Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.12.24 PC Minutes1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, August 12, 2024 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Vice Chair Ringstad called the Monday, August 12, 2024 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Dan Ringstad, Michael Pasquarette, Christian Fenstermacher, Doug Johnson and William Kallberg. Also present were City Council Liaison Victor Lake, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Planner Paul Moretto, and Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman. 2. Approval of Monday, August 12, 2024 Agenda: MOTION BY JOHNSON SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2024 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Monday, July 8, 2024, Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 8, 2024, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV24 -000015 – 15370 FISH POINT RD SE – Variance Application – Property owner Carrie Ingalls is seeking a variance from the requirements of Section 1130 (Shoreland Regulations) of Prior Lake City Code to allow previously constructed retaining walls to remain in the Bluff Impact Zone. (PID: 250480080). Planner Paul Moretto: Introduced the Variance requested from homeowner Carrie Ingalls who is seeking a variance to allow pervious constructed retaining walls to remain in the bluff impact zone. Moretto shared the location and site details on the property; provided the City Code definition of Bluff and Bluff Impact Zone; shared a survey identifying the property and location of existing retaining walls within the Bluff Impact Zone, including dates when specific walls were removed and later constructed; provided an overview of City Code Shoreland Regulations detailing what is allowed to be constructed and replaced within the Bluff Impact Zone; shared photographs of historic site conditions, including previous walls; shared photographs of listing photos from the time when Ms. Ingalls purchased the property; shared photos of current site conditions, including locations of retaining walls; provided an overview of the landscaping contract and photos identifying the work that was completed in 2022; reviewed the applicant’s narrative and application materials, including the applicant’s reasoning for granting the variance; provided city staff comments on the applicants reasoning; reviewed the criteria for granting a variance identified in Section 1152 of City Code; and stated a staff recommendation to deny the variance request. Commission Comment/Questions: Kallberg: asked about the length of all retaining walls on the property and the history of all walls, whether they were permitted or were in place prior to current city code regulations. McCabe: responded the wall at the shoreline was in place at the time Ms. Ingalls purchased the property. The wall on the south side at the midpoint of the staircase and the wall on the north side of at the top of the staircase were believed to be rebuilt and not new. McCabe highlighted the walls that are recommended for removal. 2 Pasquarette: confirmed the area highlighted was the location of the wall removed by the previous property owner and the bluff was restored to a natural state. McCabe: correct. Pasquarette asked if the fire pit area was left when the previous wall was removed or if that was part of the restoration work. McCabe: deferred that question to the applicant. Indicated the fire pit area was shown on listing photos but was not sure of the condition at the time the property was acquired. Johnson: asked about the riprap wall closest to the lake and if that was located in the bluff zone and taken into consideration. McCabe: stated that wall is in the bluff and historical photos show some version of that wall has existed for several years. Staff is not recommending that wall be removed. Johnson: confirmed that wall would be taken into consideration as a wall in the bluff zone. McCabe: correct. Staff would view that as the one wall allowed in the bluff impact zone. Applicant Jim Hovland, 6800 France Ave. South, Edina Mn: Introduced himself, the property owner Carrie Ingalls, and Mike Morrison, landscape designer with River Heights Landscaping. Carrie Ingalls, 15370 Fish Point RD SE: Introduced herself and hoped all could work toward an equitable solution. Purchased home in August 2021 and allowed sellers to live there until spring. After moving in she noticed erosion problems and was unaware of the previous retaining wall at that time. Noted irrigation was not installed and it was a drought time and ground cover had not been established. Works with several building contractors and found River Heights Landscaping through a referral as a reputable company. Landscape was completed in late October and shortly after received a notice for working without a permit. Her understanding was landscaper would secure necessary permits. Notified landscaper who applied for permits and paid fees, issue was tabled until April due to snow coverage. Met with her attorney and city staff in April and discussed differing opinions on options to correct the situation. A comment was made at that meeting about replacement retaining walls being allowed so she researched and discovered a wall had existed previously. Stated she was unaware this wall existed before she purchased the property. Due to the previous owner not taking correct steps to restore the bluff and planted seed not taking, erosion had started and quickly made its way to the lake. The homeowner states that the landscape she has added greatly helped the erosion runoff into the lake and is a better situation now. The Homeowner states the with the city’s demand of removing the wall there are great concerns of erosion and runoff into the lake. Additionally, she expresses concerns for the four trees at the top of the bluff that have died; two have been removed. Concern with one tree remaining and damage to root structure if heavy equipment is needed to remove the wall. Believes the use is practical, did not intent to do anything wrong, commented about neighbor’s retaining walls and a great deal of the firepit was there. Commented about unsafe limestone stairs existing previously. Jim Hovland: along with the homeowner showed pictures of the previous retaining wall that was removed prior to purchasing the property and point out any differences in before and after pictures. Commented on neighboring houses to show the different types of retaining walls in the area and commented about erosion and runoff into the lake before the landscaping changes were made. Reviewed a photo of the property from the lake to show work that was completed in October 2022. 