HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/20022.
3.
4.
5.
6.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Old Business:
Case #02-026: (Continued) BluffHeights Apartments is requesting a Conditional
Use Permit to develop a 49-urfit apartment building on 3.62 acres of vacant land
located on the north side of Franklin Trail, east of Highway 13 and west of Bluff
Heights Trail.
New Business:
Discuss an Ordinance Amendment for water-oriented accessory structures.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Commissioner Atwood called the May 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke and Ringstad,
Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City
Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Absent
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Atwood read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
The applicant for the first two items was not present, therefore, Item C was presented
first. (See page 6).
A. Case #02-064: Shamrock Development is requesting approval of a
Preliminary Plat known as The Wilds North, consisting of 77.26 acres to be
subdivided into 68 lots for single family dwellings and 4 outlots for future
development in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH's 42 and 83,
north of Wilds Parkway.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on
file in the office of the Plarm/ng Department.
Shamrock Development has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the property located on the
north side of CSAH 82, on the south side of Wilds Parkway and west of Orion Road.
One of the issues with this plat is the timing of the application. The design of the plat
assumes the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance reclassifying Hass Lake has been
LS02FILES\02planning comm\02pcrninutes\nm052802.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
approved. This amendment will be considered by the City Council on June 3~d. Should
the Council approve the amendment, it must be submitted to the DNR for approval. The
preliminary plat cannot be approved until the DNR has approved the reclassification.
Another major issue pertaining to this subdivision is the dedication of parkland. As noted
earlier in the report, partial dedication may be allowed for the area around Hass Lake.
Dedicating this area to the public will ensure preservation of the bluff and trees around
the shoreline. A neighborhood park is also required within this area. The remainder of
the parkland dedication can be satisfied by the dedication ora 3-4 acre park, located
somewhere towards the center of the development.
Another issue pertains to the access point on CSAH 83. Street 1 must be shifted 50' to
the south so it is consistent with the County designated access. In addition, Street 1 must
also provide access to the labeled "exception" on the north side of the site.
The City Engineer feels analysis of the sanitary sewer is required. In addition, staff has
not completed the hydrological review. These analyses may require some redesign of the
utilities.
Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. The preliminary plat cannot be approved until the DNR has approved the
reclassification of Hass Lake. If this reclassification is not approved, the plat must be
redesigned so ail tots meet the minimum lot area and frontage requirements for a
Natural Environment Lake.
2. Provide a neighborhood park within the residential portion of the development.
3. Move the rear lot lines for Lots 9-13, Block 1, further away from the Ordinary High
Water Elevation for Hass Lake.
4. Move the access point for Street 1 on CSAH 83 50' to the south.
5. Provide access to the "exception" from Street I. In addition, sewer and water
services must be stubbed to this exception.
6. Provide the net lot areas for all lots that include a wetland or storm water pond.
Minimum lot area is based on net lot area.
7. Change street names for Streets 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 unique to the Prior Lake street
naming system.
8. Revise the landscape plan to note 4 trees are required comer lots (2 per street
frontage).
9. Submit an access permit and other required permits for work in the County right-of-
way with the final plat application.
10. Provide a copy of the approved Watershed District permit for this site prior to any
grading.
L:\02FI LES\02planning comm\O2pcminutesXmnO52802,doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
11. All utilities and roads must be constructed in conformance with the Public Works
Design Manual.
The preliminary plat cannot proceed to the City Council until final action by the DNR on
the Hass Lake reclassification.
Lemke questioned approval from the Metropolitan Council for the commercial area.
Kansier responded it would be through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Commercial to High Density but it does not affect the plat. She did not anticipate any
problems. Either way it could be developed commercially.
Ringstad questioned if the lake designation is a formality from the DNR. Kansier said
they have had many discussions with the DNR representative for the area who has been
supportive. Based on the criteria from the last meeting, the City feels confident the DNR
will approve the designation.
Ringstad questioned if Scott County has any comments on the new streets connecting to
County Road 42. McDermott responded it would be addressed with the County Road 42
redesign by the County. The County's only concern was to be consistent with the access
points.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Jim Stanton, of Shamrock Development concurred with the Planning Report.
He understood the preliminary plat would not be approved until the DNR approved the
lake designation. Stanton felt confident the DNR would approve the designation. He also
briefly explained the park dedication and moving the lot lines from the lake. There have
been discussions on the access on County Road 83 with the County. They will redesign
County Road 83 to make the sight distance better and provide a better access. Stanton
explained the access problems and he will move the road wherever the County dictates.
All other conditions will be met. There is no Watershed jurisdiction in the northern area.
Atwood questioned Stanton why there were no trails or sidewalks. Stanton responded he
"would never offer anything he doesn't have to." He went on to explain the access to the
lake with a possible trail on top the berm. There is a question whether it is desirable to
even have a trail by the lake. The ship of land was left with a condition by the DNR that
every homeowner is not going to mow right down to the lake.
Atwood questioned sidewalks. Stanton said there are sidewalks on Wilds South and get
mixed feelings from residents. Kansier did not have a problem with sidewalks but some
people do. There are no sidewalks on Wilds Drive. Stamson said there could be
sidewalks on Street #1 and it could be an added condition.
