HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-97REGULAR PLANNING COM2VIISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1997
7:00 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #96-124 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE AND THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE:
1. TO REMOVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE
R-l, R-2 AND R-3 DISTRICTS;
2. TO APPLY THE SETBACKS FOR COUNTY ROADS AND COLLECTOR STREETS TO
"MAJOR" COLLECTOR STREETS ONLY;
3. TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE REQUIRING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPROVAL OF TREE REPLACEMENT PLANS CONFORMING TO THE TREE
REPLACEMENT FORMULA;
4. ADDING AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK ELEVATION AS DETERMINED BY
THE MN DNR TO THOSE LAKES Vvq-IICH DO NOT HAVE A PREVIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED OFIWM (JEFFERS POND, MARKLEY LAKE AND BLIND LAKE), AND
CHANGING THE OHWM ON HOWARD LAKE TO THE ELEVATION DETERMINED
BY THE DNR.
$. Old Business:
A. CASE #96-102 FAIRVIEW CLINIC, 4151 WILLOWWOOD STREET SE, IS REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 3'-1" BY 15'-9" ILLUMINATED WALL
BUSINESS SIGN ABOVE THE EAST ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING WERE IT FACES FIVE
HAWKS AVENUE AND TH 13.
6. New Business:
A. CITY ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFEITED PARCELS
B. ZONING ORDINANCE MEMO
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~lg3E~k Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 5,~a372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 9, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The December 9, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson,
Vonhof and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Wuellner Absent
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECONDED BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE
NOVEMBER 25, 1996, M1NUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
Commissioners Wuellner and Vonhof arrived at 7:03 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #96-088 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6-3-5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL ON FINAL PLATS WITH UNDEVELOPED OUTLOTS.
The public hearing was open and a sign-up sheet circulated to the public.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report.
The proposed amendment to Section 6-3-5 of the Prior Lake City Code and Subdivision
Ordinance will affect final plats with undeveloped outlots approved more than two years
prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance.
The proposed amendment is the result of a' discrepancy between the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance and past practices regarding the timing of the approval of final
plats. In the past, a subdivider was allowed to phase the development by submitting a
final plat with outlots on the undeveloped portion. There was rarely any other staging
plan submitted with these developments. This practice worked well if the entire
MN120996.DOC PAGE
development was completed within two years after the first final plat. However, if the
development was not completed within that time, it was subject to any changes made in
the ordinance.
This provision was not applied uniformly. Therefore, there are several plats with
undeveloped outlots. In some instances, the development of these plats, based on the
original preliminary plat, is not consistent with the current standards, especially in terms
of lot size and lot width. The amendment would eliminate any confusion about the time
frame which may have been caused by past practices. This amendment allows the
developers of the existing plat one year to file a final plat or to request approval of a
staging plan. After a year, the property may be developed using the current standards.
Comments from the public:
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, owner of The Wilds, felt time frames can cause a
problem. He is not in disagreement with the goals of the City. The problem with putting
plats into place is the City's process. The developer has a 60 day time limit in which to
record the final plat. He has to post a bond and make improvements as a condition of
getting the final plat. Large projects are estimated guesses. Interest rates and people
buying homes are out of developers' control. Mr. Stanton questioned if there would there
be a way to address a PUD as long as there was a contract so both parties knew what to
expect. People could follow the contract and have assurances they could proceed. Mr.
Stanton has done many PUD's and would rely on staff and get a staging program set up.
Mr. Stanton feels one could have a contractual basis under a PUD.
Horst Graser, Gold Nugget Development Inc., representing the Knob Hill development
explained their plat process and phase. He understands the objective of the City.
Developers do not want to be tied into an iron-clad time frame. Interest rates change and
developments can slow down which can cause a variety of problems. Utilities and road
extensions also effect development. Mr. Graser encouraged the Commissioners to
automatically renew the phasing when the developer shows improvements to the frame
work every year. He questioned whether the frame work is agreed upon or negotiated,
and whether it can be changed or will it become an iron-clad agreement as part of the
development contract or an agreement between staff and the developer.
Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, represeming the North Shore project said
they were in favor of the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Outlot A of North Shore
Oaks Fifth was approved several years ago. Since that time, adoption of Amendment 6-
3-5 of the City Ordinance put a sunset on plat approvals and nothing was done to obtain
final plat approval on Outlot A of North Shore Oaks within the allotted time. However
he feels the plat is still active based on State Statute and the proposed ordinance is
consistent with the Statute. Also he feels there have been improvements over the years to
the property in the way of grading, survey, topography mapping and engineering. Mr.
Brown pointed out the Fifth Addition is the last phase of the over all project.
Eugene Simpkins, North Shore Oaks, stated they started the development in the 70's and
developed 12 lots at a time. North Shore Oaks have neighboring 65' lots and their 100' x
150' lots have been cut down after sewer and water were put in. It is hard to sell bigger
lots for bigger houses with 65' lots nearby. He feels they cannot sell the lots fast enough
to come out financially okay. However, he is supportive of the ordinance.
The hearing was closed at 7:29 p.m.
Kansier addressed some of the comments including:
· The provision regarding the two year period after the final plat is currently in the
ordinance. For instance, under the provision Knob Hill would have until May of
1997. It would give them an additional year, not just to file a final plat but also a
staging plan for City Council approval.
· Staging Plans would address two things, order of development (what portion would
go first) and the timing. Timing is a guess. The Council would approve the staging
plan and would have the authority to make changes.
· PUD's are different from the standard subdivision plat in how they are approved and
the purpose behind them. An example is The Wilds.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· What form would staging take place? Kansier said it would be done at the
preliminary plat stage or final plat showing a general time line.
· Specifically the staging for the Wilds would be a concern. Council can give them an
extension.
· Impact on how people file their plats? Kansier explained the two year staging is
already in the ordinance. Staging should be addressed in the preliminary plat.
· Support the amendment as stated. It does provide the ability for dealing with the
existing developments as well as future developments.
Criego recapped the amendment as attempting to help a developer. Rye stated this is a
provision for furore developers.
Kuykendall:
Conceptually supported the amendment.