3 Shared a listing photo to highlight erosion concerns at the time of purchase. Showed a photo of the firepit/social area that was on the property previously. Shared a photo of a fence above the previous retaining wall where no firepit existed but loose boulders were shown on the property. Discussed the work that was completed in 2022. Mike Morrison, River Heights Outdoor Solutions, Inver Grove Heights: States that he was not a part of the company at the time the retaining walls were installed but is well read on the case and is representing the company. River Heights Outdoor Solutions was called in to address a sluffing and erosion issue because previous vegetation had not taken after previous wall was removed due to bad timing related to a drought. Attempted to improve the situation with existing plantings through the addition of the social seating and firepit area. Commented about some of the boulders used in the new retaining walls were on site. Intent was to armor the hillside and give property owner a good place to have seating, put surfacing on the ground, and replant because the seed had not taken the year before. Mr. Morrison commented that the landscape company was not completely familiar with the ordinance at the time and there was confusion about what was allowed under the ordinance. Stated the company works around a lot of bodies of water and do a lot of retaining walls; different regulations in different municipalities. Assumption was made the company could improve upon the social seating area. Jim Hovland: Asked Mr. Morrison if the retaining wall helped with the integrity of the yard. Mike Morrison: Stated the intensity may be higher with the new retaining wall and staircase but the company feels it helped the bluff integrity, provided the seating area they were going for at the time, and made revegetating easier around that area. Commented on the leaning oak tree and said the idea was to build the wall behind the tree to protect the root structure; believes the previous wall was below the tree. Jim Hovland: Commented on the significant amount of material included in the variance application and thanked the Planning Commissioners for taking the time to read the material because he feels it is important to understand the full context of the request to be able to preserve the work that was done by the property owner which he believes are a slight difference to what existed previously, better stabilizes the bluff and better protects the lake. Mr. Hovland stated variances are a means for departing from the strict enforcement of an ordinance as applied to a specific property and variances may be approved for area and dimensional standards, such as bluff protection. Mr. Hovland provided an overview of Prior Lake City Code criteria for considering a variance, including in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code; when consistent with the comprehensive plan; when there are practical difficulties are established. Mr. Hovland does not agree with the findings and conclusions in the staff report. As far as the request being in harmony with general purposes and intent of the zoning code, Mr. Hoveland encouraged the commissioners to think of the request in generalities, not specifics. Commented on the feet and length of walls identified in the staff report and many of those walls existed previously. Commented on general provisions of the zoning code, specifically Section 1110.102 (1), (7), and (10) related to protecting and maintaining stability of residential areas and feels the granting of the variance would accomplish those for environmental and bluff stabilization. Feels it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commented on retaining walls on another property in the neighborhood with walls they feel are more extensive and property owner’s landscaping is similar to other parcels in the neighborhood. As far as consistency with shoreland regulation, Mr. Hovland feels the health, safety and welfare of the lake is protected by granting the variance and ordering the walls removed would be contrary and would be more damaging to the shoreline. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is another point of disagreement. Granting the variance, in their opinion, will continue thoughtful use of the shoreland and would preserve and enhance this property, the bluff, and lake adjacent to the property. Disagrees with findings in the report related to noncompliance with the comprehensive plan. Property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, staff ignored this comment in Section 1152.202. Variance will not alter the character of the locality. Practical difficulties can include functional and aesthetic concerns which is clear in the ordinance and law in 4 Minnesota. They believe the requested variance compiles in every sense with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. They believe the wall is permitted by ordinance as a replacement for the wall that was removed by the previous property owner. It would keep the stairs and siting area which they believe were a refinement of what existed previously. Commented on the increased plantings which are an improvement to the stability of the slope over what was done by the previous owner. Their proposed use is reasonable and demands of the city to remove the walls and regrade the slope will cause functional concerns and aesthetic diminishment of her property. Keeping the retaining wall will help save a large oak tree on the slope and the root system critical to stabilization. Granting the variance is better for the city than forced compliance with the code. Commented on the plight of the landowner being unique and not created by the landowner and staff’s comment about a slope not being a unique situation on this property. Mr. Hoveland does not agree and feels the plight is due to the steep slope on the lakeshore side. The request is due to erosion and sediment control due to the steep grade, protection of the oak tree and shoreland, and the lake by maintaining the current condition. Commented on previous property owner removing a large wall but failing to understand the consequences of adding fill and reseeding instead of replacing the wall. What the current property owner has done by replacing the wall is what the previous property owner should have done and this is arguably permissible as nowhere in the code does it say the homeowner replacing the wall must be the same homeowner who removed the wall. Mr. Hovland feels the current property owner replaced the previously removed wall. Granting the variance is not only important but critical in maintaining the stability of the bluff. Mr. Hovland summarized the history of the property and when the landscape work was completed, improvements had a positive impact, and any violations, if they exist, are minor. They request the variance be granted and landscape features be allowed to remain. Commissioners Questions to the Applicant: Kallberg: Questioned if the pervious concrete retaining wall was in place when Ms. Ingalls purchased the property in 2021. Ingalls: Stated no. She was not aware of the previous concrete wall when she purchased the property. The slope was basically dirt and seed which hadn’t taken hold. Didn’t realize the extent until she moved into the home in the spring and noticed erosion issues to the lake. Wasn’t aware of the wall until they met with city officials who said if there had been a wall that could be an exception to code, which allows for replacement walls. She then researched and found a wall previously existed on the property. Pasquarette: Commented on the applicant’s reasoning for the wall being the plantings not taking and asked if there was a consideration for replanting with hardier vegetation instead of putting in a rock wall. Ingalls: Stated she considered both and felt the best outcome was to put in a retaining wall. Did not feel plantings would be enough. Fenstermacher: asked staff to show the survey exhibit and clarified the location of the oak tree and asked for the location of the seating area in relation to the plan. Ingalls: confirmed the location of the seating area and commented on two trees in the seating area that have died since last fall. Stated a good portion of that wall was there previously. Fenstermacher: asked about the tree in that area that is dead. Ingalls: stated there are two trees in that area that have died; she believes one is on her property and one is on her neighbors’ property. Fenstermacher: asked to confirm the location of the stairs. 5 Ingalls: confirmed location of the stairs. Fenstermacher: asked the landscape company representative, Mr. Morrison, if planting additional plants would have been a solution to securing the slope. Morrison: Commented on the plantings and their locations that existed and his belief the plants were in the first year after seeding. Fenstermacher: commented on his understanding that the planting that was done before did not take and the plants needed to be replaced and reestablished. Asked Mr. Morrison if replanting and reestablishment would have been a legitimate step to stop the erosion. Morrison: replied that definitely would be an option and is used all the time. Commented on initial project thought to augment and make the social seating area better to address a slightly too steep slope area and make it better with steps and walls. Fenstermacher: asked if this was to make use of the area. Morrison: replied yes, opposed to more seeding and vegetation; to secure the social seating area and vegetate around it. Ingalls: commented that sod and an irrigation system were added to the back yard as well which helped with water runoff. Fenstermacher: Questioned if there were any attempts to get an engineer review done whether removing walls would reduce stability of the bluff area. Hovland: There was a conversation with an engineer but due to the walls being under four feet in height the homeowner and landscape company thought it would be sufficient to have the landscape company design the walls. If the commission would like an engineering report, the applicant would agree to an extension to the 60-day rule to allow for that to be completed. Commented on the testimony of Mr. Morrison to show the work that was done is an improvement over what was there before in terms of stabilizing the soil and eliminating sluffing into the lake. Johnson: Asked for an image to be shown highlighting the area recommended by staff for removal and asked what portions of the wall were installed under Ms. Ingalls ownership. Johnson: confirmed the lower fire pit was existing and the top section of wall was added. Ingalls: Right. Johnson: asked for a photo to be shown from the lakeside view and commented that the actual wall looks different in the photos than the survey. The survey shows the wall is broken but the photos show a complete wall. Ingalls: replied that it is not really a wall. There are buried boulders, and she would not consider that a wall. Johnson: commented that this work created a nice flat section of yard and asked where did the yard start to slope prior to this work. Ingalls and Hovland: responded to the location of the slope prior to the work being closer to where the top of the current staircases are. 6 Johnson: confirmed on the photo shown that everything to the left and right of the tree was added and asked if that was accurate. Ingalls: Yes. Ms. Ingalls could not recall for sure but felt there was a wall there that was added onto. Morrison: Stated there was not a wall but boulder outcroppings in that area. Commented the landscaping company utilized some boulders already on the property but was not sure what percentage of boulders were on the property; speculated almost half of the boulders may have been on the property. Commented about the wall above the sitting area being unconsolidated boulders and referred to an earlier image showing boulders in that area. Johnson: asked if the surface of the fire pit seating area was changed. Ingalls: A little bit larger. Johnson: asked if that area encompasses the tree that is now dead. Ingalls: Yes. Johnson: Asked if the area on the left side of the long staircase to the lake is on their property. Ingalls: Yes. Johnson: asked about erosion issues there. Ingalls: No. Thinks that area had more time for the vegetation to take hold. She is unsure when that was put in. Ringstad: Commented on being surprised the landscape company did not believe permitting would be required when looking at this project as they work in several communities with bluffs and lakes; to go ahead with the work without checking is surprising, acknowledging Mr. Morrison was not part of the company at the time this work was done. Morrison: commented about their language places the responsibility for permitting on the homeowner. Hovland: disagreed and felt that is not the language in the contract. Ringstad: thanked all for the comments and presentation. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 7:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: No public comment received. MOTION BY PASQUARETTE SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 7:08 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 7 Commission Comment/Questions: Johnson: Thanked the applicant for their presentation. Commented on being in an extremely unfortunate situation because what the property owner has appears to be nice landscaping and nice yard. Unfortunately, we are being asked to approve the variance after the fact and that is difficult because he is unsure what the board of adjustment would have done had they been tasked with this variance request prior to the work being started. The possible consequences of the hearing are not lost on him. What is weighing into his decision is the potential precedence it would set to grant a variance after the fact for work that possibly would not have been approved in the first place. Commented about other properties in bluff areas on the lake that would love to do this kind of work to expand their backyard, add seating areas and level out the areas adjacent to their house. If the tone is to do the work and apply for a variance after the fact, ask for forgiveness after the work is done, we are going to have a problem. Commented about being in a tough spot with a tough decision. What is weighing on the most is the precedent granting a variance after the fact would set. Fenstermacher: asked staff a question related to an engineering report and analysis related to concern over erosion if the wall were to be removed. Asked if it could be considered for an engineering analysis be completed. McCabe: summarized city requirements that if a wall is proposed higher than four feet an engineering report is required to justify the need for that wall and look at bluff stability. If staff received an application for a variance prior to work starting, an engineering report would have been required because the property already had retaining walls exceeding the maximum permitted length. As far as requiring an engineering report to deal with the removal of the wall creating an erosion issue, that would be up to the planning commission. Commented on the vegetation being more established now than in 2021 or 2022 when the property owner moved in, and the work was completed. Fenstermacher: Agreed with Commissioner Johnson’s comments related to setting a precedent. A previous owner made a decision to remove the wall and establish it with plantings and it sounds like that is a legitimate way. It seems it was decided afterward to add a wall partially for erosion but also aesthetic and use of the property. Understands that if the wall is to be removed and that makes the erosion issue worse, that is not good for anyone. He would entertain evaluating the erosion concern if the wall is removed. Pasquarette: Agrees with previous commissioners’ comments related to setting a precedent. Has a hard time leaping from the grass is dying to needing to put up a stone wall, especially without permits by a professional company who stated they would be responsible for getting permits. Expressed concern if the work is undone and commented that the commission does not want to see more requests for approval after the fact, after the work has been done. Ringstad: Stated he agrees with staff’s assessment completely. Approval of the variance after the fact could create a blueprint and encouragement for others in the city to make improvements along the lake within the bluff and bluff impact zone without proper city approvals and permitting. Recognizing if the variance is approved, the Board of Adjustment will need to be ready to approve similar requests with similar circumstances. Not exact circumstances, similar circumstances, because the commission would be creating a blueprint. He will be voting to deny the variance request. Kallberg: asked staff about a similar case for work done without a permit not far from this property. McCabe: did not recall the specific case but commented on a property where a deck had been converted to an enclosed structure without a permit and that property owner was required to remove the improvement. 8 Kallberg: commented on the rule that allows repair or replacement like for like. The criteria does not include making it pretty and does not include enlarging the social space. Stated we can’t keep ignoring permits and commented the landscaper must have thought about a permit because their agreement says the landscaper will acquire any permits; they should have at least inquired if there is a permit required. The commission has not received any information from an engineer stating whether this makes it better or worse. Commented on the property owner being willing to dig by the tree to install the wall but not being willing to dig by the tree to remove the wall over fear it will kill the tree. He will not be supporting the variance request. Ringstad: asked the Board of Adjustment if there were any more comments regarding the matter. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PASQUARETTE DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AT 15370 FISH POINT RD SE. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg. The Motion carried 5-0. 5. Old Business: A. PDEV 24 – 000011 – 14756 COVE AVE SE – Variance – Continuation of Previously Tabled Item to the Next Meeting – Continuation of Previously Tabled Request for a Variance from the Minimum Lake Setback on a Property Located at 14758 Cove Avenue. McCabe: introduced the item which was tabled at the prior Board of Adjustment meeting. Stated staff and the applicant are continuing to work on the request and recommended the Board of Adjustment continue the tabled item to the next meeting date. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO CONTINUE THE TABLED ITEM UNTIL NEXT MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: None. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY PASQUARETTE TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Johnson, Pasquarette, Fenstermacher and Kallberg The Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Casey McCabe, Community Development Director