HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 February Planning Commission MinutesIN
AV I
6 PR/ )
rx
\ O NE
4P
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:
Shoreland Management Ordinance
Continuation.
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 for residential
districts. Marianne R.
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 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) 447423D / Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORIUN Y DG YER
P
,i1IN N
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 wr: —ten would not apply to the ma ocity of the lots. The
Ordinance should apply to the ma 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 poin''C 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 1s 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. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL oPPORNMmy BWLD ER
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 which is proposed for Subway,: the.standard5'Frelative
to acreeningvthe:ssingle. family ,are
meant to ::allow ' for some screeni buffering "ol+ commerci.ei
activities. The,.olan is^. aenerally +consistent ,intent of
raft
According to the Zoning Ordinance, Subway, a "fast ^food restaurant
requires a Conditional Use permit within the B -1 Zoning .:District.
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 height 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
stacking and so forth. The driveway entrance was m
far as possible from the intersection. One alternat
was to locate a driveway near Anna Trail, but th
Hwy. 13 was not sufficient to allow for safe st
movement in proximity to the lighted intersection.
acknowledges that there is concern about having a dr
opposite from single family homes so the drive was
the lot lines. It would line up directly across
accesses. It would minimize the impact to the gro
possible rather than having the driveway access oppo
living room window.
GLANNING 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 site 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 mid 20 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, th.i
Ordinance does dictate a 50' setback is required from Hwy 13. We
request approximately a 15' variance at that point. The
requirement off Duluth is 85' from center line and 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 trom,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 with the involvement on a daily basis we also
pledge to b =_come 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. ^raser 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 for lack of information or to do r.n
alternative plan, 3. Find the preliminary plat of Busse's -st
P ?.ANNING COMVISSION 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 q4, 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 :.a2tsrnative 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 ad7'acent 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 :ruality and respectful place that iE used to
buffer commerci.l 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.
PLP, KING 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 Cit izen' Forum - : suggests-having .a .trash receptacle
at the exit with an extended shootssothat trash can be .thrown -in
it from the car window; Regarding -parking -stalls i ayourmay =want
to look at the Dairy Queen as it is�a comparable :lMsiness.
Bill Schoenecker - has been working with the 'BUSSe's, 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 looks 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 ther_ 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 I lieu of
this. I encourage you 'to -- support--?this.and aallow.�thei to. build.
Martha - 'resident rand Realtor - .personally. ^spoke..to -16, of
the 30 agents in the office they = personna`11y- ° , vupport -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 other 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 bookings are between 10 -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 Latent 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 *c ^yang 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 soin10
years.
Commissioner +ROSeth. recognized °ithat the 8:45 p.m: Public ;Hearing
on shoreland'Management Ordinance is to mnd
the parliamentary - procedure was.•for this. .Horst' : Graser = advised
if there were a people, waiting 'for'that- naaringxperhaps At
should be convened, otherwise. t7wou•ld<:bs+appropriat4 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 noise 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 o^. Duluth Ave. Those numbers are not
final. Preliminary of about 7,000 cars per day on Duluth Ave.
COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 8
.:th that kind of traffic there would be for sure a right turn
,ne coming off Duluth Ave onto Hwy. 13, a straight ahead through
!ane. That lane may also serve as a left turn lane onto Hwy 13.
:.ith the possibility with a separate left hand turn lane
!epending on the actual design and the traffic that we have the,,
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 wi'.l 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 ,articular area it is two lane with channelization. Those
improvements would be from CR 44 to CR 42. In the lonq. term plan
the overall direction that the Compreheesive�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 akid 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
Yee
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.,
place during' the initial>stages.of this,' proposalv- .staff
and is very. .pleased : - withtwho the �buildzng ds..putr together and
looks like it would be a' welcomed 'place in 'thw_communttp. i
still would like to voice a concern about ;the trashr.tiat 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-way
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 receptacles are in the stores where 708
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.
INNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 10
the Corporate office impresses on all franchise holders that
Lleanliness 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 now 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 either 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 reasons. 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 AS (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 Bareness 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 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 LOFTIIS, 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
A "ENUE; ALSO THE CONDITIONAL USE TO INCLUDE A VARIANCE OF PARKING
S;'ACES BE REDUCED FROM 40 SPACES TO 27 SPACES, CONTINGENT UPON
T,PPROVAL 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.
!.ANPIING 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
HEARING
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 burdensome to devel�2 a
lot which has been a lot of record, taxed as a buildable lot.
Feels we ar" creating situations that are specifically 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 50 foot lots and I
can understand if you have two 50 foot lots next to each other
that maybe ::we. allow two-building - permits, ., but I.think
it is extremely unfair to do 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 tomes and build larger
'ANNING 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 them to let us have flexibility in the ordinance so
that they will not mandate the strict letter of the law. We
believe the draft 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 cam =be developed to their beet -use.
Commissioner Wuellner objects to the verbiage regarding
sub - standard .lots. He totallyobjects - togiving —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 50 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 lagal 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: Conmissioner 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 lakashore where the owner wants to
maximiz, the dwelling on the lot and the restrictions are so
tight that it almost forces you to build within 50 feet of one
line.
Vote signified by ayes, Greenfield, Arnold, Loftus; nayes
.uellner. Abstained Roseth. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Wuellner stptes 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 wanted 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
I TEM III - UPDATE ON CITY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND WETLAND
MANAGEMENT
Joel Rutherford, Water Resource Coordinator for the City of Prior
Lake presented an 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 dischar ed °unto wetlands.
These are the things from the staffs point: -of vyew , 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 wnat carries the nutrients or pollutants that act
negatively on n:he 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 implement alot of these projects
to deal with the water quality
wetlands in the area. issues that affect all the
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 - REQUEST FROM CITIZENS FORM TO CONSIDER REVIEW OF 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Marianne K. Whiting, 14897 Manitou Rd. representing the Citizens
Forum, presented comments as per Exhibit C attached.
Discussion followed regarding time line of 2010 Plan and stepps
that need to be taken between now and when the Plan is adopted by
the Metropolitan Council.
commissioner Greenfield feels it 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.
InNNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBPUARY 4, 1993 PAGE 18
Ms. Whiting commented that what they are asking for is to move
the issue off dead center, but so many things coming up around
residential use and lot sizes and development, I suggested that
how it might be done is that funding could be provided for an
independent consultant to get it moving.
commissioner Loftus asked Ms. Whiting to give specific issues of
dissatisfaction.
Ms. Whiting states as an example of Carriage Hills. when the
developer came with his plan it was straight roads and about 30
of the people in the room thought it was unimaginative, too much
like Minneapolis, and they thought that with Prior Lakes
ammentities of rolling hills, trees, wetlands in the area, that
it commanded a more creative development. Also with the
neighborhoods around that development the houses were more spaced
out, seemed to be more of a feeling of openess created by wider
roads etc. As we talked to the City Council several of them
shared similar feelings but were frustrrted and saying that, "yes
we hear what you are saying, we've talked to people too and know
that this is an issue but the way things are written we can't
change things in mid stream for the developers either." Together
all three bodies if you will, worked together that we can all buy
into and make it a win - win." Lets look at the big picture and
plan for these issues before :it• gets to.:this point so-that.City,..
community and developers can work together.
Deb Garross stated the problem is a communication difference and
what we would like to get is a consultant to 'help us`with that.
It is like looking at the Mission Statement, we want quality
development and we need someone to translate that into zoning and
design standards so that we have a way of dealing with it and
that is what has been lacking, but that is what we need to write
ordinances and comprehensive plans and to put it into effect.
Commissioner Wuellner states we have a citizens group, a Planning
commission and a City Council and there is frustration with how
things are, and these people have taken it upon themselves to
gather together and do a lot of research on their own and to come
here and express their dissatisfaction and to offer what they
think is a viable alternative of things we should consider as
part of the Comprehensive Plan. I think we owe that to the
community and to these people to consider that and my frustration
is that as a group we are unable to figure out how we do that.
That is about the whole basis of why we are here tonight and how
we get it this off dead center and out of grid lock and begin
discussing this and how we ?et it into the future, because what
the citizens are afraid of is that if the Metropolitan'` Council is
not accepting any 2010 Plans and it is two years from
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 s ^meone 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 wecan , 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 eveningg 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. P'so informed all that Mr.
Frank Boyles will be the new City Ma Ter 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.
MOTION 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
EXHIBIT A
I i
i
J
O ilo-
rl I I r W , I o►_/►V,..
1
-- i r - - - --
L
0
FYMTATT L
ganuany 28, 1993
debonah CanoAA
lraniafanf CLi llannen
%nLon /_ake, minnenofa 5537
mean M4. Cannoan:
Thin La Ln neaponae fo noun Notice of 9u6lis NeanLna ton
Ru44ee FLnnt AddLtion on Fehnuanu 4, 1
We have no objectLon to dLvLdLnh Block / into two paacela.
We have no objectLon to Subway beLna in pancel /. We do
objeci,howeven, that the enfnu and exit one of/ Duluth
avenue nathen than NLahway 13• (See attached modilicafLon
o� uoun aftachmenf ), Since Dulafh avenue was opened all
fke way /nom YLaAwag 13 to NL4hway 2/, the volume of fnajjic
has nLnen coneLdenala. It will only Lncaeaae it fke enfotV
and exit Ion Subway La Ott Duluth avenue. ThLs Le a qukLef
esfablLAhed nenLdenfLal anea and we would Like to keep if
that way. Alao additional faaltLe and noLae will decneaee
pnopenfy values.
SLncenely,
W.8. /Bill/ Thoman
6w -A"
16644 Anna TaaLl
PnLon Lake, MN,
EXHIBIT B
Maritume Whiting, 14897 Manitou Rd., N.E., Prior Lake. During the initial planning
stages of Carriage Hills the Citizen's Forum surfaced concerns that the lots were too small
to accommodate the size homes reflected in today's market trends. Concerns were raised
that the request for the deletion of the 18% coverage ratio throughout the entire city in
order to accommodate Carriage Hills could have more implications than currently being
studied. Questions were also raised concerning the storm water run off if a larger
building ratio is allowed. The Citizen's Forum requested that more study be conducted or
that Progress Land Company increase the size of their lots to accommodate the requests
for larger homes as was originally requested at the public hearings during the early
preliminary plat stages.
EXHIBIT
I .et me refresh your memory -
Earlier this year a group of concerned citizens worked with the city during the most recent
sizeable subdivision, Carriage Hills. You might recall some of the concerns raised. As a
result of those discussions, the city, citizens and developer worked together to create a
more appealing development. At that time the city council voiced concern that "it's hands
were tied" as far as its ability to implement some of the requests raised by the citizens
based on the present zoning ordinances. The way the ordinances are currently written, the
city must rely on the developer's integrity to work with our citizens and council in order
to create subdivsions reflecting our desires. Consequently, the council requested citizens'
input regarding future developments as related to zoning and planning.
It is from this scenerio that the Citizens Forum was created. Citizens from around the city
who had indicated an interest in PL's planning and development were contacted to assess
their interest in joining the group. These individuals were people who exhibited strong
leadership skills in their neighborhood. Hence a group was pulled together who spoke on
behalf of their neighbors from twelve areas of PI. Throughout the summer they
interviewed people, collected data and review issues related to PL's development.
On October 12, 1992 the Citizen's Forum presented research and materials to the city
council regarding planning proposals for P.L. (A copy of these materials were sent to city
council and planning commissioners by Deb Gaross on Oct. 13.) At that meeting the city
council directed that "staff, the planning commission and the Citizen's Forum work
towards integrating the proposed changes into the housing element of the draft 2010
Comprehensive Plan."
It is our understanding that the present timeline for the development of the 2010 draft is
still a number months off. Yet in the meantime development issues continue to surface.
Developers have issues that they would like changed (ie. Isrealson's request for the
removal of the 18% coverage ratio), citizens would like some assurance that some of the
amenities unique to PL are preserved and staff is stuck in the middle trying to work with
both sides and somewhat frustrated because ordinances lack specificity and clarity.
