HomeMy WebLinkAbout101303I6200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
2.
3.
4.
Se
Bo
Co
Ao
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
#03-109 Dennis and Karen Perrier are requesting a RLS plat combining 3 lots to create a
single parcel for the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
#03-102 and 03-103 Wensmann Realty has applied for a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development and a Preliminary Plat to subdivide 18.6 acres into 133 lots for one single
family dwelling and 133 attached townhomes and two outlots. This property is located
west of Wilds Drive and south of Wilds Path.
#03-107 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the fencing/screening
requirements for properties in the I-1 district
#03-112 Susan Balaam is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce
the lot width of fipafian lots on General Development lakes from 90 to 75 feet.
Old Business: None
New Business:
Consider a request to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements and a portion of
the Duluth Avenue fight-of-way located on and adjacent to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Enivid
1 st Addition.
B. Shoreland Discussions.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:m Fi~XO~ ~,~.i.~ Co~O~ ~A~AmO~O~.DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax952.447.4245
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducte..d by the Planning Commission
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
NAME ADDRESS
L:LDEPTWORKLBLANKFRM~PHSIGNUP.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lernke, Ringstad and Stamson,
Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner
Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Absent
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 8, 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. #03-109 Dennis and Karen Perrier are requesting a RLS plat combining 3 lots
to create a single parcel for the property located at 16502 lnguadona Beach Circle.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 13,
2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Dennis and Karen Perrier are in the process of removing the existing home and rebuilding
a new home on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. In order to do so,
the applicants were required to combine all of their lots into a single parcel. As a part of
this process, the applicants also negotiated a land swap with the homeowners association.
This swap enabled the Perrier's to acquire a portion of the private drive on the east side
of their property in exchange for a piece of Lot 20, which is the physical location of
Inguadona Beach Cimle. The City staff approved an administrative lot combination for
this site; however, Scott County determined a Registered Land Survey was required. The
purpose of an RLS is generally to simplify the description and recording for Torrens
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MNl01303.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
Land. The County is responsible for determining whether an RLS is required, under the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes §508.47.
The proposed RLS generally meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning staff recommended approval of the RLS subject to the
following conditions:
1. Drainage and utility easements must be provided for Tract C and the south portion of
Tract A. The easements must be recorded with the RLS.
2. Tract C must be deeded to the homeowners' association.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Dennis Perrier was present for questions.
There were no other public comments and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood, Ringstad, Lemke and Stamson:
Agreed with staff's assessment.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on November 3, 2003.
B. //03-102 and 03-103 Wensmann Realty has applied for a Preliminary Planned
Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to subdivide 18.6 acres into 133 lots for
one single family dwelling and 133 attached townhomes and two outlots. This
property is located west of Wilds Drive and south of Wilds Path.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 13,
2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty has applied for approval of a development to be known as Wensmann
4th Addition on the property located west of Wilds Drive, south of Wilds Path and east of
CSAH 83. The application includes the following requests:
· Approve a rezoning from the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to the R-4 (High
Density Residential) District;
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
L:\03 Files\03 Plaflning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN 101303.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 132 dwelling units on 18.6
acres. The development also includes 1 lot for a single family dwelling, private streets
and private open space.
There are several issues pertaining to this proposal. These include the following:
1. The development is subject to the impervious surface requirements of the Shoreland
District PUD regulations.
2. There is a need for at least 1 acre of additional parkland within this development.
The most logical location for this parkland is adjacent to the proposed park. This will
require the removal of Lots 1-10, Block 1.
3. The units located on Lots 13-16, Block 2, do not meet the minimum 25' setback from
the rear property line. In fact, the building envelopes for units 15 and 16 appear to
encroach onto the golf course property. These units must be removed or relocated to
meet the minimum setback.
4. The 6- and 8-unit buildings do not meet the minimum requirement for 60% Class I
materials. The exteriors of these buildings should be redesigned to meet this
minimum.
