Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 April 4 2016 Meeting Minutes Draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 4, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, April 4, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson, Bill Kallberg, Mark Petersen and Dave Tieman. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff, Director Rogness, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, March 21, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Abstained by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. Appeal from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator, Subsection 1109.300 – Mark S. Coffman of 15901 Sunfish Trail SE is requesting an appeal related to the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of code violations in Section 1102 (use District Regulations), Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) and Section 1105 (Flood Plain Regulations) at 4288 Bass Street and/or adjacent dedicated private Street property, Prior Lake. Director Rogness introducing the request to consider an appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision relating to alleged code violations of Section 1102 (Use District Regulations), Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) and Section 1105 (Floodplain regulations) at 4288 Bass Street and/or adjacent Dedicated Private Street. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented Subsection 1109.301 of the City Code, City Attorney letter dated January 17, 2013, Email request, response and appeal and Site location and photos. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming pointed out a particular slide, questioned the phrase joint use of respective owners of lots and asked about the owners using/utilizing that portion of the street area and the waterfront area. He inquired how many signed the original petition from the 2013 response, that came from the law firm. Schwarzhoff said yes and no. She explained the plat doesn’t define this language, this is a very old plat and at the time they put in this joint use dedication and never explained exactly what they meant . She explained how the plat could be read stating it is what the lot owners would have to determine. She spoke 2 of court cases on this these types of issues and the outcome. She said there is a number of petitioners, but doesn’t recall the specific number of signatures. She commented on neighborhood disputes on these properties. Fleming said they did find the letter with 15 signatures; although there may have been others who signed the petition. He said he was trying to get the scope and magnitude. Tieman questioned the joint use, and asked if the public street the one that would be within the 33 units. Director Rogness explained which one was deemed a public street on the plat. Petersen asked if this structure was under 120 feet would it be non-conforming and what the typical setback would be if it was a regular corner lot. Schwarzhoff replied even if it was under 120 feet it still is a structure, and still can be either conforming or non-conforming. She explained why the 120 feet makes a difference and why there wasn’t a staff review of this, until the 2013 matter and petition in which case this shed had been there before the zoning code was put into place. Director Rogness commented on the setbacks; stating it would need to reach the front setback of 25 feet and explained the side lot abutting a public street being deemed as a front yard. Schwarzhoff explained the non-conformity issues and the lack of authority the City would have to move it. She explained other issues and commented that the shed may be on private property. Petersen asked when the ordinance was changed in 2009, did the numbers just changed and was it grandfathered in. He gave an example of if the shed was in a different location and asked would the City be liable for a suite, due to a share of the joint use. Schwarzhoff said legal non-conforming means it was grandfathered in, correct. She commented on Commissioner Petersen’s example and gave an example of this if it was a City Street versus a joint use. Petersen commented on the current shed/structure the City cannot do anything about it, but right now if someone wanted to put that exact structure on the exact spot the City would say no. Schwarzhoff said correct the City would say no and she explained why. Petersen asked if this is the setbacks to the waterfront and to the side lot. Schwarzhoff said correct. Director Rogness explained the setbacks for water oriented structures from the ordinary high water mark is 50 feet. He explained where it currently is, mentioning it is not meeting its setback right now. Kallberg wanted to note that Mr. Celski, the owner of the detached structure, and himself are on the Lake Advisory Committee together and he would like to not be at risk of any conflict of interest so he would like to abstain from any voting. 3 Larson asked who is complaining about this shed and is the abutting property and shed owned by the same person. Schwarzhoff explained in 2013 there were multiple property owners who complained, about numerous issued on the various properties, there is eight issues relating to this property. She explained the response by the City and stated this is a private property or non-conforming. She explained who the current complaint is from and said there have been complaints in the past as well. She stated the owner of the shed, explaining the shed is primarily on that property and maybe partially on the abutting use property. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:25 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Mark Coffman handed out a packet regarding placement of the shed and deck. He explained the handouts and history of the shed, stating shed is different from the original shed. He commented on his concerns of the common property, flood plain repair and replacement, shed being moved, a wall over the common road, expansion, lack of permits and approval of shed. Petersen asked about the measurements of the shed. Coffman said he cannot go down to this area to measure it. Larson questioned the shed being on the shared street and does any other homeowners use the shed. He asked about the property to the west of this shared street. Coffman said it is dedicated for the joint use, however he cannot use the area where the shed is or where the road is. He shared concerns and explained the location of adverse possession being just west of this shared street. Petersen asked if the neighborhood would be happy with him moving this shed ten feet onto his own property and asked if the lane is commonly used to access the waterfront. Coffman said yes, so he is on his own property. He explained the 2 different accesses to the waterfront; one private and one public. He said if the road was open there they could park there. Tieman asked if there was a building permit issue. Coffman said no, it was a grading permit and commented on Engineer Poppler’s involvement. He shared concerns of Mr. Celski being on the Lake Advisory Committee with no permits being pulled on this shed. Petersen asked if the additional shed still exists on somebody else’s property. Coffman replied yes it does, Mr. Roese property 4396 Quincy; they moved the shed. Petersen questioned when the new one was built; 2012? 4 Coffman replied yes, and explained placement. He commented on what generated the first report. He mentioned checking the GIS for the movement of this shed. Fleming asked staff what Lot is to the east of the subject property. Kallberg responded it is Lot 6 Fleming said Lot 6 has a structure and asked if this was in the flood plain and questioned 2 docks to the east being in the floodplain. He asked what the blue area is on the Scott County pictures. Director Rogness said he was unsure of what exists from the aerials on the adjacent properties. He explained the pictures from Scott County, as well as the blue area and said this floodplain is at 909 and ordinary high water is at 904. Fleming said per type of aerial from Scott County there could be dozens of properties in the flood plain. Director Rognes replied yes, correct and commented on con-forming structures in Prior Lake. Petersen asked if a new shed was to be constructed right now, where would the shed have to be located. Director Rogness illustrated where it would need to be under today’s ordinance. Fleming asked what is the width of the joint use street is. Schwarzhoff replied per the plat it is 26.1 feet at the south and 40.5 at the north. Fleming said that leaves approximately 28 feet for others to use this joint use. Director Rogness commented on the survey stating the shed corner is 8.8 feet west of property line and another arrow that says the shed corner is 7 feet west of property line, which is an eight-foot width for that shed; it could be an eight by ten. Fleming said so it might be 32 feet of joint use that still is available to other owners. Kallberg asked about the deck shown on the joint use street, is that an issue of the Statues. Fleming stated there is a previous slide or picture… Director Rogness explained the difference between platform and decks. Coffman explained his construction company and the decks history, stating they worked with the City and the DNR. He commented on how he feels Mr. Celski did something different. Dave Celski, (4288 Bass Street) He stated this is a personal vendetta and explained the situation between the two of them. He stated his history of working City on this shed and what is allowed. He said he has complied with all City Ordinances and Codes, and commented on letters received from both the City Attorney and the City Engineer, Larry Poppler. He talked of non-conforming structures that are all over the City of Prior Lake that are grandfathered in, along with his shed. He reiterated the situation between 5 him and Mr. Coffman and commented on reconciliation court decisions regarding the shed. He commented on many neighbors who also use this shed. Fleming said the Statue says the area is joint use not the structure. Schwarzhoff said correct. Petersen said the shed looks like a different structure and asked if it was the same building. He questioned Mr. Coffmans statement of the existing shed being on someone else’s property. Celski said it is the same building with updates. He stated the updates and said he has the right to update, but cannot exceed what was originally there, and said he did not exceed. He stated the existing shed is not on someone else’s property. Petersen asked if he had to testify would he say that the current shed is the exact same shed. Celski replied yes, it is the exact same shed, only modified. Director Rogness gave an example of a non-conforming structure and stated they can replace/repair as long as it is done in the exact same location. He explained the Statutory language to replace/repair. Fleming explained the immovable footprint, stating as long as the immovable footprint stays static repairs and modifications can take place upon that immovable footprint. Kallberg asked if the shed is used by more than more person or just that it is in the common use area. Celski said it is shared with about 7-8 other neighbors and explained some items inside that are also shared. He said there are neighborhood gatherings, fish fries, etc. He stated this has been here for twenty years as a legal, non-conforming shed by Ms. Schwarzhoff and Larry Poppler. He commented on restraining orders against Coffman. Fleming reiterated the clarification on the use of the shed is inconsequential, it doesn’t impact the strict interpretation of what joint use is; it is the land (street and waterfront), not the structure. Petersen asked the size of the shed. Celski said 8 by 10. He explained when it was deemed and by who and said it was allowed to leave it where it currently is. He stated it was deemed again and spoke of going to conciliation court 3 times; explaining the outcome. He said everyone from the City has told him he doesn’t have to move it. He commented on harassment for the last twenty years. Tieman asked for a confirmation of the platform height from the ground. Celski replied it is 14 inches. Linda Coffman, (4288 Bass Street SE) She stated they have lived here for forty years and talked about a court case. She stated concerns of the shed, lack of access for the elderly/handicap and the fairness of the access roadway being taken away. She mentioned the only other option to gettin g down to the lake and 6 talked of restraining orders. She explained limitations of invites for the outings at the shed and gave an example of a situation where someone was not welcomed down in this area. Fleming commented on definition around how much of the roadway is being obstructed. He believes there is 32 feet where the roadway gets wider and there should be plenty of room. He stated issues of obstruction but said this is the first he has heard of it. He stated that Mr. Celski has not given him any reason to believe that he would be mindful of perception. There is a perception of the roadway being obstructed on the south end of the joint use street so he is hopeful that Mr. Celski will address that perception, but for the record, it has been shown that there are at least thirty-two feet of access at the northern most tip of the joint use street. Ms. Coffman asked if it is 26 across orginally, because half of it is gone. Fleming explained the width of the road. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:59pm. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming said this is a very volatile situation, years long strife, tension, disagreement; just been litigated with consequences from both parties; real and emotional. He stated the proper and appropriate thing for this body to do and empowered to do by Statue is to really cut through all of this and for him it comes down to, two questions: (1) Does this body on behalf of the City, serving as an agent of the City, have the authority to require removal or modification of legal non-conforming structures; (2) Do we have the authority to arbitrate or settle private property disputes? And the answer to both of these questions is no. He stated he will be supporting the recommendation to affirm the interpretation that was rendered by Dan Rogness who in this matter is de facto Zoning Administrator for the City of Prior Lake. Tieman said this is clearly an emotional subject with lots of history. He stated there are things we can make decisions for, but he sees nothing that goes against the City’s ordinances that we can view from a City perspective make accountability for; therefore, he is in support of Dan Rogness’ decision. Petersen said this structure would not be able to be built right now, as it is non-conforming. We don’t have the authority to move it and what sticks in his mind is the image of the two sheds and it appears they are in the exact same location, they look different and he has concerns regarding that. He said given that it is non-conforming and looks like it has not moved he is in favor of leaving it alone. Larson stated hearing his fellow commissioners and their logic in this, he understands both sides. He stated the difficulty of interfering and common ownerships. He said legally as the City entity, we cannot legally do anything or enforce something that is outside of this access road. He commented on the shared access point by all of the homes in this area, the 31 to 32 feet allowance being less than previously, sharing of the shed and deck and the difficulty of this situation for both sides. He stated there is pride in taking care of the shoreland and feels the testimony is made up of this pride. He said this is a private matter. Kallberg stated it appears that the City lacks legal authority to order the shed be moved, however since he is an acquaintance and an associate of Mr. Celski and as a fellow citizen of the City of Prior lake; he 7 would likely ask him and the people who share the use of the shed to seek neighborhood accord and move the shed to a place that it does not obstruct that private street, whether it is over to the five foot setback would not be a requirement or a need but to move it out of the platted joint use right of way. Fleming explained a conversation about sharing and stated he is concerned about the learning of sharing in this City. He thinks it is just short of shameful that citizens are spending money to litigate that something that comes down to sharing and being neighborly. He echoes Kallberg’s polite request that no obstruction of that roadway occur. He would hope that we can find ways to spend our tax dollars/your tax dollars more judiciously and do whatever you can do to achieve neighborly accord. He said if we really want to foster small town feel, let’s find ways to compromise and let things go, 18 years is a long time. There are bigger, pressing issues in the City of Prior Lake that he feels we could all contrib ute to; there is a better deployment of energy that we can seek and achieve. We need more neighborly accord. Petersen said for clarification the city would not allow this to be moved only ten feet. It would need to be moved up further in the yard, correct? Director Rogness replied yes to Commissioner Petersen and said as much as the comment was a positive one, it would need to meet setbacks. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN AFFIRM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS DECISION RELATED TO THE ALLEDGED CITY CODE VIOLATION AT 4288 BASS STREET AT 6:21 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. Abstained by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion Director Rogness explained two pieces of information that will be used on the Comprehensive Plan Discussion; one regarding the current Comprehensive Plan (2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan) and the second was regarding the SMSC in cooperation with Shakopee. He shared information regarding the SMSC trust land, household changes for the 2040 forecast and employment. Fleming asked if the 2010 employment number was lower than listed. Director Rogness said correct. He was unsure if the 2010 number would be adjusted by Met Council. Kallberg asked about the next orderly annexation areas. There is a significant issue in the most recent piece trust application. Director Rogness said on the land use plan map, most of the area in the southwest corner is in the orderly annexation area. He explained the only area that is in the City that is part of the orderly annexation area. He talked of an agreement with SMSC and the City. Fleming asked is there a little nodule of SMSC land where County Road 82 intersects with County Road 21 and further north on 21. Director Rogness replied yes, this is SMSC property. He explained that this might be the one original trust piece that came into being. He continued on with discussion and mentioned we ideally won’t need 8 to spend a lot of time on