The reason I am here tonight, representing the Citizens Forum, is to request that the
planning commission take a proactive stance and deal with these issues NOW rather than
on the present comp plan timelinere. Specifically I am requesting that the planning
commission recommend to the city council that the housing and residential component of
the land use plan be reviewed NOW. This may involve providing funding for the
utilization of an independent consultant to assist in revising this component of the land
use plan. In addition input from the planning zone workshop and citizens would be
incorporated.
Based on recent history this topic is A) timely B, moves us towards the end goal of
adopting a new plan.this section of the 2010 plan which needs to be done anyhow, and C)
empowers both the planning commission and council to be proactive because they will be
armed with current information as you continue to map out PL's future.
��y /5 3
, o .:'nor Lake Planning Commission
From: Commissioner Gfeentield
Subject: Coverage Ratio Amendment
January 20, 1993
This heating poses many concerns and warrants a most cautious approach when we are asked'o
Amend our Ordinance. To approach this issue without a thorough understanding of the
implications or the possible implications would not only be dangerous but a reckless exercise of
our appointed position. 'fhc applicant is requesting us to make a recommendation to charge our
taws.
From Stall's research, it was the intent of the 1975 City Council to implement a zoning code that
permitted smaller and less expensive homes. The previous consultant platmer for Prior Lake, Mr.
Tooker, recalled that the lot size was decreased in R -I zoning districts from 12,000 sq. ft. with 85
ft. of frontage to 10,000 sq. ft. with 80 ft. of frontage. These changes were implemented to attract
the available federal and state grants during the 70's. To emphasize the direct relationship of these
decisions let me s ummariz e the actions implemented in 1975. Smaller lots ... smaller houses.
Staffs conclusion expressing the opinion that the 18% coverage ratio is no longer reflective of the
housing market and construction practices, is half the information and a poorly drawn conclusion.
If it is the intent of the applicant to build larger homes, than larger lot sizes are necessary.
Several months ago we were tasked by Council as a Commission to Plan. This in response to a
gathering of concerned citizens expressing their objections of maintaining our currant minimum lot
standards and numerous requests for preservation of open space and our natural amenities. At that
hearing illustrations and statistics presented supported the increase of our lot sizes to accommodate
the requests for diverse home designs and larger home sizes. Today we are petitioned for an
amendment to our ordinance coverage ratio precipitated by a builder erecting a foundation for a
home on lot #2 Coachman I.ane of Carriage Hills First Addition that exceeded, violated our
regulations before receiving authorization to build by our City. The construction on that lot has
continued with the combining of lots 91 &2. We are asked today to decrease our standards for the
entire community to accommodate this larger home and other requests for larger homes on small
lots.
The most compelling argument that gives me great reason for concern is our current ordinance
establishes linkage between 10,000 sq. ft. and 18% coverage ratio. If we now eliminate the
coverage ratite or in some way alter this ratio, this conceptually redefines and further degrades the
value of our current 10,000 sq. It minimum lot size. In other words, we now have a totally
different lot density and utilization with the removal of coverage ratio where 10,000 sq.ft. may
new actually be lower than 9,700 sq. ft. (See Mustrations)
We now know historically why these changes were enacted to decrease our lot minimums. This
decision not only impacts this particular violation at issue, but the rights and freedom to determine
open space for 12,000 citizens in Prior Lake. if the applicant wants larger homes then plat larger
lots, or build these larger homes on the larger lots.
It is time for our City to move forward I charge this body of Commissioners to disapprove this
request for removal of the coverage ratio and return our lot minimums to their previous values
before the decrease of the 70's. So, in the future if a developer desires to build down to our lot
minimums it will not impact our communities open space.
"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.
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.
7:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order.
a) Review Minutes of Previous Meeting.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORNNRY l-W DY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
The February 18, 1993, Planning Commission Meeting was called to
order by Vice Chairman Arnold at 7:30 P.M. Those present were
Commissioners Loftus, Arnold, Greenfield, Wuellner, Director of
Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross,
Planning Intern Jim Hayes, Acting Secretary Phyllis Knudsen.
Absent was Commissioner Roseth.
ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Minutes were not completed so were continued to next meeting.
ITEM II - DISCUSSION OF WETLAND REGULATIONS
Mr. Pat Lynch, DNR was unable to be present and was unable to
find a replacement. This item will be continued for a later date
and time.
ITEM III - INTRODUCTION OF THE DRAFT 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Deb Garross presented background of three chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan. The City is required by the Metropolitan
Council to plan for certain increments of time. Currently we have
in place a Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in Prior Lake in
1981 and has been amended several times. What a Comprehensive
Plan does basically is to plan for urban services where utilities
will be placed in the community over a certain period of time.
The current plan is based on the year 2000 projection so the
information in that plan relates to an urban service area that
shows where we anticipate development being by the year 2000,
population we anticipate we will have, transportation classified
as arterials, minor streets, etc., also issues relative to
housing, park and recreation, etc.
what the City has gone through the last couple of years is
preparing for the next Comprehensive Plan that will have to be
done that includes long range planning to the year 2010. There
have been several different development projects very recently
that have given us a new focus on what we want to be doing in the
future. There have been several different studies done relative
to the Hwy.13 Task Force, Lake Advisory Committee, Lake Review
Committee, Economic Development Committee has done quite a bit of
work in different areas. The several different studies that
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245
AN EQUAL OPPORrUNMY EWL0YER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 2
city staff has done in the last year or so alone with several
retreats, meetings with City Council and other committees, is to
put together a draft of this Comprehensive Plan.
The three components of the Plan will serve as an introduction
to the Planning Commission to update you on what is in these
different chapters. Public hearings will be held over the next 4
to 6 months ghat will specifically address all the different
elements to the public and the Planning Commission will be
holding those meetings in a series of workshops there will be
input in the community from residents, business community and
different professionals for the components of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Commission is doing some initial work already. A forum
was held with local realtors to start to reflect the residential
market and what they anticipate happening in Prior Lake, their
views of the community, some of the pros and cons and will
continue these types of meetings to gain input into this. The
objective is to adopt a new comprehensive plan which will be a
total rewrite of the plan that was adopted in 1981, and that
should occur in the next one to two years. What we need to do
once it is adopted is submit the Comprehensive. Plan to the
Metropolitan Council whoreviews -the different chapters_in.terms .
of regional resources. They provide capacity for treatment
through the Blue Lake Treatment Plant for sewerand.wateri, -for
certain transportation . connections.and - other .elements.
