HomeMy WebLinkAbout0414032.
3.
4.
o
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #03-29 Consider an Amendment to Section 1104.303 (Bluff Impact Zone)
and Section 1104.304 (Bluff Setbacks) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Case #03-22 Shamrock Development is requesting consideration for a Preliminary
Plat to be known as The Wilds 6*, consisting of 12.25 acres to be subdivided into
25 lots for single family residential development.
Old Business:
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.
Case 03-03 Windsor Development is requesting to rezone 10 acres l~om A
(Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and preliminary plat to create 23
lots and one outlot for detached single family dwellings. This property is located
directly north of CSAH 42 and east of CSAH 18, just west of the Prior
Lake/Savage municipal border.
7. New Business:
A. Review 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Projects.
Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
L:~3 Files~03 PImni~ Comm'~ I:n:Aaeada~AG041403 .DOC
16200'Eagle Creek/~ve. S.E.,-Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ill i I
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducled_ by the Planning/ . ' ) C°mmissi°n
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all 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
LADEPTWORK~BLANKFRIVI~PHSIGNUP.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the April 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City
Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 24, 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 #03-29 Consider an Amendment to Section 1104.303 (Bluff Impact
Zone) and Section 1104.304 (Bluff Setbacks) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
This amendment is a result of the staff review of several permits for structures located
along Prior Lake and within a bluff. The purpose of the amendment is to provide some
equity in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
On a vacant lot, this provision is easily applied and enforced. However, as staff is
reviewing permits for additions and alterations to existing homes along the lake, they
have discovered there are some structures located within the Bluff Impact Zone and Bluff
Setback. The current language does not permit the City to approve a variance to allow
additions or alterations to these nonconforming structures. The only alternative at this
time is to deny any requested permits.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~MNO41403.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
On vacant lots within the Bluff Impact Zone, the City is almost required to issue a
variance in order to allow a reasonable use of the property. However, on lots with
existing dwellings, it can be argued there is an existing reasonable use of the property and
that a variance is not required. In order to provide a more equitable enforcement of the
ordinance, the staff is suggesting an amendment to the current language for both the Bluff
Impact Zone and the Bluff Setback, as shown on Exhibit A. This language essentially
allows additions and alterations as long as they do not extend any further into the Bluff
Impact Zone or Bluff Setback than the existing structure. The proposed amendment also
requires the proposed addition meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The staff has discussed this amendment with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources staff. The DNR staff is comfortable with the proposed language in that it
does not allow any further encroachment and allows the DNR to review specific
permits. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
Stamson questioned if the DNR had any controls. Kansier responded they have the right
to appeal the process. Technically the DNR oversees the administration of the ordinance
and if the City was abusing it they can take the authority away. They also have the right
to take the City to court for not following the ordinance. Their issues are the same as the
City's. If there is something we overlook they will notify us.
Stamson questioned how it would affect the replacement of a home. Kansier explained in
the event a nonconforming structure bums down it can be replaced as long as it meets all
the zoning requirements. In a situation like this a lot without a variance would become
nonbuildable. In that case, the property owner would need to go through the variance
procedure. There would be a defined hardship assuming there were no other buildable
locations on the lot.
Ringstad questioned if the City knew how many homes on Prior Lake are in the bluff
impact zone. Kansier said the City does not know the exact number however; they did
identify 10 bluff areas on the lake.
Atwood questioned if there is any implications for previous applicants. Kansier didn't
believe so; if there was a building permit it was either denied or held in the past few
months. That is one of the issues the City is trying to address.
Criego questioned how the engineering report helps the City determine whether there is
trouble on the bluff. Kansier said it was a requirement in the ordinance about 3 years
ago. An engineer looks at the bluff, the location of the home and any proposed
construction on the site. They determined the stability of the slope itself and recommend
building types or mitigation requirements to maintain stabilization of the slope. It is also
reviewed by the City Engineering Department.
Criego questioned what is the liability issue to the City if the structure or slope would
collapse a few years down the road? Kansier said it would be no greater liability than the
City has today. The engineering report would protect the City and the homeowner.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cormn\03peMinutes~fN041403.doe 2
IIi !