5. There are several outstanding Engineering issues, as noted in the memorandum dated
September 22, 2003, from the Assistant City Engineer. Most of these issues can be
addressed prior to final plat; however, no additional grading will be permitted until all
of the grading and hydrologic issues have been completely addressed.
The above issues will affect the final design of this development. However, the staff
believes these issues can be addressed prior to final plan approval. The exception would
be the question of impervious surface. If the Planning Commission does not agree with
the staff's approach, the developer should be directed to redesign the development and
bring it back to the Planning Commission for further review.
The proposed rezoning, PUD preliminary plan and preliminary plat are generally
consistent with the provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The staff
therefore recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed parkland dedication must be expanded to include a minimum of 2 acres
of land.
2. All structures must be located at least 25' from the rear lot line. This will require
relocation and/or removal of the units on Lots 13-16, Block 2.
3. All buildings with more than 4 units must be constructed so at least 60 percent of
each building face visible from off-site is constructed with Class I materials.
4. The private streets must be platted as outlots.
5. Provide elevations for the proposed monument signs.
6. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
7. The applicant must submit a petition to vacate the existing fight-of-way and
easements for Wilds Drive. This vacation must be approved and recorded with the
final plat.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes'uMNlOl303.do¢
3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
8. No grading will be permitted until the following Engineering issues have been
addressed:
Grading and Erosion Control
a. Grading appears to be shown beyond the property lines. Show the property lines
and construction limits. An agreement with the property owners must be in place
for this grading.
b. It appears there will be grading occurring within the County Road 83 right of
way. There also appears to be a drainage swale in this area exceeding the 300'
maximum specified in the city's design manual which outlets onto Wilds Path.
Please revise the grading plan in this area. Show the proposed contours on CSAH
83 fight of way.
e. The slope of the driveway for block 3 lot 51 is greater than 10%.
d. The slope between many units exceeds the 4:1 maximum as specified in the
Public Works Design Manual.
e. Indicate the top and bottom elevations for all retaining walls. Walls exceeding 4
ft should be designed by an engineer and have a fence in place.
f. The emergency overflow elevation for the storm sewer/drainage swale behind
block 2 lots 4-7 is 0.5 ft higher than the low opening for these homes. The
building pads should be raised or the overflow should be lowered.
g. Show contour lines a minimum of 200' beyond the property lines.
h. The erosion control plan will be reviewed when the final grading plan is
submitted.
i. Grading is shown outside the property lines. Provide construction easement
documentation.
j. The grades behind lots 25-28 block 3 drain directly to Wild's Parkway. Provide a
catch basin or re-grade this area.
Hydrologie/I-Iydraulie and Water Quality
k. An updated drainage area map and HydroCAD model including 2, 10, and 100 yr
drainage calculations for all drainage areas should be included with the plans.
1. Storm sewer design calculations and profiles should be included with the final
plan.
m. Show emergency overflow locations and arrows indicating the flow direction.
n. Provide hydraulic calculations to verify that the pond at the intersection of CSAH
83 and Wild's Parkway is sized appropriately for this project.
9. Address the following Engineering issues in the final plans:
General
a. Show the City project # 03-45 on all plan sheets
b. Show limits of construction.
c. Add easement line type to the legend.
d. The wetland delineation was field reviewed on September 17, 2003. We concur
with the findings in the wetland delineation report that no wetlands are present on
site. No wetland permitting is required as part of this development.
e. The Parkland was required as part of the Wild's North plat. The minimum park
area needed is 2 acres.
f. Some of the building units appear to be located beyond the property lines.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutesWIN 101303.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
Watermain
g. Eliminate one of the hydrants at the end of DR-D.
h. Loop the watermen so that there are no dead end lines.
behind lots 64/57, 56/47, and 18/11 of block 1.
i. Show gate valve locations
Sanitary Sewer
j.
Storm
Streets
Connect watermain
The sanitary sewer flowing from across CSAH 83 must be directed to the north to
connect with the Wild's North 2nd Addition sanitary sewer.