That is basically a generic overview of the Comprehensive Plan
and where we are at.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHAPTER
We have tried to identify general objectives for commercial
development in the community and each chapter is set up in a
similar format. Following that are discussion items of specific
areas of interest and at the end are policy statements or
objectives that the city would like to work on in order to
implement these overall objectives for each particular district.
The Economic Development committee was formed in the early
1980's. This year the City Council is considering hiring a full
time position for an Economic Development Director. There have
been several activities that have taken place that would prompt
the need for this, one being the City has purchased a 22 acre
parcel along Co.Rd. 21 for a proposed Business /Office Park. It
is hoped that this will spur economic development opportunities.
Prior Lake has not had a focused program in the past, but is
working towards that objective and the Business /Office Park is a
major step in that direction. This committee is coming up with a
marketing plan etc. The Acting City Manager, Kay Kuhlmann has
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 3
been meeting with many business prospects who are interested in
locating in that Park and it is also a tax increment district so
there may be some monies available for certain businesses
providing they meet the criteria that the City has set up for
economic development.
The general objectives for Economic Development are:
I. City 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 in order to diversify the tax base. One way
we have accomplished this is on the acquistion of a Park and the
development of it by the City that is a relatively ambitious
project. Most communities do not do this, but rather work
through a private developer in developing property.
3. The City supports the C.R.18 River Crossing construction. We
believe that with improved access both the commerical and
industrial for Prior Lake will be greatly. enhanced... That is one
of the major problems in the past is very poor access.
4. The City will continue to stress the importance ofgood.urban
design and land use .relationships-in . order. -to bolster, the image.
of the community.
5. The City is committed to providing financial assistance such
as tax increment financing, for private sector initiatives that
are consistent with community objectives.
6. The City is committed to hire personnel and establish
organizational mechanisms to promote and enhance economic
development opportunities. An example is that the City has
worked very strongly with the local Chamber of Commerce and some
of the other business organizations in the community.
Basically for Prior Lake the commercial area we have got Hwy. 13
with strip commercial. Most of the business district that we have
in the community are located on rely on traffic from Hwy. 13,
C.R. 42 and C.R. 21. Major component of the Economic Development
Plan is to enhance transportation and access to these different
districts. The problem we have with the strip is that you need
to have good access and unfortunately as Prior Lake continues to
develop there are so many different intersections and access
points and design problems with Hwy. 13 that the traffic system
is beginning to break down. One of the elements that this
chapter talks about is in order to improve access in the downtown
area is to implement a ring road system. A part of that system
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 4
has already started by the bowling alley and behind Priordale
Mall is a section of roadway that was put in anticipating a
grocery store development behind the Mall which didn't take
place, one of those links is connected. Another place is the
starting of the re- routing of Panama Ave., at the entrance to
County Market and McBonalds. At some point this will be open to
Panama Avenue which will be re- routed and a signal installed at
the intersection of Five Hawks and Hwy. 13. This should
facilitate the traffic flow. Another area is the old theater
location to provide a better access to drive from one district to
another without entering Hwy. 13.
In the commercial development plan there are different types of
commercial districts than we currently have, i.e., strip
commercial and downtown. The majority of business that are
withstanding in the market place of Prior Lake are service
oriented. Banks, auto repair, gas stations, limited retail, etc.
With improved access to the Bloomington Ferry Bridge which at
some point will connect C.R. 21 and the Shakopee Bypass, some
upgrades of Hwy. 13, C.R. 21 east to 35W. With those types of
improvement Prior Lake will see improved access and because of
that better commercial opportunities for the community.
One of the things the Comprehensive Plan is tryi to do is to
implement a new concept of Prior Lake which a neighborhood
planned commercial. district. Instead: of having .1 reliance:. on
a strip where you drive someplace,,.else,. F, cant to. provide:
limited commercial opportunities with a neighborhoo& orientation:.
Possibly at the intersection of C.R. 21 & 42, north of Raspberry
Ridge might support the neighborhoods around it, maybe a
Kinder -Care type of business, gas, cleaners, convenience store
where people can walk to rather than having a facility right next
to a major highway. We are trying to look at the whole
comprehensive plan to drastically improve pedestrian access and
links between neighborhoods so people can walk and bike. This is
something that is very important and supports the introduction of
trail systems via the park survey done a couple of years ago and
is very popular. The idea is if you have the commercial uses
that work within a neighborhood, that neighborhood will always be
there to support those uses, and if it :3 designed well and the
uses are planned so they interact with the neighborhood these
will be self sustaining resources and we won't have the situation
of one strip mall popping up and then a few years later that
style goes away and then you have another one a little further
down the road. We are trying to get away from that with the
concept of planned neighborhood commercial districts.
The predominant efforts as far as this draft is conce_-ned at this
point is to basically increase accessibility to these different
districts through better road design, better intersectoos and
improvements in pedestrian links, to focus on image. The city
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 5
has just reviewed a landscape ordinance. We are trying to upgrade
the image and work with the business community to do that so we
can create a business community were people want to come and
enjoy the shopping opportunities that are available in the
community.
Town Center is the downtown area and is an area that is
difficult to work with. For the most part, because of Hwy. 13
going through, we don't have a Main Street such as Chaska. A lot
of things have been lost because of the highway and the exodus of
businesses, post office, bank etc., out to the highway. We do
believe at a staff level, that a downtown is very important and
we would like to maintain that image. There was a desire by the
existing business owners to work with the community for making
some of the improvements and even more related was the
accessibility types of things, the concept we have in the
comprehensive plan is Lakefront Passage. As the community is
bisected by C.R. 21 and Hwy. 13 wherever you drive, especially on
C.R. 21, you have a view of the water bodies, ponds, wetlands,
or lake crossing. We want to utilize this and make it more
pedestrian accessible through trail systems and by installing
sidewalks, you can reach the town center area and that is
identified on that corner of 21 & 13 by some type of
identification. This is envisioned in the Comp Plan perhaps- a
lifesize replica or statue of a sail boat or something
significant so you would know that you have arrived to the
downtown center. We have also upgraded It is
important to link downtown, Lakefront Park, and the lake. A few
years ago Lakefront Park was fairly inaccessible. The trail
system was implemented which makes it a beautiful development.
