Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 February Planning Commission Agenda PacketsFeb y, 1993 ��wiNq S U REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, February 4, 1993 7:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order. a) Review Minutes of Previous Meeting. 7:35 p.m. 1. Public Hearing: Busse First Addition Conditional Use /Variance. 8:45 p.m. 2. Public Hearing: Continuationnagement ordinance 9:15 p.m. 3. Discussion: Update from Joel Rutherford on City storm Water Management and Wetland Management activities. 9:45 p.m. 4. Discussion: Request from Citizens Forum to consider initiating review of the 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan fcr residential districts. Marianne K. Whiting will represent the Citizens Forum. Other Business: a) Discuss format for Planning District /Neighborhood meetings. b) Discuss topics for Planning Commission Retreat. C) Discuss alternate date for Planning Commission Retreat. d) Discuss development of conclusions and recommendations from meeting with area realtors. All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are apptnximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447.4245 AN EQUAL OPPOMUMN 04U NER "A0218" REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, February 18, 1993 1. Discussion of DNR wetland regulation and authority - Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist, is scheduled to address the Commission. 2. Introduce Draft 2010 Comprehensive Plan Chapters: a) Economic Development Plan b) Industrial Development Plan C) Environmental Plan 3. Develop Retreat Agenda / Requested Speakers Other Business a) Discuss calendar schedule for future meetings. b) Discuss sign ordinance review process proposal from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. c) GTS Land Use Planning Workshops d) Other topics as proposed by individual Planning Commissioners. 7:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order. a) Review Minutes of Previous Meeting. All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. ,612) 4474230 / Fax(612)4474245 AN EQUAL OPPORNMIY BVUNER y =x PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 The February 4, 1993, Planning Commiss order by Chairman Roseth at 7:30 commissioners Roseth, Arnold, Loftus, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Garross, Planning Intern Jim Hayes, Knudsen ion Meeting was called to P.M. Those present were Wuellner and Greenfield, Assistant City Planner Deb Acting Secretary Phyllis ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING commissioner Wuellner wanted second to the last paragraph on page one to read "water oriented structures should not only conform to setbacks and maintain minimum distance from high water elevation but also have permanent foundations." Last paragraph having to do with contiguous side by side lots also there was verbiage in the original version having to do with lot size and lot width and Commissioner Wuellner pointed out that there was a wider width at the building line than there was at 904 and that only applies to a very few of the lots on Twin Isle. The majority are pie shaped wider at the lake. The Draft as it was written would not apply to the majority of the lots. The Ordinance should apply to the majority of the lots that are available for development on the Island. The majority of lots are pie shaped narrower at the back and wider at the lake. On page 4 Commissioner Wuellner made the point that the comparison of Prior Lake to other adjacent communities, i.e. Savage, Shakopee, Farmington, Lakeville, etc. "I think in most cases with this type of Shoreline Ordinances that it is irrelevant because Prior Lake is really a unique community because of the diverse topography we have and the fact that the dominant feature of the area is the lake ". Second point: in his opinion relative to the 18% coverage ratio issue, adequate two story and multilevel housing could be built with a three car garage in excess of 2000 square foot on the lots that were platted in the area. He also felt that it is not prudent for the City to change the entire Ordinance which affects the entire community at the request of one developer because he has a problem. 4629 Dakota St. SE., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax(612)4474245 AN EQUAL OWOMUNrrY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 2 commissioner Greenfield moved to table discussion of the corrections of the minutes from the previous meeting to the foot of the agenda in the light of two public hearings yet to be heard. All agreed. ITEM II - PUBLIC HEARING: BUSSE FIRST ADDITION Commissioner Roseth opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. to consider the Subdivision, Conditional Use and Variance for Busse First Addition and Subway. Greg Kopischke of Westwood Professional Services representing Brad and Mary Busse made the following presentation. The proposal is to subdivide a 1.2 acre parcel, adjacent to the Prior Lake State Bank, at the intersection of Hwy 13 and Duluth Ave., into two commercial lots. The applicant proposes to develop a Subway convenience food restaurant on one of the two parcels. Mr. Kopischke showed renderings of the design of the building, landscape design which is in compliance the existing draft of the landscape ordinance, parking lot, etc. They are proposing to grade Lot 1 which is proposed for Subway, the standards relative to screening the .single tamily .adjacent across ..Duluth are meant to allow for some screening -'or buffering of- commercial activities. The plan is- generally consistent.with the intent of draft landscape ordinance that is currently in process. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Subway, a fast food restaurant requires a Conditional Use permit within the B -1 Zoning D`_strict. The proposed Subway will contain 1600 sq.ft, with the seating area oriented towards the front, counter area, kitchen located in rear. The building design maintains some of the residential character from the neighborhood using gabled roofs, using brick of the same heigh and color as the adjacent bank. Signage will be placed on two sides of the building, one facing Hwy 13. Access was a major concern due to intersection congestion, stacking and so forth. The driveway entrance was moved back as far as possible from the intersection. One alternative reviewed was to locate a driveway near Anna Trail, but the distance to Hwy. 13 was not sufficient to allow for safe stacking, safe movement in proximity to the lighted intersection. The applicant acknowledges that there is concern about having a driveway access opposite from single family homes so the drive was centered in the lot lines. It would line up directly across two driveway accesses. It would minimize the impact to the greatest extent possible rather than having the driveway access opposite someones living room window. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 3 Pylon sign to be erected along with signs on the building on the northwesterly side and southerly side adjacent to Hwy 13. Pylon sign will be of permitted height and size according to City standards. Parking: The applicant requests a Variance for required parking spaces. The City ordinance for this particular sate in terms of square footage requires 40 parking stalls. History has shown with free standing Subways that they do not require that many stalls. We have researched 14 other communities in terms of what they would require and found a range from 14 to 41, with the majority in the mad 2o's. The applicant requests a variance to permit 27 parking stalls based on other Subways of this size and the number of seats, etc. The applicant also requests a building setback variance. The structure meets the front yard setback requirements of a B1 District being 30 feet from street right -of -way. However, the Ordinance does dictate a 50' setback is required from Hwy 13. We requirement approximately uirementoffDulut variance a h Duluth is 85' fromcenterlineand point. 1 we are at 74 according to the plans so we are looking for an 11' variance for just a corner of the building. We did look at various options trying to locate the building in other spots but found with trying to keep access back :away, parking really needed to be where it is to keep it away:from the residential area as well. Discussion followed. Mr. Brad Busse introduced himself and his wife as the new owners and manager of the Subway and they also are the franchise owners and operators of the Subway in Bloomington. They plan to work at this store making sure that the standards are kept up which is one of the conditions upon continuing the franchise with the Subway. Along wigh the involvement on a daily basis we also pledge to become involved with the community, i.e. sponsoring school programs, commendations for students, sponsor Boy Scout Troop activities, etc. Horst Graser, Director of Planning presented staff reports. This is a three fold project. Hearings for each of the different requests were convened contemporaneously in order discuss them in interrelating issues that are involved with the Subdivision, Conditional Use and the Variance. Mr. Graser presented slides of subject subdivision, elaborated on the zoning, conditional use and the variances that are asked for. There are three options that the Planning Commission has as outlined on page 3 and 4 of the memorandum: 1. Deny the Plat based upon specific findings, 2. Continue the hearing for specific purpose or £or lack o£ information or to do an alternative plan, 3. Find the preliminary plat of Busse's 1st PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 4 Addition is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Subdivision Code. The Planning Commission may attach conditions as deemed appropriate. Staff recommends #4, that the Plan not be approved until all conditions are met. The Conditional Use Permit is part of the same package being submitted under Section 7 -5 of the Zoning Code and the variance under 7 -7 -6. Specific variance is approximately 15' from S.T.H. 13, 11' front yard setback from Duluth and a reduction in parking space requirements from 40 to 27 stalls. Mr. Kopischke was advised that when developing this lot, the project should be extremely sensitive to the residential area, and be respectful of the existing commercial uses, the bank and the Priordale Mall area. Duluth is designated as a Collector Street. The year 2010 will carry between 7,000 and 9,000 vehicles per day and if Hwy 13 is not reconstructed to a freeway status, the traffic will even be greater. The plan in general conforms with the performance standards and approval criteria that are listed in the Zoning Code. The .expected daily trips is expected to be 440 A.D.T. having two peaks about noon and later in the evening. The access is from Duluth,-City Engineer Anderson discussed an alternative driveway location located opposite Anna Trail. The stacking distance between Hwy 13 intersection and alternative site entrance would not be adequate and .therefore the-entrance as proposed is the better and safer one. This entrance :would line up right in the center of the driveways of Lots 6 and 7 across from the entrance so that even if people were stopped for a considerable length of time, the headlights wouldn't be directly in someones front room. Mr. Kopischke stated that the heaviest berming would be along Duluth to hide the trash receptacle and to hide noise coming from the order board. The owner should consider a plan to clean up adjacent properties on a structured basis. It is also important that maintenance of the grounds and structure be ongoing as it is vital to preserving the image of a duality and respectful place that is used to buffer commercial development and Hwy 13 from the residential area. Staff has outlined three alternatives and those are to 1. deny the application, 2. continue the hearing for additional information or direction at your choice, 3. find that the conditional use permit and variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and within the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and that approval is deemed appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 5 Audience Comments: Neil Boderman, General Partner and Owner of Priordale Mall - if they estimate 440 trips per day, and 70% of business is conducted in a 3 hour span making approximately 100 trips per hour then the number of parking stalls doesn't seem adequate. Also if hours are to be until 2 a.m. it would probably Become a hang out for teenagers. Jim Netsfeld, Owner of NAPA - I think it would be a good addition to the community to have another selection to choose from for fast foods. In response to previous speaker, most of the traffic would be drive thru so would not need the parking. Emmy Schneider - resident - concerned with width of the street - uses Hwy 13 and Duluth and feels that with the growth that the city is anticipating that it will become a very busy intersection so her concern is with the 15' variance from Hwy 13 and with the 11' variance from Duluth. If Duluth will eventually be redesigned with right turn lanes, we certainly need more than 30' there. Future traffic problems and when other lot gets developed it will again increase traffic - might Anna Trail cross over to make another exit or entrance to Hwy. 13. Jan Hansen - Citizen Forum - .-suggests having a -trash :receptacle at the exit with an extended'shoot so that trash can be thrown in it from the bar window - .Regarding parking stalls, you may want to look at the Dairy Queen as it is a comparable business. Bill Schoenecker - has been working with the Busses, and on their behalf has talked to the neighbors across the street on Duluth. Of the people he has talked to, none of them are against the proposal. The only comment they made was they didn't want a gas station put there. W.B. Thomas (letter written to Deb Garross) See Exhibit A. In brief - does not object to Subway being built in Parcel 1 but does object to entry and exit off Duluth Ave. Would rather see these off Hwy. 13. - Thinks additional noise and traffic would decrease property values. Deb Garross submitted comments by Howard Clausen, Owner of Dairy Queen who could not attend tonights meeting. He objected to the Subdivision and the Conditional Use Permit. Basis of these objections he felt that traffic would be a concern of his based on the intersection and the amount of traffic that would be generated from the Subway use, concerned about the lights and compatibility issues that have been discussed this evening between the business and residential district. He also .felt that other land is available in the community for such a use and that he didn't feel that special consideration be given to this particular business at this particular location. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 6 Bradley Busse - regarding Mr. Grasers comment of the 440 cars per day - our estimate shows we will have 200 customers per day, and 2 or 3 person carloads would greatly reduce that carload - We are anticipating an average of 200 customers per day with anywhere from 150 to 200 cars per day coming through the area. Based on Subway records, 30% of sales are from the drive thru or about 60 per day drive thru. Greg Kopischke - when one looks at traffic count one locks at a trip being in and a trip being out - or 200 transactions per day equals 400 trips. They also took into account the employees coming and going and delivery vehicles coming and going on a regular basis. The parking stalls closer to Duluth might be designated as employee parking as they would be the furthest from the door and that would lessen the activity of those stalls that seem to be of a concern especially during peak times then the employees are going to be tied up anyway. Regarding the trash concern: the Busse's plan to be here and have every intent of being a good neighbor and will be policing the site to make sure that everything is in order. Bob Schaffer - resident - The building is just going to be a first rate structure and if this building wouldn't be appropriate there what might you hope to accomplish on that corner in lieu of this. I encourage you to support this and allow.them.to build. Martha Hoover - resident and Realtor - personally spoke to 16 of the 30 agents in the office they personnally support this improvement to the community - With concern that this - become a hangout for the kids, it would become job potential for them. We encourage the Commissioners to support this development to our community. Public Hearing was closed by Commissioner Roseth at 8:40 p.m. and then asked the otjier Commission members for their comments. Commissioner Wuellner: Asked Mr. Busse if Subway had guidelines, suggestions, or regulations as to a minimum or recommended number of parking spaces. He responded that they don't have specific numbers, all they can draw on ultimately is when different stores are operational and are doing just fine. He has surveyed four stores that are drive thru free standing facilities such as we are proposing, and the number is anywhere from 20 to 26 stalls. Commissioner Wuellner also asked Mr. Busse's intent of hours of operation, and has there been research done by Subway or you as a Subway operator, as to the ability to project by the hour what the incremental boc.`:ings are between 30 -11 p.m., 11 p.m. -12 a.m., 12 -1 a.m. Mr. Busse responded that Corporate Subway has required hours on national basis of Monday- Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. but then allow graces on these days from 10 a.m. to midnight. On Friday and Saturday, the national hours are until PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 7 2 a.m. and except for a few cities in the metro area the majority of the Subway establishments are open until 2 a.m. and those are determined by City Ordinance. There is a couple of pockets in the Minneapolis area where these communities ordinances read stores are open until 11 p.m. on weekdays and 1 a.m. on weekends. It is Mr. Busse's intent to work the the city for the good of both the community and the proposed business. Questioned if a traffic study had been done for the number of vehicles exiting from the Bank? Mr. Graser did not have an answer but estimated 400 to 600 trips per day which would be similar. Mr. Wuellner was trying to make a comparison on an already existing condition on the same street affecting the same people on that street. Commissioner asked Mr. Kopischke regarding the screening that is going to put along the drive up order entry area and the trash bin area, initially when it is planted how high is the screening going to be and what will the optimum height be? Response was scrubs initially at 2' to grow to 5 Evergreens also to be used would go in at 6' to 8' and grow to approximately 15' or so in 10 years. Commissioner Roseth- recognized that the 8:45 p.m. Public Hearing on Shoreland Management Ordinance is due .to stai°t :and -asked what the parliamentary procedure was for this. Horst : Graser advised if there were a lot of people - waiting for hearing perhaps it should be convened, otherwise he 'felt it be'appropriate to convene it and then continue it until 9:15 p.m. commissioner Roseth called the Public Hearing for the Shoreland Management Ordinance at 8:45 p.m. to order and then continued the hearing until 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Greenfield interjected regarding traffic noise, he felt that the no %se coming from Hwy. 13 was going to over power some of the concerns coming from the order board. Commissioner Wuellner to City Engineer Anderson asking what is the projected setback from Hwy. 13 and Duluth Ave as we now envision them now to be developed in the next few years, i.e. what is this intersection going to look like, what will Hwy 13 look like, what will Duluth Ave. look like, where is the building going to fit in all of that. Mr. Anderson states the City is going through a Comprehensive Plan update and he has been in contact with firm that is doing the transportation plan for the City as late as yesterday, to discuss traffic on Duluth Ave. They have some preliminary numbers for projected ADT on Duluth Ave. Those numbers are not final. Preliminary of about 7,000 cars per day on Duluth Ave. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 8 With that kind of traffic there would be for sure a right turn lane coming off Duluth Ave onto Hwy. 13, a straight ahead through lane. That lane may also serve as a left turn lane onto Hwy 13. with the possibility with a separate left hand turn lane depending on the actual design and the traffic that we have then there would be one north bound lane. The right -of -way that we have requested would serve to provide the right -of -way necessary for those improvements. The right -of -way does get wider at the intersection to provide for additional movements. We see that roadway as being either 32' wide or 36' wide depending on actual design with a sidewalk and bikeway on each side of the roadway. That system for pedestrian and bikeways, I believe is very essential to provide for the downtown connection from CR 21 to the shopping center. There was a suggestion by the Parks Director that we consider the sidewalk. I believe at this time it would be premature to put the sidewalk in. That section of roadway will have to be reconstructed from right -of -way width across. We will convert that to an Urban Section and then the sidewalks and bikeways will be constructed relative to the elevation and grades necessary to to roads. Hwy 13 is scheduled for 1995 improvements for safety improvements for channelization for which will be a two lane roadway. Those improvements would be very similar to section of roadway that is in place today. In this particular area it is two lane with channelization. Those improvements would be from CR 44 to CR 42. In the longterm plan the overall direction that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan is looking at is that Hwy. 13 would become a four lane facility, which would mean an additional lane onto Hwy 13 which would be another 12' of widening to the north with possibly a right turn lane. It seems there is sufficient right -of -way that exists today to make those accomplishments both on Duluth and Hwy 13. Regarding to the proposed parking lot, there is one stall that I am concerned about and that is the stall on the northerly side of the driveway adjacent to Duluth. The sidewalk or bikeway will be right at the right -of -way line. we have requested an additional 7' of right -of -way for once we slide the right -of -way line out and put the sidewalk right there we would have a conflict with that particular car backing out there, so we suggest that the stall in question be eliminated. Commissioner Loftus asked Mr. Graser what the other conditional uses would be in a B -1 District. Mr. Graser listed both permitted and conditional uses. The Comprehensive guide that you say this would be consistent with is a 1981 document, correct? Answer Yes. Is there any different treatment in the 2010 Draft of this area that you are aware of between the 1981 Plan and proposed new draft. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and if the zoning is consistent then the uses therein by way of reasoning are also consistent. What we are trying to do in the new Plan is relate businesses more to neighborhoods. Our business community right now relates to highways and what we are trying to do is be more village like in nature so that as a community grows and highways and transportation systems fail, businesses don't fail along with it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 9 Commissioner Loftus continues stating that seems everyone is favorable regarding design and so forth that when you have a fast food restaurant on a critical corner that is so visible that from a planning aspect it strikes me that you have a solo use just sitting out there by itself. Finds it a sense of frustration that all of these fast food can't be linked together instead of having to get in your car and drive to all these different locations instead of being able to stroll down the sidewalk to choose from different tastes. Asked about the possibility about Subway delivering which would raise traffic count. Answer does not deliver as a rule except for party subs, if company has a large meeting etc. Does not foresee this as becoming a feature for their business. Commissioner Arnold, because he came late he did not hear if some of his questions were answered. Asked if the proposed driveway was the safest and thought the Anna Trail alignment would be better. Mr. Graser answered his question based on previous testimony. Also asked about trash being found in adjacent yards and asked if we have had complaints from the other fast food locations in the area. Answer few complaints from Burger King area but thinks that since none of the facilities have outside seating that it is at a minimum. Commissioner Greenfield is pleased with the cooperation that took place during the initial stages of this proposal between staff and is very pleased with who the building is put together and looks like it would be a welcomed place in the community. I still would like to voice a concern about the trash that we should express on behalf of the residents in the neighborhood that we may have to look into the possibility of wrappers being blown across the street. Also expressed his feelings regarding the possibilities of using more footage of Lot 2 and turn the proposed building 180 degrees would make the order board more towards Hwy 13 henceforth less of a noise problem. These are his opinions. Also was wondering about taking more than 7' for right -of -wax Mr. Anderson and Mr. Graser answered the issue. Also wondered if enough thought was given to placing the building on the lot, or if other lots were considered which might negate the need for a variance, or have the concern with traffic flow, etc. Answer was yes but felt they have designed a nice building to compliment the area. Also questioned the hours again that because of the residential nature of the area that a condition of operational hours might be attached subject to approval of this Condition Use Application. Commissioner Roseth asked Mr. Busse how much of his product is throw away both in food stuffs and packaging. Majority of the customers are dine in and recept;ozles are in the stores where 70% of the garbage goes. On the carry out business most go through the drive thru, pick up the sandwich and drive home to eat it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 10 The Corporate office impresses on all franchise holders that cleanliness is the best thing that you can have when you are dealing with a restaurant. There is 4 or 5 times scheduled during the day that the store is cleaned inside and out, trash is picked up. Mr. Roseth's concern was how much refuse was degradeable and would hate to be at the order board next to the trash bin on a 99 degree day. Thinks the dumpster is in the wrong spot. Deliveries to the restaurant would take about 10 minutes once per week and there would is adequate space to maneuver the delivery truck around. Was the State notified of this proposed development? Yes they were notified and we received a letter from MnDot stating no objections to either of the applications. They would not allow any direct land access for ether of the lots, nor would they allow any regrading, planting or any type of landscaping in their right -of -way. Greg Kopischke elaborated again on parking lot design, trash bin location so that the hauler can get in and out, and people know what they want to eat so clustering probably would not have much effect. Commissioner Loftus - clustering was thought of if there was a line at one you might change your mind and go to another facility cause the option is there. Regarding the hours you are allowed by corporate to shorten the.hours, I am thinking of the employees and safety Mr. Busse stated that the closer will be an adult and cameras and alarms are to be installed. commissioner Greenfield - your original proposal of September for sewer and water hookup had those on the bank side of the road and now your December proposal has them on the residential side. Why was the decision made in light of citizen and street empact? MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE BUSSES FIRST ADDITION PLAT SUBJECT TO ALTERNATIVES LISTED IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION At (1) AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER; (2) THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR DULUTH BE INCREASED BY 7 FEET FOR THE EASTERLY 152 FEET OF DULUTH AVENUE; (3) SEWER AND WATER PLANS MUST BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER; (4) THE DIMENSIONS FOR LOT 1 BE ADJUSTED TO A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET. Discussion followed: Commissioner Greenfield would be in favor of continuing an issue of this complexity with the number of motions and stipulations etc. and get the issues more distinctly expressed in paperwork and proposals before us. commissioner Arnold - should we see the design of the shifting of parking spaces before approval? Greg Kopischke could make it a condition of the approval but we can work with Mr. Anderson of this parking stall in question. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 11 Commissioner Loftus made the motion and he will support the motion but as far as the Subdivision I think that by not knowing what is contemplated for Parcel 2 is not the best approach. I went forward based on what we have heard about the concept, bringing business into the community. Mr. Brad Busse stated they are dealing with the Barsness Trust who owns the other lot and it would be in their best interest to develop that lot consistent with the Subway and the Bank. Commission Greenfield admits he still feels uncomfortable with the issues here tonight and in lieu of the thickness and the gravity and the amount of material we have sitting here to consider and also with the time constraints already delaying a public hearing by almost an hour, feels uncomfortable about taking the express train through this and not giving a careful long look at all the issues at hand. Commissioner Wuellner did second the motion and he will continue to support the second. we are talking about a Subway Sub shop. We know what it looks like, we know how the land is going to be developed. It is not like it's a development of an entire neighborhood or PUD that would have many different facets. I don't see that because we are considering a subdivision and a conditional use which is an allowed use in the Ordinance, I don't see that it needs to be a continued issue. commissioner Roseth asked if had confidence in the fact that we have an Engineer and City staff that are capable enough to follow our direction if we so say that the parking space has delineated etc. Commissioner Roseth called the question. Vote taken signif }'ed ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Arnold, Ro&ath. Nayes by Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO CLOSE THE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Wuellner,Greenfield, Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO GRANT THE SUBWAY CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE IN PARCEL 1 TO INCLUDE A 15.05 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO HWY. 13 AND 11 FOOT SETBACK FROM DULUTH AVENUE; ALSO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCLUDE A VARIANCE OF PARKING SPACES BE REDUCED FROM 40 SPACES TO 27 SPACES, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF ALIGNMENT OF THOSE SPACES BY CITY ENGINEER AND CONDITIONAL UPON WEEKDAY HOURS CLOSING AT MIDNIGHT AND FRIDAY AND SATURDAY HOURS CLOSING AT 1:00 A.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 11 Commissioner Loftus made the motion and he will support the motion but as far as the Subdivision I think that by not knowing what is contemplated for Parcel 2 is not the best approach. I went forward based on what we have heard about the concept, bringing business into the community. Mr. Brad Busse stated they are dealing with the Bareness Trust who owns the other lot and it would be in their best interast to develop that lot consistent with the Subway and the Bank. Commission Greenfield admits he still feels uncomfortable with the issues here tonight and in lieu of the thickness and the gravity and the amount of material we have sitting here to consider and also with the time constraints already delaying a public hearing by almost an hour, feels uncomfortable about taking the express train through this and not giving a careful long look at all the issues at hand. Commissioner Wuellner did second the motion and he will continue to support the second. We are talking about a Subway Sub shop. We know what it looks like, we know how the land is going to be developed. It is not like it's a development of an entire neighborhood or PUD that would have many different facets. I don't see that because we are considering a subdivision and a conditional use which is an allowed use in the Ordinance, I don't see that it needs to be a continued issue. Commissioner Roseth asked ifthey had confidence in the fact that we have an Engineer and City staff that are capable enough to follow our direction if we so say that the parking space has delineated etc. Commissioner Roseth called the question. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Arnold, Roseth. Nayes by Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO CLOSE THE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Wuellner,Greenfield, Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO GRANT THE SUBWAY CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE IN PARCEL 1 TO INCLUDE A 15.05 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO HWY. 13 AND 11 FOOT SETBACK FROM DULUTH AVENUE; ALSO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCLUDE A VARIANCE OF PARKING SPACES BE REDUCED FROM 40 SPACES TO 27 SPACES, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF ALIGNMENT OF THOSE SPACES BY CITY ENGINEER AND CONDITIONAL UPON WEEKDAY HOURS CLOSING AT MIDNIGHT AND FRIDAY AND SATURDAY HOURS CLOSING AT 1:00 A.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 12 Justification: Commissioner Loftus for a Condition Use it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it is a Conditional Use listed In the B -1 Zoning District. The people that testified during the Public portion of the hearing were proponents of the applicant with only a few qualifiers but applicant has stated they are responsible operators and intend to exceed expectations so will not be detrimental to the general welfare and health and safety of the community. Commissioner Greenfield again is uncomfortable with railroading this through without more time to look it over and discuss it more thoroughly and feels that 1:00 a.m. is being more than generous with respect to the residents. He also cautions Commissioners to have undue consideration and to be care about the points that might have been overlooked in going through conditional use considerations. Vote taken signified ayes by Lotfus, Wuellner, Roseth, Arnold. Nayes by Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE APPLICATION Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Wuellner, Greenfield, Arnold and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Loftus asked for a 5 minute recess. Commissioner Roseth recovened the meeting at 10:10 P.M. ITEM II - CONTINUATION OF SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PUBLIC NEARING Mr. Steve Grittman, representative of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. gave a brief review of the status of the Ordinance and went over the addition of staffs alternative language recommending that it become part of the draft ordinance that gets sent to Council. Discussion regarding a separate Zoning Ordinance revision that would address accessory structure setbacks rather than changing the language in the Shoreland Ordinance and that would occur as concurrent but separate Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Discussion regarding language of the "contiguous" lots on Twin Isle, setbacks of those lots and memo from Building Official Gary Staber regarding implementation of inspection of septic systems at time of permit, and development on sub - standard lots_,variances and other requirements for sub - standard lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 13 Mr. Steve Grittman referenced in terms of action, you can recommend to include any or all of the recommendations that are proposed. We would recommend that you make a finding that the enactment of the ordinance would be consistent with and furthering your goals and objectives of your Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specifically environmental land use objectives you might have. Having that finding as part of your motion will help you justify that action down the road. Commissioner Roseth asked if anyone in the audience had any input, questions or comments. Bob Moeller, 110711 Kings Lane, Chaska, MN. Also owns property at 4307 Grainwood Circle, Prior Lake. Wanted definition of meaning of sub - standard lot. Bob Schaefer, Bluedorn Circle, Prior Lake. Is concerned when I here efforts being put forth will make it bardensome to develop a lot which has been a lot of record, taxed as a buildable lot. Feels we are creating situations that are .31peCifically designed to make it difficult for people to maximize the best use of property which they have purchased with long range plans and I can understand not wanting to plat additional 30 foot lots and I can understand if you have two 50 foot lots next to each other that maybe we shouldn't allow two building permits, but I -think it is extremely unfair to anything to diminish the value of a property that someone has possession of now and has purchased with some investment potential, or future use for their own home plan. The few remaining lots on Prior Lake will be developed to their highest and best use without making it more burdensome on those property owners. I think it is real unfair to change the rules of the game so to speak for people who have been paying taxes on what they thought were buildable lots for so many years only to find that they may have had their value diminished by new rules. Deb Garross commented that it is the intent of the Shoreland Management ordinance to reduce denisity but what you are looking at are different standards between the individuals right to develop to maximize the use of their property versus the public good of the lake shore and the lake environment and this is the model ordinance for the State of Minnesota that all Cities and Counties are required to adopt and the objective is to reduce density and the DNR would like to see all lots combined and they consider a lot small that is less than 15,000 square feet. Prior Lake was platted for the most part for resorts, cabins. Approximately a quarter of the lots in the community are non - conforming according to the shoreland requirements in one form or another and does not only impact vacant lots but all the lots that are developed. We have seen in the past 5 to 8 years, a trend to remove smaller cabins and even homes and build larger PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 14 homes and that is the intent of the ordinance to limit the amount of development that can occur on the smaller lots, but it is something also that the DNR is requiring the City of Prior Lake to adopt as well as the entire state. We are working with them to moderate between and provide the flexibility so that they do recognize that Prior Lake is unique with all of these small lots but yet Just out and out say yes that everything can be developed. We need to provide some rationale and reasons to the DNR to allow theta to let us have flexibility in the ordinance so that they will not mandate the strict letter of the law. We believe the drat ordinance does that and there are trade offs and that is one of the trade offs. It is mandated by the DNR that the City has to adopt Shoreland Management Ordinance by March 4, 1993. Mr. Grittman explained there will be a new set of rules for Environmental Quality Board Management. All of the plats will have to have environmental impact statement. Commissioner Loftus commented that the owners of these sub - standard lots have to deal with more and more technicalities. They will be able to build and so forth but new requirements are coming on line all the time and the ones that exist in 1993 weren't there in 1990 and so forth. We will have to work together so that these lots can be developed to their best use. Commissioner Wuellner objects to the verbiage regarding sub - standard lots. He totally objects to giving away the side yard setbacks. The minimum becomes the standard and when you give one away it will always be that way. He is concerned about not because of the existing 50 foot vacant lots that we have on the lake but is concerned about when someone comes in and purchases a house that is on a 5o foot lot and will tear it down and build something humongous. His concern is that if that happens on a grand scale he can envision every house having a 5 foot side yard setback on one side seems to run counter to the reason we are having this ordinance in the first place. Deb Garross stated that literally hundreds of variances have been granted and there is no consistency in that and the City has a responsibility to have consistent applications and at least if there is something spelled out in an ordinance you can be consistent in the application. Now we have nothing except the hardship criteria in the Zoning Code and Variances all over the place. If challenged in a legal situation it is very difficult to be able to separate those out, because up until 4 or 5 years ago when you read the Planning Commission meeting minutes before that you see "Grant Variance ". There is absolutely no criteria or findings or fact associated with that so the objective of this is not just to give away variances, the objective is to put some performance criteria in the Ordinance to give the Planning Commission some authority. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 15 MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION THE AMENDMENT TO THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF, RATIONALE BEING THAT THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH FURTHERING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Loftus comments the reality of a 50 foot lot is that the building envelope is so small and the ones that are usually overbuilt is lakeshore where the owner wants to maximize the dwelling on the lot and the restrictions are so tight that it almost forces you to build with!.n 50 feet of one line. Vote signified by ayes, Greenfield, Arnold, Loftus; nayes Wuellner. Abstained Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Wuellner states reason of opposition is Paragraph 10 on Page 37. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote signified by ayes, Loftus, Arnold, Wuellner, Greenfield, Roseth. MOTION CARRIED, Public Hearing closed at 10:55 P.M. CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commissioner Greenfield submitted the following is in absence of a quality product for oral backup. I had requested a vertebum copy of my comments to the issue be entered into the record and am also requesting that corrections and clarification made by the individual solicited by the secretary for those individuals at the hearing that their remarks were correctly entered in and any corrections would be made in writing as Ms. Whiting did to her comments and submitted to the secretary for finalization of the minutes. (SEE EXHIBIT B) One other thing I wanteo to add as far as my comments that were deleted from them were asked of Mr. Israelson was, who decides to plat lot sizes at our cities minimums ?" Mr. Israelson replied that he was. My other question to Mr. Israelson, "who is responsible for constructing homes in compliance with our cities laws and codes and their consequences? To which he nodded his head in affirmation. Commissioner Arnold found an error on page 5, second paragraph, second to the last word, should be "articles." MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified by ayes by Wuellner, Loftus, Greenfield, Arnold. Abstained by Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 16 ITEM III - UPDATE ON CITY STORM WATER MANAGEMEN4 - ",ND WETLAND MAN AGEMENT Joel Rutherford, Water Resource Coordinator for the City of Prior a Lake presented n outline of his duties and how that fits in to the new regulations that are already in affect, making it in some ways more difficult to develop properties. A lot of this is more awareness of the wetland benefits. The Wetland Conservation Act and the Metropolitan Council is meant to reduce non -point source pollution is to attempt to decrease the amount of disturbance that has occurred and will occur to wetland areas. The Metropolitan Council has come up with three adoptions for each city. (1) Shoreland Management (2) Adoption of NURP Standards i.e., National Urban Runoff Program with is design criteria for detension ponds for treating sediments that runoff from all areas. (3) Adoption of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Best Management Practices. This would be a comprehensive inclusion that will be included in all the new development and Subdivision Ordinance. These three items will be added to the process of subdividing. Explains his job will be to review proposals that come in from developers to make sure they are complying with all the current regulations. Example of the Wilds. Originally did not include any ponds or detension basins and they had some discharge running directly into wetlands. That sort of activity is what the Council is trying to eliminate. They want to have all runoff treated before it is discharged into wetlands. These are the things from the staffs point of view to assure that we are complying with the Metropolitan Councils strategy. This is for new development. For existing development what we are trying to do is look at some of these areas that in the past the water quality wasn't considered and wasn't looked at as if it would be today. There is a lot of direct discharge into Prior Lake - count was done when the lake was,low and counted about 80 plumes go directly into the lake. The idea is to try to treat the water upstream from those so we don't have as much sediment going into the lake. The reason we don't want the sediment going into the lake is that the sediment is what carries the nutrients or pollutants that act negatively on the lake and wetlands. If we can eliminate the sediment or alot of it, we would remove alot of the nutrients. He will look at the City as a whole being a State registered professional Engineer with the idea of the need to implement all of these smaller projects around the lake. The funds that we are using for that is coming from the new Stormwater Utility Fee that started February 1, 1993 to install new structures as well as maintain existing detension ponds around the city. A lot of these ponds have never been dredged so they are not acting as they were originally designed to act. Items to be done will be to dredge, constructing control structures at some of the wetlands to hold back some of the water so that it doesn't immediately discharge into the lake and those types of things. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 17 Mr. Rutherford is also the staff person that works with the Lake Advisory Committee and will be working on creating a local stormwater management plan. Included in that plan will be a five year capital improvement program which hopefully will detail many of these projects. We will try to prioritize and rank as funds become available we will try to lmplemert alot of these projects to deal with the water quality issues that affect all the wetlands in the area. Commissioner Roseth asked for clarification of where the funds came from and if this stayed locally; also asked the difference between detension and retension ponds. commissioner Wuellner states one of the most serious problems is the water quality at the south end of Prior Lake is caused by the influx of water out of Spring Lake. Asked what will be done about this. Commissioner Loftus asked since this is such an important subject that Mr. Rutherford join the Commissioners at the retreat and further explain future projects and answer more of the Commissioners questions. ITEM IV -RE UEST FROM CITIZENS FORM TO CONSIDER REVIEW OF 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Marianne K. Whiting, 14897 Manitou Rd. representing the Citizens Forum, presented corufients as per Exhibit C attached. Discussion followed regarding time line of 2010 Plan and steps that need to be taken between now and when the Plan is adopted by the Metropolitan Council. Commissioner Greenfield feels i.t would be prudent to us as a planning body to take a motion to request of Council funding to allow us to hire an independent consultant to begin an independent review of our residential land use portion of our comprehensive plan. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECOND BY ARNOLD, REQUEST FUNDING FROM CITY COUNCIL TO HIRE AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO REMOVE FOR STUDY THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN AND THE LOT AND YARD REQUIREMENT ELEMENTS OF INCLUSION TO FOLLOW. Discussion followed. Commissioner Loftus commented that to hire a consultant and unless you give him a very specific charge and narrow it down as to what you want included, and even give him some indication of what we think the cost charges should be, it seems to be nothing but a blank check. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 19 implementation, we have a lot of development coming in that is going to happen before that. They want the new development to be reflective of the way we want the development to be in the future, not the way someone designed it in 1981. Justification: Commissioner Greenfield admits there is reservations because it is not specific enough and is not giving enough direct detail. The other choice is to take no action. I am not saying change for change sake, I am saying information for informations sake, knowledge for knowledge sake, etc. We will continue sitting here in a vacuum and we will exist in a vacuum in Prior Lake unless we desire to request of Council to in some way show us a sign that they are willing to commit themselves to give us the tools in order for us to plan or decide what is the best plan. Commissioner Wuellner requested the Planning commissioners be present when the motion is presented to Council if it is agreed upon tonight, to state the concerns and tell them why it is needed. All agreed. Commissioner Greenfield suggests this on the tail end of this to make a suggestion to request this funding for research into but not limited to exploring gradational lot size issues, lot standards usage, coverage ratio uses and try to get some other areas that are of concern here that we can get some direction on. Ms. Whiting comments the need for the BIG PICTURE. Maybe the place to start is, what is this feeling that we hear people talking about, what does it look like, etc. What is the collective big issue that people want Prior Lake to look like down the road and how do you put in these different pieces to ensure that. Vote taken signified by ayes Wuellner, Greenfield, Arnold, Roseth. Naye vote by Loftus. MOTION CARRIED. Other comments: Mr. Graser doesn't believe we should schedule a public hearing at 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. We should not notify people to come to a meeting at 10:00 p.m. so with that in mind one maybe two public hearings can be heard in one evening giving us a big back log and you will have to let me know if you are going to continue to take this time we will have to make appropriate arrangements. If you have an item and someone gets a notice of an 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. hearing and that person sits in the audience until 11:00 p.m. is really unfair. Everyone agrees. Time allotments must be adhered to better than they have been. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 20 Mr. Graser introduced Jim Hayes from Iowa State as the new Planning Intern for six months or so. Also informed all that Mr. Frank Boyles will be the new City Manager as of March 1, 1993. He was the Assistant City Manager of Plymouth, MN. OTHER BUSINESS: a) Format for Planning District /Neighborhood Meetings Commissioner Greenfield suggests this be discussed at the retreat. b) Discussion was held on topics for Retreat. Suggestions of Water Quality; bring 2010 Comprehensive Plan Draft to look over; Invite the Citizens Forum and present them with a discussion outline starting with the POINT, MAKE A SUGGESTION, CONCLUSION, REASON; Neighborhood Meetings. C) Discussion was held regarding alternate dates for Planning Retreat. Decided on March 20, 1993, location to be found by staff. d) Commissioner Greenfield wants to discuss and finalize comments that were brought out at the realtor meeting at the retreat possibly. MOTIO14 BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes Loftus Arnold, Wuellner, Greenfield, Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting closed at 12:05 a.m. Tapes of meeting on file at City Hall. City Planner Acting Recording Secretary Horst Graser Phyllis Knudsen KCIG E MO 111 E NNAT PLIH °COMPID^ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Economic Development Plan promotes Prior Lake as an active participant in the economic activity of northern Scott County. The City will promote the revitalization of the Town Center and encourage high c}uality industry and business opportunities within planned industrial areas. GENERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The City of Prior Lake will promote high quality and efficient community services, maintenance of public space, buildings, police and fire protection in order to provide a positive environment for local economic development. 2. Development of commercial and industrial sectors will be promoted by the City of Prior Lake in order to diversify the tax base. 3. The City of Prior Lake supports the C.R. 18 River Crossing construction, in order to improve accessibility to, and from the Metropolitan Area, for residents of the community. 4. The City of Prior Lake will continue to stress the importance of good urban design and land use relationships in order to bolster the image of the community. 5. The City of Prior Lake is committed to providing financial assistance such as tax increment financing, for private sector initiatives that are consistent with community objectives. 6. The City of Prior Lake is committed to hire personnel and establish organizational mechanisms to promote and enhance economic development opportunities. There are a number of areas within the City that have serious problems and opportunities with regard to economic development. The Town Center of Prior Lake is the historical center of the community and consists of a variety of business, service and a lumber yard which is classified as an industrial use. This District has had few private investments over the past fifteen pears. As a result, the image and desirability to reinvest has deteriorated. The public sector has contributed over two million dollars toward road, sidewalk, trail landscaping and parking lot improvements. However, there Is no specific, overall redevelopment plan for the Town Center. As a result, city staff have found it difficult to evaluate development proposals within the Town Center District. The merchants in this District have made several attempts to develop a plan and are still pursuing 61 that effort. However, until a plan is developed, efforts to improve the District will likely continue to be futile. The recently completed Business /offi ^e Park Study called "A Balanced Growth Perspective ", indicates that the area adjacent to C.R. 21 at the eastern City limits, is the best opportunity for short term industrial developments A number of industrial uses have been permitted north of C.R. 21 and adjacent to the eastern City boundary line. The approximately 65 acres of industrial land have evolved without the benefit of subdivision, public utilities, paved streets and long range planning. This area casts a negative light on industrial development opportunities on the vacant land directly south of C.R. 21. The Priordale Mall and surrounding businesses are struggling with continuity and identity. Outside of using S.T.H. 13, it is almost impossible to travel from Franklin Trail, the northern limits, to McDonalds, in the southern limits of the business district. The knowledge of a local resident is required to negotiate the combination of local and private streets. The introduction of consistent, repetitive design, signacje and quality landscaping would enhance the appearance, function and accessibility of the entire Priordale Business District. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 1. The City of Prior Lake, should actively enlist the assistance of local business professionals to form redevelopment plans and strategies to enhance Town Center and the Priordale Mall Business District. 2. Industrial land uses shall not be allowed to locate in areas of the community that do not contain public utilities. 3. The City of Prior Lake is committed to developing effective strategies to improve the image of the industrial land uses located north of C.R. 21. 4. The City of Prior Lake will continue to provide road improvements in the Priordale Business District in order to improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the businesses and neighborhoods. 5. A promotional program to identify "Grainwood Crossings /Waterfront Passage" should be developed by the City of Prior Lake and actively marketed to the entire community. 6. The City of Prior Lake recognizes the importance of promoting local business organizations for the purpose .•f developing marketing strategies and to act as a catalyst for development /redevelopment efforts. 7. The development of high density residential land uses adjacent to Town Center and the Priordale Mall District is encouraged by the City of Prior Lake. 62 S. The City of Prior Lake, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, should actively seek to attract strong retailers to the community's business and industrial districts. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Two new commercial land use districts are established in the Commercial Development Plan to augment the retail and service development existing in the "General Commercial Districts" adjacent to S.T.H. 13. The "Planned Neighborhood Commercial" and "Planned Commercial" are two new districts that will provide commercial expansion opportunities for the business community in Prior Lake. These districts are an attempt to provide essential retail and service business at key locations within neighborhoods. These districts will emphasize access by pedestrians and bicycles. Recognizing that this type of development will have a pronounced affect on neighborhoods, it is essential that their land use, architectural and physical appearance, are carefully controlled by the City. PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: The Planned Neighborhood Commercial District is an innovative new business zone for Prior Lake. This zone is intended to be comprised of convenience commercial use that provide retail goods and limited services to residents of the immediate neighborhoods. This type of district will likely have a market area of 150 to 300 acres and will be limited to 2 - 5 acres in size. These centers are intended to be located within convenient walking distance and /or bicycling distances from neighborhood customers and shall be linked with trail systems to its market area. The Planned Neighborhood Commercial District is not intended to include business uses that require high street visibility or regional traffic to sustain the use. The physical design of buildings within this district shall stress superior design that is compatible with neighborhood residential standards. For example, all buildings should be low rise, include extensive landscaping plans, have parking lots located on the side or rear of the buildings, demonstrate the use of controlled, unobtrusive signage and lighting and provide for effective property maintenance agreements. The business uses in this district would be required to provide market analysis, traffic studies and other information to indicate that the use will be supported by the adjacent neighborhood market. The types of business uses envisioned for this district could include child care, dry cleaning, a neighborhood restaurant such as the old "Hollywood Inn" or other localized service oriented businesses. High traffic generators, and businesses that require visibility such as fast food restaurants and retail operations are not intended to be permitted in this district. The following area has been designated as a Planned Neighborhood Commercial District on the 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Map. 63 shore neighborhood. This intersection is centrally located in the neighborhood and is one of the highest points of land between C.R. 42 and Prior Lake. PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: This and use designation zs intended to allow a variety of commercial activities within a self contained, comprehensively planned, commercial center. The Planned Commercial District is also a new concept business zone for Prior Lake. The zone resembles a Planned Unit Development where it would be the responsibility of a developer to demonstrate a concept design for the district. An example of this is the southeast intersection of C.R. 42 and C.R. 5 in Burnsville. The entire business district has been planned to integrate architectural styles of the buildings, internal traffic circulation and to create aesthetically pleasing parking lots and landscaping programs. The appropriate business uses within the Planned Ccmmercial District would include offices and professional uses, recreation facilities, specialty retail and other retail /service businesses. The markets for these districts would consist of neighborhoods and subregional traffic. Key locations such as entrances to Prior Lake and major County roadway intersections are designated in the land use plan for Planned Commercial Districts. Development plans for Planned Commercial Districts should address the locations of all buildings, including orientation for light and air; intensity of development; height; scale and architectural design features; signs; buffers; landscaping; circulation and parking patterns; market analysis; and open space. The following areas have been designated for Planned Commercial uses and are shown on the Land Use Map. 1. C.R. 42 S S.T.H. 13: A commercial facility is partially comp ete in the southwest quadrant of this intersection. it was developed following the regular platting process in which the landowner submitted restrictive covenants and an illustrative site plan for a ten (10) lot subdivision on two sides of Commerce Avenue. Because it was not a PUD, the illustrative site plan has not been followed and the character of the center is mixed. Most of the Highway 13 frontage has been built upon, whereas the west side of Commerce Avenue is still available for development. 2. C.R. 42 6 C.R. 21: The southeast quadrant of this intersection 1s recommended to become the location for a high quality large scale commercial faci_itp. Appropriate uses would include a business park or specialty retail. As a gateway to the City and the northern terminus of "Waterfront Passage," the site design must consider the visual impact of the site when viewed from the south and it should contain provisions regarding uses, signs, landscaping, lighting, 64 building scale and height. Special attention shall be given to a development which preserves the natural topography. A market analysis and traffic /circulation study shall be required prior to development. GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: The General Commercial District is characterized by a broad range of retail and service activity. It includes local commercial, community shopping /office complexes and the Town Center. Appropriate uses include personal and business retail service, automobile sales and service, and eating and drinking establishments. In general this category includes the entire Highway 13 Business Strip between the north end of Franklin Trail and 170th Street. Because much of the area is still undeveloped, proposed uses shall provide details regarding location, intensity, height and scale, landscaping, circulation, architecture and design, plus signs. The Highway 13 Business strip Plan will be adopted in its entirety as a part of this Comprehensive Plan. Buildings are recommended to be low rise (1 -3 stories) and building intensity will duplicate existing development. 1. HIGHWAY 13 BUSINESS STRIP: The Highway 13 Business Strip is a collection of unrelated business uses that are sometimes clustered and often separated by portions of residential neighborhoods which were developed before current levels of traffic became a reality. The Town Center, while oriented to activity along Main Avenue is beginning to acknowledge the commercial potential offered by direct visibility from Highway 13. It contains small retail and service establishments, bars, and automobile oriented business uses, plus general purpose office space. Some vacant property is being utilized for unimproved off- street automobile parking and the City has accumulated a substantial cluster of land for public use. Problems are being generated by the Town Center due to its encroachment on adjoining residential use. It is important that the Town Center boundaries be defined and better buffers and separation' be provided to separate business from adjacent residential land uses. This effort should be carefully evaluated as part of any redevelopment effort for Town Center. While the Town Center holds the advantage of good visibility, particularly for traffic traveling south on Highway 13, very little has been done to take advantage of this potential. Another draw back is its relative isolation from the bulk of business uses in the strip. The Highway 13 Strip is comprised of several business nodes which are described as follows: GATEWAY CENTER: This area is a simple commercial district which contains a grocery store, bank, fast food restaurant, several office buildings and apartments, plus a supply of vacant land which is similarly suited for office space and fast food restaurants. A disadvantage for development of 65 BUSINESS STRIP T_ this vacant land is the lack of an identifiable frontage road which would help unify this part of the strip. Gateway Avenue provides only right turning movements from Highway 13. The existing access provided by 160th Street and Franklin Trail however, is probably adequate to efficiently move traffic to and within the area. PRIORDALE MALL: This district accommodates the largest co ectlon o commercial uses in the strip. The mall contains retail as well as personal and professional services and a major restaurant. The area surroundings include a former drive -in- theater property, several office buildings, two automobile service stations, a repair garage, bowling alley, and two restaurants. A significant problem with this part of the strip is its restricted access from Highway 13 for south bound traffic. only Duluth Avenue includes all turning movements with direct access to the mall. The Franklin Trail intersection with Highway 13 provides a second option but requires use of private property for access between Highway 13 and the center. Both Tower Street and Toronto Avenue are only suitable for right turning movements to and from Highway 13. The available vacant land in the area of the mall would benefit substantially from an interior circulation system. The vacant drive -in theater property for example, is largely cut off from other commercial land areas. In addition, the only access to it lies adjacent to a use that would be more comfortably located in an industrial area. The bank, post office, furniture store, and lumber yard, which face the mall from the north side of Highway 13 are similarly restricted in access to other uses in the strip. The Anna Trail /Franklin Trail intersection with Highway 13 is perhaps the most unsatisfactory gap in the strip circulation system. The highway, which is the focus of the strip, passes through several wetlands. The size of the wetlands ranges from small, as in the ponding area near the intersection of Duluth and Anna Trail, to the series of marshes which extend from the Grainwood Elementary School site southwest to Prior Lake, covering a substantial land area. The portion which was filled during construction of Highway 13 effectively cuts off any convenient secondary access between Priordale Mall and Town Center. Highway 13 is well known for its settling in this area. A frontage road link between the two main commercial clusters on the strip is regarded as being too expensive to construct. The marsh at the intersection of County Road 23 and Highway 13 is responsible for another break in business use along the strip. in this instance it separates Priordale Mall from the western limits of the strip located at the intersection of 170th Street and Highway 13. If the strip were being developed under ideal conditions, the sites for business use would be located at a considerable distance from the marshes. However, the strip exists and has utilized the marsh areas in its development. Otherwise, no further attempt to obliterate marshes should be tolerated. 68 The large marsh between Priordale Mall and Town Center is part of a natural storm water filtering system that will continue to maintain the water quality of the lake. The wes'ern end of the strip is largely vacant, but includes a fast food restaurant, car wash, and cabinet shop. At least half of the area was designated commercial very early in the planning history of Prior Lake. It is likely that development has not followed because of its location at the southern limits of the urban area on a State Highway with relatively little through traffic. The City Council rezoned the north side of Highway 13 between Five Hawks Avenue and 170th Street from residential to business in 1981. The commercial zoning was accompanied by a substantial increase in residential densities which have not materialized as of the date that this plan was written. It is anticipated that the demand for commercial and high density construction, in this part of the community will continue to be soft. This Comprehensive Plan recommends that the site should be rezoned from business and high density zoning to a mixture of high, medium, and low density housing. The existing business zone contains limited uses that will not likely materialize. In addition, the location of the zone, adjacent to S.T.H. 13 enhances the potential for more strip commercial development which will exacerbate traffic circulation problems already apparent along the Highway 13 Business Strip. An unfortunate condition of the Strip is the staggered intersection at 170th Street and S.T.H. 13, created by the acute angle of the intersection. Recent traffic studies indicate that it is not feasible to realign the intersections therefore, it is likely that both will remain full intersections. However, this plan recommends that a frontage road be installed from 170th Street to Five Hawks Avenue to provide an alternate access to other neighborhoods via local streets. The intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and S.T.H. 13 should contain a traffic signal. The residential uses in the strip will remain at great risk until commercial expansion is confined within specific limits. Remedial action will be necessary in the developed portion of the strip, whereas new development will include protective transitions between residential and commercial uses. The most difficult encroachment of business development into a residential area occurs on Tower Street at its intersection with Highway Clearly these six houses have been out of place ever since the Dairy Queen began its operation. Because it is unlikely that these uses will change within the foreseeable future, the vacant lot behind the Dairy Queen property should be developed to include a landscaped buffering screen. This is also recommended during development of the former drive -in- theater property so as to protect existing and future residential investments. Town Center also needs separation from adjoining residential 69 development particularly for housing along Colorado and Pleasant Streets. The public and semi public use of the Strip includes schools, public and private, parks, government buildings and churches. of these, government buildings appear to best compliment business activity. The existing City Hall and County Library both enhance and are enhanced by business use in the Strip. Trips involving public services can also include business services and retail trade presumably with only one stop. The anticipated growth in Prior Lake, suggests a need for at least twice the land area that is currently designated for this purpose. As property becomes available it would be useful to set aside land for public buildings which will have access to Main Avenue. Vacant land can be attributed to difficult accessibility, incompatible neighboring use, market factors, and soil conditions, that would be both difficult and expensive to build upon. The most obvious are those areas with limiting natural features like the large marsh which lies immediately south of the Town Center. The former drive -in- theater on the other hand has only one access and no real frontage on any existing street. It is also influenced negatively by the collection of old construction equipment which is stored on the lot adjoining the former theater entrance. A similar problem of property access can be found directly across Highway 13 north of Anna Trail. This former dairy barn, converted to a cabinet shop, is awash in vacant land because of access that is limited by natural features. The area around Priordale Mall also contains relatively large vacant properties that have severe physical limitations and poor accessibility. The large amount of vacant business zoned land is a result of ambitious zoning practices in the 1970'x. The City zoned large tracts of land adjacent to S.T.H. 13 for commercial use based upon arguments of land investors who felt land frontage on a highway would be suitable only for commercial or industrial development. The aggressive zoning was based upon speculation rather than an analysis of local commercial market needs. The land at the western edge of the Strip however, has been zoned for business use for at least ten years without any noticeable activity. Since development patterns in Prior Lake have favored construction north of the lakes, there has been little need to expand land areas devoted to business use south of the lakes. This form of development suggests that the land available will always exceed the need for business space. A more useful arrangement may therefore be to reduce the commercial zoning available in the Highway 13 Business Strip. One alternative would be to create a series of residential districts beginning with high density development adjoining the strip and tapering off to low density development consistent with adjoining residential development. rill HIGHWAY 13 STRIP REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Develo ment coes t: yin s n o non - residents, a city and its business district are viewed in nearly synonymous terms. community image often ebbs and flows according to the level of business activity. It is likely therefore that urban pride in Prior Lake may be linked with the fortunes of the Highway 13 Business Strip. Interestingly this strip has evolved without any overriding concept. As a consequence, attempts at rejuvenation have been largely ineffective. To this end, five inter - related concepts are recommended as a basis for creating a larger and stronger collection of business facilities than presently exist. They relate to accessibility, function, compactness, image, and multiple use. Larger protects are likely to present greater opportunities fcr implementation of the concepts and in turn the pace of progress toward a higher economic status for the strip. Accessibilit : An improvem ent of Business Strip opportunity is contingent upon better access to and from a Highway 13, free from local traffic interference. The primary elements of an improved circulation system are efficient frontage roads, signalized intersections, parking space, and pedestrian linkages. The frontage roads are intends to expedite traffic movement between the various nodes E ng the business strip. They accommodate the needs of le -1 traffic by providing access to parking lots as well as set =',ce to business locations. The traffic signals provide an organized system for crossing highway traffic and will help to reduce interference of through traffic flow. Parking facilities will help to separate visitors to the business strip from their vehicles as quickly as possible and probably should be divided between short and long term parking. Pedestrian linkages are the walks which connect business activity with parking areas. Wider walks are essential where heavy pedestrian movement occurs. A functional pedestrian system will provide a design framework for organizing the separate buildings and activities in the strip. The system is a private and public responsibility since one cannot do the job adequately in the absence of cooperation from the other. 