HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, May 27, 1997
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Old Business:
A. Case #97-025 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to the conversion of existing decks not meeting required setbacks
three season porches.
New Business:
A. Recommendation for Planning Commission Chair
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 Ea~W~c~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota ~v'72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 12, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The May 12, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 6:35 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Stamson, Vonhof and
Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant
City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson
2. Roll Call:
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Present
Vonhof Present
Wuellner Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE APRIL
28, 1997, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
Cormnissioner Criego abstained from voting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-033 Consider Schematic Planned Unit Development Plan to
allow an Assisted Living Project in the Priorview PUD.
The public hearing was opened and a sign-up sheet circulated to the public in attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated May 12, 1997.
Eagle Creek Villas LLC applied for an amendment to the Priorview PUD to add
approximately one acre of land to the original PUD site, to allow the construction ora 61
unit assisted living building and a 28 unit market rate senior rental building on the vacant
portion of the site. The original PUD was approved in 1983 and the development to date
has occurred prior to 1991. The present applicant has no connection with the developer
of the original PUD.
The Priorview PUD was preceded by Council action in 1981 which rezoned the subject
property to R-3, High Density residential. This would have permitted 210 units on the
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn051297.doc I
15.05 acres ofbuildable land on the site. In December of 1982, the Council approved a
Schematic PUD plan which provided for 106 units, a street connection from Five Hawks
Avenue to Cates Street and preservation of site amenities. In September of 1983, the
Council approved the first phase of the development consisting of 48 townhomes.
Priorview Second Addition consisting of 20 units, was approved in 1991.
In 1987, the developer asked the City to consider expansion of the PUD to include the so-
called Holly Court property to the north and increase the number of units to 148. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request and the application was with -
drawn.
There has been no construction activity on this site for several years. In September, 1996,
the Council approved Resolution 96-90, approving an amendment to the Schematic Plan
for the Priorview PUD, to allow a 61 unit assisted living facility. This amendment was
subject to the eight conditions. The developer never submitted the necessary documents
for preliminary plan approval of this PUD.
Staff recommended approval of the request based on the following considerations:
· A Comprehensive Plan amendment will likely be required to deal with the density
issue.
· The proposal will enable the City to make substantial progress toward the attainment
of Livable Communities goals related to lifestyle housing.
· The proposed use is compatible with the development in the vicinity.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, the attorney representing the developer and applicant commented the
campus concept for assisted living facilities is an important element. An independent
living building on the grounds would be necessary. One spouse could be living in the
assisted living facility while the other would live in the neighboring independent
building. The density would be consistent with the neighborhood and satisfy the
objectives of the PUD. The key element is the question of the contribution of an interest
in the land to the school district. That would be made, subject to a restriction which
would preclude development of the property so the area would be preserved for density in
this project. This issue would be resolved and the City would be given a copy of the
instrument for their records.
Pamela Nelson, 16517 Dutch Avenue SE, lives behind the wooded area and asked if the
trees and wetland would be removed with the development. Commissioner Criego
explained the proposed development and the surrounding natural area.
The public hearing was closed at 6:55 p.m.
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin\mn051297.doc 2
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Questioned the parking lot and a bufferyard. Kansier explained it was a concept plan
and the landscaping will be discussed in a future phase.
· The City is in need of a facility like this.
· In favor.
Wuellner:
· Questioned what regulations would be in place to assure this facility would remain an
assisted living facility. Rye responded the use is specified as an assisted living
project. The PUD would have to be amended.
· Concern for the school district's involvement. Huemoeller said the owners have
considered selling the property to the school district. The discussion and intention is
a conveyance to the school district in the nature of a contribution with restrictions that
would deal the density issue. The school is in the process of designing a nature
center. Also, with the density restrictions and limitations there will not be any more
room for additional living facilities. The only use will be as a natural amenity.
· Rye addressed the building sites and locations. The City's concern was for
preservation of the area.
· Would like to see the area remain natural. The restriction will be in the PUD.
· In favor of the facility. It is necessary for the community and a valuable resource.
· The street extension was eliminated in favor of a nature trail.
Vonhof:
· In favor of assisted living concept.
· This is a completely different proposal.
· Questioned the three story size. Kansier responded the City can require the building
plan and expects them to be similar in appearance, size and bulk.
· This is a city-wide need.
· Agreed with Commissioner Wuellner in keeping the facility an assisted living
facility.