Sewer
The minimum pipe size shall be 15".
Please verify the size of the pipe which the pipe referenced in item 3 ties into on
Wilds Parkway
The storm sewer pipe between block 3 lots 24 and 25 is over 12 ft deep. Provide
larger easement in this area.
n. Label the curb radii.
o. No more than 2.00% grade is required at intersections.
p. The minimum grade of streets is to be 1.00%.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Lemke questioned the percentage of impervious surface, if lots one through ten were
removed for the additional acre of parkland. Kansier responded that area is outside the
Shoreland District so it would have a minimal affect.
Comments from the Public:
Kelly Murray, representing Wensmann Realty presented the Commissioners with pictures
of the proposed home styles. Murray went on to address some of staffs conditions:
· The parkland dedication will be met with a minor easy redesign. Even if they
loose a couple of units, the two acre park area will be dedicated.
· The setbacks from the golf course on Lots 13 through 16 on Block 2, have already
been discussed with The Wilds and as long as a lot split agreement is approved by
the City, they would give the sliver of land needed. It does not impact any of the
golf play.
· The entry monument has not been designed.
· The landscaping design will be addressed to meet staffs recommendation.
· The vacation application will be in place before filing the Final Plat. They have
already met with some of the utility companies. Reconstructing the road is not an
issue. The existing road is not holding up.
· The applicant had no intentions of grading this Fall, it is really a Spring project.
· They will get through all the issues this Winter.
The only issue Murray wanted to address with the Commissions is the Class I building
material issue. She stated she did not have the actual elevations on the buildings but they
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMNl01303.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
could be provided. Given the design of the buildings, especially with the back-to-back
unit, to try to cover the building with Class I materials with the deck overhang makes is
very hard. Trying to use stucco in a project is taboo at this time. They would like to use
the Hardy Board siding instead of a vinyl siding. The developer of the golf course would
like an upgrade and would like Wensmann to use this material. Hardy Board has the
grain and look of cedar. It's painted maintenance-free siding but does not have the
shrinkage and expansion of wood. The pictures presented by Murray showed the Hardy
Board siding and brick to give it an upgraded look and still keep the prices moderate to
capture the first-time homebuyer market.
Murray went on to explain the unit prices will start at the $250,000 range. Units on the
golf course would be higher. Class I material on a 1 O-unit building really drives the
prices up and they would have a hard time trying to hit the first-time buyer/FHA price
ranges.
Ringstad questioned what the cost of the unit would be with the 60% Class I materials.
Murray said it would be 25% to 30% higher and significantly impact the price. Stucco is
not really appropriate and the price point would skyrocket. Guessing, the price would be
somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 higher. The prices will be higher than the
units in Fountain Hills.
Atwood asked if they were trying to target the first-time homebuyers. Murray responded
they were trying to keep in the FHA limit which is up between $220,000 to $230,000.
The units will be higher priced than Fountain Hills because the land price was more.
Atwood asked if the right-of-way petition was underway. Murray said the vacation
application has not been submitted and would be concurrent with the Final Plat.
Kansier clarified the condition of the vacation is not an issue but wanted to make sure it
was completed by the Final Plat.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
With respect to the rezoning - The Comprehensive Plan designates that area High
Density. With out the designation, I would have a hard time rezoning the
property.
· Agreed with staff's assessment with the impervious surface. The timing with this
development in 2003 would not be an issue if completed with the original golf
course.
· Agreed with all other recommendations.
· Has a hard time relaxing the 60% Class I materials. Realize what that does to the
developer's hopeful price point but not sure that is reason enough to consider
relaxing the requirement.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~viNl01303.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
· Would like to hear from other Commissioners.
Lemke:
· Questioned the original Class I material. Kansier responded the proposed
material does not fall under the City's definition. Part of it, maybe because it is
new technology.
· Ringstad asked if it may fall into Class I after more research is done. Kansier said
potentially it could. The purpose of the Class I material is to have a more durable
material that would require less maintenance yet maintain its appearance. Hardy
Board may meet the criteria.