71 M E ]'/ �. i �` I �1 �� /' �' '. a? Function: Furc lon is a term which describes the specialization and grouping of similar land use into identifiable nodes of activity. By encouraging close proximity, such uses as public, retailing, services, and entertainment will be convenient for the people which use them. Those uses that do not contribute strength to the strip or have a sound economic reason for being there should be encouraged to locate in a section of the city where space is less restricted. Con actness: Both compactness and function relate to the arrangement and distribution of strip facilities. The objective of compactness applies specifically to business uses. They must be organized within the smallest area to minimize pedestrian distances and maximize the support that retailing units provide one another. Im : age Image deals with the character and appearance of the strip. It describes the gratification experienced by workers and shoppers within the strip. It also deals with the qualities of uniqueness, vitality, and beauty which make the Strip worth patronizing. To enhance the environmental quality, existing amenities must be preserved and new aesthetic values will be encouraged as part of the composition. The degree to which this can be done will depend upon careful design and the application of good taste in all elements which make up the urban landscape. Multi le -Use: In today's market, parcel -by- parcel developments are not likely to attract venture capital. Moreover, an investment in strip business buildings are not likely to pay off on the basis of ground floor revenues alone. Imaginative techniques in adapting structures to sloping land and in producing useful interior spaces will help create a more favorable investment climate for the entire Highway 13 Business Strip. Proposed Land Use /Circulation Plan: The map 1 ustrates t e extent to which business uses dominate Highway 13 between Franklin Trail and 170th Street. Areas skipped over came about where either natural features or low density residential neighborhoods made sites too costly to develop. An exception occurs at the southern limits of the business strip where high density residential construction is proposed on the vacant land adjoining Five Hawks School. This reintroduces a proposal for "downzoning" presented in 1981 during development of the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plar., but not implemented in the comprehensive amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance of 1983. The idea is to Place limits on the length of the business strip particularly toward its southern limits, where traffic volumes on Highway 13 are substantially reduced. VV Expansion of the urban service area north of the lakes suggests a diminishing need for commercial services extending into Spring Lake Township. The change from commercial to residential use is a substantial one requiring "down zoning" if the plan is to be implemented. A parallel proposal, also involving a reduced intensity of use, recommends that medium density development should replace the high density zoning proposed in the area east of Willow Lane and south of Pershing Street. Prier lake has taken the position that this particular regulation will advance legitimate public interest. In this example, housing will prevent further dilution of business activity along Highway 13 as well as to held generate a market for existing business uses. While zoning is not an immediate issue, it is one that must be discussed, probably sooner than later, with affected property owners. The street system for this strip is more modest than originally envisioned. Cost figures prepared by the City Engineer helped demonstrate why certain linking collector streets were not previously constructed. Decisions between those that are included and those that are not, have evolved by balancing cost against the apparent need and a view toward assessing benefits against adjoining property. Of those links in the system of collector streets that remain, certain alignments have been altered to take advantage of recent street improvements or to accommodate parking needs of specific uses. The cost estimates illustrate natural features like ponds and marshes make extremely expensive road beds. The only reason they continue to be part of the collector street circulation system is the need for a link exists without any reasonable alternative to its location. The most significant change identified in the circulation plan is the proposal to shift the C.R. 23 intersection with S.T.H, 13 to the west from Mushtown Road and Creekside Circle to Five Hawks Avenue. This will allow full turning movements for traffic to and from Five Hawks School and also afford better access to the undeveloped commercial land west of McDonald's Restaurant. A new traffic signal is recommended for this intersection. Another major improvement recommended includes the redesign of the intersection of S.T.H. 13 with Franklin Trail /Anna Trail. This construction project will involve a new traffic signal. The north end of Franklin Trail should also contain a traffic signal. Additional collector streets comprising the circulation plan are entirely within existing rights of way with the exception of the link between County Road 12 and Five Hawks Avenue, and the connection between Toronto Avenue and Franklin Trail. These improvements shall be dedicated as a part of the platting process when the adjoining sites are developed. r*A TOWN CENTER: Town Center consists of the old Downtown and Or1g�TOwnsite of Prior Lake. To the southwest, the limits of commercial activity are established by the City and V.F.W. parking lots. Both require substantial landscaping to separate single family rear yards from business use parking lots. The northwest side of the business area is bordered by civic uses including City Hall and a potential public meeting space which could house a community library and theater activities. This side of the business district is anticipated to be bordered by high density elderly housing and a senior citizen center plus Lakefront Park. The park is a magor amenity for the Town Center which future developers will be encouraged to use to better advantage. The elderly housing and nursing home, for example, will be separated by a pedestrian way linking the public meeting area and other civic uses with the park. In the mid 1970'x, the central business district of Prior Lake was identified by a water tower and a grain elevator. In 1992, one can drive south on Highway 13 and never be aware of entering this business area. In order to generate interest in the Town Center, a vertical structure of substantial proportions is proposed for the site now occupied by the City branch of Scott County Library. This location identifies the most important intersection in the Town Center and is close to both civic space and retail activity on Main Avenue. one possible configuration would be a memorial bell tower surrounded by open space suitable for public gatherings. The open space between the existing library and city hall will function as a center for whatever community festivals that may take place during each year. The tower will identify this part of the metropolitan area as Prior Lake and specifically locate the Town Center. The plan objective is to establish a pedestrian link between all six blocks that front on Main Avenue. This can be accomplished by upgrading existing structures or by replacing them with new retail and service space which has as its primary orientation, Main Avenue. A challenge will be experienced by those developers interested in the blocks located between Main Avenue and Highway 13. Here the inclination will be to take advantage of the advertising potential offered by Highway 13. This will be appropriate as long as Main Avenue retains a pedestrian orientation. The concept includes both developer proposals and ideas generated by the City Staff that will eliminate certain existing structures. Nothing in the plan represents a "hard and fast" recommendation for building replacement. It suggests that few structures are sacred, but many may be adapted if appropriate uses can be found. The primary use for the plan is to generate requests for proposals and to evaluate those that are presented in response. The blocks have been approached in a conservative manner saving much that exists. 78 4 Respect for community history as represented by its architecture should help Prior Lake maintain a unique identity among the nondescript suburbs that have grown up around the Twin Cities. However, the actual redevelopment of this Town Center is likely to resemble the drawing only with respect to the number of blocks included. Replacement of the existing library and community room with a bell tower and community gathering place will mean that a community arts building including space for the branch library, art center, and community theater will need to be added. The site recommended for this center is the current lumber yard which has visibility from County Road 21 and access from both Dakota Street and Lakefront Park. This proposal originated in a Governor's Design Team study done approximately six years ago for the Town Center. The stated objective was to use the cultural center as a link between business activity and the park. Other features that could be introduced into the Town Center include a lifesize sculpture or replica of a sailboat and crew which are commonly found on the Prior Lake The site for such a sculpture would be in the park at the intersection of Highway 13 and C. R. 21 which has a plaza designed to hold a sign or symbol identifying this area as Waterfront Passage. A sailboat is envisioned as an ideal symbol for the Town Center since sailboats are used so often by individual businesses for signs and by the City on its letterhead. Bronze material is suggested because it is both attractive and durable. In addition it can be cast in sections without noticeably affecting its appearance. The size and representation of human figures will be an invitation for crawling into as well as to climb on. It is likely to attract the attention of motorists along Trunk Highway 13 while waiting for the traffic signal to change. It also will be a unique introduction to the City Civic Center with parts that front along C.R. 21 between Highway 13 and the Wagon Bridge. A turn to the northwest along County Road 21 should introduce residents and visitors alike to a significant structure such as a bell tower, located adjacent to Main Avenue, the proposed Community Arts building at Erie Avenue, and the Government Center at Arcadia Avenue. In front of the City Hall would be Centennial Plaza which is a flag plaza including a time capsule to commemorate the founding of Prior Lake 100 years earlier. Paving in the plaza is composed of molded bricks which identify contemporary residents and friends of the City. A park at Quincy Street which began as a small public garden overlooking the lake has been identified by the Prior Lake Centennial Committee as Heritage Park. It will also feature molded bricks including the names of community residents and friends during the 100 year 81 anniversary of its founding. Betwe -! Centennial Plaza and Heritage Park is a storm water management pond which will be altered by the introduction of a water fountain and pump of substantial s?ze. The fountain shall be capable of recycling large volumes of water during warm weather months and will reinforce the image of this commu -ity as a water based recreational settlement. The final and most important public facility proposed in this segment of County Road 21 will ? the acquisition and development of the property southeas"r and northwest of the Wagon Bridge. The parcel to the souti is now vacant but it has had several proposals for multiple housing. At the other end of the bridge to the northwest is the only remaining marina on the lakeshore which has been troubled over the years by a limited site. The marina is a valuable service to the community and should continue to provide services to the public. At one end - �f this Civic Center strip is a symbolic representation of > -hat the City has to offer and at the other, the real thing. A fresh investment in the recreational quality of Prior Lake is needed to bring lake accessibility closer to all residents of the City. TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Street Sca e• ft r11 c ear that the Town Center could benefit from a redevelopment effort. There has been recent interest on the part of the local merchants to develop such a plan. From the perspective of the City, ^:le followinj issues should be addressed and /or considereu as part of a °redevelopment plan. Main Avenue between Pleasant Street and Lakefront Park should be reduced in width and the sidewalk expanded to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment. while* the existing walks are generally in excellent shape, additions of brick pavers or reconstruction with more aesthetic materials would greatly enhance the Town Center appearance. The sidewalk section along the north side of C.R. 21 contains rectangular concrete blocks separated by red paver expansion joints set in concrete. It would be beneficial to continue this design throughout the Town Center to provide continuity. Landscaping is an integral component needed in a redevelopment effort. Street trees shrubs and planters, street furniture and decorative lighting will greatly improve the Town Center appearance and set it apart from all other business districts within the community. An example of one possible streetscape option is indicated on page 73. Decorative lighting is recommended to replace existing light standards. The style and type should be worked on together by Town Center property owners and the City of Prior Lake. The new standards along C.R. 21 while attractive, are perhaps too rustic for a downtown retail area. Other options include 83 — ..::.. �. ..r... ..T. — .....r. .� ..D'].,_ ....... . vm� elll W AY TO Wi9.ONf YS � A^ ^ TIC an a e wv wuou Quantification and possible reduction of air quality, traffic safety, and visual impacts should be considered prior to approval of any development or redevelopment project. 8. The City of Prior Lake will seek to improve it's image by upgrading the existing built commercial environment and exercising greater control of public improvements in the areas of design, and by introducing the arts to the design process. 9. New "Planned Commercial and Planned Neighborhood Commercial" districts will be created by the City of Prior Lake which emphasize the neotraditional planning concepts of neighborhood orientation, pedestrian emphasis, market and compatible design. 10. The City of Prior Lake is committed to the development of outreach programs with the business community whereby public /private development efforts can be accomplished. The participation of local business professionals is integral to the success of future community development. 86 TIND i AML M I MOT E NZ kT4 PLA "COMPIE" INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Prior Lake's success in attracting industrial development as been limited by a soft market and a lack of readily availa le industrial land. Existing industrial development consists of 21 acres in the southeast corner of the City. The uses ar a mixture of industrial service / warehousing /trucking- excavating/ :d manufacturing. The industrial park has evolved since annexation from Spring Lake Township to its present deteriora condition brought on by a lack of direction, no public utiliti_ no formal subdivision, poor visual impressions and poor acce The existing industrial park has never been formally subdivi d and although some vacant properties exist, there are ic grandfathered "lots of record" within the industrial zone. .e City of Prior Lake is not required to grant building permits :o parcels that are not "lots of record." In addition, beta, se there are no public utilities available, septic systems re required. The remaining parcels contain marginal soils and z re not generally, of sufficient size to provide adequate sep I system facilities. In addition, building code requirements specify that sprinkler facilities are required for fare protection in certain buildings. The lack of a public wa -er supply inhibits the ability to install sprinkler systems that sre required by the building code. A final concern is that the parcels are not part of a subdivision. The objective of ''he City is to implement subdivision requirements in order to obtzin necessary utility, roadway, drainage and storm sewer easements in addition to park dedication, planting programs and other requi. =_d improvements. If the remaining parcels are allowed to --e developed without subdivision, the necessary mechanisms =o correct problems associated with access and storm water drainace, would not be in place. Due to these considerations, The C -y should not issue additional building permits for any of the remaining vacant parcels within the I -2, Light industrial zone. Prior .Lake has been classified as a free standing growth center for purposes of geographic policy analysis. One of the mist important characteristics of a free standing growth center is provision for urban services and the establishment of employment base. Two previous industrial studies together w-- h the market place, indicate that the City must get involved w` -h industrial development. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The City of Prior Lake is committed to the establishment of additional industrial base within the community. 2. The City of Prior Lake will establish appropriate sites ='�r short and long range industrial development, which suppe both a local and regional population base. 87 The City of Prior Lake is committed to the development of a planned business /office park to attract high -tech industry which provides a strong amenities package. 4. The City of Prior Lake recognizes the need to provide location and expansion opportunities for local embryonic industries, warehousing, storage, and assembly. To that end, the City will establish as, industrial zone to accommodate such operations. 5. The City of Prior Lake will allow industrial development, only where public utilities and development standards are available. Two categories of industrial land use shall be established to accommodate the need for Planned Industrial and Light Industrial development in Prior Lake. Planned Industrial: Planned Industrial developments are grouped concentrations of industrial, research, and development activities. They will not involve outdoor activities associated with manuf= .cturing operations. An area plan for the Planned Industrial uses situated on the north side of C.P. 42 between C.R. 21 and 18 has been developed to encourage economic vitality and to improve aesthetic values. Detailing of this plan shall address the proposed use, landscaping, design, architecture, signs, and infrastructure improvements. Building character and scale shall take into account the sensitive nature of any surrounding residential areas. Building intensities shall be consistent with the Special. Industrial District in the Prior Lake Zoning ordinance. Building heights should be low rise with a maximum of three stories, so as to not tower over adjacent residential neighborhoods. Approximately 340 acres of land are planned to accommodate this type of development. However, the land will not be available for industrial development for eight years, due to its current designation as an agricultural preserve. Two additional areas south of C.R. 42 and west of C.R. 21 are being investigated for otential expansion of industrial options, but neither are s ituated within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, %MUSA) limits. A third option is being investigates whereby the City of Prior Lake and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community would participate in a joint development effort. A fourth option for planned industrial is situated south of the existing industrial park on C.R. 21. It includes approximately 40 acres wit:iin Prior Lake and substantially more in Spring Lake Township. While the City portion lies within MUSA limits, currently there are no utilities to serve this area. The only well reasoned approach to securing Services in a timely manner is to a" annexation of approximately 300 acres of Spring Lake Township. 88 Light Industrial. The Light Industrial zone permits a range of industrial activity including manufacturing, supply yards, mini storage, and food product processing as conditional uses. Manufacturing and assembling activities are to be conducted entirely within enclosed buildings. Where adjacent to residential uses, Light Industrial areas shall be designed for office use and research laboratories. Building intensities shall be typical of development in the I -2 Light Industrial District. Due to the close proximity of residential neighborhoods, building heights should not exceed three stories. The district shall be encouraged to recycle old buildings and to promote lot consolidation when possible. Code enforcement is strongly emphasized. The only area in Prior Lake so designated is situated south of Markley Lake on the north side of County Road 21. While this area is limited to approximately 160 acres, the adjoining Markley Lake will effectively buffer the industrial development from nearby residential uses. A. Business /Office Park Study: The planning study, published in 1990 analyzed t e entire City regarding land attainability and suitability, availability and affordability of utilities, access to transportation, and governmental ability to accommodate development. Land was corsidered to be unavailable or unsuitable if the propert_ was developed, subdivided, consisted of park land, included steep slopes, high water table or : and it it contained small irregular parcels with poor accessibility to transportation. Land was considered to be potentially available where no physical or regulatory impediments existed, but the site was not served by public utilities or good transportation systems. Available land was designated if physiographic conditions such as soil drainage ind slopes were conducive to development; the presence of woods, water, and sloping conditions created high amenity sites; and parcels were of adequate size or could be combined to enable development of a business /office park. Land which was considered to be suitable for development but protected for agricultural purposes, was categorized as agricultural preserve. Five sites in Prior Lake were identified which either met or had the potential to meet locational criteria for business /office park development. Three of the sites are outside the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) limits, one is in an area that has some immediate potential for residential development and the last contains the only industrial area in the City. While a relatively small part of this site has been developed, the best expansion potential will occur through annexation. Much of the business /office land potential identified in the City encroaches on existing residential development. 89 w I IrM ^ I � novcavanu ruw ......... u / o ...» .... �. a oR _..