##VIDEO ID:KB7BmtPJkQQ## to our Tuesday October 8th 2024 Planning Commission Board of adjustment meeting so we will do a call to order and we will start with a roll call Peter would you mind taking us through that IR here Brisbane here Weaver here Ty is absent zeran here thank you and all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge the allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you and we will start with approval or Amendments of our agenda for today if anyone has any changes or if there is a motion to approve I'll make a motion to approve do we have a second a second we have a second all in favor say I I I any opposed motion has passed and then moving on to next item which is the open form so if anyone is in the audience that does not have a topic on the agenda that would like to approach the podium State their name and address and feel free to share with us anything that's on your mind not seeing anyone approached so we will close the open form and move on to approval of the September 10th 2024 regular Planning Commission uh meeting minutes do we have any motions to approve or changes so moved I'll second that we have a motion in a second all in favor say I I I any opposed okay motion has passed next we're going to move on to new business which is a Ian's application for v2 24012 Brian Lee and we will start with a staff report so Peter if you could lead us through thank you madam chair members of the board variance applicant V2 2412 for Brian Lee at 9168 Indian Hill Lot 27 Third Edition to the Breezy points estate parceled 10161 098 his Zone R3 original neighborhood and is on the municipal septic system the applicant has filed the appropriate fee the applicant has paid the appropriate fee for the application public hearing of the notice was published in the newspaper and the property owners within 350 ft were mailed public notice of the hearing public notice was also given to the DNR as the property is in the Shoreland district and the DNR we have not received a comment from the variance request is from the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage of 30% to 43% to construct a 270q ft patio a summary of the property includes this property was platted and subdivided in 1963 as a third addition to the Breezy points estate created prior to land use ordinance adoption and minimum lot size requirements the property is in a residential zoned area with small seasonal cabins surrounded by Resort commercial zone property and fronted by a large Street and parking area on both sides the Adent neighbors properties are similarly developed with single family yearr round seasonal cabins the city has established structural setbacks with minimum residential structure sizes and the proposed project appears to meet those sizes however the property exceeds the maximum 30% impervious surface allowed in the R3 zoning District based on the information presented at this time and in the applicant survey it appears the subject property is affected by parking and sidewalk that has encroached onto the property over the years if the parking and sidewalk areas that encroach onto the appli applicant's property were not considered in the impervious surface calculations the project would not require a variance please see the impervious surface table in the site plan drawing we can look at that a little bit later there's uh the drawing uh the applicant submitted three different drawings one that shows the project one that show shows the proposed impervious surface amounts and then one drawing that shows the asphalt parking and the concrete sidewalk that is on the property there are other remedies that exist that could be explored also to alleviate the need for the variant these include but are not limited to the applicant could install engineered pervious product that would not require a variance and that was discussed with the applicant the applicant could look into if there were other alternatives to remove or relocate parking and the sidewalk that is encroaching on the property the applicant could also pursue a rezone to Resort commercial zoning potentially which is the ma majority of the zoning classification in this area this would allow the applicant 50% impervious surface coverage if that was successful and not require a variance these three options seem to be more extreme and more expensive options than creating than crediting the applicants the areas affected by the parking area and sidewalk all the same there are many non-conforming properties that are bought and sold every day that have limited or no no expansion opportunities and knowing this it is also the land owner's responsibility to be aware of the development limitations within the property as rules change over time the proposed project in the application material submitted this time appears to meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance meaning the lot appears to have the capacity to support a reasonably sized patio that would remain under the impervious limits if there was not a parking area and sidewalk walk encroaching onto the property which is outside both the former and current owner's control please keep in mind that granting a variance here does not create or set a precedence the Planning Commission is the venue for deciding whether the circumstances are unique that exist to create a practical difficulty and justify variance approval or denial the commission can grant a variance on one property and not another given they follow the proper procedure and adopt the appropriate findings this is based on prior case law and the findings effect that can be considered uniquely and applied to the subject property via different time and place in general the STA the staff recommends and review of the application that the consider the commission consider approval based on the applicants plan submitted in the application with the following proposed condition that all storm water runoff associated with the patio must be mitigated and maintained on site that concludes the staff report and if you have any questions on the staff report please let me know and uh if we'd like to analyze those three drawings if anybody had questions on the three site plans submitted certainly let me know as well too so also included in your packet was some definitions of what Breezy Point considered considers impervious surface and those definitions for that so thank you so this is a good slide that's up on the overview right now that shows the proposed patio area and on the left side there's uh the spreadsheet that they have listed it shows the impervious surface coverage and then the slide after this shows the the parking area that encroaches onto the subject property um that property is owned or the the sidewalk and the asphalt parking area is owned by the Breezy Point Resort uh the city of breezy the city of Breezy Point only plows the road that goes through there the city has nothing to do with the parking area does anyone have questions for Peter at this time or a quick question Peter uh Peter would the the adjacent cabins have the same issue uh in other words if they were