We would like to make the connections of these trail systems to
downtown and develop the peninsula with either a water feature,
pier etc. mainly to get people interested in walking and being in
the downtown area. This would tie the recreation theme to the
business area and make it a full relationship. That is what The
Town Center is all about. We believe that through continued
improvements and working with local businesses and if we maintain
and keep the government building and facilities down here it will
always be a place where people come to meet.
There was a proposal to the north for a Senior Citizen type
housing complex. Putting medical facilities is still a viable
option but basically a redevelopment of that area again opens the
downtown to Lakefront Park. We do need to work with the local
business community to make anything become a reality. At this
point there has been several attempts to plan to create
revitilization plans for downtown but it has not worked. We
should continue with thisat effort and the Comprehensive Plan to
foster relationships between the public and 4r`.vate sector and to
work especially on the downtown linking it to the waterfront
passage area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 6
Basically these are the elements included in the Economic Plan
and is a general overview and discussion. The rest of the Plan
is based on a number of different studies that have been done
over the years, information from the Prior Lake 2000 research,
different committees and retreats that have taken place over the
years but these chapters just as the rest of the Plan, serve as a
beginning point and through the upcoming hearing process in the
next 1 to 1.5 years through public input and reaction will
generate interest and ideas that will enhance the Comprehensive
Plan.
Discussion followed on the following: old section of Hwy 13 when
the new section is extended and traffic lights installed; time
table for the extension of C.R. 21 to Hwy.35W; time table for the
C.R. 21 north to intersect with Bloomington Ferry Bridge Road;
neighborhood shopping districts within new plats; developable
land south of C.R. 82; improving auto access to Lakefront Park
and developing the land off Dakota St.
Discussion followed regarding downtown shopping area and the
Gateway area.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT' PLAN
Short range industrial opportunity plan consists:. of a. 21. acre
industrial park. Park was annexed .. into . the.City.along - with. the
buildings.. There are problems such as. not. being subdivided,,,,. no
public sewer and water, storm sewer and most `the- .parcels.:are:
developed. There is a considerable amount of wetlands and sits
on the south shore of Markley Lake, which is a DNR protected
lake. New land uses that might come in are very expensive and
you would have to retrofit. As no utilities are available there,
the types of businesses that the City has allowed into the
Industrial Park are very limited types of uses with low water
usage. The cost of introducing sewer and water relative to the
benefit the businesses receives are minimal and the assessments
are way too high.
Trying to provide industrial expansion is limited to the
north. In addition to looking at a 22 acre parcel the long range
plan we talk about is possibly annexing the northern part of
Section 12. it may look like a large piece of land but in
accuality there is quite of bit of wetland. In total there would
be about 160 acres of land that could be available to offer
business office park opportunities so there is some availability
of long range expansion if the Business /office Park is successful
and the Industrial Development Plan does recognize that as a
potential opportunity.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 7
Also the Industrial Development Plan recognizes the Leo Vierling
property which would have access from C.R. 18 and C.R. 42. Mr.
Vierling owns approximately 300 acres and that is Prior Lakes
best long term opportunity for business industrial development.
Currently that land is enrolled in agricultural preserve program
and in that program the City is in a contract with Mr.Vierling
that he will keep that in agricultural production for a period of
at least 8 years. If either the City or Mr.Vierling decides to
terminate that contract, nothing can be developed on that
property for an additional 8 years. The City has a great
opportunity and Mr. Vierling also for a very large significant
development, such as a large industrial park, or Target Greatland
or shopping facilities, that look for large tracts of land. The
existing commercial district we have is piecemeal properties
here and there with poor access, different owners, transportation
problems. It is hard to accumulate a large enough land mass to
do something significant. Having a large land area available for
long term development, considering that in that time frame these
road improvements are going of occur. We are looking for a
planned commercial development type of use and perhaps
surrounding that to the north some high density to provide
opportunities for people to work there like the Amesbury Bldg.
etc. It would be planned and have some.architectural.control and
the idea would be to re:.arve a large piece of land the
opportunity so that significant development could take:. place on
the parcel.
Basically this is what the Industrial Development. Plan talks
about. The Industrial study was done a couple of years ago and
there were 5 potential sites identified. The two that I talked
about are probably the best opportunities and they are the ones
that the Comprehensive Plan has looked at for the long and short
range development.
There also was discussion doing something in conjunction with the
Sioux community. The City is continuing to work on relations
with the Sioux Community and if the opportunity should come about
doing a joint venture zhe City would also be interested in doing
something like that, however since this has been written the
Sioux Community has purchased a large amount of land and we don't
really know what is happening out there. We would pursue that
and that would primarily be the responsibility of the Economic
Development Director to deal with marketing, to look at different
types of opportunities for those and for the most part for the
Vierling property because it is in an agricultural preserve there
really cannot be any development of it for a long period of time.
That is really an opportunity rather than having it sold in
different pieces, maybe a Burger King here and a McDonalds there,
it would be a large area to develop and the road system hopefully (Change
woulC be in place about the time that is taken out of 2g status. (ag to
(agricultural
(3 -4 -93
(MOTION)
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 8
Discussion followed:
Commissioner Wue..iner ask:.-. for clarification of the agricultural
preserve program of the V:.:rling property; also talked about the
different typee of businesses that could be foreseen as maybe
being there due .o our limited road access; also about the Wilds
area and some of the other recreational areas, i.e. Cleary Park.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLF;1
This section is much increased over what was in the 1981 Plan.
The purpose of the Envircnmental Plan is one of the fundamental
resources that Prior Lake has to offer and is easily recognized
with its topographic elements, lakes, water bodies, wetlands etc.
makes it a beautiful City with its varying land characteristics
that we have and this Plan seeks to recognize where those
districts are and to include policy statements to insure that
they are protected and that development is incorporated into the
amenity not just cut down the trees or fill in the wetland etc.
to accomodate additional development it is more of a desire to
integrate development into the natural surroundings.