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
Criego pointed out an issue a couple of years ago on Pixie Point and has been a concern.
Kansier said the bluff ordinance was a direct result from that incident.
Poppler said the engineer who provides the report must be a certified professional
engineer. They would be liable for an error.
Comments from the public:
Mary Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks Road, complimented the staff and City on reaching the
decision to add language to this amendment. He would like to ask that "the bluff" to be
very specific. Mirsch felt in the definition the "toe of the bluff' to the ''top of bluff'' is
part of the bluff impact zone including the 20 foot setback. He would like to see
language to replace a home if there would be a fire and the home destroyed. Staff could
use the same philosophy as the bluff zone not to increase encroachment so one would be
able to replace the home. Mirsch said he researched several insurance policies and
interpreted the policies to say that if a portion of the house is destroyed in the bluff
impact zone, the rest of the house, or a little bit, the zoning and building people would
claim the ordinance would not allow a rebuild and the insurance company would not pay
for it. He would like to see the ordinance amended to indicate one would be able to
rebuild a home if destroyed.
Neal Blanchett, 7900 Xerxes Ave, passed out photos of the Pixie Point area and described
setback inequities in the neighborhood. In reference to Julie David's proposal, the City
has allowed significant new construction but at the same time it has been difficult to
modify existing construction. He supported the ordinance in that it helps residents with
additional construction.
Kathy Kissoon, 15386 Fish Point Road, said they will be doing reconstruction. Kissoon
appreciated the ordinance and felt it will help improve and develop properties. If this
ordinance is denied it will affect property owners who want to improve.
The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Ringstad:
· Agreed. Went through and studied ordinance. Applaud staff as long as the
setback is not being encroached further.
· Would like to hear what other comments on Mirschs suggestion regarding
insurance. A little bit hesitant on putting in language like that but would like to
hear from the Commissioners.
L:~03 Files\03 Planning Cormn~03pcMinutes~4N041403.doc 3
ill
Planning Commission Meeting
~tpri114, 2003
Criego:
Does staffagree with Mirsch's summary of"the" and the 30 feet? Kansier said
the illustration from the DNR. It is correct in the text and that is what the City
uses. It is neither the staff's illustration nor a simple word processing change.
What about Mirsh's other suggestion to add "the bluffvs, bluff". Kausier said she
did not understand his point.
· What about the insurance issue? Kansier responded she remembered Mirsch
bringing this issue up before and the City Attorney did not want to have that in the
ordinance. She explained it did not have anything to do with this ordinance. It is
an insurance issue. The City provides the relief with loss to go through the
variance process. It is not something that can be done with this amendment. It is
in a different section of the ordinance and was not published. IfMirsch wants to
provide language, staff can ask the City Attorney to look at it.
· Agreed with staff's recommendations. The diagrams should indicate the correct
verbiage.
· Make a separate action to have legal council look at the insurance issue.
· Approve as written.
Lemke:
· Agreed with the Commissioners to amend.
Stamson:
· Agreed with the concept of allowing additions. The concern is the amendment
loophole it provides. Explained a remodel situation where problems could occur.
· Would like to see some restriction on what can be an addition. An example
would be not being able to add more than 50% of the assessed value of the home
including a lot. A footprint can't be more than 100% of the existing structure.
That prevents an 800 square foot seasonal house into a 6000 square foot house
using this ordinance to bypass the variance processes.
· Kansier said staff considered some of those options and the goal was to make it as
simple as possible. It is a risk the City will have to take if someone would use it as
a loophole.
· Stamson said the DNR can say it does not meet the ordinance but they can not
stop the building permit process. Kansier said the DNR has the opportunity to
appeal, they could bring the City to court if they felt the City was abusing it on a
consistent basis. They could also pull the City's authority to review anything in
the Shoreland Ordinance. The situation Stamson is bringing up can happen.
· Atwood questioned ifstaffwas comfortable with the ordinance. Kansier
responded staff is fairly comfortable with this amendment. In some respects staff
felt it would be too limiting. Just the cost of construction can far exceed the 50%.
Increasing the footprint by 100% is a possibility. It is up to the Commission.