__ low PRIOR IAKE _ n N Area 1, see map on page 80, is situated in the northwest corner of Prior Lake. It contains 720 acres of land which has been zoned agricultural and conservation. It is designated agricultural in the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and it is outside of the year 2010 MUSA boundary. The site is approximately one half mile from the Metropolitan waste Control Commission, MWCC trunk sewer and one and one half miles from a trunk water main. The primary access to this site is C.R. 42 which is a two lane facility. The conclusion of the study suggests that Area 1 should not be considered for short term development. This site has potential for a business /office /industrial use well beyond the year 2010. Area 2 includes much of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, SMSC, land which totals 170 acres out of the 1070 acres identified. C.R. 42 will provide the primary access to this site. A four lane facility is not within the 1991 Capital Improvement Program. Except for the reservation land, the property is zoned agricultural and conservation. The Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan identifies the land as agricultural and it is outside of the year 20 MUSA boundary. However, the Reservation has sanitary sewer, by special arrangement with the MWCC and its own water system. Neither would provide adequate service for a Business /Office /Industrial Park. However, the study suggests that both the tribal government and the City Council should determine if there might be some long term development objectives of mutual interest. Development in this area will require expansion of MUSA limits, improvements to C.R. 42 and cooperation between two units of government to foster development programs of benefit to both. Area 3 is situated on the north side of County Road 42 between County Roads 21 and 18. It includes 300 acres of land zoned agricultural which was enrolled in the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve Program. This status may be changed by either the landowner or the City, but it takes eight years following notification by either party. This property is adjacent to the Year 2000 MUSA limits, which follow C.R. 42, and the MWCC trunk sewer line that links Prior Lake with the Blue Lake Treatment facility. This Comprehensive Plan includes the entire site within the 2010 MUSA limits. Area 3 can also be served by the City water tower at the intersection of Crest Avenua and C.R. 42. Proposed improvements to C.R. 42 will bring this four lane arterial to the southeast corner of the potential Business /office /Industrial Park by 1993. It is likely that C.R. 42 will be extended past the site by the time the Agricultural Preserve has been terminated. In conclusion, the report suggests this site has development advantages because it is the most northerly and most easterly of all the 92 e u KEY ae Q weruxo wo Drew N INpRNI�in'�MNOM 0 AREA) 0 sites identified. Both road and utility improvements can be made with relatively minor upfront costs. The prime disadvantage is that the site may not be developed immediately because of its Agricultural Preserve status. Area 4 is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of C.R. 42 and 21. The study suggests that a forty acre area should be designated either at the north or south end of this area to provide alternative sites for short term industrial needs. The importance of the site is that it is the only one of the five that has utility service available, is within the MUSA limits and soon will have adequate transportation links to the Metropolitan Area. Approximately seventy five percent (75 %) of the 342 acre site is zoned industrial with some conservation zoned land. The remainder is low density residential. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the same proportion of industrial to residential land, and shows the residential land to be equally divided between low and medium density housing. The land is located within current MUSA limits and of the five sites, is the nost accessible to City utilities. The MWCC interceptor is adjacent to the west side of the site and a 15 inch trunk sewer is at the south end of Area 4. The site can be served by both a 16 inch and a 12 inch water line. Both County Roads 21 and 42 can be upgraded within the next 10 years to four lane status providing access to the north and to the east. However, they are not currently identified in any capital improvement program. The Business /Office Park Study recommends advance planning of this site and preparation of feasibility studies anticipating installation of sewer and water lines along with public streets. This work will then provide enough background to structure a financial plan to fund development. Area 5 is in the southeastern corner of Prior Lake, divided by County Road 21 and bounded by Credit River Township to the east and Spring Lake Township to the south. The area is comprised of approximately 320 acres, 60 of which is already zoned and partially developed as industrial. The rest is either agricultural, wooded, or marshland, which borders on existing residential development. The Comprehensive Plan reflects the industrial development south of Markley Lake and proposes residential land uss on tillable agricultural land plus conservation and /or park land in the low and steep slope areas. This mixture is also reflected in zoning. The area is within the MUSA boundary and a feasibility study indicates that sewer and water extensions to the area are possible. Scott County plans to begin the upgrade of C.R. 21 by 1994. The study suggests that a Business /Office Park could be established in another area independent of the existing industrial uses provided that utilities are extended. After sanitary sewer and water trunk lines have been extended, an engineering feasibility study will need to be authorized to provide an estimate of development costs for the subdivision. 94 KEY ® EN � N T.�00 P1TO1 lgMM6Y AREA s r�rr This will lead to an identification of funding sources. The existence of this site as the only industrial area within Prior Lake makes it very important to both short and long term development opportunities for the City. The purpose of the Business /office Park Study was to identify areas that would be suitable for that purpose. The next step is to narrow the field to one or two sites which will best serve the industrial /business needs of the community at the present time. Since the last Comprehensive Plan was prepared, discussions about_ Area 4 have raised serious questions about the timing of industrial development. The northern 160 acres is a dairy farm which is likely to remain in operation for the foreseeable future. Therefore,_ industrial may be appropriate except that there is little chance for anything but farming to occur. On the other hand, the westerly portion of the southern end of this site is owned by a developer who would like to pursue construction of single family housing, The eastern extension of this area has not been considered as anything but single family residential because of its proximity to a proposed open space area and adjoining residential development. If after 20 years of planning for industrial development along County Road 21, there is no demonstrated demand, it may be time to think about other options. The Comprehensive Plan therefore recommends a basic shift away from industrial land at the intersection of County Roads 21 and 42. The current proposal is to provide space for a planned commercial center on 20 acres at the intersection, utilizing medium density housing as a buffer for low density housing adjoining the proposed park. Areas 1 and 2 are beyond the year 2010 MUSA limits and should be maintained as agricultural land until the existing urban service area is more fully developed. The City recognizes that both sites do indeed hold promise for a major business /office /industrial complex but, such a development is not anticipated within the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan time frame. In the meantime, community facility planning must reflect the possibility that 1600 acres of non - residential development is likely to occur. If Areas 1 and 2 represent long range business /office /industrial development potential, Area 3 is definitely an intermediate range development area. Area 3 is in the Agricultural Preserve program and will need to be designated industrial in this plan in order to initiate the eight year transition from agricultural to urban land use. This property is also an agricultural enterprise which shows no sign of a move toward urban development. However, improvements to County Road 42 and increased development along it will significantly change the environment for agricultural activity in this area. By the time the 96 agricultural preserve has expired, the City can proceed to open Area 3 by forty acre increments. A site plan developed by the Planning Staff for Area 3 proposes a 140 acre business /office /industrial development which will be bounded on the north and west by medium density residential construction. The west side also contains a 15 acre City Park along the shore of Pike Lake. The site includes several small ponds, a marsh and some steep slope areas. These features can be obstacles for development but also they can be site amenities which will be an enhancement for the businesses locating there. Area 5 with 355 acres could be developed immediately if approximately 300 acres of Spring Lake Township situated between The Pond Athletic Complex and the Credit River Township line were annexed and trunk sewer lines extended. Area 5 contains the existing 65 acre industrial park south of Markley Lake and another 157 acre area south of C.R. 21 which would be suitable for business /office /industrial development. The concept site plan provides a variety of lot sizes for the business /office park with direct access to C.R. 21 by means of a new north /south collector and C.R. 87. The only limitation to site development is the large marsh to the south and adjoining residential development. The Staff proposal indicates a 133 acre low density residential subdivision adjoining Prior South Addition and The Pond Athletic Complex. It also indicates a park to the west of Markley Lake including a trail system through parts of the woodlands adjacent with this lake. While not shown on the site map, the area adjoining Brooksville Hills addition is also recommended to be developed as a low density residential subdivision. The current drawback to the development of this area is the lack of available utility service and that a large portion of the area is outside the City boundary. This means that MUSA limits must be expanded as a part of the annexation process. A project feasibility study needs to be ordered before sewer service will be available and a broad scale economic development program can be inaugurated. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 1. The City of Prior Lake will concentrate industrial development in Areas 3 and 5 as identified in this section. The City of Prior Lake will develop standards for all industrial and planned industrial districts which will be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Prior Lake will initiate Agricultural Preserve designation fo 42 and west of C.R. 18. the termination of the r the land north of C.R. 97 The City of Prior Lake is committed to the development of a program to revitalize, renovate, and generally improve the visual impression of the older, under utilized industrial area located north of C.R. 21. Industrial zoned districts shall be protected from encroachment by other land uses that would diminish the supply of available industrial land within the City, except under limited circumstances where retail uses might serve the daytime population within the industrial district. The City of Prior Lake will actively pursue communications with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community to develop joint business /office park opportunities. 98 e MINNAIN Cam' r MEN 71" ul - r � "COMPIH" ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN The City of Prior Lake is dedicated to the ideal of preserving for the use of the public, prominent natural resources and wildlife habitats which attract people to this community. Prior Lake is a high amenity area that contains abund natural resources and has high potential for recreational opportunities. The Lake Review Committee in 1991 recognized the importance of water features to the community and that sensitive development practices are needed to preserve those environments. To recognize the importance of natural amenities within the community, this Plan establishes Protection Districts made up of unique features, such as lakes, wetlands, wooded areas and steep slopes . that represent the essence of Prior Lake's quality and allure. Land Use designations have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan which identify the prominent natural resources and features of the community. The physical characteristics which comprise each Environmental District have been identified. A Natural Resource Inventory Map is included in this chapter to identify the general location of the Environmental Districts. Development standards to protect and enhance existing terrain, wetlands, steep slopes, floodways, woodlands, habitat areas, and ridge lines must be incorporated into zoning and subdivision ordinances to ensure residents will be able to enjoy natural features now and in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRICTS - DEFINED: Wetlands Areas designated as protected include, storm water management pond or a DNR protected wetland as identified on the attached Wetlands Inventory Map. Additional wetlands shall be protected as required to the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District 509 Plan and the Wetlands Act of 1991. Woodlands: eas w ere woody plants having at least one well- defined stem at least 4 inches in diameter measured at a height of 4 1/2 feet above the natural grade and a more or less definitely formed crown are found to be growing. Bluff: A significant topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment that has a slope of 20% percent or greater. Historic Resource: eas o s gnl icance such as an unusual community of wildlife or vegetation and areas of historic significance or archeologic sites. Public: Kp: Tic category shall be used to identify existing large publicly owned lands, water treatment facilities and other government structures. The most prevalent open spaces are City and County Parks. 110 ENVIRONM DISTRICT - GENERAL POLICIES 1. Intensive development will be restricted adjacent to areas identified on the Natural Resource Inventory Maps. Land uses which permanently alter the Environmental District, or compromise its long term community benefits for short -term economic gain or convenience should be prohibited. Low intensity residential and recreational uses are preferred in these areas including parks, trails, interpretative centers and natural open space. 2. Those areas not well suited to development, as evidenced by competent soils, geology, and hydrology investigations and reports, should be allocated to open space and recreational uses. 3 . 4. S. 6. 111 Woodlands District: Wooded areas are an invaluable community resource that provide wildlife habitat and interesting places to live. The uncontrolled spread of development, and increasing demands upon natural resources have had the effect of encroaching upon, despoiling, or eliminating many of the woodland areas of the community. The woodlands, if left in their natural condition, constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to existing and future residents of Prior Lake. Woodland growth protects the public health through the absorption of air pollutants and contamination, through the reduction of excessive noise, and mental and physical damage related to noise pollution. Also, through its cooling effect in the summer months and that woodlands provide for public safety through the prevention of erosion, siltation and flooding. Trees and woodland growth are an essential component of the general welfare of Prior Lake because of their natural beauty, recreation, and their relationship to the common heritage shared by existing and future residents. Any development within or adjacent to wooded areas requires sensitivity and prudent management in order to protect the integrity and health of the woodland districts within the community. 1. The preservation of woodlands, trees, similar wood vegetation, and related natural resources is a priority for all forms of development. However, no development shall be denied solely on the basis that some trees are growing on the property under consideration. Other factors which demonstrate a public need for woodland preservation must be stated. 2. Development should be conducted so that the maximum number of trees are preserved by the clustering of structures in existing cleared areas and natural clearings, and the use of ether site design and grading techniques. Clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited within the City without prior approval from the City, which authorizes a restoration plan for the vegetation on the site. 3. Development should not reduce the existing crown cover greater than fifty percent and shall be conducted in such a manner as to preserve the understory. 4. Trees used in reforestation or landscaping should be indigenous species which are compatible with the local landscape and not currently under disease epidemic. 5. The relationship of streets, highways, transportation corridors or other development to the woodland area shall be considered, along with alternatives for new transportation routes and for the location of the proposed development. 112 Bluff Districts Slopes of 203 or greater should not be disturbed and shall be retained as private or public open space. Slopes less than 203 may only be developed when erosion control and vegetation restoration can be accomplished as approved by the City of Prior Lake. 2. Exposed slopes shall be protected by established erosion control methods to prevent erosion. Wetlands Districts It is in the public interest to protect against uncoordinated and unplanned land development which affects marshes, swamps, wetlands, drainage ways, lakes, and watercourses within the City of Prior Lake. Unplanned land development results in loss and damage to public and private improvements through inundation by flood waters and subsequent expensive construction of storm sewers and other public projects. Loss also occurs with the permanent destruction of these natural resources, loss of water retention facilities, open space, and wildlife habitats, and impairment of public and private water supplies. The purpose of the policies in this district are to permit and encourage a coordinated land and water management program and the retention of open land uses which will locate permanent structures and artificial obstructions so as not to obstruct the passage of waters nor destroy the natural public water areas, marshes, and wetlands within the City of Prior Lake. 1. As part of the development process, protected wetland areas should be analyzed by professional consultants to advise alternative methods that will most effectively preserve wildlife habitat and provide water purification and recharge areas for the lakes of Prior Lake. Marsh areas may require preservation in whole or in part and may not be altered without consent of the City of Prior Lake. 2. Fillipq wetland areas for the sole purpose of creating more lots within a development shall not be allowed unless consistent with the Wetlands Act of 1991. Dredging water bodies for the purpose of increasing the number of lots in any develo-,+ment shall not be permitted. 3. If land f-;; recreational purposes, natural resource preservation and /or public access opportunities within Prior Lake becomes available for acquisition, the City shall explore options to purchase this land to retain it in its current use or to develop it further for additional recreational opportunities. 4. The City of Prior Lake should establish a minimum setback, (50 is recommended), from the ordinary high water mark of all protected wetland and ponding areas to serve as a 113 transition zone between the wetland environment and adjacent development. Alterations of topography within the required setback shall be minimized, and the need for such alteration shall be documented in a permit application. Plant materials that provides wildlife habitat are encouraged to be introduced adjacent to wetlands. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRICTS Establish site development performance standards and criteria for each type of environmental district which indicate minimum acceptable standards for development. This policy should be implemented via adoption of a wetlands, tree, shoreland and wildlife habitat protection ordinances. PUBLIC ACCESS - WATERS AND NATURAL FEATURES The water and natural environmental resources in Prior Lake are the center and principal attraction of the community. All site development proposals should utilize and promote the intrinsic properties of water resources and natural areas within the community. Developments should provide pedestrian access to these features and Town Center. Both residential and business uses should provide outdoor open space improvements. Site design and landscape should be attractively and carefully planned. There should be continuity of design adjacent to natural features. However, freedom for creative design is encouraged and direct imitation is discouraged. Energy. conservation is encouraged. The combination of solar orientation and waterfront orientation is encouraged. Adverse impacts on neighboring site development is discouraged. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES: 1. The citizens of Prior Lake shall be afforded the opportunity to enjoy water and natural resources via public access to prominent neighborhood features. 2. Public access to features within Prior Lake shall consist of physical improvements in the form of any one or a combination of the following: Walkway, bikeway, corridor, viewpoint, park, deck, observation deck, pier, or other areas serving as a means of view and /or physical approach to significant site features for the public. Public access may also include, but not be limited to, interpretive centers and displays explaining local historical events or places. 3. The City of Prior Lake shall review the type, design, and location of public access to insure development of a public place meeting the intent of this Comprehensive Plan. The following criteria will be considered in determining what 114 constitutes adequate public access on a specific site. The location of the access on the lot shall be chosen to: A. Maximize the public nature of the access by locating adjacent to other public areas including street -ends, waterways, parks, other public access and connecting trails which are also handicap accessible. B. Maximize views of the water, natural features and sun exposure. C. Minimize intrusion of privacy for both site users and public access users by avoiding locations adjacent to windows and or outdoor private open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques. Public amenities appropriate to the usage of the public access space such as benches, picnic tables, public docks and sufficient public parking to serve the users shall be selected and placed to ensure a usable and comfortable public area. Interpretive features such as displays or special viewing equipment shall be incorporated in public access areas. 5. Regulated public access features may be limited as to hours of availability and types of activities permitted. However, 24 -hour availability is preferable and the access must be available to the public on a regularly scheduled basis. 6. All public access point features shall be provided through land dedication, easement, covenant, or similar legal agreement recorded with the Scott County Recorder's Office. 7. A minimum of one public access site should be provided for each development project adjacent to a significant wetland or lake Environmental District unless access standards are met elsewhere as part of a public access plan approved by the City of Prior Lake or public access is not required for the development. S. The public access area should provide the public with visual and physical access to the shoreline area. Preference will be given to perimeter access which provides maximum exposure to the land and surrounding activity. 9. A public access walkway should be provided along the entire width of the shoreline and along views of the water and prominent natural features. 10. Walking paths must be at ground level, finished with a surface suitable for walking, such as pavers, concrete, or asphalt. Dirt or gravel is not suitable. 115 11. Public access plans should contain the following elements and should incorporate public improvements such as trails and parks within developments: Relationship of proposed access route to transportation systems; relation of access to pathways and adjacent land uses; identification of special opportunities; relation to recreational facilities; proposed signage/ lighting, and furniture; safety considerations. VIEWS AND VISTAS• The maintenance of and improvement of views of community lakes wetlands and natural features is a fundamental design element that must be considered for all development proposals. Each parcel of land contains unique natural characteristics such as a knoll, bluff, wooded area or wetland, and all efforts should be made to design neighborhoods, buildings and other structures to accommodate and accentuate the natural elements which give character, identity, and sense of place. The desire to view, walk to and around natural features is a fundamental reason residents choose to live in Prior Lake. For that reason, it is imperative developments be designed to maximize accessibility to, and viewing of, these features. VIEW AND VISTA POLICIES: 1. Unique scenic views of lakes, wetlands, their shorelines and other prominent natural features shall be enhanced, as much as possible, by development sensitive to orientation, spacing, placement, and appearance of structures or improvements that are compatible with the natural topography and vegetation. 2. Subdivisions and physical development must be designed to protect the aesthetic characteristics and vistas of the natural resources found on site. Limited development which is sensitive to natural, scenic, or historical resource areas may be permitted. The visual impact of altering the landscape and of new development should be minimized. Development of natural resource districts should be compatible with scenic and natural qualities of the area. Performance standards such as increased lot sizes, lot widths, structure setbacks, and buffer areas should be utilized to implement this policy. 3. Man -made structures should be placed or grouped to complement one another and the natural landscape, provide visual interest, and create a sense of place within the development. Development should demonstrate a concern for view of natural features as well as view from prominent features such as hillsides. Structures may be located in view corridors if the slope of the lot permits full, unobstructed view of the feature. 