Whar we have done in the Environmental Plan is really a series of
fairly detailed an= lysis to locate, map where the different
features are and the 'types o': features we felt were important
would be the deep slope areas of over 20% slope,. wetlands,
woodland features etc. The intent of the Planis - to.basically to
preserve for the use of the public prominent natural_ resources
and to protect wil -life habitat because those are some ..of the
most important things =hat seem to be a common thread that people
say they are attractec to Prior Lake for those high amenity
areas. We do recognize that and I think that the residential
development opportunit;es that Prior Lake has really are quite
valuable based on the land resources that we have.
Specifically the environmental districts include wetlands
designated protected, wooded areas, bluffs, historic resource
significance, public categories.
In general the policy is when a development comes in that the
development occur in the areas that are suitable for development
and not within these environmental districts and the purpose for
mapping them is to identify for a developer what we think are
significant features and that the development should be
integrated into that and not just lay it on top of it and develop
over it.
The areas that are not well suited for development that do not
have good soils or have problems with hydrology etc., those areas
should be allocated as open space, public or private open space.
In the natural resource area the intent is to utilize those for
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 9
park purposes, i.e. linear parks, places for interpretive centers
or spaces where people feel comfortable where they are able to
have access to and through these spaces either by walkways and
trying to link those within neighborhoods and throughout the
community.
Another policy statement would be residential living unit or
commercial shall be designed to blend into the natural setting of
the landscape for the enhancement of sound, orderly, economic
growth and development for the protection of the environmental
elements that are associated with that particular development.
In the Woodland District we would be looking at a tree ordinance
for Prior Lake. Right now the only thing we have that would
relate to trees would be in the Subdivision ordinance where we
require planting of two trees per lot. Shoreland District talks
about limited removal of vegetation and cannot clear cut or
totally take out stands of trees, etc. There are many
communities that have ordinances that talk about woodland
districts, the amount of cover that can be taken out, what is
considered to be significant stands of trees so that there is a
lot better definition and to come up with requirements that talk
about how these areas can be developed so . to rely
on the goodness.of heart of someone coming: in that . we -,would.have
some design flexibility to make sure that the development is
incorporated into the district rather than in spite of the
district.
The Wetland District will be significantly be altered. This was
written before the wetland legislation came into effect and a lot
of the elements are already covered and are more restrictive due
to the wetland legislation. This was prepared about two years
ago and there weren't too many communities we could look to for
ideas. We were looking for development criteria to include
things like setbacks, and walkways into the natural feature
instead of building right up next to them, to be coexisting
instead of destruction of them through the developmert process.
Public access to waters and natural features and we thought was
very important that the people be afforded the opportunity to
enjoy the water and natural resources via good public access to
those prominent neighborhood features. This has been done in the
Wilds development that there are trail systems and park systems
that are integrated throughout the Subdivision. Woodridge
Estates and Carriage Hills where there are several different
types of park areas and open space amenity areas, ponds, etc.
PLFNNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 10
Another element we included in here that Prior Lake has never
included before are view and vista policies where we do have
unique features. The most predominate future development would
be the ridge line that traverses the Jeffers property and Wilds.
It is very beautiful to walk up there, very steep slopes on both
sides and we feel that is very important when there is a
predominant nature feature like that that there is public access.
I think the possibility of a view platform, trail systems, etc.,
and to incorporate commercial development and capitalizing as
much as we can on the design of roadways and the design of
subdivisions so that you enhance these natural views that already
exist to make sure that development doesn't inhibit that but
enhances that. There are several areas along the north
shore where you have a nice view of Prior Lake, the causeway by
the marina with a view of North and South Prior Lake and these
are the things that people remember of Prior Lake and we should
capitalize on these features.
The premise of the 2010 Plan is that neighborhoods are very
important intregal part of the community and that people
are Prior Lakes most valuable resource and that the natural
features serve as the communities identifying feature. The whole
plan was written around those premises and the intergration of
public access to and around and among those.
Discussion followed:
commissioner Greenfield asked about status of the DNR revision;
how will that impact the philosophy and direction of this
proposal; is there some DNR wetland rules changing in the spring?
Commissioner Loftus asked for a 5 minute recess at 9:10 P.M.
Commissioner Arnold reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Also
suggested to move Item 3 development of the retreat agenda to the
bottom of the agenda and moved on to Other Business.
a.) Discuss calendar schedule for future meetings. The March
4th meeting has been set. There are 3 public hearings that
night; preliminary plat of Westbury Ponds; two hearings held at
the same time on stormwater management and need to be adopted for
the Metropolitan Council and need to amend the Zoning Code and
Subdivision Ordinance and also a lot area variance so that is a
very rigorous schedule.
Also Commissioner Greenfield has put together a calendar to make
sure the items of the Planning Commission wanted to addressed are
brought out in a timely fashion and also to deal with the various
different components of the Comprehensive Plan.
There will be a notice in the Prior Lake American that anyone who
is interested in related to 18% coverage ratio. The City Council
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 11
heald a hearing on Tuesday night which is a continuation of a
request by Progress Land Co. to change coverage ratio of 18* to
amend the Zoning ordinance to either delete that or change that.
The Planninq Commission considered that at a public hearina a
couple of weeks ago and recommended denial. It then went to 1e
City Council. The City Council has had a tremendous amoun- of
imput and has been a tremendous amount of interest raised on this
particular subject and they decided at their meeting on Tuesday
night rather than acting on the amendment that they remanded the
issue back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
has been directed to hold a public workshop next Thursday night
at 7:00 p.m. and to listen to additional public testimony
relative to that proposed amendment, City Attorney Kessel will be
in attendance and the Planning Commission has been directed to
come up with specific facts and findings related to the coverage
ratio.