· This is an issue. When you look at the nonconforming structure rules on existing
homes, what you can replace and know what can be built. If it happens to be in
the variance request - Stamson read the code. In some ways it is unfair if a house
burns down. A resident does not have the same opportunities available. The idea
L:~03 Files~03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes'dVlN041403.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
· 4pri114, 2003
behind the ordinance is not to redevelop an old home into a large brand new
home.
· Likes the concept of allowing an addition of some sort, but there should be
restrictions especially when dealing with a bluff.
· The other concern is the DNR's ordinance of not building in the bluff- Our
ordinance does not address vegetation. Would like to see a stronger standard on
grading and vegetation, something along the Tree Preservation Ordinance. We
have talked about this issue before. There should be some preservation.
· It is still a bluff- hate to see someone come in with a bobcat and grade the bluff
down under this ordinance.
Atwood:
· Would support a more restrictive wording in the bluff management. As far as the
value of construction of a home issue - would be hesitant to put language in that
would perhaps be specific. A footprint percentage might be a reasonable
approach.
Criego:
· Would not disagree with Stamson's suggestion, but it seems that some of the
development on the bluff was approved by the Commissioners which had to
create some kind of variance otherwise no one would be able to build a home.
Actually some turned out to be very nice homes. Samson pointed out in those
cases the residents had to go through the variance process. There is more control
over the variance process than this.
· Agreed with Stamson this ordinance was written for a specific example. It will
not work for all. Here is a case where the ordinance is changed for more
flexibility but it is not for everyone and it is not controlled. How do you write an
ordinance that still allows some control and make sure it meets all needs?
· Kansier said it is difficult to write an ordinance to address every specific
situation. Staff's purpose for not requiring a variance was that if there was a set
of criteria and the applicant met the criteria, why would you not grant a variance?
Understands the Commissioners concern, but believes the ordinance covers those
issues. One of the purposes for the engineering report is to discuss the impact
excavation and fill on the site. There is also a provision pertaining to Shoreland
alterations that talks about what vegetation can be removed. The existing
ordinances cover the grading and vegetation concerns. Although it can be noted
in the ordinance to make it clear.
Stamson:
· Did not want to make all these variances, just felt the criteria is too encompassing.
Kansier said the way to do it is to limit the additions. Language could be put in
stating the existing structure must remain, i.e. additions to existing structures must
have 3 out of the 4 walls remain. There has to be adequate verbiage to
distinguish. Part of this ordinance was to allow people to build up.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutcsLMN041403.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
~4pri114, 2003
Stamson pointed out a previous variance request and how this amendment would
allow more than a variance. With this ordinance the applicant could have gotten
around it.
Criego:
· Recommended looking at the insurance issue.
Lemke:
· Questioned if there was a legal building envelop that would accomplish this.
Kansier said if the criteria were put in the ordinance and if someone does not
agree with the decision they could appeal.
· Questioned if someone came in owning a 3 season cabin and would like to rebuild
to a permanent home. Kansier said they would come in with a variance request to
demolish the existing structure and build a new structure. It would probably be
viewed as a reasonable use, but to make it bigger would be another issue.
Ringstad:
· Agreed - Sounds like we're trying to take out as much subjectivity as possible
and have some very subjective language that everyone can work with.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, ASKING STAFF TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THE CURRENT DRAFT ORDINANCE TO INSURE THAT 25 FEET IS
CHANGED AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED; STUDY THE DEFINITION OF "BLUFF"
VERSUS "THE BLUFF"; INVESTIGATE THE INSURANCE ISSUE TO SEE IF OUR
CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY
1N CASE THERE IS DAMAGE TO THE HOME; TO PUT CORRECTIVE VERBIAGE
TO ENSURE THE DEFINITION OF ADDITION TO MEAN ADDITION TO THE
CURRENT STRUCTURE, NOT NECESSARILY REPLACEMENT OF THE
STRUCTURE. CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING, APRIL 28,
2003.
Kansier pointed out the insurance issue cannot be added to the ordinance. Staffwill look
at it.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #03-22 Shamrock Development is requesting consideration for a
Preliminary Plat to be known as The Wilds 6th, consisting of 12.25 acres to be
subdivided into 25 lots for single family residential development.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Shamrock Development has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
north side of CSAH 82, west of The Wilds 5th Addition and east of The Wilds South.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Conma\03pcMinutes~vlN041403.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
This property is the Christianson property. The preliminary plat consists of 12.25 acres
to be subdivided into 25 lots for single family residential development.