· Rye said there is probably a number of products that have come out in the last few
years that visually and mechanically are equal to the materials the City currently
specify. It is something staff can take a look at. My understanding is the Hardy
Board is extremely durable and good looking.
· Stucco would have to be periodically painted to maintain its look. There are other
problems with moisture and rotting with stucco.
· Atwood questioned the materials for Class I materials. Kansier responded it was
brick, stucco, glass and marble. Staff does count the windows.
· How far is the developer close to the Class I materials? Kansier explained how
staff came up with under 40% with the brick and glass.
· Murray asked if there was a number the Commissioners could set to give an
average on the entire building or spell out a specific elevation. Kansier read the
ordinance interpreting the public streets, golf course and parkland. Not necessary
from the interior private streets. Murray said that could mean in some cases, all
four sides.
· Murray explained how they would prefer to avoid the stucco route. She went on
to explain the design and materials.
· Stamson questioned the Timber Crest Park materials. Kansier responded
indicating they met the 60% Class I material.
· Agreed with Ringstad on the other issues, especially the impervious surface issue.
· If the intent of the Class I material is to provide a durable and visually pleasing
appearance and the developer is thinking of doing an equivalent of what stucco
would be, I would be willing to listen.
Atwood: · Agreed with staff to allow the impervious surface with the golf course considering
the timing.
· Would like to add a condition. It is a shame there are no sidewalks or trails to
connect the park. Murray explained the park redesign would show a possible
trail.
· Agreed with staff on the parkland and Outlot A.
· Appreciates the Class I material dilemma but trusts Wensmann will be creative.
· Will stand by the 60% requirement. Maybe its time to revisit the Class I material
requirement.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes~VlNl01303.do¢
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
Stamson: · Agreed with fellow Commissioners on the rezoning. R4 meets the
Comprehensive Plan.
· Including the Wilds land in the tier figuring makes sense. If this would have been
done with the original PUD it wouldn't be an issue.
· The rest of staff's conditions make sense.
· Agreed with the rest of the Commissioners to stick with the Class I material. It is
important to maintain the 60%. The real question is if the Hardy Board should be
included as Class I. We don't have the information on the Hardy Board at this
time. Maybe have a discussion at another time. The applicant would provide
some information before it goes to City Council. However, maintaining the 60%
is important.
Atwood:
· For the sake of unity with the development, 60% should be maintained.
Stamson:
· Most developers are making it and are in the same price range. Don't feel it is a
big hurdle to get over. It will work.
Ringstad:
· Does the staff know exactly what is going to be done with the parkland
dedication? If we are being requested to approve a specific PUD tonight, it might
change. Kansier responded there is enough flexibility with the conditions. The
Commission will see a final PUD plan and have the opportunity to review it. It's
just a matter of arrangement. The developer is looking at new options. The Parks
and Public Works Director needs to look at the options.
· Is this premature to make a decision tonight? Kansier said "No", staffwill have
an answer before it goes to the City Council on November 3. If the Planning
Commission wants to see it, it can be continued. However, it will be reviewed
again at the final plat stage.
Stamson:
· Scott County would like the development to wait until they exchange the right-of-
way property. Kansier said she talked to Scott County and her understanding was
that would be going to the County Board early November. She had a number of
discussions on this issue. The exchange is for other right-of-way needs, not
necessarily at this location. Kansier went on to say if this was the final stage, she
would agree to wait.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A REZON1NG FROM THE Rol DISTRICT TO THE R-4 DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes'cMNl01303.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO
BE KNOWN AS WENSMANN 4xI~ ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS WENSMANN 4TM
ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on November 3, 2003.
C. #03-107 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the fencing/screening
requirements for properties in the I-1 district.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 13, 2003, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The City Council has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text to change the
enclosure requirements for outdoor storage in the I-1 (General Industrial) use district.