Lemke questioned the location of the park. Stanton said the easiest place would be to the
west of the wetland. It would have to be graded. The access may come off the cul-de-sac
and the main street.
LSO2FILESXO2planning comm~O2pcminutesknmO52802.doc 3
Plannb~g Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
The public hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
· Went out to the site and agreed with staff's recommendation.
· Add sidewalk to the current street named Street #1 as a twelfth condition.
· It is a good use for the land with the park to the northwest.
· Supported.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Ringstad. The rezoning process and lake designation is consistent with
other plats.
· Agreed with the condition to add a sidewalk along Street #I.
· Had mixed views with a path along the lake.
Access to Basin #5 is something staff can work with the developer's engineer.
· Support and move forward.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· Looks forward to the development and the future development in the northwest
comer.
· Add 12th condition and move forward.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1N THE
STAFF REPORT PLUS A i2TM CONDITION WITH ADDED SIDEWALKS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter is anticipated to go before the City Council on June 17, 2002.
B. Case #02-065: Shamrock Development is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit of approximately 15 acres of land located on the east side of CSAH 83, south
of CSAH 42 to allow grading before approval of the preliminary plat known as The
Wilds North.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Shamrock Development is proposing to grade and excavate approximately 15 acres of
property located on the east side of CSAH 83, south of CSAH 42 and north of Wilds
Parkway. The purpose of this grading and excavation is to prepare the land for
development prior to preliminary plat approval. Section 1101.509 Grading, Filling, Land
Reclamation, Excavation requires a Conditional Use Permit for excavation of more than
400 cubic yards.
L:\02FILES\02planning comrn\O2pcminutes~mnO52802.doe 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28. 2002
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant must submit storm water
calculations, prepared in accordance with the Public Works Design Manual, for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant must submit an updated wetland
delineation report.
Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must submit a signed statement
noting that approval of this CUP and grading permit does not require that the City
approve a preliminary plat as proposed, nor does the permit give the applicant a
vested interest in approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed. This letter
must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
4. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain a permit fi.om any
other agency as required. Copies of the approved permit must be submitted to the
City.
5. The excavation must be done according to the approved plans.
6. The clean up of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on any
public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
7. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours
written notice fi.om the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the
applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways.
Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source.
8. The CLIP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with
any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the
property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial
approval of this CLIP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal
thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include
any information as requested by City staffor the City Council that would aid the City
Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this
CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its
residents.
Ringstad questioned what would happen if the DNR did not approve Hess Lake
reclassification. Stanton said they would not be grading on the far end and explained
plans for a decorative waterfall on the comer of County Roads 42 and 83.
There were no other comments from the public. The hearing was closed at 7:57 p.m.
L:\02FILES~02planning comm~02pcminutes\mn052802.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· The staff has it right; if the City Attorney is comfortable with the letter and bond,
move forward. It is an exciting development.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Lemke.
· Does the expansion to 25 acres have to come back before the Commissioners?
Kansier said it would not. The City sent hearing notices farther than the
recommended area. It is not a problem.
Atwood:
· Agreed - have no problems supporting.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN
THE PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on June 17, 2002.
A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:06 p.m.
C. Case #02-059 and #02-060: Wensmann Homes is requesting approval of a
Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan and Preliminary Plat of a mixed
development consisting of 22 single family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and
28 attached condominium uses on 34.5 acres. This property is located on the west
side of CSAH 21 and north of CSAH 82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval of a development to be known as Jeffers
South on the property located west of CSAH 21, approximately V2 mile north of CSAH
82 and directly north of Wensmann 1st Addition and Regal Crest. The application
includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of a total of 81 dwelling units
on 23.69 net acres, for a total density of 3.42 units per acre. The proposed development
includes 22 single family dwellings and 59 townhouse units in 45, three and four-unit
buildings. The development also includes parkland and private open space.
L:\02 FI LES\02plannin g comm\02pcmitl utes\mn052802.doc 6
Planning Cornrni.~xion Minute~
May 28, 2002
One of the major issues pertaining to this development is whether or not the plan meets
the PUD criteria. The primary justification for a PUD appears to be the use of the private
streets. A cluster development &this type is permitted as a conditional use permit in the
R-1 district, so a similar development with public streets could be done without a PUD.
The plan is consistent with the requirements for a conventional cluster development.
Only Outlot F is a private street, since it provides access to 3 buildings. The other outlots
could be considered shared driveways. If one of the buildings were eliminated, Outlot F
would also be a shared driveway and the PUD would not be required.
The other major issue pertaining to this development is the park dedication. The
developer needs to provide information indicating how much of the park area will qualify
for dedication credit. Also, a plan for the trail extension must be provided. Finally,.
access to the park on the west side of the property must be provided from Jeffers Pass.
Staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat with the
following conditions:
1. The developer must provide specific information on the parkland, detailing the area
that qualifies for dedication credit.
2. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from
Jeffers Pass.