Revisions to the preliminary plat are required in order to meet minimum ordinance
requirements. In addition, the plans for the wetlands, the stormwater runoff, and the
streets and utilities must be refined to meet City ordinance and the Public Work Design
Manual requirements. None of these revisions however, will affect the general design of
this subdivision. The preliminary plat can proceed to the City Council subject to
conditions. Staff recommended approval to the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. ,~11 lots must be designed to meet the minimum lot area, net any wetlands or ponds,
and the minimum lot width at the front building line. This condition specifically
applies to Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, of the preliminary plat.
2. ~1 Wetland Replacement Plan application, along with a wetland delineation report,
must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any grading on this
site. The plan must be consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
3. The comments in the City Engineer's memorandum, dated April 7, 2003,
pertaining to hydrologic/hydraulic, water quality, grading, sanitary sewer,
watermain and streets must be addressed with the final plans. All utilities and
roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public }Forks Design Manual.
4. Provide 75' of right-of-way from the centerline of the road for CS~IH 82.
5. Revise the landscaping plan to include the proper number of subdivision trees (2
per front yard and 4 per corner lo0.
6. Change the street name of }Yild Horse Pass to Wild Horse Circle.
7. Provide a copy of the approved Watershed District permit for this site prior to any
grading
8. The property owner must submit a petition for the vacation of Wild Horse Circle
prior to the final plat approval.
An additional condition is for the vacation of Wild Horse Circle.
The developer notified staff that he would not be able to come to the meeting.
Criego questioned trails and sidewalks. Kansier responded - there are trails and
sidewalks' along Wilds Parkway.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad: · This parcel is surrounded on all three sides by residential housing and this looks
like a natural fit.
· Support with the 8 recommendations.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~131041403.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
Criego, Lemke, Atwood and Stamson:
Agreed with staff and supported the proposal.
MOTION BY R1NGSTAD SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on May 5, 2003.
6. Old Business:
A. 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.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
Julie David is appealing the zoning administrator's decision, as provided for in Section
1109.300 of the Zoning Ordinance, to deny a building permit for the construction of an
addition to an existing single family dwelling located in the bluff impact zone on property
located at 14958 Pixie Point Circle NE.
On February 24, 2003, the Planning Commission tabled this item, upon request of the
appellant, to allow the appellant additional time for preparation. The Planning
Commission closed the public hearing and tabled the appeal again on March 24, 2003, so
that staff could review the additional material submitted after the Planning Commission
report was drafted and distributed.
To reiterate, based upon the bluff definition and the City's past interpretation of the bluff
ordinance, staffbelieves the top ofbluffis located at the 951/952 foot contour, which
would place the existing dwelling and all but a small portion of the proposed addition
within the bluff impact zone.
As a means of providing an impartial second opinion on the determination of top of bluff,
the City employed a consultant engineer, who verified that the top of bluff extends
through the existing garage or is at the 952 foot contour. This is approximately the same
location as staff's calculation.
Therefore, the addition is in the bluff impact zone and neither a building permit nor
variance can be granted, pursuant to the zoning ordinance and Minnesota State Rules.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) confirmed this interpretation.
Given the fact that many properties around Prior Lake contain steep slopes with
nonconforming dwellings in the bluff impact zone, staff believes that there is aa equity
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMlq041403.doc 8
Il; i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
issue with developed and undeveloped shoreland lots. An ordinance amendment that
would permit adch'tions and alterations to existing nonconforming structures provided the
addition does not extend any further into the bluff impact zone or bluff setback appears to
offer a reasonable opportunity for such dwellings to be upgraded without causing further
environmental damage.