Criego:
· The owner/builder, John Mesenbrink explained the outside design and exterior
materials as well as the site and the preservation areas.
· Debra Rose, 7725 Jennifer Lane, Pri.or Lake, explained the services of the home
health facility. The bulk of the services would be on a fee for service basis from a
home health perspective. Residents would receive 2 meals per day, weekly light
housekeeping and scheduled transportation. There will be 24 hour emergency
supervision in the building, emergency cords in each room, an attendant program
would be available in the event they ran into trouble in the building, an RN would be
in the building 40 hours a week, a home health agency would be in the building,
space would be leased for hairdressing, also, several assistant services would be
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminXmn051297.doc 3
available to residents. The facility would cater to seniors and handi-capped
individuals. Meals would depend on the clientele.
· The time frame for the facility was addressed by Mr. Huemoeller. It could be as early
as this year, depending on the planning process. The other buildings have not been
established and would probably go into next year.
· Excellent program.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC PLAN, SUBJECT TO A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT RELATED TO DENSITY.
No discussion.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION APPROVED.
This matter will probably be scheduled before City Council on June 2, 1997.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #97-028 Resolution of Denial for variance requests for Pinnacle
Partners for property on Red Oaks Road.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report dated May 12, 1997.
On April 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed variance requests from Pinnacle
Partners proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage and
deck. The Planning Commission, concurring with staff, concluded the variance requests
for lot area and width are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot the applicant
has no control over. The Planning Commission approved a variance to lot area and lot
width by adopting Resolution 97-012PC.
The Planning Commission denied variances to Ordinary High Water (OHW) setback, top
of bluff setback, and bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission cited the size and
design of the structure as hardships created by the applicant which could be changed, as
well as the maximum use of the legal building envelope and building over the garage as
alternatives to reducing/eliminating the variance requests. The Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a separate resolution of denial with findings as discussed.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
97-13PC DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904
EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26
FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP
OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminhnn051297.doc 4
(3) A 16 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN
THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOP. A
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Discussion:
The Planning Commission cited the size and design of the structure as hardships created
by the applicant which could be changed, as well as the maximum use of the legal
building envelope and building over the garage as alternatives to reducing and
eliminating the variances.
Vote taken signified ayes by ail. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
Commissioner Criego expressed concern for the ordinance change to a 50 foot setback
from the 75 foot setback. In that case, the impervious surface coverage should be 25% in
line with the DNR's regulations. There should be more concern for the lake than the
DNR's regulations.
Recommendation to City Council to decrease the impervious surface coverage to 25% in
accordance with the DNR's regulations.
Rye commented on the Shoreland District regulations and the impervious surface issue.
Discussion followed on the impervious surface coverage. Impervious surface is the one
standard the Commissioners have maintained. Commissioners felt if the impervious
surface standard was decreased, additional screening/landscaping standards would be
incorporated. They would like to see a response from the DNR. There was also concerns
for fertilizer, appearance and runoff to the lake. Setback averaging solved many of the
problems. The City should take a look at the total picture of the lakeshore ordinances.
Recommendation to City Council to consider best management practices and language
incorporated into the ordinance.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Monday, May 19, staffwill meet with City Council to present the proposed zoning
ordinance.
Tuesday, May 20, a public meeting will be held to discuss the redevelopment of the
Priordale Mall.
The Commissioners discussed the joint EDA/Planning Commission meeting, road
construction and accesses.
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminkmn051297.doc 5
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~mn051297.doc
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
SA
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE CONVERSION OF
EXISTING DECKS NOT MEETING REQUIRED
SETBACKS TO THREE SEASON PORCHES (Case
File #97-025)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
MAY 27, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this text amendment
on April 14, 1997. At that time, the Commission tabled action on the amendment
until May 27, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendment would allow the conversion of existing decks which do
not meet the required setbacks to a three season porch. This amendment was
initiated by the Council on March 17, 1997, in response to an appeal of a
Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced
lakeshore setback. The variance involved the conversion of an existing deck to
a three season porch. At the same time, the Council initiated an amendment to
the required setback from the OHWM. (On May 5, 1997, the Council adopted an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which reduced the required setback from
the Ordinary High Water Mark from 75' to 50 feet.)
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission originally tabled action on this item since it was
related to the amendment which reduced the required setback from the OHWM.
That amendment has Since been adopted.
The attached Planning Report, dated April 14, 1997, explains this amendment in
detail. The Planning Commission did not request any additional information
about this proposal.
h\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\97025pc2.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
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
This amendment is much more far reaching than the provision allowing the
replacement of existing decks. Therefore, the staff recommends denial of this
amendment (alternative #2). If the Planning Commission finds the amendment is
appropriate, we would recommend the additional language suggested by the
DNR be included. The attached draft ordinance includes this language.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending denial of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Report Dated April 14, 1997
2. Minutes of April 14, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting
1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\97025pc2.doc Page 2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE
CONVERSION OF EXISTING DECKS NOT MEETING
REQUIRED SETBACKS TO THREE SEASON
PORCHES (Case File f~97-025)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
APRIL 14, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which would permit an existing deck not meeting the required
setbacks to be converted into a three season porch.
On March 17, 1997, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning
Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced lakeshore
setback. The variance involved the conversion of an existing deck to a three
season porch. The Council tabled action on this item; however, in response to
the appeal, the Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which might address some of the issues raised by this appeal. This
amendment relates to the conversion of existing decks which do not meet the
required setbacks to a three season porch. (An amendment to the required
setback from the OHWM will also be considered by the Planning Commission at
this meeting.)
In May, 1996, the Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
allowing the replacement of an existing deck not meeting the required setback
under the following conditions:
1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
1:\97files\97ordamd~oning\97-025\97025pc.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
2. The replacement deck is the same size, configuration, location and elevation
as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established;
3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.
The proposed amendment is very similar to this language; however it goes one
step further. This amendment will allow the deck to be replaced with a three
season porch. The proposed amendment to Section 4.1 B of the Zoning Code
reads as follows (new language in bold italics):
B. All structures, whether attached to the principal structure or not, and whether
open or enclosed, including porches, carports, balconies, cantilevers and
chimneys or platforms above normal grade level, shall not project into any
minimum front, side, or rear yard setbacks. Provided, however, accessory
structures for all residential districts shall be permitted within ten (10') feet
from the rear yard setback. Provided, further, that decks not meeting the
required setback may be replaced if the following criteria are met:
1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
2. The replacement deck is the same size, configuration, location and
elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were
established;
3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.
Also provided that existing decks not meeting the required setback may
be converted into a three season if the following criteria are met:
I. The deck to be converted existed on the date the structure setbacks
were established;
2. The three season porch is the same size, configuration, location and
elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks
were established;
3. The addition of the three season porch does not increase the
impervious surface of the site beyond the allowed thirty percent;
4. The construction of the three season porch meets all applicable
building code requirements.
The DNR has also suggested the following criteria be added to this amendment:
· The deck to be converted not only existed on the date the structure setbacks
were established, but was also approved under a valid building permit issued
by the City at the time it was constructed.
· In the Shoreland District, the replacement deck or conversion meets at least
50% of the required setback from the ordinary high water mark.
· In the Shoreland District, any additional accessory structures, including but
not limited to gazebos, platforms, decks, boathouses, and sheds, not meeting
1:\97files\97ordarnd~zoning\97-025\97025pc.doc Page 2
the required lakeshore setback be removed or relocated to an araa meeting
the required setback before construction is commenced on the conversion to
a porch.
This amendment has several implications beyond that of replacing an existing
deck. First of all, the amendment applies to all setbacks, potentially allowing
decks located within required side yards, rear yards and front yards to be
converted to a porch, which in turn could result in porches located within
easements (especially in side yards). Additionally, structural requirements for
decks are very different than those required for porches or other additions. Many
decks, especially older ones, either did not have building permits, or there is no
documentation. Thera would be no way to determine if the structural foundation
is adequate for a porch.
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
This amendment is much more far reaching than the provision allowing the
replacement of existing decks. Therefore, the staff recommends denial of this
amendment (alternative #2). If the Planning Commission finds the amendment is
appropriate, we would recommend the additional language suggested by the
DNR be included. The attached draft ordinance includes this language.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending denial of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Letter from DNR
3. Hearing Notice
1:\97flles\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\97025pc.doc
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-4-1 B OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 4.1 B OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Section 5-4-1 B of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 4.1 B of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows:
B. All structures, whether attached to the principal structure or not, and whether open or
enclosed, including porches, carports, balconies, cantilevers and chimneys or
platforms above normal grade level, shall not project into any minimum front, side, or
rear yard setbacks. Provided, however, accessory structures for all residential districts
shall be permitted within ten (10') feet from the rear yard setback. Provided, further,
that decks not meeting the required setback may be replaced if the following criteria
are met:
1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
2. The replacement deck is the same size, configuration, location and elevation as
the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established;
3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.
Also provided that existing decks not meeting the required setback may be converted
into a three season if the following criteria are met:
1. The deck to be converted existed on the date the structure setbacks were
established and was also approved under a valid building permit issued by the
City_ at the time it was constructed:
2. The three season porch is the same size. configuration, location and elevation as
the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established:
3. The addition of the three season porch does not increase the impervious surface of
the site beyond the allowed thirty percent:
4. The construction of the three season porch meets all applicable building code
requirements.
1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\drat~ord.do¢ PAGE 1
5. In the Shoreland District. the replacement deck or conversion meets at least 50%
of the required setback from the ordinary_ high water mark.
6. In the Shoreland District. any additional accessory_ structures, including but not
limited to gazebos, platforms, decks, boathouses, and sheds, not meeting the
required lakeshore setback be removed or relocated to an area meeting the
required setback before construction is commenced on the conversion to a porch.
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
,1997.
1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-O25\draftord.doc
PAGE2
. 0NR METRO; 4- 9-97 11:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/2
April 9, 1997
M bines, cia Dermrtmcl~t ufNattu'al R~so~urcex
~wetro Waters - IZ00 Warner ~oa~, ~[. ~-aul, IVlN 55105-8793
Telephone; (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
Ms. lanc Kausier
City ofPfior Lake PlanffingCoordinator
16200 Eaglc CremkAvenue S.E.
PriorLake, M inne, som 55372-1714
Post-it" Fax Note 7671
RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR LAKE ZONI~G ORDINANCE (CASE FII.E #97-024 AND
97-025)
Dc~r Ms. Kensier:
I have reviewed thc proposed amendments to thc Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance and offer Om following comments
for considcretion at thc upcoming hearing on April 14. 1997.
CASE FILE ~97-024: SETBACK~ FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
Tim table provided in your March 3 l, 1997 memo to m~ ~nd DRC members indicates that thc cry is proposing a
minimum 50-font setback from tho ordinary high water mark of KD lalms, GD lakns and Tributary streams. Your
existing ordlnancc requires n 75-~ot scthack from those shorcland clacsification.q. Minimum at~ setback
standards for shoreland, per Minnesota Rules 6120.3300, subpal~ 3.A, arc 150 fe~t for Natural En~ronmcnt lakes,
75 fcc..t for R~cre. ational I~v¢lopment lalms, and 50 f~t For Genial D~velopment lakes and Tributary streams.
These standards arc for areas with public sewer systems available. Historically, th~ city of Prior Lake has bccn
mare resWictiv¢ than th-' minimum stat,- standard for setback fxom General Developmcnt lak~ and Tributary
slxcnms. Thus. the proposed amendment to r~hice the rcquircd stxuctom setback on sewcr~d General Development
lakes and Tributary steams From 75 f~t to 50 f~t is acceptable, llowever, the proposed stra'cture setback
rzduction from 75 feet to 50 f¢ez on sovered l~zcreational Development iafe~ (Markley and Unnamed (ale
Blind)) is not consistent witk minimum statewide standards, and must remain at 75 fee~
I also note that the m~ximum building height is indicated as 35 f~t. This has been thc standard in Prior Lak~ (and
several other communities u well) for sorr~ time. Although ~ slam shorcland rules allow a maximum building
height of 25 fe~t, the DNR has routinely approved ordinancc~ allowing up to 35 fe~'t m a maximum building height.
CASE FILE ~97-025: CON'~fERSION OF DECKS TO THREE-SEASON PORCHES
This proposed amendment would allow the conversion of existing decks not meeting the r~quired setbacks m thrc~-
season porch~ providc. A several criteria are met. I would offer that additional crimria b~; addcd to the four
proposed criteria. Th~ suggested additions are:
* that thc deck to bc conv~ not only existed on thc datc Lhc struct, urc scthacks were established, but was also
approved under a valid building permit issued by thc city at thc thnc it was construct~xt.
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 4- 9-97 11:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245;
Jane Kansict
April 9, 1997
* tb~t t~¢ rcplaccmcnt deck or Conversion meets ~t least 50% of0~e rexluircd setback from the ordina~ high water
mazk of tbe sbercland basra or smeam.
* any additionnl acc. rssory slruc, tums 0gazcbo. platform, dgck, boathouse, shed, cm.) not meeting thc required lake
or wet,course setback be removed or relo~ated to an area meeting the required sctbac, k before construction is
commenced on ti~ replacement deck or conversion to a porch.
Your ordi~ allows 30% impervious surface on msidantial lots within shor¢land arca~. The revised state
sho~land standards limit imperious surface m 25%. As ! have diacu~sed with city staEin thc pa~t. your
urdiaanac violalgs ~ sta~ stand~d for iml~'viou~ surface c. ovcrasc. The DNR has not officially and formally
approved your mviscd shomland ordinance. As I re~all, the outstanding issues v,'cre iml~rvions surface coverage
and thc combination of exisl~ng substandard lots of re,rd. I suggest i~-rhaps wc m~t again to discuss these
outstanding issm:s so that agreement can b~ machgd, and DNR fi-alization and ~knowledgmcnt of an approved
shorgland ordinanc~ can or, ur.
Thank you for ~he opportunity to review and cnmm~-~t on the proposed zoning amendments. If you have a~y
questions r~gnrding my comments, please call me at 772-79 ! 0.
c: Don Kyc, City Planner
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 5-4-1 OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR
LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK
AND THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING DECKS NOT MEETING THE
REQUIRED SETBACKS TO THREE SEASON PORCHES
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. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, April 14, 1997, at 6:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider
an amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to Section 4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the minimum structure setback and the conversion of existing decks
not meeting required setbacks into three season porches. The proposed amendment
would permit existing decks that do not meet required setbacks, to be converted to three
season porches.
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 21 st day of March, 1997 by:
Jenni Tovar
Planner
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MARCH 29, 1997
1:\97filcs\97ordamaSzoning\97-025\97025 pn.do¢
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPg'ORTUNITY EMPLOYER
8. Why does our c~nt ordinance not suffice with the two conditions we have? - Setback
averaging and buildin'g~uests. ~
9. What has the history o~vari~eed information from '90 to '95.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL~OND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE
All in favor. ,~'ION CARRIED.
C. CASE #97-025 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to
Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to structure setback and the
the
conversion of existing decks not meeting the required setbacks to three season porches.
The public heating was opened at 7:19 p.m.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report.
On March 17, 1997, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission
decision to deny a variance request for a reduced lakeshore setback. The variance
involved the conversion of an existing deck to a three season porch. The Council tabled
action on this item; however, in response to the appeal, the Council directed staff to
initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which might address some of the issues
raised by this appeal. This amendment relates to the conversion of existing decks which
do not meet the required setbacks to a three season porch. (An amendment to the
required setback from the OHWM will also be considered by the Planning Commission at
this meeting.)
This amendment has several implications beyond that of replacing an existing deck. First
of all, the amendment applies to all setbacks, potentially allowing decks located within
required side yards, rear yards and front yards to be converted to a porch, which in mm
could result in porches located within easements (especially in side yards). Additionally,
structural requirements for decks are very different than those required for porches or
other additions. Many decks, especially older ones, either did not have building permits,
or there is no documentation. There would be no way to determine if the structural
foundation is adequate for a porch.
This amendment is much more far reaching than the provision allowing the replacement
of existing decks. The staff recommended denial of this amendment.
l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~mn041497.doc Page 5
Comments from the Public:
Patty Maas, 2195 NW 140th Street, stated her concern for the high level of noise on the
lake. She though it may be possible that building structures accentuate the lake noise
compared to vegetation and trees. Mrs. Maas ask to consider the issue and help reduce
the high level of sound.
The public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with staff.
· Sees all kinds of problems. Does not agree to change an ordinance based on one
denied variance.
· This is related to the previous item and should be continued.
Vonhof:
· Can see the rationale to change a deck to a three season porch. But agreed this is
another thing to be considered in tandem with the previous proposal. Both are related
to variances. The City has a legal process.
· There is no compelling reason for the ordinance change.
Stamson:
· Opposed the ordinance change.
· If the footings have to be changed, a person would completely change the structure.
· If a three season porch is okay, why not an addition?
· The ordinance is fine as written.
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's concerns outlined in the report.
· This is another way of getting around the ordinance. The City has to address the big
picture.
· This will allow many people to add on with many problems.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THIS ISSUE
TO THE MAY 27, 1997 MEETING.
All in f~ED.
6. ~w tmsmess:
1:\97 files\97plcomm\pcmin~'nn041497.doc Page 6