3. Extend the trail from Wensmann 1st to the north edge of this development.
4. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street
naming policy.
5. The landscaping plan must be revised to include 20% of the evergreen trees as
oversized trees. An irrigation plan must also be provided.
6. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond and the temporary
cul-de-sac located on the adjacent property.
7. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs.
8. The Traffic Impact Report must be revised to include the proper number of units.
9. Revise the plan sheets to specifically note that there is a 25' setback from the public
right-of-way line required for the townhouses, and that the 30' setback is measured
from both decks and pomhes. Also, the plan sheets must note that conventional R-1
setbacks will apply to the single family dwellings.
10. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated
May 23, 2002.
Ringstad and Atwood questioned who makes the determination on the parkland
dedication and the requirements. Kansier explained the requirements and credits.
Lemke questioned the new IBC (International Building Codes) and if it should be a
condition. Kansier responded the City can not make a condition that has not been
L:\02 FI LES~02planning comm~02pcminutes\rnn052802.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
adopted. It would not matter what is approved, any building has to meet the new building
requirements. The building permit process will ensure compliance.
Lemke also questioned if the 14 parking spots for visitors was enough. Kansier said it
did meet the requirements.
Ringstad questioned if there would be a problem if some of the townhomes were built
under the current code and some under future codes. Kansier said if there had to be a
new design the applicant would have to come back before the Commissioners for an
Amendment to the PUD.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Terry Wensmann from Wensmann Homes said the development would be
similar to Wensmann 1st Addition and went on and explained the units and prices. He
also explained the access to the park and trail. Their engineer will work with staff on the
dedication. Wensmann explained why they went with a PUD. It was important to have a
private street to get as many driveways offRaspberry Ridge.
Ty Erickson, 14900 Timberglade Circle NE, questioned if a trail would be available to
the public. (Kansier said it would.) He also questioned if the northern outlot would be
vacant. Kansier responded them is not a specific plan at this time but there would be
future development. Erickson also questioned what would be in the park. Kansier
explained they needed to know more information on the overall development. There is
not a lot of flat land, it maybe more passive recreation with a trail. There are no specifics
on playground equipment. Once the development is approved staff and the Park
Advisory makes a decision on what should go in. Erickson questioned the drainage into
the ponds and if there was going to be any kind of fencing or barrier. He felt there were
some severe eddies and vortexes that could be dangerous. McDermott explained the
issue had been addressed several years ago. Fences can be more of a trap and nuisance.
The City is not in the practice of fencing ponds. Kansier said it was a policy decision
made several years ago as the City has several ponds near parks.
McDermott explained the area Mr. Erickson referred is not part of the subject plat.
Erickson questioned if any improvements would be made on County Road 21 and
Raspberry Ridge. Kansier said the actual intersection at Raspberry Ridge was completed
with the County Road 21 project. There may be a median at some point. McDermott
said the County did not comment on that issue.
Terry Wensmarm pointed out the IBC pertains to the interior of the building and would
go through the building process. Nothing would effect the exterior of the building.
The public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\mn052802.doc 8
May 28, 2002
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned staffon Mr. Erickson's concern on drainage runoff. McDermott said the
applicant is proposing to construct stormwater ponds that'would alleviate some-of the
runoff.
· Agreed with staff's conclusions. It is in the public's interest. There is no problem with
the PUD and private street.
· There are no other issues and support the proposal as is.
· Liked the trail system. It is positive.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Lemke, viewed the property and agree with all the recommendations and
conditions.
· Support both motions with staff's recommendations.
Atwood:
· Disagreed with Commissioners. Did not believe a PUD was appropriate for the area.
· Given this same plan minus 1 four-unit townhome and exclude one private street -
Outlot F.
· Felt Mr. Erickson's concerns need a little bit of direction.
· McDermott explained the applicant is creating another stormwater basin prior to
discharge to the wetlands to the north. They are also building an infiltration area,
which will catch some of the runoff.
· It should be a condition.
· Recommend tabling until another meeting to review the plans and see why the road
cannot be a public street.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· If the storm ponds are not on the plat why is this an issue? McDermott explained the
applicant will provide the City with easements. The applicant has already provided a
sketch of the easements.
Atwood felt they should be discussed as though they are. McDermott pointed out the
existing ponds and proposal.
Ringstad:
· Questioned staff on significant runoff when the lake is high. McDermott said there is
a rather substantial project underway with the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed to
make improvements on the entire outlet channel as well as plans within the Jeffers
property. The Watershed District has easements over a lot of this area. They have
spent a great deal of fane reviewing issues on the Jeffers property.
L:\02FILES~02planning comm\02pcminutes~nn052802.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
Atwood:
· Felt a representative from the Watershed District should speak on the issue.
· Encouraged the developer to look at conventional cluster development rather than a
PUD.
Lemke:
· Questioned the private streets and number of units. Kansier said it had more to do
with the number of buildings than units. Four units is the maximum in a R1 District.
· Wensmann explained they could move the infiltration pond and redirect the
driveways towards Raspberry Ridge Road. They would not have to go with a PUD,
but felt this was a nicer layout with the driveways offthe public street.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with the plan submitted. It makes sense.