According to the topographic survey submitted by the applicant with the building permit
application, the existing dwelling is located in the bluff impact zone, and is thus non-
conforming. The Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota Rules specifically state that
structures are prohibited in the bluff impact zone. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance
prohibits the expansion of a non-conformity. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning
Commission uphold the decision of the zoning administrator to deny the building permit
because the proposed addition is not in compliance with relevant provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Comments from the public:
Neal BlancheR, representing the applicant, Julie David, pointed out the inaccuracies of
the neighborhood setbacks. His issue is the definition of"toe of the bluff'; the word
"average" does not appear in determining the top of the bluff. Staff and the independent
consultant have caused the problem as they have determined a different top of bluff. The
use of an averaging process does not happen when determining the top of the bluff. They
believe staff uses an average process that does not follow the ordinance. The independent
consultant also included the averaging process. A new survey shows the top of the bluff
without averaging the 30%. This is the only construction based on the ordinance. Staff
stated they have always used the averaging method. He felt his interpretation is the only
way to interpret the ordinance. Blanehett said the addition is modest compared to the
adjacent homes.
Blanchett pointed out the Attachment #7 of the report regarding independent consultant,
Bonestroo et al, Engineering and Architects, (Point #2 bottom, of the first page)
interpretation of the bluff which included "averaging". They should not have used
average as it does not appear in the ordinance. Blanchett also made reference to
Bonostroo's comment of not delineated the bluff setback. They are aware the DNR
reviewed the project as well, but it is not supported by the ordinance.
John Blumentritt, the architect for the project, stated Julie David's home is amongst a sea
of very large houses where he made assumptions along the way, including the bluff
setback. They needed to understand the bluff setback. By taking a demonstration of a
neighbor 2 doors away, he prepared documents and delineated new bluff lines and
setbacks. They met with staff who felt the setbacks were different making David's lot
unbuildable. Lot Surveys did another survey indicating a new profile determining a bluff
indicating the applicant's house behind the bluff. There is no dispute there is a bluff.
Blumentritt presented the neighbors' homes and slopes.
Stamson asked if the area around the patio was graded out. Blumentritt said it was.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN041403.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
Blumentritt went on to point out the determination ofa bluffis a bit murky. In this area
the site has been graded indicated by the lack of trees along the top of the bluff.
Blumentfitt explained other cities interpretation of slopes and bluffs. They understand
how staff came up with their determination but do not agree. If that criteria is to be
followed many homes in Prior Lake do not meet the criteria.
Stamson said the issue is staff's determination of a bluff. What Blumentritt presented
does not affect the issue.
Stamson: What Blumentritt is saying, staffhas not necessarily interpreted it wrong, it's a
poor way of determining the bluff.
Criego commented the basic issue is the ordinance does not state "average". The staff
has always determined average. Nothing specifically says "average" is the way to do it.
Blancher said the intent is to have some building after the slope flattens out. What is the
legally relevant point once it flattens out? Its 30%. Once it gets below 30% that is at the
point when you start to determine the 20% bluff impact zone and building area. It is not
a question of interpretation it is a question of"is this average measurement there or not."
It is simply not in the ordinance.
Stamson read the ordinance and went on to explain his interpretation. What is being
established tonight is whether or not staff interpreted what is written correctly. What has
staff done wrong? Blanchett responded it is almost a grammar question. There is no
question it starts at the toe of the bluff. However, the second clause of the sentence says
"where the grade becomes less than 30%." The grade must be measured on a point by
point basis.
Kansier stated the third criteria in the definition of the bluff includes "average". "The
grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary
high water level averages 30% or more."
Stamson asked Blanchett how he measured the grade. Blanchett responded Lot Survey
determined the grade and the top of the bluff.
Stamson explained the definition. Blanchett disagreed with the interpretation.
Julie David said neighboring Jader's lot survey indicate their bluffline is the same as
hers.
Criego pointed out Jader's first house was built before 1999, his second house was built
on a vacant lot after 1999 and variances were granted.
Julie David, 14958 Pixie Point, said she appreciated the fact that staff is amending the
ordinance and knows she can wait, but it is becoming a financial restraint. She started
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MNIMl403.doe 10
Planning Commission Meeting
· 4pri114, 2003
this matter in November. Her mother is waiting to move into her house. Now this is
tabled again, she can't wait to begin the process, not wait until September.