Staff recommended outdoor storage as a Conditional Use in the I-1 use district. The
screening requirement should not be eliminated from the ordinance because it serves a
valid purpose (to protect adjacent property and the public fight-of-way from visual
intrusions). Furthermore, screening for outdoor storage is consistently required in other
suburban communities, so it is not over burdening the Prior Lake property owner. In this
instance, a Conditional Use Permit would protect adjacent properties; yet provide
flexibility for the property owner.
With this proposed amendment, the City has flexibility in determining whether fencing or
landscaping is appropriate for the outdoor storage. The standard being it would still have
to be screened from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. It is the type of
screening determined by the policy makers. The bufferyard requirement would always
apply when the site abuts an "R" use district.
The staff supports the proposed amendment as it provides flexibility in screening outdoor
storage in the I-1 use district with fencing, landscaping, berming or a combination
thereof, depending on the site and type of storage. The staff, Planning Commission, and
City Council will attach conditions to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent residential
uses, or any other uses for that matter, at the time of Conditional Use Permit review.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VIN101303.doc
9
Ill [ [
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
Comments from the Public:
Kevin Berens, of Berens Bus Company, stated he recently bought property on Welcome
Avenue and would like to store school buses and explained his proposed screening.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Likes staff's changes, they did an excellent job in preparing this.
This will apply to any type of unique circumstance.
· Does not mind seeing each request come before the Commission with staff's
recommendations.
· Support.
Lemke: · Agreed with the change to allow landscaping or berming for storage.
· Opposed to making it a conditional use. Would rather see it maintained permitted
with conditions.
· Other cities are considered friendly toward commerce, industry and business and
would like to keep Prior Lake on that side.
· Its just one more hoop a business has to go through.
Atwood:
· Appreciates Lemke's concern but the three years on the Commission she had not
come across this issue. Kansier said they are currently permitted with conditions
but one of the conditions is the need for a 6 foot solid fence.
· Likes the flexibility of the amendment. It makes sense to review case by case.
· Support.
Stamson: · Agreed. Like the idea of being more flexible assuming it is not weakening the
ordinance. Every property and industrial use is different. Some will have more
screening required.
· Noted the differences from other city requirements.
· Allowing the flexibility is a good step forward.
· Support.
Lemke:
· Just to clarify - it should be flexible to determine the height of the screening but
feels it could be done with conditions. Not opposed to making it a conditional use
either. Just a little bit here and there sends a wrong message.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXlvlNl01303.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
Stamson: · Explained the permitted with conditions requirement has to be spelled out in the
ordinance. Lernke said he could agree to that.
· Kansier explained the ordinance.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 1102.1500
OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on November 3, 2003.
D. //03-112 Susan Balaam is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
reduce the lot width of riparian lots on General Development lakes from 90 to 75
feet.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 13, 2003, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Susan Balaam is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text to reduce the
minimum lot width for riparian lots on General Development lakes from 90 feet to 75
feet to accommodate a subdivision of property located at 6096 150th Street. The
proposed amendment would establish the minimum lot width based upon the area of the
lot. Essentially, the greater the lot area, the less the minimum required lot width, but in
no ease would it be less than 75 feet.
In 1994, an Administrative Land Division and lot width Variances were approved to
subdivide the subject property into two lots with five conditions. At that time, staff
recommended approval of the subdivision because the property was considered three lots
of record and approving administrative land division for two lots would reduce the
density. Staff also pointed out that approval of prior subdivisions created precedent~ It
must be noted the City approved the subdivision against the recommendation of the DNR
Area Hydrologist. Furthermore, the subdivision was approved contrary to Minnesota
Rule 6120.3300, which prohibits the conveyance or development of nonconforming
contiguous lots under single ownership.
The applicant has prepared an amendment to the shoreland ordinance that would reduce
the minimum lot width to allow a subdivision of property located at 6096 150th Street.
