Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1013972. 3. 4. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1997 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. September 8, 1997 and September 22, 1997 Case #97-090 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5A (FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL MAP, THE FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION, AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Downtown Steering Committee update. Adjournment: L: \97FILES\97PLCOMM~CAGENDA~AG 101397. DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 1. Call to Order: The October 13, 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, and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Cramer Present Kuykendall Present Criego Absent Vonhof Absent Stamson Present Commissioners Criego and Vonhof arrived at 6:31 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes: September 8 and September 22, 1997 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT BOTH SETS OF MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Hearings: Ao Case #97-090 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5A (FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL MAP, THE FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION, AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES 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 Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated October 13, 1997. The public hearing is to consider several amendments to Title 5A (Flood Plain Regulations) of the City Code. The proposed amendments relate the references to Minnesota statutes, the establishment of the official map, the flood protection elevation and nonconforming structures. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIlC, MN101397.DOC 1 Some time ago, the City of Prior Lake submitted a revised flood study to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose was to revise the flood elevations and the flood plain boundaries based on the outlet in Prior Lake. As a result of this study, the 100-year flood elevation on Prior Lake was reduced from 909.3 feet to 908.9 feet. FEMA recently approved this revised study and has issued new Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Prior Lake. The approval of this new study, as well as recent changes to the State statutes, trigger the need for some changes to the Flood Plain regulations. The City had hoped to incorporate these changes into the new zoning ordinance, but time constraints require these amendments be done separately. Most of the amendments proposed are minor and are essentially "housekeeping" items. These amendments include the following: 1. Section 5A-l-1 (A): Change the reference to Minnesota Statutes from Chapter 104 to Chapter 103F. 2. Section 5A-1-2 (A) and Section 5A-1-4 (A): Change the reference to flood zones from Zone A2 and A7 to Zone AE and A. 3. Section 5A-1-2 (B): Change the date of the official map to November 19, 1997. The major changes to the ordinance are a result of the action of the State Legislature. In the 1997 session, the legislature reinstated a mandatory 1 foot of freeboard for the flood protection elevation. The result of this action is that the Flood Protection Elevation must be at least one foot above the flood elevation. This freeboard requirement was removed from the state law several years ago, and the City of Prior Lake removed it from the local flood plain regulations on September 17, 1990. One of the City's concerns was the fact this new requirement will make structures built after 1990 nonconforming. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources agreed with the staff's concerns. The DNR has drafted language which specifically notes the flood protection elevation for structures built between September 17, 1990, and the effective date of the new ordinance does not include the one foot of freeboard. This language allows these structures as conforming uses, unless the structure is removed for redevelopment of the property. This effectively addresses the concerns many appraisers and insurance companies have about nonconforming structures. Staff's recommendation was to approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kuykendall questioned jeopardizing the dollar value to the City with the National Flood Plain's Insurance Program. Rye explained it was not in terms of dollar value to the City - what it means the City would loose its eligibility where no one can buy flood insurance. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCMIN~N 101397.DOC 2 Comments from the Public: Rick Johnson, 5283 Frost Point Cimle, questioned how many people this affects. He guesses it is around 100 to 200 homes. Johnson realizes ordinances change over time. He gave an example of lake elevation changes in the last 10 months. Johnson went on to say Planning Director Rye was able to work with the DNR and isolate a group of people who built (on the lake) between 1990 and the proposed effective date. Those people are excluded from the one foot freeboard. The State changed the rule in 1980. Johnson said his understanding is City ordinances cannot be more restrictive than State ordinances and felt this was against the law and should be corrected. He feels other lakeshore residents who built homes before 1990 are being penalized. Rye explained homes built before 1978 were not under the Flood Plain Ordinance. Prior to 1978 there was no Flood Plain Ordinance or regulations. Johnson said when he bought his home he did not know it was in the flood plain and feels his home value has decreased and feels restricted on remodeling. He also felt hardship on replacing his home if it bums down. Johnson said his property is non-buildable and is taxed higher than his neighbors. He thinks the City made a major mistake allowing his house to be built in 1974. Johnson questioned why people from 1990 to the current date allowed to build, when the other people who followed the City at the time penalized. Kansier said the rationale is the homes built between 1990 and the current date were built at or above the flood elevation and should not be subject to flooding. Whereas homes built prior to 1978 were most likely not built to the flood elevation and would be subject to flooding. Johnson summarized by saying a letter should have gone out to all lakeshore residents affected in the flood plain. The City should lower the overall flood elevation and upgrade the outlet. It is up to the City to fix it. Prior Lake should vision for growth. Rye and Kansier clarified the 100 year flood elevation and freeboard. They went on to explain the State legislature is regulating what the City is doing. The City does not have an option. If the City does not participate, they will not be able participate in the Flood Insurance program and the residents will not be able to buy flood insurance. John Titus, 5331 Frost Point Circle, called the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and talked to Bret Anderson who indicated to him the primary reason for the increase in the flood plain was because of Prior Lake's massive growth and anticipated growth. The impervious surface will cause more potential runoff and flood damage. There have been many discussions on the flood plain. Titus asked Mr. Anderson (DNR) what could be done to alleviate the problem. Anderson gave the City of Buffalo as an example of flooding. Titus suggested a spill way, letting the high water out of the lake. Titus questioned if anyone has done a study to construct such a spill way. How can the City exempt a few people from building since 1990 and not jeopardize the insurance? L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMINhMN 101397 .DOC Commissioner Vonhof explained Prior Lake is the end of the watershed. People do not realize what the watershed is comprised of and Prior Lake is one element of the entire watershed. Rye addressed the changes in ordinances and that the Watershed is currently revising and updating their plans. The solution Mr. Titus is proposing is going to cost a lot of money. The City does not know the Watershed's timeline. Rick Johnson, 5283 Frost Point, noticed in the City's ordinance verbiage, "generally" is omitted from the DNR's. Commissioner Stamson explained it was too vague and up to interpretation. Mark Kubes, 5527 Frost Point, questioned the one foot freeboard affecting the flood elevation. Rye and Kansier explained the flood plain regulations and insurance. The ordinance is allowing the City and residents eligible for flood insurance. The DNR's concern is preventing flood damage and safety. Their goal is to minimize damage to property. The additional foot of freeboard is an additional foot of protection for everyone involved. Mr. Kubes questioned remodeling and regulating Spring Lake flowing into Prior Lake. Rye addressed the remodeling and explained the Planning Commission does not address lake regulations. The Watershed District takes care of the entire watershed area. Commissioner Cramer asked staff for clarification on the legislation and the Army Corps of Engineers. Rye explained the flood plain management program authorized by FEMA. Every city has to be in compliance to be in the program to get flood insurance. Rick Johnson stated he does not understand the FEMA map or the dates. Johnson said he talked to a civil engineer who told him the City cannot have more restrictive ordinances than the State. Again, Rye explained the flood plain and the amendments. Commissioner Criego clarified that anyone building between 1978 to 1990, should be above the flood elevation. Buildings from 1990 to 1997, are covered under exemption. Paul Kramer, 15310 Edgewater, said he came not knowing a lot about the issue but now has a better understanding. He feels there should be more research and information before a determination is made. Johnson questioned how many people were affected? Rye asked what does he mean "who is affected?" Kramer felt if you built before 78 you are forced to get insurance. Rye said nobody is forcing anyone to get insurance. The mortgage companies may require it. It is not a requirement of either the City or State. The revised flood study took some people out of the flood plain. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMIN~MNI 01397.DOC Commissioner Criego clarified you do not have to get insurance if you are over the 908.9. It only is restricted the degree of protection to your property. The City is following the State guidelines for new structures in the flood plain. Rye explained the City adopts rules consistent with the State regulations. The State adopts a set of flood plain regulations. The City has to adopt a flood plain ordinance consistent with those regulations. By doing so the City has made the property owners in the community eligible to receive flood insurance. The City is not involved in providing insurance. That is between the property owner and their insurance agent. Rye gave examples of providing protection in the flood plain. Basically elevate. Bob Bickett, 5241 Frost Point Circle, asked the Commissioners not to railroad the citizens and give them time to understand what was going on. He knew this notice was in the paper but did not understand what was going to be discussed tonight and that it was going to affect everyone on the lake. His house was built in 1982 and stated he does not know how to read the FEMA map. Bickett said he does not feel residents should have to hire an engineer to figure out if they comply or not and the homeowners should be notified by letters. The citizens would like to improve the value of their homes. John Titus, 5331 Frost Point Circle, commented he asked Bret Anderson from the DNR for clarification of the freeboard number. His understanding of the 908.9 is the average water depth. We are all envisioning a perfectly pristine body of water which doesn't exist in the real world. If we have a 2 foot wave then one foot above that is the peak of the wave and all of us want to be out of the wave. It is a practical thing to add a foot to it. The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Comments from Commissioners: Vonhof: · Lives in the flood plain and explained his experience with FEMA. He applied for a LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) through FEMA. · He also explained to the public how to deal with FEMA. · No private insurance company can write insurance outside a flood zone. If you are not in the flood zone and try to get them to write a policy for you, they won't. That is part of the issue why this is very critical. · FEMA is a national program and is largely supported by our federal tax dollars. Everyone should be concerned about this - even those who are not impacted. · The statutory change is correct. It makes sense. · Redating the map is fine. Verbiage is okay. · Asked staffwith the one foot freeboard if the flood zones changed. Staff said zones have been reduced. · Pointed out the ever changing lake elevations. · The only impact is the structures below the 908.9. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~N 101397. DOC Kuykendall: · The issue of notification of residents - the City follows the legal process. The time and cost to the City to locate lakeshore property owners, especially absentee property owners would be very high. Anything controversial hits the press. · Did not have time to look into the matter until a few days ago, not against tabling. · He would rather be informed from the Watershed District. · The Watershed has the ability to tax the infrastructure but what is the impact? · The staffkeeps the Commissioners informed from other Prior Lake Advisory Boards. · The Planning Commission and staffhave been planning for growth. The Planning Commissioners cannot control what goes on outside the city limits. · More research has to be done by the Watershed District. · Fewer people are impacted today with the proposal. It was more restrictive. This is an improvement. Criego: · The new zoning ordinance public hearing is continued to November 24, 1997. · The proposal does not affect the insurance. · The problem is if you are in a flood plain and want to make changes to your home you have to have protection. · Clarifications of improvements. · The State is dictating what has to be done. People in the flood plain need insurance. Cramer: · Greatest concem is the people who need flood insurance can still get flood insurance. · Concurs with the rest of the Commissioners. Stamson: · The DNR has given their blessing on exempting the properties built from 1990. · Not all houses built before 1978 were built to the existing flood plain requirements. · Support the amendments. Open Discussion: Kuykendall: · Thanks to staff for being sensitive with this issue and for getting the DNR to agree to the amendments. It is a very positive move for the community. They were pro-active with another agency. · This is probably a communication issue. It has taken me an hour and a half to get to this level of understanding. It has been very useful to me as an individual. · Questioned the need to act on it tonight other than tabling to a future date. · Appreciates all the information. · Rye explained the City had to act on by November 17, 1997, to comply with FEMA. · Feels the meeting should be continued to explain the process to the lakeshore public. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N101397.DOC 6 Rye explained the legal process and timelines by the Federal, State and City governments. Vonhof: · Feels it should not be delayed. · Direct staff to send a letter to the Watershed and Lake Advisories for their input. Cramer: · Cannot support delaying this issue. the lack of communication. The problems it will cause is too important due to Stamson: · The State is still mandating what the City has to do. But faced with the time constraints, we have to vote on it. Kuykendalh We have to act on this as proposed but the question was one of timing. I thought time would be available without a special meeting to give a better understanding or education to the public. This should be discussed in a summary with graphics for 10 minutes at the next meeting. We are caught in a time frame. There was a brief discussion on tabling the issue and finally a decision made to make a recommendation and have an informational update with the Watershed at the next Planning Commission meeting October 27, 1997. Vonhof: · Do not delay. · Suggest staff invite the Watershed District and Lake Advisory to comment on this change of regulations to go to City Council. · This should have been included before. The Watershed engineer should have been here and would have been able to address a number of issues that came up. Cramer: · It is more important we address the issue right now. Appreciates the fact some people feel it is ramroded through. · Agreed with Commissioner Vonhof, the Commissioners just found out about this issue. · There is no benefit to waiting, the ramifications are far greater if residents cannot get flood insurance. Stamson: · We can discuss this all we want but the fact is the State says here is what the City has to do. The outcome is going to be the same. · Understands the residents concern, and it would be nice to let them voice their frustrations but the outcome will be the same. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMINhMN 101397.DOC MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING: l) STAFF SEND LETTER TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT REQUESTING COMMENTS ON THESE CHANGES WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL; 2) STAFF SEND A LETTER TO THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REQUESTING COMMENTS TO THE CHANGES WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL; 3) AN INFORMATIONAL DISCUSSION ON FLOOD PLAIN ISSUES AT THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 27, 1997, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE WATERSHED AND LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Commissioner Criego added the City Council should be prepared to accept testimony relating to this amendment. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A break was called at 8:14 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. 5. Old Business: Kuykendall questioned Item 8 of the Minutes from September 8, 1997, regarding the lake tour homes that were not in compliance. Rye said staff did not have the specific addresses of those home. Kuykendall stated he wanted the Minutes to reflect he is still waiting for an answer from staff. "The Planning Commission spent time and effort to go out and it was not properly recorded as I was lead to believe. If I have to climb out of the boat and get some of these addresses I am going to do it. But I want to know this in advance. Time is being wasted on this stuff. I consider that lake trip very important. I guess we'll go out in a January storm and walk up and look at these addresses. I am disappointed. I would appreciate to have minutes from the tour for our next meeting if that is reasonable." 6. New Business: Commissioner Kuykendall feels everyone should have better communication with the public. Everyone should speak up in the microphones. We should also have the foresight if we know the Watershed District has an impact or other related issue they should be invited in advance, especially with a tight time frame. It would help the whole process of communicating. Marv Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, distributed a handout to the commissioners. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Downtown Steering Committee update. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~VIN 101397 .DOC Commissioner Criego will be the alternate for Commissioner Kuykendall at the October 20, 1997 Downtown Steering Committee meeting. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMkPCMINkMN 101397.DOC