Mmv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, commented that his determination - he read the toe of the
bluff starts at the 904 (ordinary high water mark). That's only if the bluff goes into the
ordinary water line. If there is a plateau it starts going above 30%. Staff required his
survey to have one foot elevation. How can a land surveyor determine the top of the
bluff?. Its time we have professional engineers make the determination. If you are
questioning the integrity of surveyors in Prior Lake, they won't come back. We
shouldn't get into nitty gritties.
Stamson said the 30% is not between the elevation grades it is between the toe of bluff
and top of bluff. Mirsch said he interpreted it differently and explained.
Kansier said it is applied by State Rules as a 50 foot bench. Kansier went on to explain
and that is how the City applies. Mirsch agreed with Kansier.
Blanchett felt the 50 feet appear in the State Code as a guide for the City. The City has
not adopted that as part of their regulations. Blanehett said he spoke with the DNR about
whether they need to mirror each other exactly or not. The DNR said they do allow some
negation with local communities and allow some modification to fit local circumstances.
This ordinance was adopted as part of a negotiation and 50 feet was not part of the
ordinance. Kansier said he was not correct. There is some negotiation. For example the
impervious surface is higher at 30% than State's 25%. Kansier said she was involved in
the writing of this ordinance and does not know why the 50 foot guideline was not in. It
was never part of a negotiation.
Blanchett said the City should be restricting City residents' property based on things that
do not appear in the Code.
The hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Was involved in the development of this ordinance and agreed with how the
ordinance was written but had concerns of the difficulty of interpretation. Many
of the items in the ordinance were asked to be put in, such as the diagrams to
make it as easy as possible. Yet there is still confusion.
* There is a level of lack of definition of the slope. Is it the average of the slope or
the slope that exceeds 30% and then declines below 30% for some period of
distance.
· Believes, with common sense, the bluff starts where the applicant says, without
the average. The definition here is, do we consider the norm or is it specifically
stated in the document so it is clear to applicants?
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MN041403.doe 11
Planning Commission Meeting
.4pri114, 2003
If we do take an average as defined by staff, does that mean the bluff goes beyond
Pixie Point? In my determination it does. If it does go beyond Pixie Point, then
that particular street is in the bluff. When the road was modified and improved
there were no requests for variances.
· We spent nearly an hour discussing modification to the current ordinance to
handle the inconsistencies we know are there. We will change it, don't know how
or what, but clearly the applicant is following the principle of the ordinance
changes.
· Believe there is a reasonable case to allow a variance for definition in the
ordinance. I believe a variance should be allowed for this ease.
· Stamson pointed out that is not the issue - it is staff's determination.
· Staffhas covered the problem with proposed language. Additions can be made as
long as they don't go in from. We have to go with the language we have. That
issue is averaging.
· Do not believe in this particular case the top ofbluffis where the slope becomes
less than 30%.
· The Commissioner's judgment has to be fair to the applicant.
· Stamson - Are you suggesting the Commission overturn staff's determination? It
will apply to all.
· No -just for this particular property. Kansier responded the appeal is how staff
applies this to the whole ordinance.
· Didn't know that - If 50 feet is not in the ordinance, it should be.
The applicant has been working on this project since November, they put a lot of
time and energy into it. It makes us look at the ordinance.
· We should not make the applicant wait until we make a determination.
Lemke: · Agreed with Criego on some issues.
· The ordinance as written clearly defines a bluffand 30%. When it goes to "top of
bluff' the word "average" is missing.
· In his experience, if a word is left out, it is clearly meant to be left out. It has to be
followed.
· In legal terms would agree with the applicant. The top of the bluffis where the
slope becomes less than 30%.
Ringstad:
· Questioned staff if the first agenda item was approved would this item be
discussed based on the applicant's criteria. Kansier said if the City Council
approved it would not be before us. The discussion would not be necessary.
· Based on Criego's and Lemke's comments, it does appear that the Commission is
leaning towards modifying the ordinance. If that's the ease, this item would not
be before us. Reasonableness to see supporting the variance request before us.
Atwood:
· Believes the inaccuracies in this ordinance are reason enough to deny this.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN041403.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
Confident in staff's determination,
· Trust in good faith the amendment will proceed in a timely manner.
· Support staff's determination.