Commissioner Greenfield read excerpts of the minutes of the City
Council: "Since the the tape of the Planning Commission public
hearing malfunctioned, therefore there is no record of who spoke
at the meeting. Another public hearing will allow people to
address their concerns and to have it on record. Council
concurred that Planning commission should work .with .staff in
order to obtain whatever information they may need to make a
decision and that the City Attorney be. present at the workshop
session." Mayor Andren noted that a -sign up sheet..has been sent
out and that the audience will be allowed, to:sign, their name and
address as a record of their attendance of the meeting and staff
will use this sign up sheet as purpose of notification date, time
of the workshop and issue. City Attorney Kessel said that the
purpose of the public hearing that the Planning Commission should
make specific written findings as to their recommendation for the
Council. In the event the Planning Commissions decision is again
appealed, further discussion occurred regarding the
implementation of lot size as part of the workshop discussion.
The Council concurred that future hearings should be held
separate and the ratio coverage public hearing. Motion by
Kedrowski, Seconded by White to table the discussion of lot size
density by the Council for further facts by the Planning
Commission and record a clear verbatum record of the preceedings.
It will be up to the Planning Commission to discuss how you want
to handle the meeting. It will be on tape so that there is a
tape record '.n addition to the written minutes. Mr. Glenn Kessel
will be herE to advise facts and findings. There will be
opportunities: for public imput, commentary, short presentation by
staff and ny information that the Commission would like us to
gather between now and next Thursday we request you let us know
that tonight so that we can prepare materials. Also applicant
would have a chance to present a statement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 12
Commissioner Greenfield discussed the format to follow for the
special meeting. The direction from the Council was if there was
any issues or statements that were made by individuals during
that meeting that we ask repeat the questions that we have asked
to them that we want clarification on to make sure that they are
again entered in the tape record.
Commissioner Wuellner heard over the past week regarding coverage
ratio that the issue comes up at time of building permit and not
at the time of platting. What about impervious surface coverage
ration because we are mandated by the State DNR as part of the
Shoreland Management Ordinance to adopt a 30% impervious surface
coverage, will that be effectively communicated at time of plat
so that the developer understands what he was getting into? Or
again will it be only on the issue of building permit? I can
perceive the same problem with the Stormwater Management
Ordinance causing the same enforcement problem. How do we
address it?
Horst Graser and Deb Garross spoke to clarify and the term
impervious surface will have to be defined and developed and with
testimony given at the Council meeting that the DNR is flexible
in allowing Cities to define that for themselves. We would be
responsible for designing things that can bemeasured -and things
we are responsible for permitting for.. Maybe at the time of
permit the driveway has to be shown at that time and that is when
the impervious surface is included. We are looking. to Mr.
Grittman to help us out on that level as to what has happened in
other communities.
Commissioner Greenfield spoke again on the format of this special
meeting. If the numbers of people show up that are expected, and
each are given 3 minutes or so to speak the meeting could go 3+
hours and then more time when the Commissioners debate. It is
going to be a very difficult and uncomfortable process for the
Commissioners to look at this issue and make a decision that
evening without having the opportunity to look at it further like
we normally do. Felt the workshop /public hearing should be
broken down in three specific elements with the workshop in an
informal setting where the petitioner and public can speak, then
close that portion and then continue after a short recess with a
more structured process, and then have a discussion with each
other in an open forum where we can discuss and mull over this
issue several times. Due to the time restraints of this issue
and due to the charge of Council that it is goincj to be necessary
for us to try and formulate some kind of a decision that night.
Commissioner Greenfield handed out a "talking paper" outline so
that people who have never been to a meeting or spoke in public
might tailor their comments and give them some idea of how to
streamline their thoughts to give to the attendees and have by
the lectern.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 13
commissioner Greenfield would like to have staff make available
the following: 1. city Council meeting in 1987 staff was
charged to follow ordinances and addresses coverage ratios. He
wants since that time the addresses built since then and indicate
the coverage ratio and those that exceeded the 18% coverage
ratio. 2. List of which builders are in violation of our current
18%, and by what degree and amount they have exceeded our present
law. I think it is imperative for us to have the knowledge and a
feel for us to get an understanding of a possible recommendation
for a potential grandfathering of values which might suit and
satisfy the situation to make it agreeable to all parties and it
would be a blind stab in the dark if we don't know what degree
and what problem we have with the developments. This list and
all data should be backed up by good factual data and make
conclusions that are from that data so that good conclusions can
be derived from this data. 3. Covenants applied to Carriage
Hills at the time of the petitioning, how many homes in that
development are currently in violations of our ordinance, and how
many potential homes would be built that have the potential of
violating the ordinance.
Applicant is petitioning the entire coverage ratio be deleted by
the City. He is concerned about-any type of issue_ that would
completely delete the ordinances that we have currently enforce
and we and the public should be aware of the implications and the
affect of that envelope restriction have on the present and
future of our community.
Discussion on gradation, stairstepping, lot sizes etc followed.
Commisisoner Loftus mentioned article in Planning Magazine about
affordable housing and that maybe at the platting level all
developers would have make an offer of maybe 15% be at affordable
level and that would have tc be incorporated in the gradation of
the plat and enter this in the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Wuellner also wants to add Woodbury Estates and any
other new developments included in the coverage ratio study.
Also wants a complete study of area communities of exactly what
are their lot size minimums, width, depth, corner lot
differences, to they incorporate coverage ratios whether
impervious surface or coverage of the home, what are the setback
standards, gradational zoning of lot sizes within a residential
area.
Discussion followed reviewing the time involved in doing this
study by next Thursday and without having a vehicle to enforce
the 18% it was never enforced. Mr. Graser stated staff would try
to get the information desired but it may not be possible. Was
decided to look over the requests to see which ones would be most
valuable for next weeks meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 14
Somewhere back in 1975 there was a purpose for this 18 %. What
was that purpose. Generally the Comprehensive Plan should tell
you what the official control is whether you want to build 50,000
square foot houses or whatever the case is that is the _fficial
control. once you understand what that purpose is, what was the
design and did it function? Was it successful in its purpose?
Commissioner Greenfield asked if it would be advantageous to the
Council to try and attempt to identify the intent of the action
of the council dur`_ng 1975 to identify that purpose and see how
that relates to our community and carry that forward to current
standards and evaluate it and apply it to what we have right now?