· Atwood and Ringstad briefly discussed PUD's.
· Comfortable moving forward.
Lemke:
· The developer makes sense keeping the number down of driveways off Raspberry
Ridge.
· Staff feels comfortable moving it forward.
· Some of the issues with water are do to the existing topography of the land. The
developer will control the runoff with grading.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN
AS JEFFERS SOUTH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING
REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke and Ringstad. Nay by Atwood. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS JEFFERS SOUTH SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS IN THE PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Lemke and Ringstad. Nay by Atwood. MOTION
CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on June 17, 2002.
6. Old Business:
A. Case #02-047: Wensmann Realty is requesting a Final Planned Unit
Development Plan and Final Plat for Fountain Hills 2"a Addition a development of
64 townhouse units on 7.17 net acres, and a Final Plat consisting of 23.66 acres to be
L:\02 FI LES\02planning commX02pcmin utes~an052802.doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28. 2002
subdivided into 2 lots for commercial development and 67 lots for townhouses and
common open space.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty has applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final
Plan for the property located on the west side of Pike Lake Trail, approximately 1/8 mile
south of CSAH 42 and directly south of Fountain Hills Drive. The total site area in the
PUD includes 10.16 acres, zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The development
consists of 64 townhouse units and common open space.
The staff recommended approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following revisions must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council:
a. The setback from the decks to the east property line is only 28 feet. The setback
approved in the preliminary plat was 30 feet. The decks on these units must be
trimmed to meet the 30' setback.
b. The table listing the setbacks on the PUD Plan must be clarified to note that the
setback is measured from the structure, including decks. Also, the setback from
the wetland is measured from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetland.
c. The developer must provide street names for the private streets.
d. The landscaping plan must be revised so at least 20% of the evergreens (5 trees)
are 8' in height.
e. The plan must be revised to include the location of the monument sign.
f. Provide retaining wall profiles and design by a registered engineer.
g. A lighting distribution plan, identifying the footcandles at the south boundary of
the site that are a result of the wall lighting on the south side of the units must be
provided.
2. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
3. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council.
4. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final
approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and
maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the
developer for their files.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad, Lemke and Atwood:
· Agreed with staff's assessment.
· Approve.
L:\02FILES~02planning comm~02pcminutesYan052802.doe ] ]
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2002
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDiNG APPROVAL
OF THE FiNAL PUD PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED iN THE
PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on June 17, 2002.
7. New Business:
A. Case #02-049: Wensmann Homes is requesting a Vacation of the existing
drainage and utility easements located on Lots 21-23, Block 2, Wensmann Ist
Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 28, 2002 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Wensmann Realty, Inc. has filed an application to vacate the 5' wide drainage and utility
easements located on the common lot line between Lots 21 and 22, Block 2, Wensmarm
1st Addition, and on the common lot line between Lots 22 and 23, Block 2, Wensmann 1st
Addition. The applicant is proposing to create two larger lots out of the existing three
lots, and to dedicate a new easement on the common lot line. The existing easement must
be vacated in order to allow construction of new houses on the two lots.
There is no need for the retention of the existing easements once the lots are combined
and the new easement is dedicated. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval
of this request, subject to the condition the documents dedicating the new easement be
recorded prior to recording the resolution vacating the existing easements.
Comments from the Commissioners:
· All the commissioners agreed with staffs recommendation
· Lemke added combining 3 lots into 2 lots make perfect sense.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY R1NGSTAD, RECOMMENDiNG APPROVAL
OF THE VACATION OF EASEMENT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on June 3, 2002.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The new Assistant City Engineer, Larry Poppler was introduced.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcmin utes\mn052802.doc 1 2
Planning Commission Minute~
May 28, 2002
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Donald Rye
Community Development Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:~02 FILES~O2pl arming comm\02pcminutes~nn052802,doc 13
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MULTI-
FAMILY DWELLING IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT
(CASE FILE #02-026)
BLUFF HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
JUNE 10, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
Bluff Heights Apartments, Limited Partnership, represented by Gregory McClenahan, has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a muitifamily dwelling
on the property located on the north side of Franklin Trail, east of TH 13 and west of
Bluff Heights Trail. The property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential) and is guided
as R-HD (Urban High Density) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Multi-family
dwellings require a CUP within the R-4 Zoning District.
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing on May 13, 2002.
The Commission concluded there were too many unresolved issues at that time, and
continued the hearing to this date.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission directed the developer to address five issues. Each of these issues and
the response submitted is listed below.
1. Storm water nmoff calculations must be resubmitted and reviewed by the City.
The applicant submitted revised plans at 4:30 pm on Friday, May 31". This has
not allowed the staff enough time to review the information before writing this
report. We hope to have additional information available for the Planning
Commission at the meeting.
2. Th~ applicant must specifically identify the proposed architectural materials, and how
these materials will meet the ordinance requirements.
h~02files\02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc2.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OpI~DRTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicant submitted the attached written description of the building
materials and the percentage of Class I. According to this submittal, the exterior
of the building will be finished with brick, stucco, glass and vinyl siding. The
total area of Class I materials is 63.98 percent. While this appears to meet the
Zoning Ordinance requirement, the applicant must provide a building elevation
identifying the exterior materials.
3. The landscaping plan must be revised to meet the ordinance requirements, including
bufferyards, tree replacement and perimeter landscaping. An irrigation plan must also
be submitted.
The landscaping plan has been revised; however, the plan still does not meet all
Ordinance requirements. The plan includes credit for 11 existing trees. Based
on the grading plan, however, only 9 of these trees will be saved. Therefore, the
plan must include 2 additional trees. The plan has been revised to include the
required bufferyards and replacement trees. The plan also notes an irrigation
system will be revised.
The changes to the landscaping plan required some revisions to the parking lot.
The applicant also added two trash enclosures. These changes eliminated 4
parking spaces; however, the plan still includes 98 parking spaces, or 2 per unit,
which is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirement.
4. A lighting distribution plan must be submitted.
The applicant has submitted a lighting distribution plan. According to the plan,
most of the lights comply with the maximum footcandles at the property line.
Only one light, that standard located at the center of the parking lot along
Franklin Trail exceeds 1.0 footcandles at the right-of-way line. This light must
be removed or shielded in some manner so it will not exceed that standard.
5. The issues identified in the memorandum from the Engineering Department and the
Building Department must be reviewed and any required changes made to the site
plan.
The revised plans are still under review to determine if the major items have
been met. The Building Department comments can be addressed at the building
permit stage.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 1108 of the City Code and Section 1102.703. Section 1102.703 is the
provision within the R-4 requirements relating to specific conditions for multi-family
dwellings. The criteria are discussed on the following pages.
C__ity Code 1102. 703 Uses Permitted With A Conditional Use Permff
(1) Multiple Family Dwellings. Conditions:
t:\02files\02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc2.do¢ 2
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided
without generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
The only access to this property is from Franklin Trail, which is classified as a
minor collector street.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space
per dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in the front yard.
Forty-uine dwelling units are proposed requiring 19,600 square feet of usable open
space. The site plan indicates 43,145 square feet located to the rear of the building.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
buildings.
This provision is not applicable, as there is only one building proposed.
' d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed
to share common walls.
This provision is not applicable, as there is only one building proposed.
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of I5 feet from the back of the curb
line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
There is no internal building setback because of the garage doors at the lower level
of the building. The ordinance did not anticipate this type of building design. A
single entrance to a lower level parking area is not required to meet this setback, so
the individual doors probably are also excluded from this requirement.
f. No portion of the required 20-foot road system may be used to satisfy the off-
street parking requirements.
The proposed internal drives are not being used for proposed parking. This
requirement has been met.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.200 of the City Code sets forth the criteria for approval of a CUP.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicable goals and objectives of the Comprehensive plan include the following:
Objective #1 of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide opportunities for a variety of
affordable high quality housing. Objective #2 is to maintain a choice of and
encourage development of quality residential developments.
Page 101 of the Comprehensive Plan addresses housing analysis. The analysis
specifically states there is a gap in Prior Lake's housing in the area of newer
apartment units. Similar type communities are expected to maintain 25-30% of the
l:\02files~02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc2.doc 3
housing stock in apartments or multi-family dwellings. Prior Lake currently has
12.85% classified as apartments or multi-family dwellings. The addition of the
proposed units would complement the goal of providing opportunities for diverse
housing.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
The proposed multi-family dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the community as a whole.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
The use requires a CUP within the zoning district. The property is zoned R-4 Multi-
family residential. The proposed site layout complies with most requirements and
performance standards of the Zoning District. Minor changes to the landscaping plan
and lighting plan are still required. Also, the applicant will be required to submit
some additional information to ensure that all requirements are met.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services,
or improvements, which are either existing or proposed.
The proposed use as an apartment building will not have adverse impacts on
governmental facilities or improvements. The questions about storm water runoff
must be addressed before an adequate analysis can be completed.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The use is located adjacent to a public street and a townhouse development to the
east. The proposed use will not have adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity. However, the storm water runoff issues must be
addressed before an adequate analysis can be completed.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect,
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
Several revisions are required before this plan meets the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city
water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines,
natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the CUP approved by the City Council.
A professional registered engineer prepared the drainage and utility plans. Additional
information is still required.
l:\02files\02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc2.doc 4
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council
may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and
neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those
situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards,
conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City
Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the CUP which are more
stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are consistent with the
general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be set forth in the
CUP approved by the City Council.
Some revisions to the plan are required before final approval of this CUP. Most of
these can be addressed through conditions.
CONCLUSION
Any definitive conclusion on this plan requires the complete review of the revised storm
water runoff calculations and other materials. The staff hopes to have this review
completed by the meeting.
Based on the information submitted so far, staff would recommend approval of the site
plan with the following conditions:
1. Any changes required as a result of the review of the revised storm water runoff
calculations must be incorporated into the site plan.
2. The applicant must provide building elevations specifically identifying the proposed
architectural materials. The applicant must also provide building elevations for the
detached garage. The exterior materials for the garage must be compatible to the
principal structure.
3. The landscaping plan must be revised tO include 2 additional trees.
4. The applicant must provide an irrigation plan with the building permit.
5. The lighting plan must be revised to ensure that light at the center of the parking lot
along Franklin Trail does not exceed 1.0 footcandle at the right-of-way line.
6. The must provide plans for the trash enclosures. The trash enclosures must be
constructed of materials compatible with the materials used for the principal structure.
7. The applicant must provide the necessary documents granting the City drainage and
utility easements prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. The applicant must submit and receive approval of all necessary wetland applications
prior to issuance of a building permit.
l:\02fil~s\02cup\bluff heightsXbluff pc2.doc 5
9. All issues identified in the memorandum from the Engineering Department and the
Building Department must be reviewed and any required changes made to the site
plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the CUP with conditions as recommended or
any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are warranted.
2. Recommend denial of the request. In this case, the Planning Commission should be
specific about findings of fact.
3. Continue the request to a specific date and direct the developer to provide the
necessary additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1 at this time. If necessary, the staff will revise this
recommendation, or changes to the conditions, based upon the completion of our review
of the revised phms.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the CLIP subject to the listed
conditions.
1:\02 files\02cup\bluff heights\bluff pc2.doc 6
Ill
il : i
,1: chdsk To: Greg McClenahan Date: 5130/2002 Time: 11:07:00 AM Page 1 of 1
elopment r~ L~ ["~
92 --
...... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ITo: Greg McClenahan
JFax #: 19528946421
ICompany: Evergreeen Real Estate
ISubject: Bluff Heights
ISent: 05/30/2002 at 11:06:58 AM
JJFrom: chrisk
J[Fax #: 320-252-0992
JJTel #: 320-252-2528
IPages: I (including cover)
MESSAGE:
Greg: Here are the calculations for the Exterior Finishes for the 49 Unit
Bluff Heights Apartment Building in Prior Lake.
Total Exterior Wall Square Footage (Including detached garages):
39,651.75 Square Feet
Total Area of Class t Finishes (Brick, Stucco, Glass):
25,369.25 Square Feet
Total Area of Non-Class I Finishes (Vinyl Siding, Garage Doors):
14,282.5 Square Feet
Percenatage of Class I Exterior Finishes:
25,369.25 S.F. / 39,651.75 S.F. = 63.98 %
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Chris Koepp
WinFax PRO Cover Page
Memorandum
DATE: March 20, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer 4/~
RE: Bluff Heights (Project #02-36)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and has the
following comments:
1. The plans must show the two driveway entrances to be installed using a concrete apron
per MnDOT standard plate no. 7035K.
2. The height of the proposed retaining wall near the northwest corner of the proposed
building must be shown on the plans.
3. Note that the existing storm manhole located northeast of the proposed basketball
court is to be adjusted to grade (approx. +2.0') in accordance with City standards.
4. Hydrant spacing must conform with the Public Works Design Manual.
5. Proposed slopes around the existing pond exceed 4:1.
6. Proposed retaining walls are located within easements.
Attached is an additional memorandum prepared by WSB & Associates addressing WCA
comments and storm water/gading. Let me know if you have any questions.
G :~P RO JE CT S'~ 002x,36blu fPntsXlLE VIE W I .DOC
Memorandum
F~om:
Date:
Re:
Sue McDermott, P.E., City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
Andi Moffatt, Biologist
WSB & Associates, Inc.
March 15, 2002
Review of Bluff Heights Development Plans
WSB Project No. 1430-03
As requested, we have completed our water resource review of the Bluff Heights
Development Plans dated February 22, 2002. Based on our review, we offer the
following comments:
Wetland Conservation Act Review Comments
1. The development proposes to fill 225 sfofwetland. This wetland was delineated as
part of the Timber Crest Development. It is anticipated that this fill will be exempt
under the de minimis of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Application for
exemption should be provided by the developer.
It is our understanding that the wetland delineation has not been reviewed by the City.
We recommend this delineation be reviewed as soon as the weather conditions allow.
This review can be completed by WSB. The developer does not necessarily need to
be present for this review unless questions are raised during the delineation review.
Item 1.26 of the Prior Lake Public Design Manual states that a 30-foot average buffer
(minimum of 20 feet) needs to be maintained around the perimeter of all wetlands.
This buffer with associated monumentation needs to be added to the plans.
Hydrologic/Hydraulic. Water Quality. and Grading Comments
1. The existing and proposed hydrologic/hydraulic calculations for 2, 10 and 100 year
storms should be provided by the developer. This should show the sizing of pipes,
ponds, emergency overflow spillways, and catch basin interception analysis.
2. The existing and proposed drainage boundaries need to be included with the plans.
Stte Mel),rmott, P.E.
March 15, 2002
Additional information should be provided from the City regarding the current storm
sewer drainage to the regional pond. The existing information on the plan sheets does
not correspond to the City's Local Surface Water Management Plan. We can further
review the capacity of this system once this information is obtained from the City.
Based on Item 4.26 in the Public Works Design Manual, 3-foot sumps must be
constructed as the last structure which is road accessible prior to discharge to any
water body. This would apply to Manholes #2 and #8. These structures should be
changed on the plans.
5. It is recommended that the minimum parking lot grade should be I%.
6. The retaining wall that is proposed west of the pond should be designed by an
engineer and include a fence at the top. These details should be provided for review.
7. The overflow drainage for the parking area adjacent to Franklin Trail should be
redirected east onto the parcel rather than overflow onto Franklin Trail.
8. The overflow drainage for the west parking area should be redirected east to the pond
rather than overflow outside the parcel.
9. The 2' contours a minimum of 200 feet beyond the property boundary in accordance
with the city's 2002 Public Works Design Manual must be shown on the plans.
10.
Sheet 5 states that 1.2 acre-feet of floodplain will be filled and 1.32 acre-feet of
floodplain storage will be created. Details regarding the floodplain fill and mitigation
calculations associated with volumes shown on Sheet 5 must be provided.
11. A transition detail from B612 curb to B618 curb at catch basins should be provided
by the developer.
12. A skimmer structure should be used at the outlet of the pond.
This concludes our review of the BluffHeights Development plan. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196.
c. Dave Hutton, P.E., WSB
G:lPROJECTX~2002i36bhtffllt*hv~breview. doc
t
Memorandum
DATE: March 20, 2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planner
FROM: Robert D. Hutchins, Building Official
RE: Site plan review for Bluff Heights
Following are the results of the preliminary Site plan review for the Bluff Heights
building. Our review was based on the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) which
adopted with amendments the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) with handicap
regulations of the Minnesota Accessibility Code Chapter 1341. Also requirements of the
1998 Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) which adopted with amendments the 1997
Uniform Fire Code (UFC).
I. Complete a Bnild'mg Code analysis. UBC Chapter 5. Include the following:
a. Occupancy Classification. Note: If Garages designated as S-3, provide a 3-hour
occupancy separation between R-1. If designated as U-l, provide 2-hour area
separation every 3000 s.f. from floor to roof deck. USC Table 3-B and USC 312.2.2.
b. Type of Construction.
c. Location on Property.
d. Allowable Floor Area. Note: a NFPA 13 system is required for fire department
concerns.
e. Height and Number of stories.
f. Exiting.
2. Structural engineer to design retaining walls over 4'-0" in height.
3. Relocate the site fire hydrant south to the West peninsula by the West drive entrance.
4. Provide a Post Indicator Valve (PIV) on sprinkler supply line into buildings. Locate a
minimum distance away the height of the building.
5. Provide fire lanes for fire apparatus response. Signage to read:" No Parking Fire Lane
by order of Fire Department". Indicate on Site plan. Locate by Fire Hydrant and East
parking lot and North Parking lot. UFC 1001.7.1.
6. If provided, indicate means of lawn irrigation. May use separate service and metering
for billin.~ purposes.
7. Siamese connection and enunciator panels to be located by front entrance.
The following are building plan comments:
8. Submit signed architectural, structural plans and a Certificate of Survey before building
permit. Submit signed HVAC, plumbing, fire/smoke alarm, emergency lighting/exit
signs and sprinkler plans. May be submitted at a later date.
9. Provide detail of lawn sprinkler service stub valve and backflow prevention details.
10. Provide HDCP signage details.
11. All Units not HDCP accessible must be HDCP adaptable and on a HDCP accessible
route. MSBC 1341 Table 16.2
12. Provide two parking spaces for commuter van. MSBC 1300.4100.
13. Submit Energy Envelope Calculations. MN Energy Code 7670.0100
14. Submit a soils report.
15. An S.A.C. determination must be completed by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. Contact Jody Edwards at 651.602.1113.
I6. Provide testing documentation indicating that exterior and interior walls, elevator
walls, corridor floors, floor trusses/joists, and roof tress construction meets One hour
fire resistive construction. UBC 703.
17. Provide documentation listing that construction (floors and walls) meets Sound
Transmission Control ratings. UBC Appendix Chapter 12.
18. Submit the Structural Engineers requirements for Special Inspections UBC 1701.5.
19. One hour fire-rated Elevator Lobbies required. An elevator lobby must be separated
from a corridor. UBC 1004.3.4.5
20. Stairways and landscaped area must be in Rated Shafts. Two floors are allowed to be
open to each other. UBC 711.3 or an Atrium must be provided as per UBC 402.
2I. Inter/or family rooms must be furnished with natural light. UBC 1203.2
22. Ventilation for the building must meet UBC chapter I2. Provide I5 CFM of
ventilation per occupant in the corridor.
23. State of Minnesota Building Codes and Standards Division must inspect Elevator.
MSBC 1307.0035.
24. Provide a Class III standpipe in each stairway. UBC 904.5.3
25. Provide fire extinguishers minimum 2A10BC rated, within 75 feet travel distance of
all areas. UFC 1002.
26. Automatic garage doors to comply with State of Minnesota Statutes. MSBC
1300.5900
27. Post occupant load sign in Party Rooms. UBC 1007.2.6.
28. Provide maneuvering clearances and landings at the top and bottom of ramp in HDCP
garages. MSBC 1341..0442 Subpart 6
29. Garage service doors must not swing over the step. UBC 1003.3.1.6 Exception 1.I
This is a preliminary review only on conceptual plans. Other code items will be addressed
when the preliminary plans are submitted. The building plans must be reviewed by the
Cities Developmental Review Committee (DRC) which consists of representatives of
Planning, Engineering, Parks, Finance, and Building Departments. The DRC must
approve the site plans before a building permit can be issued.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7A
DISCUSS POSSIBILITIES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO WATER-
ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON RIPARIAN
LOTS (Case File #02-072)
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
__YES X NO
JUNE 10, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this report is to discuss possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to water-oriented accessory structures on riparian lots. The City staff is
bringing this to the attention of the Planning Commission at the request of the City
Council.
The current ordinance allows one water;oriented accessory structure on riparian lots
that have a grade slope of at least 20 percent. The question before the Planning
Commission at this time is whether or not the Ordinance should be amended to expand
the definition of a water-oriented accessory structure and to allow these structures on all
ripadan lots, regardless of slope.
DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Ordinance currently defines water-oriented accessory structures as follows:
A building of 120 sqUare feet or less used to store beating accessories and equipment
located on lakeshore lots that contain steep slopes equal to or greater than 20% which
because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature reasonably needs to be
located closer to the lakeshore ordinary high water mark (OHW) than the normal
structural setback requirement.
Section 1104.308 (4) regulates the use and location of these structures. This sections
currently reads as follows:
(4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory structure
may be allowed per lot on General Development (GD) lakes that have Municipal
sewer and water, provided a building permit is obtained from the City and the
following criteria are met:
1:\02flles\02ordamend~zoning~02-072~pcreport.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
a. The lot contains a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from the front of
the principal structure to the ordinary high water mark; and
b. The structure shaft not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and the
maximum height of the structure must not exceed l0 feet, including the roof; and
c. The structure shaft be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion of the
lot as viewed from the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
The minimum setback requirement must be at least lO feet from the ordinary
high water mark and must meet the other applicable side yard setbacks. The
slope shaft be verified by a certificate of survey prepared by a registered
surveyor; and
d. The structure shaft not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not
contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However, the structure may
contain electrical and mechanical systems; and
e. The structure shall be constructed of treated wood and/or block that is
compatible with the principal structure and designed to reduce visibility as
viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography,
increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; and
f. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain
elevation, the structure shaft be built compliant with applicable flood-proofing
requirements of the Building Code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance; and
g. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the
erection of a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary,
replacement with like trees shaft be made with the approval of the Zoning
Administrator. Erosion control measures shaft be implemented and all disturbed
vegetation replaced with sod or suitable landscaping materials; and
h. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be
immovable from its approved location.
Both the definition and the regulations for these structures are more restrictive than the
existing language in the Minnesota State Shoreland Rules. The additional restrictions
are intended to limit the number and size of accessory structures on the lot, while at the
same time allowing property owners with access and storage of recreational equipment
on riparian lots with steep slopes.
Minnesota Rule 6120.2500, §20 defines a water-oriented structure or facility as "a small,
above-ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and
retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature,
reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure
setback. Examples of such structures include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses,
fish houses, pump houses and detached decks.' This definition is much broader than
the City definition, and allows other types of accessory structures.
Minnesota Rule 6120.3300, §H, 1-7, lists the requirements for water-oriented accessory
structures. These requirements are also less restrictive than the City Ordinance.
Specifically, the State rules do not limit water-oriented accessory structures to lots with
steep slopes.
1:\02files\O2ordamend~.oning\O2-O72\pcreport.doc Page 2
Whether or not a water-oriented accessory structure should be allowed on all riparian
lots is a policy issue. The current ordinance provision, which allows a water-oriented
accessory structure only on riparian lots with a slope less than 20%, was generally
intended for aesthetic purposes. Earlier platted riparian lots tend to have smaller
dimensions and less total area than is required for lots today. The current ordinance
only provides for water-oriented accessory structures on a limited number of riparian lots
and equipment storage appears to be an issue without an accessory structure.
However, the unique circumstances pertaining to riparian lots warrant limitations on the
number and size of structures and on the amount of impervious surface.
Staff has discussed this issue with the DNR, and has concluded this type of use is
reasonable, as long as all other state regulations, shoreland and flood plain ordinances
are in compliance.
If the Planning Commission feels it is appropriate to loosen the existing restrictions, one
suggestion is to amend the current definition so it is more consistent with the State
rules. The Ordinance could also be amended to remove the condition allowing these
structures only on lots with steep slopes.
ALTERNATIVES:
Direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment pertaining to the type and location of
water-oriented structures on riparian lots and to schedule a public hearing for
consideration of this amendment. THe Commission should also provide staff with
some direction as to the type of language or restrictions.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Take no action.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
1:\02files\02ordamend~zonlng\02-072\pcreport.doc Page 3