Stflmson:
· It is dear from discussion earlier I agreed with staff's interpretation of the
ordinance until Mary Mirsch spoke. When Marv explained the measurements by
increments and 50 foot setback, I remembered how the rules apply.
· The intent was to mirror what the State. I remember the final decision was to
measure in increments where it broke off, that is what we were going to go with.
The fact that the 50 foot rule from the State was very clear and the way it has been
applied has been by averaging and that solved it.
· By way of demonstration it does not work for all.
· The correct way to do it is to measure the slope on the contour lines.
In the real world the 50 feet should apply. But it is not in the ordinance.
We will have to overturn staff's determination and say they should measure on
the contour lines.
· Do not feel the applicant's proposal is a big problem.
Kansier clarified this is not a variance application. It is city-wide ordinance.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS APPROVING THE APPEAL REQUEST AND
DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO TOP OF
BLUFF AND THE 50' FLAT AREA THAT IS LESS THAN 30 DEGREES.
Ayes by Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Ringstad, nays by Atwood. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson questioned if there will be problems. Kansier said there would be problems.
Staff will have to review how the bluff is determined. Not sure what the Commission is
asking.
Stamson said the Commissioners will look at the definition for add-om at the next
meeting. It was not related. Staff needs direction. We did notjmt vote to accept the
applicant's determination. We overturned staff's determination and didn't say what it
should be.
Criego felt the interpretation was not clear. Therefore in this particular situation we are
assuming the top ofbluffis when the bluffbecomes 30% or less for a period of time.
That is specific as we can get.
Kansier said it can be applied to this case, but how is it applied to all the others? That's
what staff needs from the Commission.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~lMN041403.doc 13
II !
Planning Commission Meeting
,4pri114, 2003
MOTION BY STAMSON, TO MOVE THAT THE INTERPRETATION ON THE TOP
OF THE BLUFF IS WHERE THE GRADE OF THE SLOPE BETWEEN 2 CONTOUR
LINES IS LESS THAN 30 PERCENT.
Discussion between Stamson and Atwood on the definition.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Stamson stated staff was wrong on their interpretation. Now we are saying what the
correct way to interpret should be. What Mirsch described is what we wanted - less than
30% over a 25 foot space. Criego said he was not sure that is right.
Stamson said to direct staff to determine at the contour lines. The language is limited.
Criego responded they were buying into something that they don't have to. The
interpretation is questionable. It can be looked at in different ways.
Kansier read Julie David's appeal asking for slope delineation on her homestead. She
stated staff will try and write a Resolution but will have to talk to the City Attorney and
the DNR. The Resolution will not be ready to sign until April 28th.
Criego asked to read the motion. Stamson pointed out the decision was overturned but
did not directly accept the applicant's determination as "top of bluff". Staff has to be
directed.
Kansier said she will bring this to the City Attorney, but perhaps the decision could be
narrowed to apply to Miss David's bluff. In the mean time, staff can look at the
ordinance and try to get it to a point - this is never going to be easy to administer. Staff
needs to be directed on a Resolution that will be brought before you in two weeks. If the
Commission does not agree with the applicant's interpretation, staff needs to know now.
Criego felt when the bluffbecomes less than 30% for a period of time, then that is
considered "top of bluff''.
Stamson said that is different from the applicant's. Criego said that was fine and stated
"It has to fit to the applicant because I want the applicant to go ahead and start building.
It is my opinion we are trying to solve two problems, the applicant is concerned with one.
That is whether the ordinance is clearly stated. I don't believe it is so we are allowing the
applicant to go forward. How the ordinance ultimately is written, we can spend time and
energy to do that right and make sure we cover our bases. If25 or 30 feet satisfy the
applicant then make it 25 or 30 feet. Staff needs to put that in the resolution and we can
look at it in two weeks and go forward."
Lemke asked if the Resolution can say in overturning the decision to allow the applicant
to build the addition as proposed. Kansier said it was not appropriate to say that. If the
Commission wants to overturn staff's decision you will have to very specifically how to
measure or accept the determination brought forth by the applicant.