this because the 2030 plan assumed a plan of population forecast and the 2040 plan will reduce due to taking out the SMSC property. He skipped around his notes to continue the discussion. He talked of 180th Street down to Spring Lake Township and where to draw the orderly annexation area. Petersen asked about any houses or residence that use Prior Lake City sewer and water that is not a citizen. Director Rogness replied they are all on wells and septic’s. Kallberg stated the only area that uses City sewer and water; which is to be annexed in 2024. Fleming compared the people living versus working in Prior Lake and asked where would people work. He stated there was a lot of yellow, representing residential, compared to the purple/pink, representing industrial and commercial. Director Rogness said he would like to review or reanalyze what we have set aside for commercial and industrial property. He explained the areas representing different land use plans and the ways they are treated as different uses. He commented on studies done by Maxfield and information on how to evaluate these land use plans. Fleming said he is thinking about what we can do in concert with the County to create really attractive opportunity for businesses to come to town. He talked of trends of creating spaces where people work and live in Prior Lake. We have been talking about this for a long time and the life cycle housing is important, but is hopeful that the Met Council would want our County to be thriving. Petersen said it would be helpful to see what other areas near us and in the Metro Area are doing/seeing and see what directions they are moving and what the Met Council is seeing. He gave an example on the far southwest corner of retail shopping; are they going to support retail in this area. He asked is this the best use for that, realistic and the best option? He stated knowing and seeing what other areas, especially thriving, successful areas, are doing; it is always nice to have a comparison. Director Rogness explained why there is even a concentration for industrial, commercial and high density. He explained the transition of Highway 17. Petersen said by 2030 this will be four lanes, correct? Director Rogness replied he believes this to be correct and said he doesn’t want to discount the question, as this will be discussions that will come up. Tieman would like to see a bigger picture of the arteries of 169 and 35 laid into this map; looking at this map from a business industrial standpoint, transportation cost is a huge portion for your manufacturing base. Director Rogness stated he agrees and said he does feel this needs review. Kallberg compared to Shakopee we are sadly lacking in industrial land. He gave explained the lacking of land, using Amazon as an example and the properties along 101. He said working on the southwest quadrant and the upgrading of County Road 17 will bring in more heavily traveled corridor, there could 9 be more industrial as opposed to commercial and medium density housing, but is unsure where else we could get industrial land; it would need to be on a transportation corridor of that magnitude. Director Rogness commented on a report from a Scale meeting and a company named Compass, stating they are good at stepping back and looking at data and what is going on. The current report we have is focused more on economic issues, so it would fit in well with the comments made tonight. He asked for suggestions to review this tonight or at the next meeting. Petersen asked what the next agenda is looking like. Director Rogness explained the next agenda. Fleming said he is in favor of waiting until the next meeting for fresh minds. He said this is important stuff and commented on how he follows the markets and regional trends. He commented on the next market correction and how we may want to react to them. He said he would like to see a conversation every other week on this subject and would like for the five Commissioners have one or two meeting with someone from the Met Council. He said what are some broader lenses that we might want to be thinking about? Director Rogness agreed on discussions every other week and possibly every week if there is not much on the agenda. He also agreed with Commissioner Fleming for meetings with the Met Council, however, would like to make sure it is at the right time; maybe about a month away. Fleming said the table is really interesting, he thinks the dialog is needed and helpful with the Met Council so they can see what we are living with. Director Rogness said he could tell us things, but hear it from them would be better as they are targeting certain density levels overall with our housing. Kallberg said he does try to watch the city council meetings live, especially if there is an item that follows from our meetings. He asked for the timeline on the minutes or if there is a quick report within a few days on what happens to what we did. He said he does get the weekly reports. Director Rogness said he would check to see who gets the Recap of the City Council meetings. Kallberg said the kind of discussion that we are having here about preliminary thoughts on the Land Use Plan, etc. would this time be better spent in a workshop as opposed to a formal Planning Commission Meeting. He explained why he thought a workshop would be better. Director Rogness replied there will definitely be a time where we will be asking where we can schedule a workshop. He suggested there will be a couple at least this year. 6. New Business: No New Business 7. Announcements / City Council Updates:  March 28, 2016 10 o Amy and Bill cutter appealed 6430 Conroy Street  City council approved the Planning Commissioner’s Recommendation with condition. o Ordinance Amendment  Dedicated waterfront  Sun Fish Bay neighborhood (primarily) o Approved the Planning Commissioner’s Recommendation o Terminated the Moratorium o Rezoning and Comp Plan related to EcoWater  Approved the Planning Commissioner’s Recommendation on Rezoning and Comp Plan. Kallberg commented on an invitation to The Grainwood, Senior Rental Community at Gateway. He suggested that you need to RSVP, if interested in going. Director Rogness replied yes you are all invited to that. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN, TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant