Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092297REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: None 4. Public Hearings: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: None 8. Adjournment: 16200 EIa~PT~L~q~.C~.~.~A~3'2~t~, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 1. Call to Order: The September 22, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Cramer Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Vonhof Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: None 4. Public Hearings: A. CONSIDER A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE The hearing was opened to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing statement. Planning Director Don Rye gave a brief overview of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and presented the outline of the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions. The following are highlights: One of the purposes of the revisions is to protect residential, business and industrial areas of the community and maintain the stability of that development. The ordinance will regulate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance definitions were expanded in order to make clear the intent. Diagrams will be included. Lots of record. Determine under what circumstances lots are buildable or not buildable. The significant feature of this provision is a requirement that nonconforming lots in common ownership cannot be developed or split apart to allow development on both parcels. Currently our ordinance deals with this issue only in the Shoreland District. The language will be clarified. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~092297.DOC The Planning Commission has suggested a modification in the Shoreland District to allow combination of lots resulting in a lot width of 75 feet instead of 90 feet currently allowed in the district. Only one principal building on a lot will be allowed unless there is a conditional use permit. There is no language at this time. Added encroachments in permitted yards which includes projections of fireplaces, door stoops or bay windows. The fence section has been modified to allow higher fences along major roads (8 feet instead of 6 feet). This is intended for more protection to the adjacent properties. Added temporary land uses. Currently there is no provision for temporary land uses. On site storage for equipment and material during construction, temporary buildings, carnivals, promotional events. Also, Pollution abatement structures, gas stations for example. New zoning districts - Permanent Districts are Agriculture, Four Residential, Five Commercial Districts and the Industrial District. Overlay Districts are PUD's, Shoreland and the Flood Plain will be added. Clarified land use descriptions as regulated in the ordinance - commercial, industrial and residential. A provision was added for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination based on a number of criteria in the ordinance and rendering a decision. Added two categories of permitted uses. In the specific districts themselves the agriculture district definition is the same, land use modified to fit definitions. R1 district expanded to reflect statutory requirements (residential daycare facilities). Dimensional requirements in the definitions remained the same. There is an addition of a maximum ground floor ratio in the R1 District. Foot print cannot exceed 30% of the lot coverage. There will be a provision dealing with condominium structures and setbacks. The R3 District is similar to the current R2. The main difference is R2 does not permit duplexes, allows smaller lot size with a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. fi. for single family. R3 allows 2 family while remaining same lot size. R4 is the high density district - difference proposed does not permit single family housing. It will permit two family or larger dwellings and allow a higher density of 30 units per acre (3 story apartment building). Provides wide range of housing as provided in Comprehensive Plan. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~092297.DOC Accessory structures have been modified with a height limit restriction and limitations on where they can be placed. Commercial districts - The C 1 neighborhood business district is currently the B 1 district. It provides low intensity business to the surrounding area. The intent is to keep small in scale in terms of traffic generation. Uses do not propose problems for nearby residents. Conditional and permitted uses have been modified. Limited hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m. · The C2 Business District is a general commercial district providing a variety of land USES. The C3 specialty business (down town area) has been added. The land uses are intended to reflect in a traditional downtown area. More pedestrian uses. The scale is limited due to the area. The C4 district is intended to handle a variety of things including some of the heavier commercial not intended to be with the rest of the commercial areas. Regulate outside storage, sale of equipment, access and how delivery occurs. The C5 Business park is identical to the existing ordinance. The land uses have modified slightly to fit into the classification scheme. Only change is 35% of the lot can be covered by structure. This proposal would change to 50% coverage. · I1 is the general industrial district which is intended for more extensive uses. Structures that can not be built at the highest standard such as the business park. Performance standards: Off street parking. The section has been greatly enhanced providing for a variety of circumstances the present ordinance does not include. It will detail standards for parking design. · The current sign ordinance is going to be incorporated into this document. It is currently a separate ordinance. There is an added section on lighting. One security requirement for lighting addresses service parking. It also provides for submittal of lighting plans on new construction. It would impose light level standards to reduce lighting on neighboring properties. · There is a general section dealing with conditional uses. Each use is listed in the specific section. · A section was added on architectural design. The purpose is to promote a higher level of development within the community. Provisions include screening, location, L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~092297.DOC 3 appearance, requirements for exterior surface materials and establishes several classes of material. General design criteria has also been added. PUD - Currently the PUD process has characteristics of being its own separate district and being an overlay. Procedurally it creates problems in administering which the City is trying to clarify. A PUD is a process that is applied within an existing zone district. The proposed provisions will set up criteria that has to be met in order for the PUD to be acceptable within the community. The Administration section has been expanded - most significantly in the non- conforming section. The intent is to clarify with how they are dealt. Nonconformitities are treated in a different fashion. · A section was added allowing the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan. · A section was added for conditions where applicants can get a partial refund on the application fees, depending on what happens with the application. · Procedure for Comprehensive Rezoning. The City Attorney has recently completed her review of the documents and comments will be coming forthwith. Comments from the public: Marvin Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, (summer residence) his permanent address is 2260 Sargent Street, St. Paul, stated he has two 50 foot lots that were denied building what he considers a minimal home. Mr. Mirsh stated when the City added sewer and water several years ago, sewer stubs were added to each lot. Furthermore, he has been paying for them. He presented handouts and a slide show pointing out his property and proposal as well as his neighbor's new home where no variances were required. He would like to see the bluff setback ordinance modified and allow flexibility. Mr. Mirsh feels the City has a moral, ethical and legal obligation to the residents. Wes Mader, 3470 Sycamore Trail, noted he is a member of the City Council, and was speaking as an individual. The proposed lakeshore ordinance still regulates impervious surface at 30% while the DNR regulates 25%. This puts the City in conflict. The ordinance remained inactivated for a long time because the DNR would not approve it. It was made an ordinance by the City by default. This issue should be addressed. Mr. Mader stated he did have a bias for the stricter restriction. His information indicates there are approximately 80 homes below the flood plain. He has heard the City has given conflicting information to citizens and asked to look at clarification of the ordinance in the flood plain. Secondly, he asked to look at the property values and give consideration on how to deal with it. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~092297.DOC 4 Mr. Mader was concerned for the changed lakeshore setback. He stated he is opposed to the 50 foot change. The Lake Advisory was not aware of the proposal and their position was never communicated to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Prior Lake Association (which represents approximately 400 families) sent a letter to the City Council and mayor indicating an unanimous decision by their 9 board members to correct this matter. He does not see a good argument to reduce the setback to 50 feet. Has an interest in protecting the lake. Mr. Mader asked the Commissioners to reconsider and correct. Hunt Russell, 15402 Forsythe Road, said he was concerned with the bluff setback He will be rebuilding his home and in the future expanding with a deck. He is afraid he would not be able to get a variance. Mr. Russell asked the Commissioners to take those issues under advisement and modify the ordinance. He agreed there are very large lake homes on small lots. Jim Albers, 14992 Storm's Circle, is a realtor and has dealt with several with lake projects. Mr. Albers questioned the proposed zoning ordinance not being complete. One of his concerns was for common lot ownership. There are a number of people in Prior Lake who are not in the Shoreland District owning multiple lots and are not aware of the proposed zoning. These residents believe they have buildable lots and Mr. Albers feels they should be notified. Current zoning as it stands, limits structures with setbacks and impervious surface regulations. Most of the new homes are built to the maximum. This will decrease the number of building sites on the lake and drive the price up. The fact the common ownership definition is in the general definitions and not just the lake shore will affect the entire City. Mary Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, pointed out he received the proposed ordinance in July, however the Shoreland ordinance is not in the proposed zoning draft. He felt there should be an interim draft with the proposed changes. Larry Schulze, 14321 Shady Beach Trail, President of the Prior Lake Association, said the lakeshore setback should return to 75 feet and felt the process was done too quickly. He also stated the Prior Lake Association board members felt it should be changed. Commissioner Kuykendall asked Mr. Schulze if any other Lake Association members were polled on the setback issue. Mr. Schulze said "No, just board members." Hunt Russell, 15402 Forsythe, asked if all lakeshore property owners could be notified by letter. Jane Kansier responded the City does not have the means to do that and all public hearing notices are in the Prior Lake American newspaper. Chuck Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail, stated his concern for bluff setback issue will put a hindrance on his proposed new home. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINLMN092297.DOC Comments from Commissioners Vonhof: A good point was brought up regarding the availability of the proposed zoning ordinance. The commissioners have been working on it close to a year. Suggested before the next hearing that all the amendments and changes including the Shoreland District be incorporated and available to the public. · Setback from the lake - feels it should be 75 feet. He is not in favor of reducing controls that have been in affect for many years. If the Planning Commission is going to consider reducing the setback there should be some type of increased screening requirements in exchange rather than given up a substantial setback. · Bluff setback - there is good reason for this proposal. This year a new home came close to falling into the lake. The erosion into the lake is a problem. The lake needs additional protection. Many of the controls from a planning and zoning perspective are set in motion to protect the lake. The City should look at the impact on the existing structures and how to mitigate that. Maybe there are some sort of engineering standards set up so a person could rebuild on a damaged or destroyed structure. This issue should be discussed further. · Reserved further comments at this time. Kuykendall: · Agreed with Vonhof's points except the 50 foot lakeshore setback issue. · Notifying property owners by phone or mail is very difficult and costly. Compounding the problem is absentee owners. The hearing can be delayed for months until all owners are notified. · The issue of grandfathering and rebuilding is difficult. Boathouses for example are State regulated as well as City regulated. There is rationale behind these ordinances. · Agreed with incomplete information. In the interest of time and not delaying the process the City had to move forward. Would like to continue the hearing. Criego: · Agreed with Vonhofon the lake setback issue - was absent at that meeting. · Testimony by the public indicates tightening as well as loosening regulations. It is a very tough decision to decide what is best for the community. Everyone has different interests. · The 30' bluff setback is not changing. · It was mentioned 80 homes were located in the flood plain. Should look at that section. · Common ownership of property has been and issue in Prior Lake. A large number of lots are 50 wide on the lake. The common ownership has been in the ordinance. He believes the lots should be at the minimum, to combine lots but allow 75 feet wide lots instead of 90 feet for riparian lots. The changes are more lenient. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMINWIN092297.DOC Cramer: · Appreciated comments from the public. · Look into the rebuild issue with the bluff setback concern. · Will research the 50 foot vs. 75 foot lakeshore setback and common ownership lot issue. · Believes the hearing should be continued to make recommendations. Stamson: · Supports current bluff setback ordinance. · Does not support the averaging proposed by Mr. Hunt but is willing to look at the replacement issues. · Does not support the 50 foot setback. · The most difficult issue is the common ownership. Support for the ordinance is the guidance of the DNR and State. Rye described the modification regarding common lots. The Planning Commission has asked for language regarding substandard riparian lots and current lots of record, that recombination of those lots into 75 foot lots would be permissible as opposed to DNR's requested 90 foot width. Criego: · Felt another area should be discussed is the 30% floor space. · Rye explained the foot print. Kuykendall: Suggested changing some of the colors on the map. · Should have continuity of zones. Example of PDQ next to Assembly of God Church. · There could be a possible negative impact with the setback distance on the bluff. A reasonable way of working with the distance would be if an engineering study would show if it was feasible to take some other action. Criego: · The property owner of a bluff zone area could request a variance. The DNR process still has to be followed. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND CONTINUING THE HEARING TO THE NOVEMBER 24, 1997, MEETING. ALL REVISED MATERIALS AND UPDATES SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO THE HEARING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~092297.DOC Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~092297.DOC