way is staff stating that the people that rent boat slips are more likely to engage in that or not. He said alcohol use on the lake, along with traffic and speeds, are the primary concerns we hear. Wheeler: Agreed the number of watercraft on the lake is an issue. He shared his experience of how the has seen the safety on the lakes issue change in the last 25 years and how the lake is on the weekends. He said he is unsure the changes are really designed to get at the problems regarding the number of boats on the lake. He gave an example of an association having more boats than that of an average property owner and doesn’t know why favoritism is shown in that way. He commented on the 4th of July issues, proposal to look at limiting boats, association versus individual property owners’ limits, renting out slips and how ownership of the boat impacts number of boats on the lake. He stated his opinion on renters, stating if the dock and the slips don’t impinge upon other property owners and any of their rights or access to the lake, then you have a fair approach to deal with the capacity issue. Fleming: Responded he is always struck by the number of slips that are clearly being rented out to visitors to our community and it is abundant to him, which serves as an impetus for this process/change. He said it is not going to be perfect but is getting us going in the right direction. He asked Mr. Wheeler to continue as he believes it is important to hear all viewpoints. Wheeler: Explained his move 16 years ago from 100 feet of shoreline to where they are now with 303 feet of shoreline, his situation of renting out his slip and how it became the renters that ended up placing a dock with slips and said eventually they stopped coming to the dock; however, three other Prior Lake residents now asked if they could use the dock/slips. He said it is a mistake to think that it is only people outside our community. Fleming: Said he is not presuming that at all. He said it is what he has personally observed. Wheeler: Added a comment regarding renting slips is one of the ways people in Prior Lake can utilize the lake. He commented on the increase in complaints being less significant than the number of people impacted by the change in the ordinance regarding the owner of the property has to own the boat, 8 shoreline damage, complaints regarding the size of the wakes, damage the wakes make over the years, expenses to the homeowner and the lake, grandparenting being more for the associations. Ben Peter: Resides at 3579 Island View Circle. He said he belongs to a small association on Upper Prior Lake that includes four houses founded 30 years ago in the late 1980’s. He said they are concerned with the exact wording of this and the grandfathering process and they would like to hear more about the grandfathering process and how it will work so that their families can continue to enjoy the lake. Director McCabe: Explained how this legally exists today and is may be an eligible use to be grandfathered in. He said this is one of the examples, assuming the proposed ordinance is approved in some form and explained the process Mr. Peter could go through to be grandfathered in. He mentioned a setback issue, said today it legally exists and gave an example of how renting out the slips would not be grandfathered in, as this is not a use that legally exists today. Peter: Asked how the setbacks are calculated with the way the property lines hit the shorelines, does the property extend into the lake. Director McCabe: Explained how setbacks are measured and stated most of the time the pin will be close to the high-water elevation. He explained what steps are taken if the pin is not at the high-water elevation, stating the property line does not extend into the lake. He explained the side property line and explained how far the dock would need to be from it. Gene Klun: Resides at 15337 Breezy Point SE. Asked for clarification on the definition regarding family keeping their boat on the property owners dock. Director McCabe: Said immediate family for the purpose of this code and defined who is included in immediate family of the property owner or their spouse. Klun: Commented on safety issues and damage to property and said this could be an opportunity to take this one step further and maybe start identifying what a watercraft is. Eric Thoms: Resides at 13675 Ashcroft Alcove in Savage. He asked the Commission to reconsider the current edits of the ordinance. He said he is an avid user of the waterways in Scott County and agrees that the number of boats on the waterways is an issue when we want to maintain a healthy lake for our county as well as a safe lake for all to use. He said if the number of boats is the real issue that you are trying to solve, he would ask that the commission consider striking letter (d.) which talks about the owner of the boat. He said 1104.310 (2) (a.), (b.), (c.) is enough. Fleming: Asked for a page number. Thoms: Replied pages 6 and 7. He said the number of boats per resident would suffice in addition with the strict clarification that rental is prohibited. Feming: Asked Mr. Thoms if it was on Sub (d.). Thoms: Said yes, it delineates that the boat owner either has to be the owner of the property or attendant or a boarder but cannot be…. Fleming: Said okay, found it. And asked what that would achieve. Thoms: Said he thought that striking (d.) would achieve limiting the ordinance to the problem you are trying to solve. He shared his thoughts on the additional language and how it would be a challenge to enforce, stating it is easier to look at the shoreline and see the number of boats versus the additional step to enforce who owns the boat. Fleming: Asked Director McCabe to address 1104.310 (2) (d.). He said he believed we had extensive conversation about this section in our work session as a Commission, however, asked for some more perspective/feedback. Director McCabe: Explained what Staff is trying to achieve with the language for personal boat slips, including (2.) (d.) as it is to help with use by owner/tenant/boarder, enforcement issues and renting out rooms. He commented on other communities running into these issues and explained how many watercrafts are allowed for homeowner versus boarder. Fleming: Stated that sparked his memory regarding the long conversation on this subject in the work session. Thoms: Asked a question to the Staff regarding the 12-13 complaints a year, where does that rank in the number of other ordinance complaints that you have to investigate. 