The applicant owns Lots 10, 11, and 12, Eastwood. The three platted lots on their own
do not comply with current ordinance requirements, and the total property width is 151.3
feet. To create a new riparian lot it must be demonstrated the lot is 90 feet in width at the
from yard setback. In this case, the property cannot be subdivided into two lots without a
variance or an ordinance amendment. The proposed amendment does not seek merely to
accommodate existing lots of record but allow for the creation of new riparian lots on
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMNl01303.doc
11
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
General Development Lakes. Prior and Spring Lakes are the only such lakes within the
City.
The ordinance amendment would serve only the interest of the applicant, not the public.
It is inconsistent with Prior Lake adopted official controls and plans, as well as State and
Federal law. The applicant contends the amendment should be approved because it is
consistent with the minimum shoreland standards set forth in Minnesota Rules. State law
allows local governments to adopt shoreland regulations that are more restrictive. Prior
Lake has chosen to use its discretion to adopt more restrictive minimum standards.
The subject property was subdivided in 1994 into two lots, and the applicant combined
the two lots into one in 2001. At present, the applicant wants to amend the ordinance to
allow a subdivision of the property. There is an issue with a subdivision because a pool
was constructed after the lots were combined. An accessory structure cannot exist on
property without a principal structure. Staff cannot support the applicant's amendment
because it does not promote the pubic interest and is discriminatory.
Comments from the Public:
Bryce Huemoeller represented Sue Balaam on the ordinance amendment. Huemoeller
stated this is an interesting section of the Zoning Ordinance. People forget about the 90
foot width frontage requirement for riparian lots. Where did the 90 foot recommendation
come from? After researching the matter Huemoeller did not come to any conclusion.
This requirement is standing in the way for someone to have full use of their property. It
is also a good time to look at this ordinance requirement and the impact it has on a certain
number of lots in Prior Lake.
Balaam's property is a combination of three 50 foot lots for maybe 57,000 square feet.
Her proposal is to give a homeowner some flexibility to deal with their property and still
comply with the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan. It also provides reasonable
assurance there will be adequate environmental protection. Northwood and Eastwood
additions were platted at 50 foot widths and approximately 300 feet long. Huemoeller
felt the requirement came into play sometime in the mid-80's but could not track it down.
It is a requirement that does exceed the minimum DNR rules and therefore has the
flexibility as a City to make this change.
The DNR's regulations are 50 foot setbacks and 25% impervious surface and the City's
trade off is 75 feet and a 30% impervious surface. The City still has 15,000 square foot
lot requirements and they are not asking to change it nor intend to change it.
Huemoeller felt their proposal is consistent with DNR rules and the old lake lots need
more flexibility because of their design and terrain. All of the standard protections apply.
Lakeshore lots are regulated more than other lots and that reason alone is a reason to treat
lakeshore lots differently. Non-riparian lots do not have 75 foot setbacks and lots not in
the Shoreland District do not have to meet the 30% impervious surface. Huemoeller
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~dVlN101303.doc
12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
stated the proposal is reasonable, fair and still meets the DNR requirements. He felt it
would be easy to administer but there might be other ways to look at it.
In summary, Huemoeller and Balaam asked to recommend approval to the City Council
or to send it back to staff for tweaking. He felt it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stflmson:
This ordinance was not just carried over from the previous ordinance. This was
debated very heavily. At one point we discussed 90 and 90 feet, but do not
remember why. Commissioner Criego would know.
· Concur with staff- it has not been a problem around the City. For the most part,
the ordinance works.
· There is no public need for the amendment.
· Appreciates the applicant's desire to have something more flexible but this works
for the community.
· Stick with the existing ordinance.
Atwood: · Agreed, this is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· The State allows local government to be more restrictive. If Prior Lake errors, it
errors on the side of what is in the best interest of the community.
· This is not in the best interest of the community.
· Support staff's findings.
Ringstad: · Agreed with the Commissioner's reasoning. There does not appear to be a public
need for the amendment, it is just for the benefit of the applicant.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke:
· The concern seems to be an equitable situation. How is that different in equity in
having a 15,000 square foot lot size versus 12,000 square foot for non-riparian
lots? Kansier and Rye stated it is a State Rule. There is an environmental public
interest in requiring the larger lot area adjacent to the lake.
· Some inequity is built into the system by virtue of it being a riparian lot.
· In doing a quick calculation, it would seem that in order to get the width at the
from yard from 90 feet to 75 feet it would require a minimum lot size of 25,000
square feet. This does not appear to be unreasonable. Where there is a public
need, I don't know.
· Support the amendment.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes'dVlN 101303.doc
13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lernke. MOTION
CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on November 3, 2003.
6. Old Business: None
7. New Business:
A. #03-115 Consider a request to vacate the existing drainage and utility
easements and a portion of the Duluth Avenue right-of-way located on and adjacent
to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Enivid 1st Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 13,
2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this application is to facilitate both the construction of the post office and
the ring road. The vacation of the existing utility easements will provide additional land,
and a better arrangement for the new building. At the same time, the Postal Service will
dedicate new easements to cover the existing utilities and the new storm water pond. The
Postal Service will also dedicate a road easement for the realignment of Duluth Avenue
as part of the ring road construction.
The vacation of this easement and the dedication of the new easements will facilitate the
construction of the post office and the ring road, and is therefore within the public
interest. The Planning staff recommended approval of this request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The hurdle on vacations is in the public interest. Cannot see any reason this is not
in the public interest.
Lemke, Atwood and Ringstad: · Agreed.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENTS AS REQUESTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on October 20, 2003.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteskMN 101303,doc
14
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
B. Shoreland Discussions.
Planner Jane Kansier stated this issue was brought before the Planning Commission at
Commissioner Criego's request. It is the opportunity for the Commissioners to give staff
any recommendations.
Stamson: · Comfortable with the existing Shoreland regulations.
· During the Shoreland meetings we heard a lot of different options from State
representatives on how you can do it, but reaffirm our current approach for the
most part.
· Suggest discussing at the next meeting.
Lemke:
· Agreed to table. My recommendation right offthe bat would be to somehow
write it so the public can understand it.
· Rye said it is very simple and straight forward. Part of the problem is most of the
definitions are in the State Rules. The City might be able to modify some of them
yet remain true to the definitions. Rye stated in his experience since he has been
here, the people complaining about how hard it is interpret, are people that are
unable to do something they want to do because of the bluff ordinance. And
generally they wind up giving their own interpretation of it, which is more
favorable to their point of view. It's easy to understand.
· The Commissioners agreed.
Stamson:
· People look for something to make it fit their situation.
Atwood:
· In defense of the diagram, sometimes less is more. It is pretty simple.
Rye responded there is a graphic technique that is easy to determine where the top of the
bluff is located.
Lemke:
· There was an inconsistency in the ordinance. Kansier said the more we try to
make it simpler the more complicated is seems to get.
Ringstad:
· This would be a very helpful discussion with Commissioner Criego present but
six months ago we went down a slippery slope when an applicant try to educate
us. In retrospect, we made a real big mistake that evening. I don't remember if
we went so far as to propose changing the way we define a bluff. I think we did.
· Without impartial engineers and other information to change something of that
magnitude cannot be done that quickly without a very complete analysis rather
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMNl01303.doc
15
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 2003
than an applicant or the interpretation he or she may want to achieve as an end
result.
The Commissioners suggested to revisit the discussions with Commissioner Criego.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye announced staff is beginning to gear up for Spring Lake Township annexation. A
number of issues have to be in place when the annexation takes place. A lot of the work
will be hired out. A first cut on the land use plan consultants has been made. One of the
things to be careful about is the whole issue of drainage into Prior Lake. We have
evidence that if we went to significant amounts of higher density, higher impervious
surface in that annexation area, it could have an adverse affect on the water levels in Prior
Lake.
Rye went to explain consultants are still needed for Storm Water Management planning,
update the Transportation Plan, Sewer Plan, Zoning, Water Quality and Supply Plans will
have to be looked at. It will be a fairly significant effort over the next few months.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Community
Development
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinuteshMNl01303.doc
16