at the maximum of impervious would would they have the same issue because that parking lot encroaches on on their property also that's a good question and it appears that it does encroach on the property to the West as well um the way staff would handle that is our recommendation if the if if they were over their impervious already with their own personal Hardscape we would the staff would be recommending a denial that there'd be no hardship that's over so um that I've seen it would be difficult for the applicant to go back with the resort and try to find some kind of remediation with that parking lot just to answer some general questions that may come up in the back of a person's mind you know at the first time I ran into a situ sitation like this I thought you know hey something's trespassing on the property could the owner just literally go out and Jackhammer it up and stack the asphalt off to the side and say this property needs to be removed they would actually run into some liability for uh you know property damage like similar to if somebody parked an automobile on somebody else's car if it was like trespassing there and they like said hey I'm going to tow it off site and they damaged the car in the process of that even though it was not supposed to be there they can run into some liability with that so in other more complex cases I've seen people they eventually set up like an easement for the existence of that parking lot to be there where they where they where the owner would Cod to the resort and say Hey you have property that encroaches on the mine and you know when I go to sell this property it's going to come up and potentially cause title issues you know and what an easement would do it would establish a venue to recognize that an encroachment exists but it would probably put some kind of language in there that would say if the if the resort ever red does the parking re changes the parking lot they would have to address the encroachment onto the property you know it's these things aren't overly uncommon in some Shoreland areas when you know I I'm certain that parking lot was done before a survey was ever done and you know it you know seems to be you know kind of unique to this this particular area just right in with those six or seven cabins there the reason I'm asking the question is I'm wondering if our decision tonight could be precedent setting for the neighboring properties I would absolutely not worry about a precedent at all that's also a very good question as well too you know through all of my experience and working with the league of Minnesota City C's attorneys and and such is the variance board you can you actually the neighbor could come in with a variance right behind this the very next meeting and the planning board you guys could deny it um if you know because each one's considered a different time and place and that's the case law that was established on variances if that it's just a different time and place and different circumstances so and then they'd also argue too that the whole point of the variance board you certainly could approve it and say too say hey look we did this for the neighbor it seems to make sense you know and you know that's where I would try to Lobby that you know if they're within those impervious allowances of their own property so thank you thank you no questions any questions no all right then we invite the applicant up to the podium to state your name address and go through your applic um my name is Carvin bazelle I'm here representing Brian Lee he's out of town on a family vacation and I offer to present this for him or he asked me to and I agreed uh I guess the you know the one question that Mr SS just uh brought up about a precedence and the other neighbors if you look at the that one um slide there shows the neighbors if you actually were on the property you can see that there are already exceeding where this uh footprint would be you know towards the that parking lot so I don't think as far as the neighbor to the left and the right I don't think there'd be an issue with them could you speak up a little bit yeah I'm sorry I just if you saw the property you could see the layout um I think that question it wouldn't be an issue with the president um I don't know if you can really say that because I am the neighbor on the right 26 but you're on the left hand side there your where your uh footprint is it's closer to the parking lot correct yes Closer Closer Than This would be yes and I and I do have some questions oh perfect yeah I'd like to answer any questions if you have an opportunity to speak once we get through this part so thank you so I mean we wouldn't be having this conversation if the parking lot wasn't encroaching um it's I think a 2 to 3% variance I don't know think exact percentage I know that the uh he's planning on using uh a pver so it's not like a concrete hard surface so there will be some uh percolation and he's planning on mitigating that flow with uh Shrubbery and he has that listed here in the application as well Boulders and he owns an a landscape company so he does a very good job and but would add value I believe to the Aesthetics of the area so I don't know that slide if you have that slide Peter that shows the yep right there yeah aggregate plantings and then Boulders just to mitigate that flow the drainage uh so yeah I I don't know do you guys have any questions for me that I could be happy to answer I don't have any so the materials are going to be a pav Stone not necessarily impervious but it's not going to be like Concrete where it would have a it would be it'll be crack you know seams where the water could also drain okay so partially impervious and the combined there's a deck on the back it's 270 ft square feet as well so I believe that also falls with under the is it a 600t or 600 squ foot uh zoning uh restriction on a patio so it falls under I think at 270 and 270 it's 540 so it's still 60 s ft under um the require or the maximum square footage allowed for patios in that area and as far as the water it's um there's a comment on there that drainage from the patio is sloped to flow into an aggregate area yep and there'll be plantings in there as well and then Boulders a small 12 in landscaping stone any questions no thank you you're welcome thank you and next we invite the public for input so if you have anything you'd like to share feel free to approach the podium state your name and address and share your input my name is Jackie Baker and I own the adjacent property which would be number 26 and my address is 7116 79th Avenue North Brooklyn Park Minnesota and up here would be 9162 Indian Hill and uh my question is does Brian have any idea of building a fire area in that patio enclosure I have no idea about that okay cuz that would be a concern and the only reason why I say that is because I'm not positive but I think Brian um rents out the property quite a bit and I don't know if he has a short-term rental agreement with Breezy Point or not CU I know Breezy Point does have a few regulations about rentals and um being that I live adjacent to this property I often have to tell people please do not park in front of my shed cuz I can't get my golf cart out or they ask me where do they empty the garbage and there's no garbage vessels back there I take my garbage home um so I you know that's a concern um also when I said about the fire pit if it's rental um you don't know who's renting the property and often times you could get if there was a fire pit out there a group of people sitting around relaxing having a good time but they might be drinking and they might be loud often times the renters that are there have animals which is fine but it's not fine when the animals start barking at 7 in the morning um so those are just some of my concerns I'm not uh against a patio because I think that would enhance the property but I do have some concerns about um this whole uh rental aspect this cabin is a one-bedroom cabin and this summer there's been as many as seven people staying there I don't I don't know where they slept maybe on top of one another but you know those are just some concerns so and I don't know if he if he's licensed or not uh but that might be something to address yeah you know the for former former owner uh was a did shortterm andm rentals I know that as far as Brian's plans I do not know that yeah I know Dean did but again there's probably two three of them on that strip there yeah I just don't know what are this ISE I was prepared to VAR issue goes I don't know if that's allowed not I I have a fire uh area but mine is portable so I can we it's on Wheels I can move it around I'm just I just don't know what the statutes are if there's any ordinates about would not pro prohibit a fire pit on a p i don't know he didn't put that in the plan so I can't answer that question about a fire pit as far as the short-term rental um you know I'd be happy to let him know that there's a license required it sounds like a different issue a licing isue but it's you know I understand your concerns and I appreciate you coming and sharing those I mean you know to talk to Brian about those so thank you thank you thank you and while the public input is still open is there anyone else that would like to approach all right we're going to close the public input section and we're going to go to a findings review uh the notice of of decision and findings of fact so the Planning Commission will consider the following in its decision to make written findings concerning the variance approval or denial first strict interpretation of the ordinance would be impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size shape topographic or other characteristics of the property not created by the landowner and we find that yes the lot would be considered maxed out on impervious surface coverage due to the encroaching parking area and sidewalk if that encroaching parking area and sidewalk were not on the property the impervious amounts would be within ordinance allowances number number two the deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and we find that yes the patio's location is conforming the proposed structure Dimensions meet residential structure size requirements uh consideration three the land use created by the variant is permitted in the zoning District where the property is located and yes the patios are allowed in the zoning District Four the variants will not alter the essential character of the locality and we find that the proposed request is residential similar to the adjacent neighbors and shares the same setbacks the immediate neighbors have decks or patios and the rest of the locality is highly developed Resort and that area allows 50% ovious surface coverage number five the variance is not for economic reasons alone but for reasonable use of the property would not exist under the ordinance and we find that yes the variance of the land owner would not be under that variance would not allowed a patio the current or prior owners did not create the Practical difficulty or the hardship the hardship and practical difficulty was created when the parking areas and sidewalks were installed this circumstance is unique to the property as most properties do not have parking areas that encroach onto them as we can find in findings 1 through five the following are recommended conditions um that all storm water runoff associated with the patio would be migrated and maintained on site so those are the findings of the commission and that begins our discussion um just my initial input on this is that this is a very unique area it wasn't something that the parking areas are normal in most properties there's a couple properties that have it but with that being said it's very unique to the property and wasn't created by the property owner so I think looking at at those impervious coverage things I think this is exactly why we have a variance um process in these certain circumstances so I'm looking at this as as seeing that they've met all the other conditions which I think is um admirable and in the fact that there is a storm water um plan there uh does does fit with our findings I would agree any other thoughts discussion Teddy Mo no I I just agreed with what she said I'm sorry I just want to know if you guys have any other comments or concerns any comments concerns do we have a motion I would make a motion to approve with the recommended conditions that allster rer runoff associated with patio would be mated maintained on site do we have a second I would second it we have a second all in favor say I I I any opposed motion has passed thank you all right moving on to Old business is there anything um that we need to bring up thank you very much you guys have a great evening uh no old business staff reports Peter anything to be brought to our attention um Madam chair members of the commission so we do have an interim administrator now uh Jerry Bonsack is the acting City administrator so um the city council is going to be looking at um starting um applicant search process in the next couple months so that's where the city's at with that but otherwise we have a couple um a couple es that might be in for this next meeting depending on again whether the availability of their survey or not people are really running into that right now you know with construction season you know it's not UNC commmon this time of year so uh but I don't have one on my desk as yet but the deadline is still out there yet and our um the ordinance review and the consultant firms is right now we're holding we're we're have that kind of in a standby process you know as our Administration changes and things like that so uh we still have the company contracted with and stuff like that but we ask them to allow us a little bit more time so that you know as uh um city council and with the elections and with new Administration and stuff like that there's a lot of things that are going so we're focusing on a lot of the day-to-day operations so if you got any questions on anything on that matter that's a summary of Staff report there so thank you thank you any commissioner reports concerns questions no all right meeting adjourned thank you you