· Amendment came about from Eugene Simpkins' request for North Shore Oaks final
plat. Originally City Council rejected the request then reconsidered and asked staff to
review the ordinance.
Standard practice from other communities? Rye responded other cities have the
statutory language and address the issues; through Developer's Agreements, or
simply approving resolutions and extensions.
· It is designed to help developers to be competitive.
· Supportive.
Any down side to community with this proposal? Rye said a possible downside
would be if a preliminary plat was approved at a reduced standard. The plats before
the Commissioners are not in this case.
Stamson:
· This ordinance applies to the 11 existing plats. Rye said it addresses a staging plan
for future developers as well.
· Supports amendment.
Wuellner:
· Supportive. It is a housekeeping measure to eliminate issues that fall through the
cracks.
· Likes staging plans. It means the City will work with the developer. It is a negotiated
document and adequately addresses the problems.
· It is consistent with State Statutes.
Criego:
· Agrees with Wuellner.
· Questioned if there was an actual phasing taking place within a two year period would
it automatically extend the time period?
· Rye said this was the purpose of the clarification.
· Concern is to state what the phases are.
· It may take several years to finish a project.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall: There should be a need for an automatic renewal.
Criego: This helps the developer, it is not designed to hurt them.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED OF CITY CODE 6-3-5.
Discussion: The goal is sound. Staging is reasonable. Also includes PUD.
Vote taken signified by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 6, 1997.
B. CASE #96-120 VAUGHN AND HENRETTE LEMKE REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING
VARIANCES: A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH
WATER LEVEL OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) OF 872 SQUARE
FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 832 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED; FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 DISTRICT
AND THE SD DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a
variance application from Vauglm and Henfiette Lemke, proposing to construct a
detached garage on their property located at 14472 Shady Beach Trail, on Prior Lake.
The proposed garage has a 42 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of 904
instead of the required 75 feet. The applicants are requesting a setback of 42 feet instead
of the required setback of 75 feet. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the
size of the garage is 872 square feet, which is greater than the maximum size permitted of
832 square feet. A variance of 40 square feet in area is being requested.
Regarding the setback variance, the staff concluded the size, physical characteristics, and
existing structure of the lot are hardships outside applicants' control. The legal
alternatives for the location of the proposed garage are restrictive of the applicants
proposal. However, the variance can be reduced if the proposed garage is moved north,
as to be setback 25 feet from the front property line, rather than the proposed 26.14 foot
setback.
Staff felt the variance to maximum allowable area of 40 square feet, to permit an
accessory structure of 872 square feet does not meet the criteria of hardship and should
be denied.
Comments from the public:
Vaughn Lemke, 14472 Shady Beach Trail, referenced the I0 foot setback, explaining a
line of trees extending down the lot line. They would like to keep the garage away from
the lot line and not destroy the trees. Applicants have two cars, a boat, jet skis, a trailer
and snowmobile and do not feel it unreasonable to store them in a garage. The garage
would be less than 832 sq. feet. Mr. Lernke explained the original building plan and
future additions to the home which will include a variance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Disagreed with staff' s recommendation the hardship criteria was met.
· If you use the 5' side yard setback a 3 car garage could be constructed. Take out the
trees and the applicant has reasonable use of the property.
· The hardship criteria has not been met. It is a design consideration by the owners.
· By using the 50' setback averaging applicants can get a good size garage in.
· Plenty of legal alternatives to fit a garage in.
· Do not go beyond the ordinance on size.
Wueilner:
· Applicant can come up with a reasonable size garage but standing between the lake
and the garage is the house.
· Appreciates applicant wants to stay away from the property line as well as saving the
trees.
· Given those two factors he does not object to what staff recommended.
· Would like to see 25' street setback.
· No hardship on 832' size garage.
Vonhof:
· Agreed with Wuellner's comments.
· Due to the shape of the building envelope and location of the house and existing
neighborhood, a lake variance is acceptable.
· No hardship criteria to justify the square footage on the garage.
Kuykendall:
· Reservation with the property planning process. It is reverse order of planning. Start
with the house and add on.
· Applicant can not add on to the house unless a variance is granted. There should be a
footprint for the house.
· Tovar said applicant's 1995 application shows future plans. There has never been a
garage on the property. Applicant's present need is for a garage.
· Support staff's recommendation. Concern applicant has an understanding how the
plans are going to come together over time.
· No problem determining a reasonable hardship for the garage.
· This is not in the best interest of either party. (The City and applicant.)
Wuellner:
· Concern for this plan is making the applicant promise to live at this location for a
long time to follow through with this plan. If he is transferred it is foming the new
owners to build on to the house according to applicant's plan. It doesn't make sense.
The City cannot force the future as to how someone is going to add on to the house.
Stamson:
· In regards to the 50' setback, is not just aesthetics from the lake, they are also dealing
with run off and impervious surface issues. Pushing the garage forward is loading
the lakeside with impervious surface. Water running off the garage roof has less time
to soak into the ground before it hits the lake. It is better to get the garage back
toward the street.
· Against the 42' setback.
Criego:
· Applicant is taking the asphalt out giving them 20% impervious surface.
· It might be better to keep the garage closer to the road which will reduce the square
footage and increase the distance between the house and the garage. When and if
there is a future addition, it could cause an impervious surface problem. Suggested
keeping the garage closer to the house rather than moving it toward the street for
future developments.
Agreed the hardship was not met regarding the additional garage size.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-
38PC.
Discussion: Motion was to move the garage one foot closer to the street making the
distance 43 feet and not approve the 872 sq. foot garage, based on lack ora hardship.
Concerned the applicant is aware of the future addition problems. Mr. Lemke said he
was aware of the situation but felt the garage is the present need. He is aware if the
garage was attached it would not be an issue but this is the only way he can work it out.
Vote signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Criego and Kuykendall. Nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
$. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. CASE #96-123 JOHN CRAIG APPEAL OF A BUILD[BIG PERMIT.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the
Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. In
September of 1995, the Planning Commission denied applicant's request for a variance
based on the lack of demonstrable hardship. In August of 1985, Mr. Craig applied for a
variance to permit a 1500 sq. ft. detached accessory structure (garage). The ordinance in
place at the time allowed for a detached accessory structure to be up to 800 sq. ft. in area.
Even though the Planning Commission denied Mr. Craig's variance, Mr. Craig submitted
a building permit application for the detached garage of 1500 sq. feet. The building
permit was issued on November 7, 1985 and a 1500 sq. foot detached garage was
constructed. It is the staff's understanding the building permit was issued based on the
promise the new garage (1500 sq. feet) would be attached to the principal structure.
Therefore, maximum area would not be an issue unless it exceeded the 30% impervious
surface standard. Upon review of the permit application, it appears a"covered walkway"
was accepted as means of"stmcturally" connecting the proposed garage with the existing
house.
The definition of structure has not changed since the original adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance in 1983.
Mr. Craig applied for a building permit for various additions to his residence and garages,
one of which is a 12' x 25' addition to the 1500 sq. foot garage.
A site inspection revealed part of the "covered walkway" had been detached from the
principal structure. Furthermore, the covered walkway is not actually covered. It is a
trellis type fencing covering the walkway, but still open to the sky. The applicant claims
to have removed deteriorating parts of the walkway in preparation of the construction
activity.
Regardless of the removal of the "covered walkway", staff's interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance is the 1500 sq. foot garage must be structurally attached to the principal
structure (existing house) by habitable space in order to be considered an "attached
garage", and thus allowed to be expanded. A "covered walkway" open to the sky does
not warrant the 1500 sq. foot garage to be considered structurally attached. An
acceptable attachment would be in the means of habitable space.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Jim Bates, represented Mr. and Mrs. Craig in the matter. He felt if the structure
was conforming when the building permit was issued it could be expanded without a
variance and is permissible to make this expansion. The staff looked back at a permit
issued in 1985 and disagreed with the interpretation of the ordinance. Craig's variance
was denied. Mr. Craig later discussed the plans with the Planner and applied for a
building permit. The permit was signed offand Mr. Craig built his garage. Mr. Bates
went on to explain Mr. Craig removed part of the walkway in anticipation of building the
addition. Furthermore, he did not find any mention in the ordinance requiring the
attachment to be inhabitable. In the spring of this year, Mr. Craig submitted preliminary
plans to staff. Bates handed out pictures of the property and a copy of a letter from
former planner Michael Leek dated May 1, 1996. Craigs worked out their problems and
assumed their plan was acceptable. He feels staff is disagreeing with a mistake made in
1985. The building permit was properly granted in 1985, the situation nor the ordinance
has not changed. It is a conforming structure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson pointed out the building permit issued in 1985, is clearly marked "detached
garage". Mr. Bates feels it was a mistake presumably by the building official.
Knykendall:
· Horst Graser, Island View Circle, said the issue in 1985 was controversial. The
variance request went before the Planning Commission and was denied. Mr. Craig
revised his plans with a covered walkway attached to the house. He recalls the issue
was subject to a number of meetings between staffand the City's attorney. If it was
constructed as revised it would meet city standards. This was the subject of
considerable discussion by staff. It was a mistake on the building permit stating it a
"detached garage".
Rye explained staff read the ordinance different than they did 10 years ago. Further,
the attachment is not them.
· Supports applicant because the attachment was taken down. The intent was there.
· It does not meet design standards of today.
· This is not a model - at the time, it was the intent.
Criego:
· Tovar explained the definition of "structure". Staff does not have a definition of
"detached" in our ordinance. Rye said definition of "detached" is common
knowledge.
Vonhof:
· Difficult looking back at what happened. After listening to testimony and reading the
report, a permit would not have been issued if not for the intent.
· This would not fly today under our definitions. At the time it was acceptable.
· CiW records have not been complete in the past and have caused a lot of problems.
There was very minimum documentation.
· Favor the applicant based on the testimony.
Stamson:
· Rye clarified staff's interpretation.
· This is a detached garage. A walkway is not an attachment. The trellis is a covering
of the walkway and does not constitute as an attachment. It was a mistake as given. It
should never have been issued and by adding on would perpetuate a mistake.
· Regardless of what everybody remembers, someone on staff documented the garage
as "detached". What is written, is binding.
· Staff did consider it a detached garage in 1985 and should not be added on to.
MN120996 DOC PAGE9
Wueilner:
· Agreed with Stamson. At one point in time, by virtue of creative negotiation this was
considered to be an attached garage by someone's standards. There is a legal building
permit stating it is detached.
· Both parties admit there were mistakes.
· The mistake allowed Mr. Craig to enjoy a 1500 sq. foot garage for 11 years. If we
allow this mistake to continue we are setting a precedent. A walkway is not an
attachment, nor does the City want it to be. It has to be inhabitable space. The
ordinance will have to be amended so this will not happen again.
· The Commission does not have to allow him to add on because someone made a
mistake 11 years ago.
Criego:
· Agrees with Wuellner and Stamson. The interpretation 11 years ago was not correct.
· We are not asking applicant to remove the garage, just stating he cannot add to it.
· Agreed with staff.
· The City Attorney told staff they could force the applicant to take down the garage.
Kuykendall:
· Needs Building Code definition of"detached" and "attached".
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE RULING OF THE CITY ZONING OFFICER IN
REGARDS TO THE APPEAL OF JOHN CRAIG.
Vote taken signified Criego, Wuellner and Stamson, nays Kuykendall and Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
This appeal will go to City Council on January 6, 1997.
B. CASE #96-122 ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. An application was submitted by St. Paul's
Lutheran Church and School, requesting a sign permit in order to locate an illuminated
sign within the R-1 District. The proposal is to construct a 12' x 8' monument sign
which has external lighting. In the spring of 1996, a storm destroyed an illuminated sign
located on the top of the hill facing T.H. 13. The proposed sign is a replacement sign on
the hill facing T.H. 13.
Comments from the public:
Tom Trishe, 4950 Credit River Road, representing the Church, stated they wanted to
meet city code and propose to use the existing lights from the previous sign.
IMN 120996 DOC PAGEI0
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· The hill above the sign goes up approximately 35 feet above the sign. The direction
of the light goes away from the neighboring home.
· Agreed but questioned the wattage of lights.
Vonhof:
· Only concern is for any negative impact on Highway 13, reflection or distraction
beyond what exists now.
· Trishe explained the sign is brick and wood which will not reflect glare.
Kuykendall:
· Same lights are being used.
· No reflective problems.
Stamson:
· Tovar said the city does not have any inspection and lighting standards.
· It is an attractive sign.
Wuellner:
· Agrees - well placed.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RES. 96-37PC
TO ALLOW AN ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN 1N THE RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRiCT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5634 LUTHER ROAD,
FOR ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. CASE #96-I 02 FAIRVIEW CLINIC CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
Fairview Clinic submitted a letter requesting the Commissioners table the request to the
January 13, 1997 meeting.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO
THE JANUARY 13, 1997 MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson, Vonhof, Wuellner and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - Don Rye
· Criego suggested outlining the definitions and putting it in context. He would like an
outline or "family tree".
· Rye explained some of the problems in the ordinance dealing with land uses. The
ordinance is 25 years old and the City is trying to clean up some land uses in the
districts. Create more generic land uses.
· Commissioners suggested staff writing new ordinance and then pointing out why staff
feel the changes are necessary.
· General theory of practice of zoning.
Change special meeting from January 21, to January 28, 1997.
Kuykendall will not be attending January 13, 1997 meeting.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 9:33 P.M.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING: 1) PUD'S
AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; 2) SETBACKS
ALONG COLLECTOR STREETS; 3) ZONING BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OF TREE
REPLACEMENT PLANS; 4) ESTABLISH AN OHWM
ON PREVIOUSLY UNDETERMINED LAKES (Case File
#96-124)
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATO~
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
X YES NO
JANUARY 13, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider several "housekeeping"
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. A recent review of the Zoning Ordinance
identified several minor amendments which should be made immediately, rather
than as part of the overall Zoning Ordinance revision. The purpose behind these
amendments is to simplify the administration of the current ordinance. Each of
the amendments is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.,
DISCUSSION:
1. Amendment to Section 5-3-3 of the City Code and Section 3.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance to remove Planned Unit Developments as a
Conditional Use in the R-I, R-2 and R-3 districts.
The Zoning Ordinance currently includes Planned Unit Developments in the
list of Conditional Uses in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts. However, a PUD is
really its own zoning district, or an overlay district, with an approval process
separate from that of a conditional use permit. In order to eliminate the
confusion this causes, the proposed amendment removes PUD's from the list
1:\96files\96zoamnd\96-124za\96124pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
of conditional uses. This amendment does not change the procedures or
standards for a planned unit development.
2. Amendment to Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code and Section 4.1 (K) of
the Zoning Ordinance to apply the setbacks for County Roads and
Collector Streets to "Major" Collector streets only.
The current ordinance requires an 85' setback from the centerline of the
existing traveled roadway on all County roads and collector streets. When
this ordinance was originally adopted, the only collector streets were also
County roads. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in June, 1996, it
established a series of both "minor" and "major" collector streets. In addition
to County roads, "major" collector are streets such as Fish Point Road and
Carriage Hills Parkway. "Minor" collectors on the other hand include streets
such as Wilds Parkway and Willowwood Street. Neither the original
ordinance nor the Comprehensive Plan intended to apply the increased
setback to "minor" collectors. The proposed ordinance will clarify this section
by referring to "major" collector streets only.
3. Amendment to Section 5-5-16 (F,2) of the City Code and Section 6.16
(F,2) of the Zoning Ordinance to remove the language requiring Zoning
Board of Adjustment Approval of Tree Replacement Plans conforming
to the Tree Replacement formula, and adding language clarifying that
the percentage refers to a percentage of total caliper inches of
significant trees.
The Tree Preservation Ordinance, adopted in January, 1996, allows a
percentage of the total caliper inches of significant trees to be removed. The
ordinance also allows the removal of additional trees with a tree replacement
plan. The formula for the replacement of trees is spelled out in the ordinance.
The staff recently discovered a provision in the ordinance which requires the
Zoning Board of Adjustment to approve a variance to allow the removal of
significant trees, even with a tree replacement plan. This paragraph does not
seem to be consistent with the intent of the tree replacement plan provisions,
nor has the ordinance ever been applied in this manner.
The staff is proposing to eliminate this paragraph. It appears the ordinance
intended to allow the removal of trees as long as there is a tree replacement
plan which meets the provisions of the ordinance approved by the staff. A
variance is certainly required if the removal of significant trees is proposed
without a replacement plan.
The staff is also proposing to add a phrase to the ordinance which clarifies
that the allowable percentage is a percentage of total caliper inches. Section
1:\96files\96zoam nd\96-124za\96124pc.doc Page 2
5-5-16 (F,2) of the ordinance currently states "up to twenty-five percent (25%)
of significant trees..." which can be interpreted to mean 25% of the number of
trees. However, the example provided in Section 5-5-16 (F,3) clearly
indicates the percentage refers to the total number of caliper inches. The
staff is proposing to change 5-5-16 (F,2) to read "up to twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total cal~ner inches ~f all significant trees..." in order to
eliminate any potential confusion. This language is consistent with the
example provided, and does not change the intent of the ordinance.
Amendment to Section 5-8-2 (A) of the City Code and Section 9.2 (A) of
the Zoning Ordinance adding an Ordinary High Water Mark Elevation as
determined by the MN DNR to those lakes which do not have a
previously established OHWM (Jeffers Pond, Markley Lake and Blind
Lake), and changing the OHWM on Howard Lake to the elevation
determined by the DNR.
When the Shoreland regulations were originally adopted, the DNR had not
established an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) on Jeffers Pond, Markley
Lake or Blind Lake. Since then, the DNR has reviewed these lakes, and
established an OHWM for each of the lakes as follows:
Jeffers Pond 866.1'
Markley Lake 893.2'
Blind Lake 948.7'
The DNR has also reviewed the OHWM for the other public waters in the City
of Prior Lake and has determined the OHWM for Howard Lake can be
reduced from 957.2' to 957.3 feet.
The proposed ordinance amendment adds the newly established elevations.
This amendment is consistent with the DNR rules, and with the intent of the
current Shoreland regulations. The addition of the OHWM's will provide a
guide for any new development around these lakes.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
1:\96files\96zoam nd\96-124za\96124pc.doc
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION;
The staff recommends alternative #1.
R ·
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Hearing Notice
1:\96files\96zoamnd~964124za\96124pc,doc Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 5-3-3, 5-4-1, 5-5-16, AND 5-8-2 OF
THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3.2, 4.1, 6.16,
AND 9.2 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Sections 5-3-3, 5-4-I, 5-5-16, and 5-8-2 of the Prior Lake City Code and Sections 3.2,
4.1, 6.16, and 9.2 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 5-3-3 of the City Code and Section 3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are hereby
amended by deleting Planned Unit Developments from the list of Conditional Uses in the
R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts.
Section 5-4-1 (M) of the City Code and Section 4.1 (K) of the Zoning Ordinance are
hereby amended by adding the language in bold italics and deleting the language shown
in ' ~ :
County Roads and Major Collector Streets: The minimum setback requirement for
County roads and major collector streets, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, shall
be measured from the centerline of the existing traveled roadway. ~
~ Front yard setbacks for the following designated roads shall be
determined as follows:
Major Collector Streets:
County Roads:
County Road 42:
County Road 18:
85 feet in platted areas with utilities; 150 feet in all other
areas
85 feet in platted areas with utilities; 150 feet in all other
areas
150 feet in all areas
250 feet in all areas
Section 5-5-16 (F,2) of the City Code and Section 6.16 (F,2) of the Zoning Ordinance are
hereby amended by adding the language in bold italics and deleting the language shown
in ~triket~ough.~.~ ......~...
drai~ord.doc PAGE I
Allowable Tree Removal:
(a) Initial Site Development: For the initial site development, up to twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant trees will be allowed to be removed
without tree replacement or restitution for the following activities:
(1) Grading of the road right-of-way.
(2) Utilities installation, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, natural gas,
electric service, telephone service, cable television, and other similar public or semi-
public utilities.
(3) Construction of public or private streets.
(4) Construction and/or grading of drainage ways.
In addition to the twenty-five percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant
trees which may be removed without replacement or restitution for the above-listed
activities, an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all
significant trees on individual lots within the sites of new development may be removed
without replacement or restitution for the installation of utilities, driveways and building
pads.
(b) Previously Platted, Vacant Lot Development: On individual lots, up to twenty-five
percent (25%) of the total caliper inches of all significant trees may be removed for the
installation of utilities, driveway and the building pad without tree replacement or
restitution.
Significant trees in excess of the limitations of this chapter may be removed, provided all
trees removed in ~¥cess of said limitations shall be replaced in accordance with the Tree
Replacement Formula.
Section 5-8-2 (A) of the City Code and Section 9.2 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance are
hereby amended by adding or changing the OHWM for the following lakes:
Lake DNR ID No. OHWM
Howard Lake 70-73P 957.2
Unnamed (Jeffers Pond) 70-77
866.10
Marldey Lake 70-21W 893.2
Unnamed (Blind Lake)
70-53 948.7
drafford.doc PAGE 2
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
day of ,1996.
dral~ord.doc
PAGE 3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY CODE AND THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE:
1. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-3-3 OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTION 3.2
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REMOVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-l, R-2 AND R-3
DISTRICTS
2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (M) OF THE CITY CODE AND
SECTION 4.1 (K) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO APPLY THE
SETBACKS FOR COUNTY ROADS AND COLLECTOR STREETS TO
"MAJOR" COLLECTOR STREETS ONLY
3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-5-16 (F,2) OF THE CITY CODE AND 6;16
(F,2) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE
REQUIRING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OF TREE
REPLACEMENT PLANS CONFORMING TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT
FORMULA
4. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-8-2 (A) OF THE CITY CODE AND 9.2 (A)
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK ELEVATION AS DETERMINED BY THE MN DNR TO THOSE
LAKES WHICH DO NOT HAVE A PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED OHWM
(JEFFERS POND, MARKLEY LAKE AND BLIND LAKE), AND
CHANGING THE OHWM ON HOWARD LAKE TO THE ELEVATION
DETERMINED BY THE DNR
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake
Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 2I and Fish
Point Road), on Monday, January 13, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The
purpose of the public hearing is to consider the above described amendments to the Title 5 (Zoning
Regulations) &the City Code and to the Zoning Ordinance.
If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written
comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter,
please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday.
Prepared this 20th day of December, 1996 by:
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON DECEMBER 28, 1996
1:\96zoamnd\96-124za\96124pn.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
16200
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR
FAIRVlEW CLINIC
4151 WILLOWWOOD STREET
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~__~
YES X NO-NIA [~
JANUARY 13, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
Universal Signs has submitted an application for a conditional sign permit on
behalf of Fairview Clinic. The applicant requests a conditional sign permit in
order to construct a 72 square foot illuminated wall business sign on the south
wall of the building facing TH 13. The proposed sign is 4' by 18' and is
constructed of vinyl graphics with an aluminum panel. See the attached exhibits
for the size and specifications of the sign.
BACKGROUND:
In February, 1995, the Council approved a conditional use permit for the
construction and operation of a medical clinic (Fairview Clinic) in the R-1 district
on the property located at 4151 Willowwood Street SE. There were no signs
approved as a part of the conditional use permit. In September, 1995, the
Planning Commission approved a conditional sign permit to allow a freestanding
sign at the intersection of TH 13 and Five Hawks Avenue. That sign has never
been constructed, although there is a temporary sign located at the corner of TH
13 and Five Hawks Avenue. In November, 1996, the applicant submitted an
application for a conditional sign permit to construct a 47 square foot illuminated
business sign above the east entrance to the building. The Planning
Commission was scheduled to consider that item on December 9, 1996, but the
applicant asked to continue that request until January 13, 1997, in order to revise
the plans for the sign. The current request is to allow a 72 square foot
illuminated sign on the south wall of the building, just east of the entrance.
DISCUSSION:
Section 5-7-6 (C) of the City Ordinance states illuminated signs in the A-l, C-1
and Residential Zoning Districts require a conditional sign permit. The ordinance
reads:
96102PC2,DOC Page 1
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(C) Illuminated Signs: Illuminated signs may be a/lowed in agricultural,
conservation and residential zoning districts. Such signs shall be
illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed
solely at the sign, or internal to it, without causing g/are for motorists,
pedestrians, or neighboring property.
Furthermore, Section 5-7-6 (G) requires a conditional sign permit for any signs
accessory to a conditional use. This section reads, in part, as follows:
(G) Signs Accessory to Conditional Uses: Signs for uses which are
classified as conditional uses by the Zoning Ordinance and are located
in a residential zoning district, may have sign(s) provided the total
number and area of said sign(s) do not exceed maximum standards for
the B-l, Limited Business Zoning District identified in Section 5-7-7 of
this Chapter. The Planning Commission may assign conditions of
approval and limit the size, number, location and type of signage in the
event it determines the proposed sign(s) are not compatible with the
existing and planned development in the vicinity of the subject site and
underlying zoning district.
Under this provision, a 226 square foot sign is permitted. The proposed sign is
well below the maximum area permitted by the ordinance. This sign is also
internally lit and is directed away from any of the adjacent residential areas.
The proposed wall sign replaces the freestanding sign originally proposed. For
this reason, the existing temporary sign should be removed once the wall sign is
in place.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Conditional Sign Permit as requested by the applicant.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for a specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds that the
applicant has not met the conditions under the sign ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1. The proposed sign meets the conditions of the Ordinance, and
does not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties or traffic. As a
condition of approval, the existing temporary sign must be removed.
96102PC2.DOC Page 2
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion to adopt Resolution 97-01PC approving the Conditional Sign Permit to
allow the construction of a 4' by 18' illuminated wall business sign at 4151
Willowwood Street SE as shown on the attached plan, subject to the condition
that the temporary sign currently located at the corner of TH 13 and Five Hawks
Avenue is removed.
96102PC2.DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 97-01PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT TO PERMIT
AN ILLUMINATED WALL BUSINESS SIGN IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AND AS A SIGN ACCESSORY TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(FAIRVIEW MEDICAL CLINIC) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4151
WILLOWWOOD STREET
WHEREAS, Universal Signs, on behalf of Fairview Clinic, has applied for a
Conditional Sign Permit as required by Section 5-7-6 of the City Ordinance in order to
permit an illuminated sign in a residential zoning district as an accessory use to a
conditional use permit on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District at
the following location, to wit:
4151 Willowwood Street, legally described as Lots 1-3, Block 2; Second
Addition to Westbury Ponds, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for
conditional sign permit as contained in Case File #96-102 and held hearings thereon on
January 13, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed
sign upon the property in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed sign on
traffic; and
WHEREAS, because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding
property, it is possible tO use the subject property in such a way that the proposed sign
will not danger to the public safety, have a negative impact on surrounding property or
traffic, and unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case 96-102 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to
Section 5-7-16 of the Ordinance, the sign permit will be deemed to be null and void six
(6) months from the date of approval if the holder of the sign permit has failed to
complete the contemplated improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Planning Commission of the City
of Prior Lake, Minnesota:
16200
l:\96files\96cup\96-102cu\res9701 .doc Page 1
Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447~4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A conditional sign permit is granted to permit the construction of an illuminated sign in a
residential zoning district as an accessory use to the conditional use permit for the
Fairview Clinic as proposed in Exhibit A (the site plan submitted with the conditional
sign permit application contained in Case file 96-102), attached to and made a part of the
resolution, subject to the condition that the existing temporary sign on the property is
removed upon completion of the wall sign.
Adopted by the Planning Commission on January 13, 1997.
ATTEST:
William Criego, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\96 files\96cup\96-102cu~res9701 .doc
Page 2
EXH.~BiT A
~:XH~3]T A
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road, SE (Southwest of the
intersection of CR. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, December 9, 1996 at 7:00
p.m.
APPLICANT:
Universal Signs
Rick Palmateer, President
1033 Thomas Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services
2312 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55454
SUBJECT SITE:
Fairview Clinic
4151 Willowwood Street SE
Lots 1-3, Block 2, Second Addition to Westbury Ponds
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct a 3'-1" by 15'-9" illuminated
wall business sign above the east entrance of the building were it
faces Five Hawks Avenue and TH 13.
The proposed sign requires a Conditional Use Permit under the
Prior Lake Sign Ordinance. The site was granted a conditional
use permit in 1995 to construct and operate a medical clinic in the
R-1 district. The proposed sign is an addition to the existing
building.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend this hearing. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Questions related to this hearing
should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Depadment by calling 447-4230 between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
Date Mailed: November 26, 1996
96102PN.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
City of Prior Lake
APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT
White - Applicant
Yellow - CiE`
Permit No. q
DIRECTIONS: Spaces numbered 1 thru 10 must be filled in before permit is issued 1. PARCEL NO. OF PROPERTY:
(Please print or type, and sign where required
2. APPLICANT: (NAME) (ADDRESS) (PHONE)
Universal Signs, Inc., 1033 Thomas Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104 6]2-645-0223
3. OWNER: (NAME) (ADDRESS) (PHONE)
Fairview Hospital, 2450 Riverside Avenue. 612-672-6300
4. SITE ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF SIGN (PHONE)
Fairview Clinic, 4151 Willowood Street S.C.
5. TYPE OF SIGN: TEMPORARY (21 DAYMAXIMUM DISPLAY) PERMANE~'VT (WALL/MARQUEE/AWNING/FREESTANDING)
Balloon* Banner* Business*Changeable Copy Signs*Construction Signs*Illuminated Signs*Institutional Signs*Lake Service Signs*
Multiple Residential Nameplate Signs *On-Premise Directional Signs *Permanent Window Sign *Portable Sign *Subdivision Identification Signs
6. SIGN DIMENSIONS 10. Estimated Value of Sign
(square feet) (Height) (Width) (Depth) $3,000.00
72
7. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
Aluminum & Fabric
8. PROPOSED DISPLAY DATES (if applicable)
SIGN PERMITS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED IF THEY ARE INCOMPLETE
I hereby certify that [ have furnished information on this application which is, to the b~ofmy knowledge, amc and correct [ also certify that I am the owner
[ or authorized agent for the above-mentioned property, and that all construction wi~6nfonn to all existing state and local laws and will proceed in accordance
[with submined plans. I am aware that the City plann~er.43an revoke thi3~4x)a4~ just cause. Furthermore, I hereby agree that City Officials or a designee
I SIGNATUR~'~J'F PROPERTY OWNERJAGENT D~
FOR ADMINISTRgtTIVE USE
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Completed Application
Scale Drawing showing location of sign
__ Plans and Specs
Permit Fee $ (Permit fee is set
at time of application according to approved schedule)
This Application becomes your Sign Permit when approved.
By
City Planner or designee
Date
This is to certify that the request in the above application and accompanying documents is in accordance with he City Sign Ordinance and may proceed as
requested. This document, when signed by the CiE, Planner or designee constitutes a temporaE`' Certificate of Zoning compliance and allows construction to
Special Conditions
24 Hour Notice for All Inspections
447-4230 from 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY ACQUISITION OF
TAX FORFEITED LAND
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOI~:~[%~
YES X NO-N/A
JANUARY 13, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to consider City acquisition of tax forfeited parcels.
The Scott County Auditor recently submitted a list of properties in the County
which will be on the next tax forfeiture sale. The City has the opportunity to
request a specified use deed from the State for any of these parcels. A specified
use is defined as any public use.
Minnesota statutes require the Planning Commission to review any acquisition of
land for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission
must make a recommendation to the Council on the acquisition of these parcels.
DISCUSSION:
Several parcels of land in the City of Prior Lake are currently in tax forfeiture (as
shown on attached Exhibits A-D). The Development Review Committee has
reviewed these parcels on the basis of whether there is a public need to acquire
the land. The staff recommends the following be acquired:
· 25-133-001-0 and 25-133-002-0: These parcels, shown on Exhibit A, are
located north of Spring Lake and adjacent to Spring Lake Regional Park.
There is a wetland and a pond on the parcels. The City has tried to acquire
an easement on these parcels in the past, but the property owner would not
sign the easement. If the County does not want the parcels, it is in the public
interest for the City to acquire them.
· 25-063-003-0: This is a 66' wide strip of land extending west from Island
View Park to Arctic Lake (see Exhibit B). The Comprehensive Plan identifies
a need for a trail from this park to Arctic Lake.
TAXFORPC,DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
25-934-012-0: This is a 16.5' strip of land extending south from CR 82 to
Arctic Lake (see Exhibit B). Once again, this land will provide a trail access
to Arctic Lake, as identified on the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Recommend to the City Council that the City acquire the above-listed tax
forfeited lands as recommended by the staff.
2. Recommend to the City Council that none of the tax forfeited lands be
acquired.
3. Table or continue discussion of this item for specific purposes.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion to recommend that the acquisition of the above-listed tax forfeited
lands is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the City should
proceed with the acquisition of these pamels.
TAXFORPC.DOC Page 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Don Rye
SUBJECT: New zoning ordinance
DATE: January 2, 1997
At the last planning commission meeting, some commissioners expressed a desire for
additional information concerning the rationale and philosophy of the new zoning
ordinance to assist them in the review of the new ordinance. Toward that end, it is
appropriate to discuss some of the shortcomings of the current ordinance in order to gain
some understanding of the need for changes in the zoning ordinance.
The current zoning ordinance is based on an ordinance which was adopted in 1973. The
current zoning districts and many of the land uses in these districts were contained in the
original ordinance. Since then, there have been numerous amendments to the ordinance to
add provisions dealing with shoreland management, tree preservation, lot sizes, various
permitted or conditional land uses and administrative procedures. As is commonly the
case, many of these amendments were done within the context of a specific application or
parcel of property and, as a result, the amendments do not always fit the overall direction
or intent of the ordinance. Some of the amendments contradict other ordinance
provisions. Over time, the inconsistencies in the ordinance have proliferated to the point
that the validity of some sections has become questionable. For example, it is not clear
from the ordinance whether the adoption of a PUD is a zoning change, a conditional use
permit approval or an overlay.
The primary function of the zoning ordinance is to implement the comprehensive plan.
Some time ago, staff provided the commission with a report which listed comprehensive
plan policies and the potential implications of these policies as they related to
development of a new zoning ordinance. A copy of that report is attached for those who
may have misplaced their copy. Commissioners may want to review this report again and
periodically as the process continues to insure that ordinance development is directed
toward achievement of the policies in the comprehensive plan.
The major issues which need to be addressed in the ordinance are as follows:
16200 E!~l~s~cl:k°,~q;~ S,E,, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4417-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. Develop additional or modified zoning districts consistent with the comprehensive
plan, including redefinition of land uses. Insure land use compatibility within and
between zoning districts.
2. Review and modify or develop performance standards in the ordinance for all land
uses, including such things as parking requirements, lighting, landscaping,
architectural design and operating standards for commercial and industrial uses.
3. Clarify the PUD process and establish standards for approval of PUDs which are
objective and understandable.
4. Update sections of the ordinance to insure it reflects changes in rules or statutes which
might effect the ordinance.
5. Modifications as necessary to bring the ordinance into full compliance with the
comprehensive plan.
6. Modify procedural requirements to improve ease of ordinance administration.
7. Establish objective criteria and standards for conditional uses and uses permitted with
conditions.
Following is a chapter outline of the proposed ordinance.
· Purpose and intent
· Rules of construction
· Definitions
· General provisions
Yards
Allowable yard encroachments
Traffic visibility
Tree removal
Temporary uses
· District regulations
A- Agricultural
R- 1-Residential
R-2-Residential
R-3 Residential
R-4 Residential
C-1 Commercial
C-2 Commercial
C-3 Commercial
C-4 Commercial
C-5 Business Park
I-1 General Industrial
SD Shoreland District
FP Floodplain District
· Performance Standards/Special provisions
Parking
Signs
Lighting
REASONS.DOC/DR 2
Landscaping and Screening
Conditional use standards
Architectural design
Planned Unit Development
Administration
Interpretation and appeals
Certificate of Occupancy
Non-conformities
Application process
Site Plan Review
Amendments
Reimbursement for City costs
Effect of previous approvals
Enforcement
The final ordinance which is adopted may differ from this outline somewhat, but all of
the elements listed will be contained in the ordinance.
REASONS.DOC/DR 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES IMPLICATIONS FOR ZONING
Develop and maintain regulations that permit a mix of housing types, sizes and price
ranges to be provided throughout the City
Maintain development standards and housing policies that allow for low and
moderate cost housing opportunities.
Maintain a variety of residential densities (dwelling units per acre).
Protect residential areas from industrial and commercial encroachment to the
maximum practicable extent; recognizing that the degree of encroachment may vary
with isolated single family developments, which are not part of an urban
neighborhood.
The burden of a satisfactory transition from one density or dwelling type to another
rests with the developer seeking development plan approval.
Discourage new residential subdivisions in isolated areas that have little or no
potential to either develop into a viable neighborhood or to assimilate with an
established neighborhood.
Consideration of development plans for multiple dwellings in areas so designated on
the Land Use Guide Plan, should include the following design-related items:
· New developments should not isolate existing single family dwellings by inhibiting
pedestrian and/or vehicular access.
New development completely surrounded by single family dwellings, should be
discouraged in favor of large scale planned unit developments which are more
conducive to a mix of housing styles with shared amenities.
There should be convenient access to collector and arterial streets and to available
transit so to not unduly contribute to congestion on local residential streets.
16200 E~.~g~)IL~(~S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4417-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
· Large common open areas may provide an effective transitional use to other uses.
· Location near permanent public and private open spaces may compensate for the
impact of the higher density.
Promote platting of large planned unit developments
Set the minimum and maximum amounts of industrial and commercial (office,
service, retail) development desired.
Encourage a mixture and diversity of industrial and commercial land uses that will
remain relatively stable under changing economic conditions.
Establish a theme for positive identification for redevelopment of existing commercial
areas in focal locations including, but not limited to, Gateway, Downtown, and
Priordale.
Prepare and maintain official maps including, but not limited to: zoning,
transportation system, utilities, parks and trails, Shoreland Management and Flood
Plain areas, and existing land uses.
Industrial and commercial uses should be consolidated in planned areas.
Reserve sufficient space on arterial roads for neighborhood, community, and regional
commercial centers.
Industrial and commercial centers should interface with the community rather than
be developed solely to capture vehicular traffic that happens to travel through the city.
New development should contribute to the function and success of the adjacent
neighborhoods and the community.
Encourage, regulate, and promote non-polluting and aesthetically pleasing
commercial and industrial development.
Develop and support adequate uniform inspection policies and effective enforcement
procedures.
Encourage commercial and industrial self-policing and maintenance of sites and
structures.
Maintain proper physical site screening and landscaping standards.
CPPOLICY.DOC/CC 2
Develop and maintain traffic patterns keeping industrial and commercial traffic clear
of residential areas.
All ordinances must be developed and enforced in the public interest.
Ordinances, codes, and policies should be maintained through regular review,
evaluation, and, when warranted, revisions or repeal, to avoid obsolescence and
ineffectiveness.
Variances from City ordinances, codes, and regulations may be made only after study,
and after appropriate hearings, in accordance with established variance standards
and criteria.
Ensure adequate public hearings prior to the adoption of land use ordinances and
regulations.
Plan development of the City so that it occurs in a reasonable and functional fashion.
Ordinances and zoning changes should be applied in a logical manner allowing
sufficient time for those individuals directly affected by the ordinance or zoning
change to comply.
Discourage and/or prohibit the following:
· Spot" guiding and zoning with disregard of adopted standards and criteria, to
satisfy special interests.
· Reguiding or re-zoning of land uses in unserviced and/or future development areas
when adequate zoned land is available in serviced areas of the City.
· Urban development beyond existing utility service areas.
Transition bet~veen radically different land uses should be accomplished on the
developer's property or by a natural boundary, an arterial or collector road, and/or
through adequate landscaping.
Clear visibility of major intersections and often-used driveways through the plan
approval process and code enforcement.
Requirements for parking lot lighting.
Minimize exposure of pedestrians to undesirable conditions.
CPPOLICY.DOC/CC 3
Require a high standard of design and materials for all structures.
Provide for fees to cover cost of development and preservation services.
Provide adequate regulations to prevent the development or existence of any
industrial or commercial endeavor which will, through its operation, create a hazard
to the environment.
Require all developers to retain the natural environment as much as possible such as
the preservation of desirable trees, shrubs, land forms, swamps, and ponding areas.
Effectively and uniformly regulate the development of structures and other land uses
in or near flood plain and drainage areas.
Nonconforming land uses should be eliminated over time.
Develop and maintain communications with school district to ensure proper location
of educational structures.
Require that any waste disposal or processing facility meets or exceeds all federal,
state, and local requirements, and be located in an area which will not jeopardize
future development of the City.
Prohibit outside storage without adequate screening from neighbors and public view.
Require adequate storage and containment of waste and refuse materials.
Maintain standards of land use at intersections to avoid congesting arterial
interchanges with circulation of local traffic.
Require arterial and major collector access without use of neighborhood streets for
high density and high intensity use concentrations.
Elementary schools should be located on at least minor collector streets and afford
maximum pedestrian access and safe efficient vehicle and bus access.
Junior high or middle schools should be located on at least minor arterial streets and
provide a balance of safe access for pedestrians and vehicles.
High schools should be located at intersections of at least minor arterial streets for a
higher degree of vehicle access as well as safe pedestrian access.
CPPOLICY.DOC/CC 4
Ensure land use plans and regulations are consistent with applicable State
Regulations as to height of structures.
Consider provision for mass transit vehicle access and circulation during review of
development and redevelopment plans for employment centers and high density
residential projects.
Require that land proposed for urban development be served with all municipal
utilities, i.e., do not extend sewer to new lands unless water and storm drainage can be
developed concurrently.
Extend utilities only to areas contiguous with existing utility service boundaries, in
accordance with approved growth and capital improvement plans.
Determine land use categories within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)
where an inadequate supply of land serviced by public utilities remains, and
concentrate future public utility extensions to those areas per Land Use Guide Plan
Map.
CPPOLICY.DOC/CC 5