Commissioner Loftus mentioned that per Tom Watkins the reason was
(delete
to bring affordable housing into the community to reduce the
(envelop
minimum lot size from 12,000 to 10,000 square foot at that time
(3 -4 -93
but they had the control because they wanted to control the size(MOTION
of the building envelope they didn't want it to be over built.
Mr. Gr,,er stated a reason might have been the Metropolitan
Council had an objective to eliminate and breakdown some of the
barriers that we find in subdivisions for low and moderate income
housing and subdivisions were supposed to be responsible for
*_heir share of fair housing. To achieve that there had tobe a
"carrot and stick ". The stick was Housing Policy 39. It was a
clearing house for all of these grants and It evaluated your
Zoning Codes. The more in line you were with the Metropolitan
Council guidelines, the higher the point total. If lot sizes
were low you got a high point total. If you practiced
exclusionary housing your total would be very low. If you
required two -car garages you got a low point total etc. I am
sure that the 1975 Council figured to get in on some of this
money and lowered the lot sizes. That is why our Zoning Code
doesn't have a requirement for two car garages and only one lot
size.
That is how we acquired a lot of the park land around Prior Lake
and got a lot of the development grants. When the funds dried up
the "carrot" was gone and everyone reverted back to higher
standards. And now Myron Orfield is trying to break things down
with threats of not receiving sewer etc.
Audience comments were to be aware of all the different lots in
the City because the houses that have already been built can't
add a porch, deck, storage shed etc.
b.) Discuss Sign ordinance review process proposal from
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. The City Council did
authorize Steve Grittman who worked on the Shoreland Management
ordinance to do the Sign Ordinace and he will conduct a very
similar process through workshop meetings and public hearings,
etc. and will begin this in the next 4 to 6 weeks.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 PAGE 15
C.) GTS Land Use Planning Workshop letters were discussed.
Mr. Graser invited the Commissioners to attend a Sensible Land
use Coalition luncheon. They are well worth it.
Develop Retreat Agenda. Retreat set for March 20, 1993 hopefully
at the Minnesota Horse and Hunt Club. Items for the agenda were
discussed at a previous meeting, i.e., water quality with Joel
Rutherford; how the Planning Commission was going to function;
alternate ways to conduct meetings; what do you want from the
Planning staff.
d.) Commissioner Wuellner mentioned Chicago Conference of
May 1 -5, 1993 and would be willing to attend and thinks maybe two
should go or maybe one staff person.
Commissioner Greenfield brought up the realtors meeting and
reminded everyone that we would formulate a talking memo,
discussions, follow -ups and bring conclusions and possible
motions as a x -:cult of the realtors. He wants this put on the
agenda soon anu earlier on the agenda
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WUELLNER, SECONDED BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING. Signified ayes Greenfield, Wuellner, Loftus,
Arnold. MOTION PASSED.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Tapes of meeting on file
at City Hall.
Horst W. Graser Phyllis Knudsen
Director of Planning Acting Recording Secretary
i
011 1
/ X r,
SPECIAL WORKSHOP /PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 1993
The February 25, 1993 Special Planning Commission Workshop /Pub!..c
Hearing was called to order by vice Chairman Arnold at 7:s6
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, (,insert
attorney representing Progress Land Company, reviewed their (Planning
statements regarding the proposed amendment to delete the 188 lot (Consultant
coverage ratio for single family and two family dwellings located (MOTION
within all residential districts of the Prior Lake Zoning(3 -4 -93)
Ordinance. They feel the issue is citywide and the i
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. g
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447 -0230 / Fax(612)447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORNMTY F LOYER
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: ae 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 188 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 188 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 188 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 problem today.
Mr. Hanson urged the Planning Commissioners to hold 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 188 is
somewhat restrictive in the lower sized lots especially when
applied to lots with 6,000 square foot. Mr. Hanson liked the 188
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
accommodate all types of housing in our community while
preserving some of Prior Lakes unique character, the integrity of
our community, and citizens values. Mr. Israelson admitted he
did not read the ordinance at time of platting and was unaware of
the 188 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 188 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
years and for that reason we felt and recommended to the Council
that they eliminate the 188 coverage. Since it had not been
enforced that the people with existing properties could develop
difficulties 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 188 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 188 is outdated, and does not
accommodate todays housing market. Enforcement of the 188 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 188 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 er,hance 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 188 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, putting 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 188 has to be changed.
He has never been reprimanded for building a house too big on a
lot. Mr. Thelen stated, if this doesn't change, most 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 188. 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 188 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 r- MMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 5
enforcement, it has not been e forced. When the issue came up
with Progress Land Company we dic contact the City Attorney and
it was upon his advice that we Begin to enforce the 18% and for
the last several weeks building ermits have been held up on his
advice. 2. There has been cements about surveys and how easy
it would be able to identify wha._ coverage ratios are and I would
corcur 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 woulc love to see anyone come in with a
lakeshore lot of which there a:._ over 1,000 and not know where
the 904 contour is and not he - - ie 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 planomete- or doing digitizer you would take 3
different readings and cet 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 i 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 %aluable 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 w h very definitive definitions of what we
are talking about in i 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
PIANNING 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 City.
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 get a zoning amendment and the City
struggles with the particular issue because the comprehensive
plan is not very definitive. It has very general policy
scatements 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 COMMI:.SION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 7
Tom Watkins, 5242 Frost Point Circle S.E. commented on the lots
of record created prior to Ordinance 75 -12 are grandfathered lots
_ record not subject to the 188 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 enf=;ement of the
188 coverage, if any variances were granted, number of permits
that exceed the 188, current building trends, overlapping
districts, 258 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 uck -the problem is the smaller lots within the City. (Cvrrect spelling
Bud Waunot enough information to make a decision this evening.(Fmokel)
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 224 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. Hayes:
WUELLNER. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY GREENFIELD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARIt:G.
Vote taken signfied ayes by Lotus, Greenfield, Arnold, and (correct
Wuelner MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing closed at 11:12 P.M (spelling
(Wuellner
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. (MOTION
Vote taken signified ayes Loftus, Wuellner, Arnold, and (3-4-93)
Greenfield. MORTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Hors_ W. Graser Phyllis Knudsen
Director of Planning Acting Recording Secretary