116 4. View corridors shall be in the direction of the predominant view of the natural feature and, when topographically possible, generally parallel to existing view corridors. 5. Public access of some sort, such as pedestrian walkways and bike trails, adjacent to natural features will be required within a subdiv sion or development area. 6. View towers and grade separated platforms may be used to provide views of water and other natural resources. Interpretive displays explaining what is seen is also an attractive feature. Such viewpoints are considered viable alternatives to trails or paths into certain sites. 117 4UKUULrC'9- 0IUi155372 "031588743666/24 CITY C PR IUR LA THE WALL STREET DICK PUNELL 4679 DLKUlk Si S E PRIUR LAKE MN 55372 ® 3993 Dow 3ro Arc AI R& Resraa VOL. LXXIV NO. 76 * * klmwmrstmlm MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1983 LVUaaaedFIw FIW rare Design for Living Old -Style Towns Where People Walk Have Modern Backers Architecture Firm Culls Ideas From the Past That Stress A Simple Neighborhood Do Residents Rcally Want It? , W DMM aadaamuarr lioo* yalaft law ma a ptms! R Wtb n M b CNIew M011, ML ■ al of d utdm a tmn dnlan. n" urge a le b be Paw= of made Qr t r= MW waa m mlaer pale a mA MW. Tha W exWin{ old nelkbbdr- Kmds- bem Prhx .N]., 10Wulm tan, &G. W ae7 W04 FI&. and tmW- ft I - b rnm®mdlhe Ib1 m for the Ind - bold W xrlta p lemv far mgnbandertlapmeat SomeNn Old. 11MM lq NM -- nh h Ralf cep ebual lm W n4 UW park back" up d6.PWer Z-Erept "QisaW A Faaft Wad Design for Living: Miami Architecture Firm Creates Neighborhoods in Old Style, Congenial to Walking LI Ix�.NSK9. ami'1Ter Ir4 IT 7b u'Iwl tl tl�t poM6e b a Mtll1b sN� �aY. Y MM Yr. 2ft% ftwM U R P+9 P M� xxESO � SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA Thursday, February 25, 1993 7:00 p.m. 1. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the workshop is to take public testimonyp and develop specific facts and findings relative to the 18t lot coverage issue. 2. OPEN PUBLIC WORKSHOP /HEARING: The proposed amendment is to delete the 18% lot coverage ratio for single family and two family dwellings located within ail residential districts of the Prior Lake Zoning ordinance. A. Review format for the workshop agenda. B. Receive comments from Progress Land Company. C. Receive overview of facts developed by staff. D. Open discussion for public input. FORMAT FOR PUBLIC INPUT: a. All speakers must speak from the podium to insure that comments are recorded on tape. b. Speakers must state their name and address for the record. C. The Commission requests that public comments be presented as outlined on the "Worksheet Talking Paper" d. Comments should be made relative to new information only. There is no need to repeat comments made by another person. e. All questions should be directed to the Planning Commission who will in turn, answer or request clarification on the issue. 3. CLOSE WORKSHOP: 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior take, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (614 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL 0PP0RNNrrY 80LO Qt Recess 4. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: commissioners review issues presented via public testimony; clarification of questions and conce - rns raised; develop ideas and findings relative to the amendment. Recess 5. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Planning Commission will formulate findings of fact considering public input, data presented and legal issues. 6. FORMULATE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council for action related to the 188 lot coverage issue. The City Council will hold a special meeting on Friday, February 26, 1993 to resolve this issue. Northwest Associated Consultants, inc. U R 0 A N P L A N N I N G - DES I G N. M A R K E T R E S E A R C N MEMORANDUM TO: Deb Garross FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 23 February 1993 RE: Prior Lake - Saoreland Ordinance Revisions FILE NO: 199.01 The following language is suggested for the Impervious Surface definition which the Council has asked for. 7_hV-ERVI SURFACE - The portion of a buildable parcel which has a covering which does not permit water to percolate into the natural soil. Subject to the following exemptions, these structures and materials shall constitute impervious surfaces: Buildings; Paved Driveways and Walkways of greater than three feet in width; Paved Patios; Covered Decks and other Structures. The following structures and materials shall be exempt from the calculation of impervious surface: Decks or Patios which are open to the sky and have open joints of at least 1/4 inch allowing percolation of water; Paved walkways or other structures of three feet in width or less. All such structures and materials shall be documented by a Certificate of Survey unless exempted from this requirement by the zoning Administrator. In addition, we should then amend Section 9.3 B. Impervious Surface Coverage, by adding the Certificate of Survey requirement which would then read as follows: B. Impervious Surface Coverage: Impervious surface coverage for lots in all zoning districts shall not exceed thirty percent (301) of the lot area, except as provided in the following sections. Such impervious surface coverage shall be documented by 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595- 9636-Fax. 595 -9837 a certificate of Survey at the time of any zoning or Building Permit application, according to the definition of impervious surface as listed in Section a. Definitions of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. The exemptions will remain essentially unchanged except for the deletion of Section l.a. Give me a call and let me know what you think of this language. I will prepare the remainder of the changes and get them in the mail to you today. , LOT ngwu=s sv9e-Acm FILE 6 srrs AMR VATaAX= GWJ= DMZ VA92 -21 L126/125 Nxtheood 23,975 N 07 -16-92 VA92 -29 135, GMM BOW" 9.300 1U 09 -17-92 IW2 -36 113. fad Oaks 7,969 9► 11 -05-92 VA92 -33 3116 Paicviw, End 7d63 109 11-0"2 VA91 -06 6612 Dmc'ey 9tcMt 6.617 Sk 0536-01 VA91 -15 1361 P/0 33, LW=ide Pad[ 61929 9t 10 -17-K M01-17 IA9 P/O 69, Omcoys 9ey 5,573 N 1637 -K VA90 -30 I5, C.O. Nw awle Pads 9,5m 69 11 -15-90 U09-31 L11, PN 12, otakwood 9ud 7,900 17% 06-01 -0 VA99 -16 2615 Wig Lake 8oa0 5,692 SN 00'03-09 VA09 -26 136, BadLn RKM 6,666 69 11-01419 VA99 -27 PPo L 1 6 2, Aacth Gndwood 6,650 09 -15-90 TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CITY FROM: JAMES HAYES DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993 SUBJECT: INFORMATION RELATED TO of each subdivis on. Three plats showed a density of less than one (1) unit per acre. Two of these are due 'to large outlots shown n the plats and one is due to some water area in included in the plat. The market value was f3gqtutred by adding up the market value of the non - vacant lots and dividing by the total number of lots. This should give a comprehensive look at subdivisions in the Prior Lake area for the past twenty years. The second spreadsheet contains information from other metro-area communities. Staff telephoned fourteen cities to obtain data in a variety of areas. This information is all related to the zoning ordinances and their relationship to the coverage ratio. The data includes; minimum lot size, setbacks, coverage ratio, impervious , surface ratio, enforcement policies, and variance requests. All of this information is pertinent to the issue of coverage ratios. when these two spreadsheets are combined, the variations of ordinances can be applied to the situation in Prior Lake. In addition, these communities were asked if they had a written definition of impervious surface. The following; is a list of , AND STAFF 183 COVERAGE RATIO After the Planning Commission meeting of February 18, 1993, staff began work on gathering information related to the 183 coverage ratio. The first sppreadsheet represents various subdivisions within Prior Lake in the last two decades. This information was obbtained from reports prepared through the use of the City's Property Management computer program. The minimum size and maximum size were figured for each subdivision along with an average lot size for each subdivision. The units per acre was figured by dividing the total number of single - family units by the gross acres of a given subdivision. This includes street right -of -ways, open space, and outlots shown on the original plat Impersious Surface definitions: Bloomin ton - All structures, decks, and driveways. La evi e - Artificial or natural surface where water, air, or roots cannot penetrate. Rosemount - All structures, decks and driveways. Sha off Rooftops, gravel, or bituminous asphalt. 4629 Dakota St SF, Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL oPPORrU nY Emnoyat e - LESS THAN I UNIT /ACRE DUE TO LARGE OPEN SPACE INCLUDED IN PLAT (OUTLOTS, WATER, ETC.) + - ESTIMATED LOT ^PEAS DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PLAT INFORMATION AVG. SUBDIVISION NAME PLAT DATE 0 OF LOTS MIN. SIZE MAX. SIZE _________________ AVG. SIZE UNITS /AC. ________-- MARKET VAL. ____________________. VAC. LOTS ____________ ______ ____ _________ BROOKSVILLE HILLS 1ST _ -_ _______ 2/8/1971 __________ 6 _ _________ 12,200 14,700 13,200 1.78 $71,000 0 BROOKSVILLE HILLS END + N/A 40 10,900 15,918 13,405 2.02 $79,025 1 0 OAKLAND BEACH 2ND + 1975 18 11,340 19,600 15,478 1.91 $95,928 OAKLAND BEACH 3RD 0 + 1975 9 11,460 13,853 12,628 0.58 $103,455 0 0 OAKLAND BEACH 4TH + 12/22/1975 31 12,015 19,508 15,756 2.73 $99,855 OAKLAND BEACH 5TH + 2/9/1976 4 12,800 23,650 16,938 2.50 $121,600 3 OAKLAND BEACH 6TH x + 2/9/1976 18 25,200 68,250 37,567 0.78 $118,040 I ISLAND VIEW 1ST 1976 63 10,306 24,098 13,591 1.66 $97,057 0 ISLAND VIEW END 1977 t0 12,015 14,500 13,225 1.39 $198,590 8 BROOKSVILLE HILLS 3RD + 1977 20 10,500 20,008 15,258 2.86 $87,045 0 BROOKSVILLE HILLS 4TH + N/A 31 11,500 28,460 15,980 1.93 $82,196 1 SHANGRI-LA 1978 86 10,000 24,000 12,627 2.20 $86,324 0 SUNSET HILLS 12/18/1978 79 12,000 22,280 14,925 1.66 $89,564 9 BROOKSVILLE HILLS 6TH 1979 66 10,000 34,665 13,807 1.98 $80,286 0 SAND PDINTE 2ND + 8/23/1982 87 7,800 23,100 11,058 1.53 $75,077 0 SAND PDINTE 3RD + 4/25/1983 58 8,125 14,250 10,561 2.45 $76,084 0 ISLAND VIEW 3RD 4/25/1983 19 10,003 14,558 11,790 1.56 $77,250 3 SAND PDINTE 4TH + 6/20/1983 101 7,800 25,800 10,550 2.45 $74,997 24 STORMS 1984 23 10,005 17,000 12,347 3.24 0110,552 1 WINDSONG a 1984 27 16,500 59,100 23,900 0.81 $187,100 6 SAND PDINTE 5TH + 1985 45 7,800 20,300 10,225 2.45 $73,762 IB WILLOWS 6TH 1986 43 10,008 28,000 23,419 2.38 $86,311 3 ISLAND VIEW 4TH 1986 42 10,800 23,100 14,600 1.51 $86,718 IF ISLAND VIEW 5TH 4/2011987 31 11,026 39,060 17,479 1.78 $131, BB9 10 RASPBERRY RIDGE 5/4/1987 65 10,000 58,308 17,200 1.45 $140,912 47 WOODRIDGE ESTATES 4/20/1992 46 10,000 30,845 12,652 2.26 N/A 25 CARRIAGE HILLS 8/17/1992 64 10,000 25,260 12,462 _ 2.31 ------ ______ N/A ---------- 51 _------ --------------------------- TOTALS OR AVERAGES - __- ------------------- 1124 __________________; 7,806 68,250 15,282 1.93 $100,869 207 e - LESS THAN I UNIT /ACRE DUE TO LARGE OPEN SPACE INCLUDED IN PLAT (OUTLOTS, WATER, ETC.) + - ESTIMATED LOT ^PEAS DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PLAT INFORMATION LOT LOT IMPERVIOUS TOTAL PERMIT 1p AREA COVERAGE PERCENT SURFACE PERCENT PERCENT RASPBERRY RIDGE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 88 -032 12,630 2,405 19.0% 564 4.5% 23.5E 89 °098 12,294 2,158 17.6% 916 7.5% 25.0% 89 -342 15,476 1,730 11.2% 970 6.3% 17.4% 90 -148 11,907 2,076 17.4% 749 6.3% 23.7% 90 -270 14,829 2,290 15.4% 1,406 9.5% 24.9% 92 -012 12,344 1,911 15.5% 680 5.5% 21.0% SUNSET HILLS ---------°------------------------------------------------------------- 86 -017 10,000 1,815 18.11 787 7.9% 26.0% 86 -046 10,350 2,032 'Iq�ft 950 9.2% 28.8% 87 -286 10,400 2,004 899 8.6% 27.9% 88 -082 12,204 1,524 1270 443 3.6% 16.1% 88 -149 10,660 1,816 17.0% 871 8.2% 25.2% 88 -171 11,153 1,918 17.2% 997 8.9% 26.1% 88 -204 11,745 1,765 15.0% 823 7.0% 22.0% 88 -227 10,920 1,572 14.4% 406 3.7% 18.1% 88 -298 10,660 1,481 414 3.9% 17.8% 88 °323 10,250 1,606 ^ - 534 5.2% 20.9% 88 -330 10,660 1,811 0 483 4.5% 21.5% 89 -043 10,660 1,293 420 3.9% 16.1% 92 -023 10,356 1,843 12,94- 718 6.9% 24.7% WILLOWS 6TH ADDITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 86 -295 11,700 1,463 12.5% 818 7.0% 19.5% 86 -305 10,300 1,765 17.1% 462 4.5% 21.6% 87 -295 11,200 1,760 - ZS`7V -- 812 7.3 23.0% 88 -027 10,111 1,602 15.8% 409 4.0% 19.9% 88 -043 10,000 1 16.9% 488 4.9% 21.8% 88 -113 10,000 1,544 `S5_ 4 500 5.0% 20.4% 88 -238 10,320 2,008 19.5% 707 6.9% 26.34 88 -294 10,400 1,550 14.9% 354 3.4% 18.3% 89 -005 10,500 1,467 14.0% 736 7.0% 21.0% 89 -173 10,800 1,944 18.0% 624 5.8% 23.8% 89 -178 10,374 1,640 15.8% 885 8.5% 24.3% WINDSONG ON THE LAKE --------------------------------°----- 87 -230 19,681 2,846 --------- 14.5% -------- 1,062 --- °---- 5.0 - - - - -- 19.9% 87 -320 23,972 2,899 12.1% 814 3.4% 15.5% 89 -295 19,249 3,062 15.9% 997 5.2% 21.1% 92 -15 14,960 2,446 16.4% 1,062 7.1% 23.4% LOT LOT IMPERVIOUS TOTAL PERMIT # AREA COVERAGE PERCENT SURFACE PERCENT PERCENT WOODRIDGE ESTATES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 92 -109 10990 2,037 18.5% 824 7.5% 26.0$ 92 -110 12, 1,700 13.7% 484 3.9% 17.7% 92 -136 10,800 2,016 18.7% 1,061 9.8$ 28.5$ 92 -137 12,022 1,853 15.4$ 1,200 10.0% 25.4$ 92 -165 11,786 1,673 14.2% 471 4.0$ 18.2% 92 -171 11,700 1,792 15.3% 621 5.3% 20.6$ 9; -198 11,875 1,720 14.5% 618 5.2% 19.7$ 92 -216 14,519 2,009 13.8$ 802 5.5% 19.4$ 92 -266 12,000 1,682 14.0$ 540 4.5$ 18.5$ 92 -168 11,250 2,356 20.9% 913 8.1% 29.1$ 92 -272 19,166 1,628 8.5% 671 3.5% 12.0% 92 -280 19,035 1,615 8.5% 778 4.1% 12.6$ 92 -287 11,659 1,978 17.0% 730 6.3$ 23.2$ 92 -288 19,350 1,876 9.7$ 623 3.2$ 12.9$ 92 -295 12,692 1,815 14.3% 668 5.3% 19.6% 92 -297 24,945 1,927 7.7% 677 2.7$ 10.4% 92 -301 13,037 1,604 12.3$ 690 5.3$ 17.6$ 92 -306 10,000 2,018 20.2% 561 5.6$ 25.8$ 92 -311 10,800 1,837 17.0$ 764 7.1$ 24.1% 92 -313 13,390 1,576 11.8$ 589 4.4$ 16.2$ 92 -316 10,542 1,934 18.3% 758 7.2$ 25.5% 93 -006 10,800 2,141 19.8% 840 7.8$ 27.6$ 93 -007 10,843 2,097 19.3$ 719 6.6$ 26.0$ 93 -009 10,870 1,880 17.3$ 857 7.9$ 25.2$ 93 -013 14,988 1,823 12.2$ 653 4.4% 16.5$ CARRIAGE.HILLS -------- ------- ----- --------------------------------------- 92 -249 14,530 2,054 -------- 14.1$ 971 E.7% 20.8% 92 -270 10,000 1,998 20.0$ 736 7.4$ 27.3% 92 -278 14,100 1,872 13.3$ 394 2.8% 16.1$ 92 -298 15,900 1,703 10.7$ 445 2.8$ 13.5% 92 -327 10,000 2,196 22.0$ 806 8.1$ 30.0$ 92 -308 10,000 2,125 21.3$ 710 7.1$ 28.3$ 92 -309 16,510 2,049 12.4$ 704 4.3$ 16.7$ 92 -314 12,000 2,043 17.0$ 650 5.4$ 22.4$ 92 -323 14,590 1,773 12.2$ 505 3.5$ 15.6$ 92 -324 18,450 1,873 10.2$ 438 2.4% 12.5% 92 -332 18,160 2,218 12.2$ 661 3.6'% 15.9% 92 -334 14,180 1,997 14.1$ 698 4.9$ 19.0% 92 -337 10,000 1,784 17.8$ 629 6.3$ 24.1% TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS IN SURVEY: 72 LOWEST LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE: 7.7% HIGHEST LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE: 22.0% NUMBER OF PERMITS OVER 18$ COVERAGE RATIO: 15 (21$) NOTE: DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, EACH PERMIT WAS ONLY DIGITIZED ONCE WHICH MAY ACCOUNT FOR MINOR ERRORS IN PERCENTAGES. CITY NININIM LOT SIZE MINIMUM SETBACKS C/1VERIBE RATIO INPERVIOUB SURFACE ENFORCED? - - � VARIANCE RE9UMS? -- APPLE VALLEY - - - - -� 11,000 FRONT 30' NOW NOW N /A N/A REAM 30' BIDE 5/10' MILE PLAINT 12,009 FRONT 30' 259 NONE YES NO REAR 30' BIDE 10' BLU MINDTON 11,009 FRONT 30' NONE 30% YES NO REAR 36' SIDE I0' BURNBVILLE 10,009 FRONT 30' NRE NONE N/A N/A REAR 30' BIDE 10/20' WRNASSEN 15,00 FRONT 30' 25% NME YES NO REAR 30' SIDE 10' CHASNA R -1 9,00 FRONT 30' NONE NOW N/A N/A R -IR 11,509 AM 30' R -19 15,000 BIDE 10/15' EABRR 12,009 FRONT 30' 20% NONE YES YES REAR 15' BIDE 5/10' EDEN PRAIRIE R -1 9,500 FRONT 30' 15% ONE -STORY NONE NOT NO R -1 13,509 REAR 20' 25% NOLTI -STORY STRICTLY BIDE 15125' FARMINGTON 10,098 FRONT 20' 209 NONE YES NO REAR 6' SIDE 6' INVER GROVE HEIGHTS R -IS 20,009 FRONT 30' Lesser of 1,009 NOW YES NO R -IC 12,009 REAR ,:8' sq ft or 30% SIDE 10' LAKEVILLE 20,009 FRONT 30' NONE NONE N/A N/A REAR 30' SIDE 1S' ROBENOIMT R -ID 10,000 FRONT 30' NONE 30% YES SOME R -IA 12,009 REAR 30' BIDE 10' SAVAGE 18,890 FRONT 30' NOW NONE N/A N/A REAR 20% DEPTH BIDE 20% WIDTH SHAKOPEE 9,009 FRONT 30' NOW NONE N/A N/A REAR 30' SIDE 10/20' DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS for CARRIAGE HILLS FIRST ADDITION, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1 THIS DECLARATION, made this qbh day of 1992, by Progress Land Company, Inc.. hereinafter referred to as "Declarant ": WHEREAS, Progress Land Company, Inc. is the fee owner of Carriage Hills First Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the purpose of the Declaration is to establish certain minimum standards for the development of a high -grade single family residential neighborhood with the Properly, and to insure proper use and appropriate development and improvement of each residential site therein contained so as to: 1. protect all owners of land in the Property against such improper use of property that will depreciate the value of their property; 2. encourage the erection of attractive improvements appropriately located to prevent an inharmonious appearance and function; 3. provide for a development that will promote the general welfare of the neighborhood; and NOW THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the Property shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the following covenants, restrictions, conditions and easements which are of the Property, and which shall run with the Property and be binding on all parties that have a right, title, or interest in the Property or a part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall insure to the benefit of each owner thereof. SECTION 1. ORDINANCES. In addition the provisions of the Declaration, the ordinances of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota (hereinafter 'City"), in effect as of the date of this Declaration shall be binding hereafter. SECTION 2. DEFINITION_ S. "Property" shall mean the real property platted as Carriage Hills First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, according the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in an for said county. "Lots" shall mean any lots in the Property. SECTION 3. LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE. No structure shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any platted single family residential Lot other than an attached single family dwelling not to exceed two and one -half stories in height and private garage of not more than 3 ears, except as specifically approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Builders may aaintain temporary construction structures during construction and may use completed dwellings for model and sales purposes. Any new structures or changes to the exterior or existing structures must have prior approval from the Architectural Control Committee before construction may commence. The ground floor area of any dwelling erected or placed on any Lot, exclusive of open porches and garages, shall be not less than the following chart unless previously approved by the Architectural Control Committee after a determination based upon unusual exterior design considerations. Minimum Ground Floor Area Lots Blocks Split or Rambler Two Story 2- 11.13 -17 1 1250 900 2-4 2 1250 900 1 i 3 1250 900 1,12 1 1400 1000 1,10 2 1400 1000 4 -6 3 1400 1000 All 4 -9 1400 1000 The front of each dwelling shall have an exterior totally of brick, stucco, wood siding or maintenance free siding. The sides and back of each dwelling shall have an exterior totally of brick, stucco, wood siding or maintenance free siding or hardboard siding, provided the lap distance of hardboard siding if used, shall not exceed six inches. Additionally each home less than two stories in height shall have some brick exposed on the front of the home. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL. No structure shall be erected, placed, or altered on any Lot until the consruction plans and specifications showing among other details, detail of design, finished appearance, including color selections, elevations, site materials, and a plan showing the location on the Lot of all structures, walks and driveways, have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to the type of materials, harmony of external design with existing structures, and as location with respect to topography and finished grade elevation. Approval shall be as provided in Section 18. No application to the City for variance from the City Zoning Ordinances as to any Lot shall be filed without the prior approval of the Architectural Control Committee. SECTION 5. STRUCTURE LOCATION. A. No structure shall be located on any Lot nearer to the front line or nearer to the side Lot line than the minimum building setback lines permitted by applicable ordinances of the City in effect on the date hereof. Any application for a variance therefrom must be approved by the Architectural Control Committee prior to representation to the City. B. For the purposes of Section 5, eaves, steps, and open porches shall not be considered as a part of building; provided, however, that this shall not be construed to permit any portion of a building on a Lot to encroach upon another Lot. SECTION 6. EASEMENT. Easement for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat. within these easements, no structure shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities, or which may change the direction of flow or drainage channels in the easements, or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in the easements, except that a bituminous or concrete driveway or walk which does not impede surface water runoff and drainage may be installed and maintained across the easement subject to disturbance of installation and maintenance of utilities. - The easement area if each Lot and all improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. SECTION 7. BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. No business may be continuously conducted or operated in or from a Lot which causes inconvenience, traffic or parking congestion or annoyance to the neighborhood. SECTION 8. NUISANCES. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done therein which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. SECTION Q. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. No structure of a temporary character, recreational vehicles, trailer, basement, lent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any Lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently, except that each residence may have a garden or yard storage shed not to exceed 100 square feet, provided that its exterior is of the same material and color as the dwelling. SECTION 10. STORAGE OF VEHICLES, ETC. All commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, boats, snowmobiles and wheeled or tracked vehicles, or commercial equipment of any kind (not including any equipment used in construction or repair of the Property) shall be stored within a garage or enclosure on a Lot, and shall be not visible from outside the Lot. SECTION 11. SIGNS. No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot except one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one sign of no more than five square feet advertising a Lot for sale or rent, or signs used by the Developer or builder to advertise the Property during the construction and sales period and approved by the Architectural Control Committee prior to erection. SECTION 12. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose. incinerators or other equipment of the storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary container. All incinerators or other equipment for the storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall be placed or screened on each Lot in such a manner as not to be visible from outside such Lot. SECTION 14. SOIL, GRADING. No soil, sand, gravel, sod or timber shall be sold or removed from a Lot except for the purpose of excavating for the construction or alteration of a dwelling or permitted appurtenance thereto, or for the proper grading of the Lot. All surplus soil, sand, gravel sod or timber must be removed from the Property at the Lot owner;s expense unless requested as fill for another Lot by the owner thereof. SECTION 15. LANDSCAPING. The Lot owner shall, at his sole expense, within nine (9) months from the date of the issuance of the building permit, improve his Lot as follows: A. Sod and maintain the side yards and the front yard of his Lot, including right of way to street (boulevard), or otherwise properly landscape, as specifically approved by the Architectural Control Committee; and B. Pave and maintain driveway from garage to street. SECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. Each Lot shall be kept reasonably free of construction debris and excess materials shall not be allowed to accumulate on a Lot. SECTION 17. WALLS AND FENCES. No walls or fences shall be erected which are more than 6 feet above grade at any point. All fencing shall be located in the rear yards only. SECTION 18. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. A. There shall be an Architectural Control Committee of three (3) members elected by recorded contract purchaser of the Lots. The initial committee shall be comprised of members designated in writing by Warren D. Israelson. The initial committee shall serve until 90% of the Lots in the Property have been conveyed by warranty deed to second parties. Subsequent to conveyance of 90% of the Lots by warranty deed to second parties a majority of the then record owners of the Lots shall have the power to change the membership of the committee, or through a duly recorded instrument, change the powers or duties of the committee. The committee may designate in writing a representative to act for it. Decisions of the committee shall be by majority vote of the members thereof. Neither the members of the committee nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation of services performed pursuant to this covenant. B. The committee's approval or disapproval as required in the Declaration shall be in writing. If the committee, or its designated representative, fails to approve or disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or if no plans to enforce the Declaration has been commenced within one year of the completion of construction thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. All construction must conform strictly to the plans and specifications as so approved, or as amended with the approval of the committee. SECTION 19. DILIGENT COMPLETION. All construction of structures and other improvements of Lots shall be commenced promptly after approval by the Architectural Control Committee and prosecuted diligently to completion, in all events within twelve (12) months of such approval. SECTION 20. TERM. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of 30 years from the date these covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by the then owners of a majority of the Lots has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. SECTION 21. ENFORCEMENT. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant of this Declaration either to restrain violations or to recover damages and may be brought by any owner who is being harmed by such activities. If a plaintiff enforcing the terms of this Declaration obtains a favorable judgement in such proceedings, the defendant shall pay and indemnify plaintiff against any and all attorney's fees and expenses incurred by plaintiff in exercising its rights and remedies hereunder. SECTION 22. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgement or court order shall not, in arty manner whatsoever, affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 23, FAILURE TO ENFORCE. No provisions contained in the Declaration shall be deemed to have been abrogated or waived by reason of any failure to enforce the same. n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed this day of SF o, E 1992. Progress,l•and Co pa I By: J President STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF 5Cof The fore oing instrument was acknowledged before me this _�� day of >� - �p1 --vr r. 19 , by Warren J.Israelson, President of Progress Land Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf o said corporation. Arm MARY SCHOENBERGER xnurrwe(.C- Wvussors Notary Pub County, Minnesota SCOTT COUNTY M Commission Ex pires t �- dG - tn maussnu cxria:s ,a -a>ta r p g THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Progress Land Company, Inc. 14300 Nicollet Court, Suite 335 Burnsville, MN 55337 (Is., n Nwh� kft* wet7 W1 od to go kbr "t V_ tec,T 1 n gas K '.O- r � dl' N A r�,�_'r -t'C r•: V W.016 ,� Ca7'_tSCRO 9- 17- 92#30 s17.00fd: � � b .� ,• D CI� Fta � � ar i! n v •p a • �,�er� ��\ p 7 y • Q �>� s ue° ►������� � .• e.����g7��1�1wa� ° �� ro i 00 � � •p a • �,�er� ��\ p 7 y • Q 16 Pruning February 1993 1 1: P R California Sweet -talks Its Way into Affordable Mousing Local governments into their inclusion Site plan foe i unit Salt Cre subdh aim it vbta. It will i a range Of ho typm and th, requiring tba . percent ofthd be priced afo T his past fail, the board of supervisors of Sacramento County. California, where hous- ing prices had doubled since 1977, took a daring step. Dur- ing a public hearing on a draft of the county's general plan, the board agreed in principle to a recommendation for an 'inclusionary zoningprovision' that would require local build- ers to make 15 percent of all projects with 10 or more units affordable to low -, very low -, and moderate -income house- holds. The provision would apply to all the unincorporated By Morris Newman parts of the county -90 per- cent of the whole. The supervisors' action stirred a storm of public pro- test. Local home builders ob- jected that forcing them to include below - market -rate units would drive up the cost of market -rate housing in the same projects. 'Things got pretty ugly,' recalls Kimberley Dellinger, a lobbyist for the Building Industry Association of Superior California. The home builders charged that the advocates of the set -aside were 'antibusiness,' while the pro- affordable housing crowd — which included a nonprofit ad- voacy group, the Sacramento Housing Alliance —called the home builders 'racist' for op- posing the inclusionary plan. The debate created enough doubt in the mind of one su- pervisor to persuade him to change his vote on the provi- sion, dooming Sacramento County's inclusionary policy to oblivion. The need is clear Both sides agree that Califor- nia is far behind in producing affordable housing. According to the California Building in- dustry Association, the state needs 300,000 new residential units a year, at least 128,000 of them affordable. But home builders started only 111,000 residential units lastyear, down from 164,000 units in 1990. Says Marc Brown, a lobby- ist with the Sacramento Hous- ing Alliance, 'We have a de- velopment pattern that builds Cadillac housing and ignores the needs of working people.' In general, inclusionary hous- ing policies require builders n 'rIMMER: OM either to include a certain per- centage of affordable units in their projects or to set aside land on the site for another developer— perhaps a nonprofit home builder —to build hous- ing affordable to people of mod- erate income (80 to 120 per- cent of the local median household income), low income i50 to 80 percent), and very low income 130 to 50 percent(. California law requires only that the housing elements of local plans cover affordable housing; there's no requirement that the units be built. Despite the occasional cow troversy, inclusionary pro- grams are found throughout California, partly in reaction to high housing prices. (Cali- fornia contains 19 of the 25 least affordable housing mar- kets in the U.S., according to the National Association of Home Builders.( A report pre- pared in January 1991 by the San Diego Hewing Commis- sion lists inclusionary hous- ing programs in six counties and 42 cities throughout the state, and at least 12 local governments created new pro- grams or strengthened exist- ing ones in 1992. Some jurisdictions, reveal- $200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Thovvad. a d ia. C T I ingly, have programs that qualify as inclusionary but ob- ject to using the term; the city of Roseville is an example. And in Los Angeles, which does not have an inclusion- ary program, two large new develop- ments —the 300 -acre Cen. tral City West office district and the pmo posed 1,004 acre Playa Vista mixed - use develop- ment south of Santa Monica— have inclusionary elements in their housing plans. The sweetener Until recently, local govern- ments have simply required developer to build the units, or dedicate the land, or pay an in -lieu fee. The Sacramento suburb of Davis was the Cost in the state to adopt an mclusionary housing program of this type —in 1973. A more proactive approach, the one advocated by David Rosen, whose Oakland -baud firm advises local governments on housing issues, is for com. munities to offer incentives to developers, or at least to guar- antee that the builder will not lose money. 'When you im. pose the re- quirements outright; says Rosen, 'there isaveryheavy cost to devel- opers, and it has the effect of retarding new construc- tion. When you make in- clusionary housing'cost- neutral' oroffercostincentives, then you can dramatically in- crease production levels.' To date, only a handful of the 20,000 affordable housing units created under California's inclusionary housing provisions can be attributed to these in- centives. Yet the earlyresponse from both government and builders has been positive. A leader Rosen recommends that the affordable units be gilt in the same project as the market - rate units, or nearby. To avoid the 'public housing' stigma, The median price of a single- family house in CaMomia;umped to s195,500 in the 19w& A"ordfng to the Cali- fornia Department of Housing and Community Development, two out of five families in the state could not meet the mortgage requirements for such a dwelling. the units should be indistin. guishable in appearance from market -rate units, although they may have less floor area or fewer amenities. To safeguard affordability, Rosen recom. mends that cities control rents and impose conditions on the resale of affordable units. Rosen's ideas are being put to the test in Irvine, which redesigned its inclusionary housing policy with his help in 1991. The old policy, in effect since 1976, lacked any incen- tives for developers. Now the housing element of the city's general plan offers an array of incentives to builders who set aside up to 25 percent of their units for affordable housing. Half of those units may be reserved for low - income resi- dents (defined as households with an income of 50 to go percent of the city's median of $52,700( and nearly half for very- low-income residents (those with below 50 percent of the median). One percent may be set aside for house- holds with 'very, very low' income (up to 30 percent of the median). Irvine's inclusionary policy requires that housing remain affordable for 30 years; that the units offer a mix of sizes comparable to that of market - rate units (parlicularlytwo- and three - bedroom units for fami- liesl; and that the units be dis- persed through the project Ten percent of the affordable units must be accessible under the standards set by the Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act, in- cluding ramps. Units are to be marketed under an 'affirma- tive marketing' program, in- cluding ads in local Spanish - and vretnamese4anguage news- papers. The tenant selection process gives priority to those U S Califomia U S California 1980 1990 18 Ftann:ng February 1993 who work in Irvine or who have Section 8 certificates. Incentives offered to qualifying projects in- cludewaiving development fees, making financing available through fed- eral block ; grants and state housing bonds, blow - market -rate construction loans, and land 'write downs.' Two other projects have been approved under Irvine's inclusionary program but have not yet been built. The first completed project arising from Irvine's updated inclusionary policy will be the 382 -unit San Paulo Apartments, built near Irvine's city hall by a joint venture of the Irvine Company. Orange County's ma- jor developer, and the Bridge Housing Corporation of San Francisco, a nonprofit home builder. Those developers ben- efited from a $28 million mul- tifamily revenue bond issued by the city on behalf of the project —which low- ered the interest mte. Theprojectalso received$700,OOOin federal community development block grant funds and $1.35 million from the Orange County Housing Authority. The project ap- plied for and re- ceived a federal low - income tax credit, P L A L V P R A C r 1 worth about $600,000 over the next 10 years. The credit may be sold to investors in the form of bonds issued by the Irvine Company, which owns the land. In addition, the Irvine Com- pany offered a subordinated ground lease to the housing complex, in which payments are deferred for 10 years, or until the project generates suf- ficient cash to cover the debt. Red - carpet treatment The new inclusionary program in rural Monterey County, where the median income is about $27,000, is spelled out in the housing element of the county's general plan, which was updated last September. This policy is mandatory. It requires every new project — both rental and for - sale —to make at least 15 percent of the units affordable. Frank Brunings, the county's housing coordinator, says Monterey County has taken an activist approach to devel- opment of affordable housing by arranging'predevelopment conferences' with builders and county officials. Brunings says most of the county's incen- tives are reserved for builders Y 1V G C E who promise to make 25 percent of thew units af- fordable.'For them, we roll out the red car- pet,' he says. Those incen- tives include fee waivers and density bo- nuses. Qualify - ingprojectsare processed quickly Ifrom six to nine months) and are 'put in the front of the P--- for pro- cessing, says Brunings. Building permit fees are waived on the inclusionary units. And the county is willing to pay the cost of environmental review, which can reach $150,000, for projects that are 100 percent affordable. The county discourages build- ing the affordable units on a site separate from the market - rate units. If the developer chooses to build off -site, the county requires a two-for-one exchange. Both for -sale and rental housing built under Monterey County's inclusionary code must remain affordable for 30 years. old tan i ir, the !n Irvine. Japeresnt of the San Paulo ayarennus wW be setasidelorfamilin wnats fan than holfthe Omnae County mtdion. 7Mbudderaare dw Irvuu Company and the &id&v Rowing Corpor don of San Frandreo. k Lipmaw comn8+ad uod Imn.. 19 P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E What rile iirw Says _` Z _ The first builder to take ad- general plan, which was Incivmoauypcograms are widespread fu California. A Janu- vantage of Monterey County's adopted in 1991, strongly en- ary 1992 survey bythe San Diego Housing Commission found new incentives is Vincent courages the creation of af. 52 California jurisdictions [e5.cdfes and seven counties) had Tavernetti, who has set aside fordable units in the new sub- indusionaryprogrtimsinputs Thiseprogmms hadproduced 25 percent of the detached divisions eastof Interstate 905, 20,000affordab1eunim_ houses in his 387-unit Las which divides the dry. Only - In somi1enee; View plaeee'ue stung an faith. The state Palmas Ranch development as as a last resort are builders courts havemtaddcasedtheguestiouof whether local govern, affordable 149 low income and allowed to construct or rehab mints bavetheauthorit impose faclusionary requirements. 46 moderates. The project is affordable units is the older Nationally, the le toots of inclusionary housing date to still in the planning stage, but sections to the west. New Jersey's Motmt Lau el wen of 1975 and 1983, in which the low - income units are ex- Under Chula Piste's inclu- the state supreme court obliged municipalities to provide for petted to sell for S 105,000 and sionary rules, 10 percent of their 'fair share` of the low- and moderate-income housing the moderate - income units new projects with; or more needed within their region. But California has no coostitu- 5160.000. Fifteen percent of uaitsmuuthe affordable tolow- bonalfa rabareminremeat foclacalgovernmmts. the rental units will be afford- andnmderate inwmeresidmts Iastepd,)he California hoasing'elemmt taw —part of the able, as required under the A developer may ' . satisfy the - states ;requirements for local oompcehemtve plena— eatab- county's inclusionary policy. requirements either by build -: Bahes. stream policy by Statute. The law, requires local In exchange, Tavernetti ing housing or dedicating land : governments to include in thelr comprehensive pleas a hour• hopes to benefit from ametes- equal in value to the required 'mg element pop tainto g provisions for m, igg housing avail- ing of terrain environmental units-or in some cases, by able for people of all income levels, including housing for regulations. County sapervi- payment of an in lieu fee. The hndliea very,low, low, and -- :moderate income. The law . sore have agreed in principle inclusonary program applies requireago9einmenfstotake into account 'the localityashare to waive ndesagainst conshvc• equally to rental and fofaale houaingneeds.', of tberegtonw lion on certain steep slopes units, all of which must re- Doubtlets someone as considered a legal challenge to b and ridgeBnes, and they have main affordable Eor 30 years. California's laChlftOna[ir housmgordinenw on the beau that agreed to consider issuing a As incentives, Chula Puts there is nonenu between mnstructionofmarket -rate housing permit on a site that otherwise offers a density bonus or a and the need for affordable housing. If one has been made, it would not be allowed. transfer of density to another did not lead to a reported ease decision. We doubt such a housing complex within the challenge would succeed in court. Targeting same master planned commu- We believe that regturing developers to include affordable Chula Puts, aweb -todo sty Wiry. The city also offers ta:• units s a legitimate exerctae the emodp l police power — (median household income exempt bond financing for one that lmpfemenb esplitit poudes set out in the sate a 541,3001 is fast-growing San builders and gaploaus for con- housing element law. WedogotthinkaprfoapleddistltteHoa old tan i ir, the !n Irvine. Japeresnt of the San Paulo ayarennus wW be setasidelorfamilin wnats fan than holfthe Omnae County mtdion. 7Mbudderaare dw Irvuu Company and the &id&v Rowing Corpor don of San Frandreo. k Lipmaw comn8+ad uod Imn.. o f PRI U T \ P K7 \�NNES SPECIAL WORKSHOP /PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1993 The February 25, 1993 Special Planning Commission Workshop /Public Hearing was called to order by Vice Chairman Arnold at 7:06 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Loftus, Wuellner and Greenfield, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, Planning Intern Jim Hayes, Building Official Gary Staber, City Attorney Glenn Kessel, and Acting Secretary Phyllis Knudsen. Commissioner Roseth was absent. Vice Chair Arnold reviewed the format to be followed during this special workshop /public hearing. Dale Runkel, Warren Israelson Developer, and Ward Anderson, attorney representing Progress Land Company, reviewed their statements regarding the proposed amendment to delete the 188 lot coverage ratio for single family and two family dwellings located within all residential districts of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. They feel the issue is citywide and the recommendation that the 188 lot coverage be removed and if there is a compromise to look at some type of impervious surface ratio that would be high enough take into account todays market price with the homes that are being built. Horst Graser stated the purpose of tonight's workshop is to collect input testimony from the audience on this petition in the R -1 and R -•2 Districts. The issue came before this Commission on January 21, 1993, which was lightly attended and on a 3':1 vote recommended that the Ordinance be upheld. It went to the City Council, considerable more interest was generated and the Council remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission for a hearing. The goal for this meeting is to take public testimony and develop facts and findings in an effort to make a recommendation to the City Council at a hearing to be held on February 26, 1993. Horst Graser chronologically detailed when the 188 coverage ratio came into effect and what has happened with it since then. At first surveys were not required but since 1985, when Gary Staber was hired, surveys, elevations, drainage, etc., are now required so the determination of coverage is more accurately known. In 1988 the City bought a digitizer to easily determine irregular shaped lots etc. 4629 Dakota St. SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 AN EQUAL OPPOMUWY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 2 Horst showed transparencies of the study of different communities that were contacted as to their coverage ratios, do they use impervious ratio formulas on lots especially when they are on lakes or wetlands, average lot size, average market value, etc. In conclusion: why does the City of Prior Lake need coverage ratios? Is it to protect against larger houses? Probably not. Does it increase setbacks? No it doesn't, the setbacks stay constant. The only issue you would have with the coverage ratio is it would control the amount of open space you would have in the back yard. Does it increase lot sizes? Probably not. Does it increase density? The issue of lot sizes and density are not related. Is it a duplicate standard? Perhaps. Why do we need setbacks, front, rear, side and a coverage ratio, and a minimum lot size? The conclusion we came to was fundamentally that the City Council in 1975, when the lot size was lowered to 10,000 square feet, the benefit was to the public and that benefit was to reduce the cost of the lot size in the housing equation. As far as the 18 %, that is debatable. How is it measurable? I don't know if it is or not. The issue to the Planning Commission tonight is to determine facts and findings and enter them into the record for transmittal to the City Council tomorrow night. Vice Chairman Arnold called Public Hearing to order at 7:06 P.M. and outlined the format desired and asked that brief statements be made without duplication of comments. Tom Watkins, 5242 Frost Point Circle S.E, stated he was on the 1975 City Council that reduced the lot size from 12,000 to 10,000 square feet as a minimum, not as the standard. The 18% meant a large house would require a proportionately larger lot. We assumed that this logic would prevail. The intent of this change was to promote or keep available affordable housing within the City. It was not done with Grants in mind. He believes the developers and real estate community is entitled to relief but unsure of how this can be accomplished, Mr. Watkins feels minimum lots are a necessity but there should be maximum structure coverages and we should go back to the 12,000 square foot lot size. Carl Hansen, 4065 Raspberry Ridge Road, stated the Citizen Forum presented potential R -1 zoning changes on October 12, 1992. Mr. Hanson toke 197 contemporary designed homes for width and depth, related that to lot frontage width and depth and has since added foundation sizes for both 2 and 3 car garages to analyze the effect the coverage ratio would have on home sizes and lot sizes assuming an 18% coverage ratio. Mr. Hanson found that a larger home generally means a larger foundation square footage. This generally implied a wider home thus implying a larger lot. Developers who wish to build in Prior Lake need to read, understand and follow our ordinances. Developers should not presume to make changes to our Ordinances having found that they have errored and do not meet them and feels there is no PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 3 justification to change 182 coverage. If Carriage Hills would have been platted with a minimum lot size of 12,000 or 12,500 square feet as recommended we would not have this pr olem today. Mr. Hanson urged the Planning Commissioners to hoad fast to enforce "MY" cities zoning ordinances. Let this matter be resolved in a manner that benefits the current and future citizens of Prior Lake. There should be some compromise for the specific lot problem. Mr. Israelson should review what style of home he has listed to be built on specific lots. The Zoning ordinance is long overdue in being updated and the 182 is somewhat restrictive in the lower sized lots especially when applied to lots with 6,000 square foot. Mr. Hanson liked the 182 but felt a compromise of an increased number might be in order. Mary Ann Whiting, 14897 Manitou Road. The Citizens Forum was organized as a result of the concerns raised during the Carriage Hills Subdivision. The citizens and Council asked Mr. Israelson repeatedly to put these homes on larger lots. Petition was signed requesting him to plat larger lots to blend in with the existing neighborhoods and provide for more open space for the new owners. Due to lack of flexibility in present zoning ordinance, the City Council encouraged citizens to offer suggestions for providing that flexibility. The goal was to =ccommodate all types of housing in our community while :eserving some of Prior Lakes unique character, the integrity of r community, and citizens values. Mr. Israelson admitted he d not read the ordinance at time of platting and was unaware of -is 182 coverage ratio. It is up to the owner of a lot to find out what is allowable and it is clearly in our ordinance that there is an 182 maximum coverage ratio. Realtors should also inform buyers to check with the City regarding the Ordinances. This is not the forum to address the question of why the City has not enforced the law consistently, however, because a law is not uniformly enforced it does not make it less of a law or more of a defense. We have heard that other communities do not have a coverage ratio however they do have other methods of achieving similar results i.e., higher minimums, higher setbacks, graduated R -1 zones, etc. We will have to compromise and perhaps we can consider for Carriage Hills to allow the lots that are presently platted to be increased to a higher percent ratio but along with that increase the minimum lot size in the community to at least 12,500 square feet with 85 front footage. After this problem is dealt with we need to start planning for the future. Bob Barsness, 5400 Fairlawn Shores Trail S.E. Chairman of the Economic Development Committee. At our last meeting we found out that the lot coverage has not been uniformly enforced over many year= and for that reason we felt aid recommended to the Council that =hey eliminate the 182 coverage. Since it had not been enfor -ed that the people with existing properties could develop diffi�ulties as far as expanding and adding onto their homes, we felt that homes that were to be sold would incur some difficulties as far as variances of such that they were not aware of the coverage requirement and obviously inherent are the legal concerns for the City. For that reason and simply that reason we feel the 182 should be eliminated. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 4 Bud Waund, 15196 Edgewater Circle stated he brought statements that were signed by 38 different individuals all of which are realtors, or realtors representing builders who live in Prior Lake. Mr. Waund feels the 183 is outdated, and does not accommodate todays housing market. Enforcement of the 183 rule would have far - reaching implications upon current property owners for if what they have is not in compliance it would be impossible for them to rebuild if the structure were destroyed, would prevent the owner to transfer the existing property to a new owner with the assurance that the property is in compliance with local zoning ordinances and would have serious affect of the value or devaluation of their property. The land set aside by the developer for neighborhood parks preserves the green space within the project and would prevent the overbuilt look we all wish to avoid. The 183 is outdated, needs to be studied in an effort to reach a compromise. This study should not hold up current developments but rather be used to enhance future growth. We must overcome the concern that Prior Lake is not prepared for development proposals or staff to accommodate the building process. It is my opinion as a Prior Lake homeowner why Carriage Hills and not one of the other subdivisions, and could it have been avoided? Ask these questions of yourself. My opinion is that the 183 should be eliminated. How can we have continuity and smoothness so we are not interrupting, pulling the strings and bringing everything to a halt so that we have developers who have very good intentions, up and above board, Tutting up maybe the nicest development that is being put in Prior Lake in a number of years, advertising Prior Lake. Tony Thelen, 15233 Highway 13, is a custom home builder and has built in many communities and feels the 183 has to he changed. He has never been reprimanded for building a house toc gig on a lot. Mr. Thelen stated, if this doesn't change, mo:c people do not realize what is going to happen to the value of their property. Blake Immefall, 5760 Birchwood Ave. stated he has purchased a lot in Carriage Hills and now feels he cannot build a house as the permit is on hold due to the fact the house is a few percentage points over the 183. He now has to now look for a different location as his former house has been sold and uproot his family move to a different town because there isn't a spot where he can upgrade his standard through the community. He did not feel the restrictions are going to endanger anyone's lot price and as a future land owner in Carriage Hills and as spokesman for future buyers we are not trying to raise a raucus over the 183 coverage, we are just trying to upgrade our house. He did not think it was fair to his family that he was unable to build and upgrade by wanting a 3 car garage. Deb Garross, Assistant City Planner, stated she has worked with the City for approximately 7 years and did want to clarify for the record a couple of things of importance. 1. It has been mentioned several times there has been inconsistent enforcement of this. I would like to clarify there has not been inconsistent PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 5 enforcement, it has not been enforced. When the issue came up with Progress Land Company we did contact the City Attorney and it was upon his advice that we begin to enforce the 188 and for the last several weeks building permits have been held up on his advice. 2. There has been comments about surveys and how easy it would be able to identify what coverage ratios are and I would concur if land came in and lots came in as been shown on the transparencies it would be very simple to do that. That is simply not the case and I would love to see anyone come in with a lakeshore lot of which there are over 1,000 and not know where the 904 contour is and not have that surveyed and identify what the lot area is. It is impossible to do that. There is many situations. Prior Lake is a lake community and as you can see by looking at the road systems etc., we do not have a grid system in this community and I feel very strongly in mentioning that because I have spent the last four days digitizing the 72 lots that we have just to get some idea of where we stand in terms of this coverage and also our Intern Jim Hayes has done that and it is something that takes skill to do and the slides that have been shown have been very typical. I don't think there was one square lot with a square home and when you are calculating for 18% you do have to be fairly accurate. If you were to apply that and someone was to come in for a variance you would have to know exactly what amount of variance is going to be requested in order for the Planning Commission or ultimately the Council to choose that. It is an exact measurement and is not something you can scale off with a planometer or doing digitizer you would take 3 different readings and get 3 different numbers. If it is something that is implemented, I would strongly recommend to the Planning Commission that you consider requiring in the City Code an Ordinance similar to what is being proposed for Shoreland Management District, with well defined definitions of impervious surface and coverage if that is the intent of the Planning Commission to move in that direction so we are all clear what coverage is and what it constitutes. Also it should be made clear how that is calculated and who is responsible for calculating that. In my opinion it should be the surveyor that is responsible. What we can do very effectively then, if that is calculated on a survey we can verify against the ordinance if that information is provided or not. If a building is constructed the City is not liable for insuring that home is X feet from the property line. The surveyor is responsible because they set the stakes with the expertise in that area. I think that would be a very valuable consideration for the Planning commission tonight to look at an implementation strategy also. Whether you stay with the 18% or not, I would recommend that stronger language be included in the ordinance or at least reviewed to include, whether you change to a different percentage or whether you go to impervious surface coverage. If any of these are a part of the compromise it is essential that the Planning Commission come up with very definitive definitions of what we are talking about in a way that it can be administered throughout this community. 3. Of the 72 permits that we looked at and it was not a scientific study, they were only digitized once, we did PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 6 the best we could with the time constraints we had and it is not an all inclusive list. Basically are plats since the mid 1980's and in that we have not enforced the 18% coverage but in this case for the most part the lot coverage is less than 18%. Also the issue with dealing with 10,0000 square foot lots when you look at the subdivision for the most part they do not average just 10,000. There has always been a gradation or has been until this point and with non - enforcement the highest percentage that we came up with in this limited list is 22/23 %. If the 18% is such a needed item I ask what is it that we are trying to control. This also applies to larger lot subdivisions approximately 1000 are substandard or less than 10,000 square feet and the majority of those lots were subdivided in township days and the majority of properties were annexed into the Cit . The ordinance as it stands right now does not have anything that says that the 18% only applies to lots created after X day. It would apply to all lots no matter what size and the concern that staff has is that the 18% as it is written does not take into consideration some of those graduations that exist in the community. There will be a problem and you will receive many variance applications for the 18% coverage for those smaller subdivisions such as North Grainwood, and Inguadona Beach. That is something no one has talked about but it really is an issue because most of the developed lots in the community are less than 10,000 square feet and were platted years ago and a lot of those lots are in the Shoreland Districts. Within the District the City had to adopt via regulations from the DNR Shoreland Management. These regulations deal with impervious surface and in that impervious surface the City is required to implement a coverage ratio. When you put a 30% impervious surface including driveways and structures, we do not come close in most of these cases to that 30% and that is a much more inclusive definition and at least the impervious surface standard is something that can be related back if the City is tested on this issue in a legal challenge. The 30% is a state mandated requirement. The intent of it is to deal with erosion control, non source pollution, etc. Commission needs to be accutely aware of what we have authority to regulate and know how that is defined as it is very important should the City be challenged on these issues. One of the recommendations from staff at the initial public hearing was (1) either delete the 18% or (2) go a 30% impervious type of rationale. Those are things that are available for your consideration this evening as well as anything inbetween. When an issue comes up and you qet a zoning amendment and the City struggles with the particular issue because the comprehensive plan is not very definitive. It has very general policy statements and is very difficult to apply that to actual development situations. The City Staff has in the past 3 years, worked very hard to come up with a comprehensive plan and to go through and do a lot of zoning amendments dealing with lot size issues at this point is premature and what needs to be done is the comprehensive plan process where you can hold hearings with the public. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 7 Tam Watkins, 5242 Frost Point Circle S.E. commented on the lots of record created prior to Ordinance 75 -12 are grandfathered lots of record not subject to the 18% coverage and was a policy for the administration at that time. Recess was called at 9:40 P.M. Public hearing reconvened at 9:45 P.M. Discussion by the Commissioners were on: the enforcement of the 18% coverage, if any variances were granted, number of permits that exceed the 18 %, current building trends, overlapping districts, 25% coverage standard suggested, and control of building coverage is needed. comments were on the following form the public sector: Carl Hanson -felt that discussion is being repeated. Tom Watkins -time to get items in order. Walt Jobst - explained his calculations on lot coverage Recess called at 10:40 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 10:55 P.M. Dale Rucke -the problem is the smaller lots within the City. Bud Waund -not enough information to make a decision this evening. John Egan- houses are larger now than when development first stated in Prior Lake and the Commissioners should consider that aspect. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECONDED BY LOFTUS, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION TO ADJUST MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF 22% ON ALL LOTS OF RECORD FROM THIS DATE FORWARD. Discussion on the motion followed. Commissioner Wuellner voiced his objections to the motion. Commissioner Greenfield stated that all the ordinances need to be brought up to the 1990's level of standards. Commissioner Loftus suggested one rule for impervious surface. Vote taken signified by ayes: GREENFIELD, ARNOLD, LOFTUS. Nayes: WUELLNER. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY GREENFIELD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. vote taken signfied ayes by Loftus, Greenfield, Arnold, and Wuelner. MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 11:12 P.M MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes Loftus, Wuellner, Arnold, and Greenfield. MORTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Horst W. Graser Phyllis Knudsen Director of Planning Acting Recording Secretary 18% COVERAGE RATIO AMENDMENT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT February 25, 1993 "ZOO1C3" On Thursday, February 25, 1993 the Prior Lake Planning f held a special public workshop to accept additional relative to an application by Progress Land Company Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83 -6. The proposed!amendmet delete the 18% lot coverage ratio for single and 1 dwellings within all residential zoning districts of Pr3 Comments we Progress Lan city staff, owners. Bas Planning Ca 1993), the P Planning Con I F ACT 1 • - Zoning Ordinance 75 -12, adopted on August 25, 1975 established a prQvision whereby single family and two family residential building size was limited to no larger than 18% of the lot area. Zoning Ordinance 75 -12 defined "Coverage" as "That portion of 'a lot covered by principal and accessory use structures." FINDINGS: A. The prima restrict produce a of single B. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to reduce lot size a width standards in order to promote affordable hous3 opportunities. The 18# coverage ratio was intended restrict over development of smaller lots and encourage those who desired a larger home to purchase larger lot. 4629 Dakota St SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447.4245 AN EQUAL OPPORIVNUY EMPLOYER C. The 183 coverage ratio was to be applied equally to all single and two family construction in R -1 and R -2 Districts without consideration of a gradation for existing substandard lots of record or differing lot sizes permitted by the various residential zoning districts. FACT 2 The 183 coverage ratio was not enforced after its adoption due to lack of sufficient information required to implement the coverage requirement. FINDINGS: A. The 183 coverage ratio was enacted by Ordinance 75 -12 however, no corresponding requirement for certificate of survey, illustrating the percentage of proposed building coverage to lot area was required by City Code. B. In 1985, Building Official Gary Staber requested that nuiiaing .permit apPlicacion. C. A recent subdivision, "Carriage Hills," contains _lots which approach the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area permitted in an R -1, Suburban Residential Zone. During review of building permits for that subdivision, it was noted that there was a conflict between the iapplication of impervious surface and coverage ratio standards. ' The coverage ratio was applied because the rdinance mandates that whenever two standards conflict', the most restrictive must be applied. To remedy the 'situation, an amendment to delete the 183 :coverage ratio from the City Zoning Ordinance was submitted by Progress Land` Company. D. On the advice of the City Attorney staff began enforcement of the 183 coverage ratio standard` in January, 1993. E. The 183 coverage ratio cannot be enforced uniformly without variances due to the large number of substandard lots of record which exist within the City. FACT 3 A random survey, conducted by city staff, of building permits issued since the mid 1980's indicated that approximately 21% of structures built, contain lot coverage over 18 %. The "'lot coverage ranged from 7.7 to 22% of 72 lots within Prior Lake. FINDINGS: The survey contained a sample A. Although the 18% coverage ratio had not been applied, actual construction has approximated coverage between 18 and 228, according to the building permit survey. B. Recent construction trends on minimum size lots indicate that certain home types and amenities such as three stall garages, porch and deck additions, create a larger footprint which exceeds the 188 coverage ratio. C. Total elimination of the coverage ratio would leave the potential for over development of minimum size lots, therefore some restriction of lot coverage is necessary. D. The 188 coverage ratio appears restrictive considering current home styles desired, and recent construction trends. The coverage ratio also limits house style choice of property owners because some styles such as a rambler or split entry home, require a larger footprint. E. A coverage ratio standard should allow for home style flexibility to address reasonable market trends, years after lots have been platted. FACT 4 Implementation of the 188 coverage ratio would produce substantial hardship and unreasonable development constraints for existing properties. FINDINGS: A. There are approximately 1000 substandard developed lots within Prior Lake which may or may not conform to the 188 coverage ratio. B. R -2 zoned lots cannot be reasonably be developed with the 188 coverage ratio standard. C. Subdivisions within the R -1 zone have been developed with various lot size gradations ranging from 4,000 to 14,000 square feet. One coverage ratio standard cannot equitably be applied to the range of lot sizes that exist and or can be developed within the R -1 Zone. D. There is no provision in the Zoning Code which provides a grandfather clause related to the 18% coverage ratio, for substandard lots of record. FACT 5 The development community is at risk for substantial economic loss if the 18% coverage ratio is strictly enforced. FINDING: A. A solution to the coverage ratio issue must be developed in order for developers /realtors to continue with ongoing marketing of the existing inventory of lots. CONCLUSION The recommendation from the Planning Commission is to approve an increase of the coverage ratio from 18 to 22% as an interim strategy to resolve this issue. Further, the Commission recommends that funds be allocated for a consultant to draft the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan. 11 ZOO1C3" 18$ COVERAGE RATIO AMENDMENT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT February 25, 1993 On Thursday, February 25, 1993 the Prior Lake Planning Commission held a special public workshop to accept additional testimony relative to an application by Progress Land Company to amend Prior Lake Toning Ordinance 83 -6. The proposed amendment was to delete the 18% lot coverage ratio for single and two family dwellings within all residential zoning districts of Prior Lake. Comments were entered into the record from the developer, Progress Land Company, Prior Lake Economic Development Committee, city staff, residents, realtors, contractors and local business owners. Based upon the testimony which is on record, (See Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes dated February 25, 1993), the following facts and findings were established by the Planning Commission. FACT 1 Zoning Ordinance 75 -12, adopted on August 25, 1975 established a provision whereby single family and two family residential building size was limited to no larger than 18% of the lot area. Zoning Ordinance 75 -12 defined "Coverage" as "That portion of a lot covered by principal and accessory use structures." FINDINGS: A. The primary function of the 18% coverage ratio was to restrict building mass on an individual lot basis and to produce a reasonable building envelope for construction of single and two family dwellings in 1975. B. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to reduce lot size and width standards in order to promote affordable housing opportunities. The 18% coverage ratio was intended to restrict over development of smaller lots and to encourage those who desired a larger home to purchase a larger lot. 4629 Dakota St SE, Prim Lake, Minnesota 55372 / PK (612) 4474230 / Fax (61?) 4474245 Are F. iJAL OPPOMMY kDFLOYM �. C M AN VE SO 11 ZOO1C3" 18$ COVERAGE RATIO AMENDMENT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT February 25, 1993 On Thursday, February 25, 1993 the Prior Lake Planning Commission held a special public workshop to accept additional testimony relative to an application by Progress Land Company to amend Prior Lake Toning Ordinance 83 -6. The proposed amendment was to delete the 18% lot coverage ratio for single and two family dwellings within all residential zoning districts of Prior Lake. Comments were entered into the record from the developer, Progress Land Company, Prior Lake Economic Development Committee, city staff, residents, realtors, contractors and local business owners. Based upon the testimony which is on record, (See Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes dated February 25, 1993), the following facts and findings were established by the Planning Commission. FACT 1 Zoning Ordinance 75 -12, adopted on August 25, 1975 established a provision whereby single family and two family residential building size was limited to no larger than 18% of the lot area. Zoning Ordinance 75 -12 defined "Coverage" as "That portion of a lot covered by principal and accessory use structures." FINDINGS: A. The primary function of the 18% coverage ratio was to restrict building mass on an individual lot basis and to produce a reasonable building envelope for construction of single and two family dwellings in 1975. B. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to reduce lot size and width standards in order to promote affordable housing opportunities. The 18% coverage ratio was intended to restrict over development of smaller lots and to encourage those who desired a larger home to purchase a larger lot. 4629 Dakota St SE, Prim Lake, Minnesota 55372 / PK (612) 4474230 / Fax (61?) 4474245 Are F. iJAL OPPOMMY kDFLOYM C. The 18% coverage ratio was to be applied equally to all single and two family construction in R -1 and R -2 Districts without consideration of a gradation for existing substandard lots of record or differing lot sizes permitted by the various residential zoning districts. FACT 2 The 18% coverage ratio was not enforced after its adoption due to lack of sufficient information required to implement the coverage requirement. FINDINGS: A. The 188 coverage ratio was enacted by Ordinance 75 -12 however, no corresponding requirement for certificate of survey, illustrating the percentage of proposed building' coverage to lot area was required by City Code. B. In 1985, . Building Official Gary Stober requested that C. D. On the advice of the t enforcement of the '18% January, 1993. E. The 18% coverage ratio ca without variances due to ti lots of record 'which exist iota httorney staff began age ratio standard' in be enforced uniformly 3e number of 'substandard a the City. r FACT 3 A random survey, conducted by city staff, of building permits issued since the mid 1980's indicated that approximately 21$ of structures built, contain lot coverage over 18 %.' The lot coverage ranged from 7.7 to 223 of 72 lots within Prior Lake. FINDINGS: The survey contained a sample A. Although the 183 coverage ratio had not been applied, actual construction has approximated coverage between 18 and 223, according to the building permit survey. B. Recent construction trends on minimum size lots indicate that certain home types and amenities such as three stall garages, porch and deck additions, create a larger footprint which exceeds the 183 coverage ratio. C. Total elimination of the coverage ratio would leave the potential for over development of minimum size lots, therefore some restriction of lot coverage is necessary. D. The 183 coverage ratio appears restrictive considering current home styles desired, and recent construction trends. The coverage ratio also limits house style choice of property owners because some styles such as a rambler or split entry home, require a larger footprint. E. A coverage ratio standard should allow for home style flexibility to address reasonable market trends, years after lots have been platted. FACT 4 Implementation of the 183 coverage ratio would produce substantial hardship and unreasonable development constraints for existing properties. FINDINGS: A. There are approximately 1000 substandard developed lots within Prior Lake which may or may not conform to the 183 coverage ratio. B. R -2 zoned lots cannot be reasonably be developed with the 183 coverage ratio standard. C. Subdivisions within the R -1 zone have been developed with various lot size gradations ranging from 4,000 to 14,000 square feet. one coverage ratio standard cannot equitably be applied to the range of lot sizes that exist and or can be developed within the R -1 Zone. D. There is no provision in the Zoning Code which provides a grandfather clause related to the 188 coverage ratio, for substandard lots of record. FACT 5 The development community is at risk for substantial economic loss if the 188 coverage ratio is strictly enforcad. FINDING: A. A solution to the coverage ratio issue must be developed in order for developers /realtors to continue with ongoing marketing of the existing inventory of lots. CONCLUSION The recommendation from the Planning Commission is to approve an increase of the coverage ratio from 18 to 228 as an interim strategy to resolve this issue. Further, the Commission recommends that funds be allocated for a consultant to draft the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan.