Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022403INNESO 2. 3. 4. 5. A. e 7. A. 8. 9. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Case #03-09 Julie David is requesting an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a building permit for the property located at 14958 Pixie Point. Old Business: New Business: Discussion of Ordinary High Water setback on Prior Lake. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:~03 Files~03 Planning Comm~03 pc~dn~AG022403.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PUBLIC HEARING Conducte~ by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission welcomes your,-omments in this matter. In fairness to aH who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT ~E ADDRESS L:~DEPTWORK~BLANKFRM~PHSIGN~.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2003 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the February 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cfiego, Lernke, Ringstad and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Cfiego Present Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes firom the February 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case 003-09 Julie David is requesting an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a building permit for the property located at 14958 Pixie Point. Community Development Director Don Rye stated the applicant submitted a letter on Friday, February 21, 2003, requesting to continue the matter to the Mm'eh 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Discussion of Ordinary High Water setback on Prior Lake. Community Development Director Don Rye presented the staff report on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~24FEB24.doe 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2003 The City Council directed staff to go ahead and submit a report on the Ordinary High Water Mark on Prior Lake. Basically, research the difference between the current 75 foot setback and the possibility of a 50 foot setback. The 75 foot lakeshore setback in Prior Lake predates the shoreland ordinance by 10 years. The zoning ordinance adopted in 1975 provided for a 75 foot setback from all lakes in the City. This setback was retained until May, 1997, when the Council adopted an amendment to the zoning ordinance changing the setback to 50 feet. The change came about as a result of a variance case and the change was initiated by the Council at that time. Both staff and the Planning Commission recommended against the amendment. Staff felt there significant reasons why the 75 foot setback should be retained, although ultimately it is a policy issue to be decided by the City Council. Changing the setback to 50 feet would be allowed by the State shoreland rules. However, it could be argued that the impervious surface and building height rules then should also be amended to be compliant with the State rules. There were no comments from the public on this matter. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: Was on the Commission when the ordinance was changed to 50 feet and when it changed back. My initial reaction was "Been there, done that." There was a great deal of discussion on this issue. The Planning Commission was largely against this change and it did not pass. The City Council passed the change to 50 feet. · My recollection was a lot of public outcry not to change it. There was a negative response from the public on the change. That is why it is back to 75 feet. · Surprised to see this matter back since there is nothing to change the circumstances. · After consideration, this part of the ordinance, (75 or 50 foot setback) is not a stand alone issue - it is the foundation of what a lot of our Shoreland ordinance is based upon. This setback gives us a leeway for other setbacks. We should look at the entire Shoreland ordinance as a whole and not just this issue. The appropriate time to discuss this is when the City reviews the entire ordinance. · Personal opinion is that 75 feet is appropriate. It actually predates the DN-R ordinances. The City has had the 75 feet in place for a long time and it works. Nothing significant has come in to change the ordinance. Rye said the Shoreland Ordinance is based on State rules and the City has very little leeway in deviating from that rule. In this case, the City has been more restrictive than the State but on impervious surface, the City is less restrictive. At one time, it was thought that was the tradeoff, they gave us the flexibility because the City went 75 feet as a setback, they would give us 30% impervious surface. In talking to the DNR that was L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VINFEB24.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2003 not the case. It could be changed back to 50 feet and be in compliance with the State but look at the application of 75 feet over the last 30 years. Stamson: The 75 feet justifies the 30% impervious surface the City allows. When the Commission looks at variances, it builds on one another. If we start dealing with homes 50 feet from the lake, I would take a different approach to variances given the closer setback to the lake. Even if the DNR did not state it in writing, the Shoreland ordinances all play together. Criego: · For several reasons stay at 75 feet: · The lake water quality will deteriorate if setbacks are reduced. · Aesthetics or the beauty of the lake will be reduced. The Prior Lake American (dated 2/22/03) published an article stating the need for a lake management plan to clean up the problems with algae and aquatic plants. Need further study from the DNR, Watershed District and Lake Advisory. · The 75 foot setback has been enforced for over 30 years, many homes have been built and remodeled based on this ordinance. There could be many issues with a new home built with a 50 foot setback next to an existing home with a 75 foot setback. · Setback averaging is another issue. In some cases it is as much as the 50 foot setback. · Follow DNR Rules - If the City goes back to 50 feet and 25 impervious surface, the City should follow their 25 foot height restriction. The City now has a 35 foot high restriction. · He believes if the 50 foot setback and 25% impervious surface is enacted, there will be a greater negative impact on building and remodeling. Many lots have a difficult time achieving 30% impervious surface. · In addition, many homes are building to 35 feet high to obtain their square footage needs. If it is 25 feet, this becomes another issue. · There will several variances requests. · It will be difficult to build under the DNR's rules. · Why do so many other lake communities have 75 and 100 foot setbacks? Believes for the reasons above. · There is no compelling reason or public benefit to change the setback. Why change when this issue has been discussed several times. Atwood: · When I first read this my reaction was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." · Was not on the Commission at that time, but remembers the impassioned letters and conversations fi:om the community to maintain a 75 setback. · To revisit this issue, it does not make sense. · What benefit is it to the public? Bill's comments are accurate - what an uproar it would cause for residents. L:\03 Files~)3 Planning Comm~03pcMinutes'uMNFEB24.doc 3 Ill i I Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2003 · This is a conservative but necessary setback. · Agreed with Tony - if we want to revisit this issue it should be with the entire Shoreland Ordinance. Ringstad: · It has all been said. Agreed with Commissioners' comments. · Maintain the 75 foot setback. · It is more beneficial for water quality, better lake aesthetics for the lake dwellers and community. And more importantly, except for a 2 year window, the 75 foot setback worked for the community. · Not knowing the complete discussions in 1997 with the Planning Commission and City Council, changing to back to 75 feet shortly after the discussion, indicates to me it did not work. A mistake was made. · In favor of keeping the 75 foot setback. Lemke: · Going to be on the losing end on this one. Heard water quality talked about and on the face of it, it seems obvious, but has a hard time believing a 50 foot setback would harm the lake. The DNR has a 50 foot setback. · Would there be some benefit for a 75 foot setback over a 50 foot setback? I'm sure but don't know if you could quantify it. · My view is - would like to see rather an "either/or" an "and" a dual standard. If there is going to be a 30% impervious surface then have a 75 foot setback, or a 50 setback with a 25% impervious surface. That would take care of the concerns on water quality. · As far as aesthetics, today at least anywhere near a weekend, if you're driving around the lake, you probably shouldn't be looking at the shore. Too much traffic. There is a reason this is a general development lake. The housing and general development is allowed. It will never be the Boundary Waters. · Ringstad gave a scenario of what could happen with a sliding scale ordinance. Lemke responded that is why there is the Board of Adjustments. Not every situation is black and white. · Can accept a sliding scale but maintain the 75/30 ratio. · Personally would rather see a small house 50 feet from the lake than a 35 foot high house with 30% impervious surface. Open Discussion: · That's contrary to current real estate building practices. What the Commissioners hear with the variances is that residents can not get a big enough house. No one wants a smaller house. · The price of land is going up as fast as we can write notes. · 50 feet is awfully close to the lake. If you look at the cabin lots and smaller homes, 50 feet from the lake is not so bad, but the style of homes being built now pushing to 50 feet, is too close to the lake. The huge homes with a 50 foot setback don't work. There is a lot of redevelopment going on the lake. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Con-an\03pcMinutes~lNFEB24.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2003 One of the biggest concerns of neighbors of variance requests, is the homes and additions going to close to the lake blocking views. The City has a variance setback averaging process and leeway to allow up to 50 feet in situations where it warrants. Not saying anyone can build up to 50 feet. It is not unreasonable to keep it at 75 feet. It has been in force for over 30 years. It is a community standard. The DNR has ordinances to protect water, but they also write ordinances for political reasons. Guessing 50 feet is not a magic number. · This has been discussed before. A lot of communities surrounding the Twin Cities are 100 feet from the lake. It is not uncommon. · The implications for changing would wreak havoc with all the lake residents. · It was not well received from the community. · Rye pointed out discussions started a year before the ordinance was changed back. · The change actually slipped through the Planning Commission because two Commissioners who were soundly against it were absent. It would have never passed if there was a quorum. · That issue was blasted in the newspaper because the Planning Commission did not have a full quorum. · Granted, the lake has gotten crowded beyond belief, it's not just for the boaters looking at the shoreline, it's for the homeowners as well. · The change will not create a flood of homes 50 feet from the lake. It will facilitate residents building decks and additions. It will help some of the substandard lots add additions. There are very often requests for 50 feet just to build something. There shouldn't be noticeable difference, even in 5 to 10 years, except for a deck here or there. · Ringstad questioned Rye if there was a noticeable to difference in lake additions during the 2 year ordinance change back to 50 feet. Considering it took almost a year to change it back. Rye said he did not notice a lot of activity. · Nobody has a crystal ball - should err on the side of what is in place and worked. · If the City adopts the DNR rules, the result will be smaller homes than they would under the City's existing rule. · The land costs for lake lots make it difficult to give people the extra space to build. · There are not many lots left on the lake - 15 or 20 that will be able to add on decks. · Most cabins and seasonal homes are gone. There are a lot of homes 20 years or more old. With the land prices, there is going to be a lot of redevelopment. It is not um'easonable to see people tear down $300,000 to build $500,000 or $600,000 homes. You are going to see homes 75 feet from the lake being rebuilt at 50 feet. · Agreed with Lemke that in the next 5 years there may not be a noticeable big difference but long term, it will be a big issue. The look of the lake would be drastically different than it is now. · Lemke agreed. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~VlNFEB24.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2003 · Lake quality over the number of years is significant. The DNR did studies "up north" on floods and the drainage. It didn't take a lot of land to make fairly substantial impacts. Remembered being surprised by their results. · The Lake Advisory has not met on this issue yet. · Rye explained the City Council just wanted to refer it back to the Planning Commission and Lake Advisory because they had positions before. Basically they just wanted to verify that those positions have not changed. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAINTAIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: · LAKE WATER QUALITY WILL DETERIORATE IF SETBACKS ARE REDUCED. · THE 75 FOOT SETBACK HAS BEEN AROUND FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND HAS BEEN A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. · OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS LEEWAY WITHIN THE 75 FOOT AREA IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. · THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE OR APPARENT PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THE CHANGE. Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Ringstad, Criego and Stamson. Lemke nay. MOTION CARRIED. Rye said there is no application, this is just for Council's information. Stamson suggested all the groups get together for a workshop on this matter if this becomes an issue. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m. Donald Rye Community Development Director Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMNFEB24.doc 6 lli I