L:~03 Fii~s\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN041403~doc 14
Planning Commission Meeting
,~pri114, 2003
Stamson explained the situation if someone applied for a building permit in the next two
weeks is applied. Something has to be spelled out. The Commissioners do not agree on
the determination.
Ringstad asked if this has to be solved tonight. Stamson pointed out staff has to write
something up. Stamson won't vote for what Criego proposes.
Lemke questioned staff if there was a time limit on building permit as to when it has to be
granted. Kansier said there was nothing specific. We couldn't issue anything until April
29th on this matter.
Atwood - Given the amount of time that the Commissioners have spent on this and are
unable to come to a conclusion, it is indication enough this is bigger than can happen
tonight maybe it should be tabled. Kansier said the timeline is over.
Kansier- If the goal tonight is to get Miss David a building permit the simplest thing is
to accept their interpretation on this lot. Otherwise it is not appropriate to write things
into the ordinance that is not there.
Criego said he would be willing to do that. Stamson responded he doesn't know if it is
correct. They drew a line but does anyone understand the underlying numerics of how
they come up with it?
Stamson asked the applicant how they come up with the 18% grade. Blumentritt tried to
explain how he came up with his determination. He stated he was straggling with this.
There seems to be difficulties with the point of origin. Is it the ordinary high water line
or the toe of the bluff?. How does one apply the triangulation? Is it the average of the
slope? He understands the intent of the bluffbut there are several issues.
Mirsch said his interpretation is the same.
Stamson felt comfortable with the determination lines for a continuous 20 feet is less than
30%.
Criego's concern is it really 18% as the applicant says or is it 30%? The definition is
different. The applicant came up and said "less than 18% or less than 25%." There is still
a discrepancy.
Stamson withdrew his Motion.
This matter will come back on April 28, 2003, with a Resolution.
B. Case 03-03 Windsor Development is requesting to rezone 10 acres from A
(Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and preliminary plat to create 23
lots and one outlot for detached single family dwellings. This property is located
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Conma\03pcMinutes~lN041403.doc. 15
Planning Commission Meeting
~4pt~114, 2003
directly north of CSAH 42 and east of CSAH 18, just west of the Prior Lake/Savage
municipal border.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
On March 24, 2003, the Planning Commission continued the above referenced
development application based upon staff's recommendation due to issues with the
proposed street grade and storm water ponding within the Savage portion of the Windsor
Development project. However, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of
the rezoning of the property from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). On
April 7, 2003, the City Council approved the rezoning.
Planning and engineering staff from both cities met with the developer to address the
outstanding issues with both plat applications. The developer is unable to submit revised
plans in time for staff to prepare comments before the April 14th Planning Commission
meeting. Thus, the Planning Commission should table the item until April 28, 2003. The
City of Savage Planning Commission is scheduled to act on their preliminary plat on
April 24, 2003.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO TABLE THE ACTION ON
WINDSOR ESTATES OF PRIOR LAKE TO APRIL 28, 2003.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
A. Review 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Projects.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The summary
describes the CIP process, and the funding sources available to the City and expected to
be used in paying for the individual projects.
The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects, determine
whether they make sense from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan and make
specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIP or about projects not in the
current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve Comprehensive Plan goals.
The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to
those projects contained in the proposed CIP.
Staff recommended approval.
L:\03 Files\03 PlanningComm\03pcMinutesVdN041403.doc 16
Planning Commission Meeting
April 14, 2003
Comments from Commissioners:
Lemke:
· The outlet channel repair is a high priority and should not be moved back. The
lake is the jewel of the City. Kansier said it was being moved to be consistent
with the Watershed District schedule.
· Is there anything in here for a new city hall and police department? Kansier said
it is scheduled for 2005.
Atwood:
· Questioned Arctic Lake and Northwood parks. Kansier pointed out the locations.
· Questioned the Gateway Shores street reconstruction. Poppler said that was the
Rutledge area project.
Ringstad:
· Questioned completion of the Ring Road. Poppler said it should be completed
this year.
One of most inexpensive items would be the park entrance signs that are now
being replaced with very nice monument signs.
Stamson:
· Agreed with the park signs.
Atwood:
Glad to see downtown redevelopment funding.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files~03 Planning Corcan\03pcMinutesXMN041403.doc 17