9 Director McCabe: Explained the number of complaints related to boat slip rental is low on the list of complaints each year. He explained the Code Enforcement Officer has annual reports that are presented to the City Council annually in April. Fleming: Stated the proposed ordinance amendment is years in the making and gave an example of how this has been accumulating over time. He stated we have a problem and we need to take an expansive, broader, longer look back and think deeply about what has been eroded latterly and figuratively in 72 years. He said this marker that we place tonight will not mitigate 72 years, but it will raise some consciousness and will help to not be reckless about our resource moving forward. He stated it might not be perfect, but we need to take a longer, deeper look back for the issue. Liz Weninger: Resides at 2591 Spring Lake Rd. She commented on living on Prior Lake and Spring Lake, being on the Task Force, the original 18.75-foot rule, represented the LAC (Lakes Advisory Committee) but also represented herself as an individual, not an association. She said she did not live in an association and they represented everything as a group with a holistic approach to it. She disagreed to limiting access points on our recreational lake and discriminating against boat types and people that are better for the lake. She said we cannot do that; we must take everybody and hope and pray that they know how to treat a lake and know how to act on the lakes. She stated we can’t say we don’t want you here as we want to welcome everybody and hope that we can treat everybody as a welcome guest both here in town and on the lake. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 7:44P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Said with all matters of the lakes, we end up with a full room and this is no different. He commented on his thoughts regarding renting out docks/slips and stated it does feel that it creates a public safety concern with parking, access, suspicious activity, etc. and stated it is not to discriminate against our neighbors or surrounding communities to enjoy the lake, but is about ensuring that our community stays safe, with having the confidence to move through our neighborhoods. He commented on not being convinced that all the proposed changes are necessary to achieve the outcome around safety. He said we do need to clarify that rental of slips is strictly prohibited and felt it is vague today, but we can claim forward progress on that issue and we can revisit the sizing ratios, restrictions and other changes that will have a very significant noticeable impact for our residents in the coming year and if we can claim that forward progress and start to get control around who is using what, he thinks we could follow up the next year with some of the changes, if needed, to address the number of slips or the allocation of slips according to the property area. He said there are great cases for how we address that issue with Commissioner Kallberg’s comment included, there is further discussion that is warranted on this topic. He said he would propose that we consider tabling this discussion for Staff to pare down the changes, to address the rental issue solely. Tieman: Commented on people’s property rights, but also changes that have occurred in the lake, what is going on in our neighborhoods and stated we need to start somewhere. He said this is not a perfect ordinance amendment; however, it is better than what we have now, and it gives us some ability to enforce the code. He commented on how amendments and ordinances are meant to be changed and adapted to as necessary. He stated he sees no reason why we should not move forward with this amendment as proposed and can continue to work on things going forward, as of right now we need to do something to get this under control. Fleming: Said he sees merit in what both Commissioners have said, and he is supporting this to move forward. He said he believes the City Council will have access to tonight’s tape and minutes, and he would encourage them to think about some of the context items of this conversation. He said he is not willing to go into 2021 having this discussion, we do need to make a courageous step forward and we can monitor and adjust as we go. He stated we have set this Commission, under my leadership, with great examples of inviting, cultivating and honoring community dialogue. He said we make sure that we are linked closely with the City Council and have understanding and confidence when we need 10 to make reasonable adjustments and keep the integrity/fidelity of this practice to policy change intact as suggestions and reactions come to us at the City. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY FLEMING, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1101 GENERAL PROVISION, 1102 USE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 1104 SHORELAND REGULATIONS, 1106 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND 1109, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, and Tieman, Nay by Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: No New Business. • Announcements: None. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, and Tschetter. Absent were Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.