Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Zoning Ordinance Amendment AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 7A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #97-XX AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CITY CODE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) LEVEL WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT MAY 5,1997 The purpose of this item is to consider approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and City Code which will reduce the setback to OHW from 75 feet to 50 feet on General Development Lakes and Tributary Streams in the Shoreland District. 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 which did not meet the required lakeshore setback of 75 feet 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 would reduce the lakeshore setback from 75 feet to 50 feet. Section 5-8-3 (A. 2.) of the City Code (Shoreland District) provides for the minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of protected waters of the City that have been classified by the Department of Natural Resources (see attached Planning Report dated April 14, 1997). The proposed amendment affects only the General , Development Lakes (Prior Lake and Spring Lake) and the Tributary Streams (leading to Prior Lake). The current ordinance requires a 75' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark on these lakes and streams. The proposed amendment reduces the setback to 50' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment on April 14, 1997. The Commission initially tabled 1:\97files\97ordamd\zoning\97-024\97024cc.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 action on this item in order to obtain some additional information. Specifically, the Commission wanted to know why previous Planning Commissions established the 75' setback, what the rational for a 50' setback is, and how the revised setback would affect neighboring properties. On April 28, 1997, the Commission revisited this issue. In answer to some of their questions, the staff noted there is very little information available as to why the 75' setback was originally established. The DNR based the 50' setback on several studies, as well as the fact that most General Development Lakes are nearly completely developed. Some members of the Commission were concerned that the reduced setback would cause more massive buildings along the lake front. The staff commented that this concern is more appropriately addressed through the use of a maximum floor area ratio. The Commissioners determined that the proposed change is consistent with the DNR standards and with the existing development on the lake. The Commissioners recommended approval of this amendment. DISCUSSION: The City Council directed the staff to prepare an amendment which would address the setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The attached ordinance amendment is in response to that directive. Although the proposed amendment reduced the required setback, the following conditions in the existing ordinance should be noted. · The existing ordinance allows for setback averaging, with a minimum setback of 50 feet. A property owner, given the right set of conditions, could legally build a structure 50 feet from the OHW, without a variance. · The current ordinance allows for the granting of variances by the Planning Commission and City Council. Upon review of the hardship criteria, a variance to the OHW setback can be granted. A property owner, meeting the hardship criteria, could be granted a variance by the Planning Commission/City Council and build a structure within the required 75 foot setback. Most of the land surrounding the lake has already been developed. Many of the structures existing along Prior Lake were constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1993. Therefore, there are substandard lots with or without structures presenting unique existing conditions for granting a variance. Similarly, due to the number of previously 1:\97files\97 ordamd\zoning\97 -024 \97024cc. doc PAGE 2 developed lots, setback averaging can be used in many cases to reduce the required setback to meet the needs of the property owner. New lots, that would otherwise have to meet the 75' setback under the current requirements, could be created along the NW side of Lower Prior Lake. However, the potential of this development represents less than 5% of the total lake frontage. The approval of the proposed amendment would allow for existing and new structures to be located 50 feet from the OHW of Prior Lake or Spring Lake. From an administrative standpoint, the proposed change in the ordinance would eliminate interpretations of setback averaging on General Development Lakes. The proposed amendment would also eliminate many variance requests. It would also make the submittal of surveys with building permits less complicated for the applicant. The setback of neighbor's property would not be necessary. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Further discuss this issue and direct the staff to provide additional information to the City Council. 3. Deny the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to adopt the proposed ordinance. This action requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Minutes of April 14, 19 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1:\97files\97 ordamd\zoning\97 -024\97024cc.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 97- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-8-3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 9.3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-8-3 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows: This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 21 st day of April, 1997. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the day of , - , 1997. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 I :\97ti1es\97ordamd\zoning\97-024\ord97xx.doc PAGEl 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER B. CASE #97-024 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback from the Ordinary High Water mark (OHW) in the Shoreland District. The public hearing was open at 6:34 p.m., and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public at attendance. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The public hearing was to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will change the structure setback from 75 feet to 50 feet on General Development Lakes. This proposed amendment comes at the direction of the City Council in response to a recent variance request. The approval of the proposed amendment would allow for existing and new structures to be located 50 feet from the OHW of Prior Lake or Spring Lake. From an administrative standpoint, the proposed change in the ordinance would reduce interpretations of setback averaging on General Development Lakes. The proposed amendment would also eliminate many variance requests. It would also make the submittal of surveys with building permits less complicated for the applicant. One down side to allowing a closer setback is the visual appearance of the shoreline from the lake. Buildings and structures will be located closer to the water. The building separation will remain the same between side yards. Health, safety or general welfare will not be adversely affected by the amendment. The public hearing was closed at 6:38 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: There are many different issues that need to be addressed. It sounds like the ordinance is being pieced together. My reaction is to consider it all in total in the revised ordinance. V onhof: . Question to staff: The City elected to have a more stringent lake shore setback than the DNR. In the research did you find any rationale? Kansier responded staff did not find any rationale. . The report states 5% of the lakeshore would be impacted which would be about a mile of impacted shoreland. . How does this 25 foot extension impact existing structures? Kansier responded it would have the potential to add a 25 foot addition. . The City has to look at the unknown impact on the lake. Kuykendall: . One of the biggest need is to find the rationale for the 75 foot setback. 1:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin\mn041497.doc Page 2 · Kansier responded staff did not talk to the previous staff or Planning Commissioners but did talk to City Council members who were on the Council when the ordinance was adopted. The City Council could not recall the rationale. · Would like to know the rationale from previous Commissioners and DN~'s rationale for the 50 feet. . . The two criteria that come to mind is visual impact and drainage (impervious surface). The further away a structure is from the lake the harder it will be for the runoff, if any, to reach the lake. It raises a question to the relationship of impervious surface. . Last year the Commissioners toured the lake and found the important issues were visual impact and screening (landscaping). There should be more trees and/or vegetation between the home and the lake. . 95% of the lake would have the potential to add on. Concerned for the large impact. Stamson: . Preferred the ordinance as written. There is no justification to change it. Just because someone was denied a variance does not mean the City has to change the ordinance. . It is not good policy to change on those matters. . Keep structures as far as possible away from the water. . The DNR ordinance states 50 feet and 25% impervious surface. If the City is using the DNR standards, the impervious surface should be reduced to 25%. . Prefer to leave the setback at 75 feet. Criego: . Agreed with the 75 foot setback and the setback averaging. . It is not fair for the residents who have abided by the existing ordinance and a neighbor comes in and builds 25 feet closer to the lake. The setback averaging satisfies any new neighbor coming into the area. . The existing ordinance is acceptable. . The lake is the City's focal point. Against anything affecting the lake visually or aesthetically. . Agreed with Kuykendall- concerned with the 95% existing homes on the lake. The new homes will take additional square footage. . There are too many variables associated with this ordinance. . Should table and get the whole picture. Open discussion: Kuykendall: . The City has been more restrictive in terms of protection of the lake. It is a major asset to our community. . Landscaping and screening the lake with trees is important. There should be a compromise with the landowner who wants a 25 foot variance. There is a greater public need. If someone wants this, they have to give up something. 1:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin\mn041497.doc Page 3 · The Commissioners need to know where the setback rationale of 50 feet and 75 feet came from. · Would like to go back and talk to the previous Planning Commissioners and DNR to get the rationale. · It will affect drainage and could have a major impact on the lake. Criego: · There are two visual problems - one looking towards the lake for neighbors and the public walking/driving by. V onhof: · There is no real compelling reason to change the ordinance. Stamson: · No strong rationale to change. · Open to change to 50 feet with restrictions and conditions. Rye commented some of the lake setback rationale basis came from studies done by the University Geography Department in the late 1960's. They developed number indices related to lake crowding, shoreline density and many other factors. Based on that information the State Shoreland Management Act was passed and the DNR was directed to prepare regulations. Part of the rationale came from the natural environment development compared to the pristine lakes. The general development lakes (like Prior Lake) would never be a "Boundary Water" quality lake. Therefore a lesser standard was adopted. Keep in mind, for a good number of years after the Shore land Ordinance was passed, variances were routinely granted to allow houses built at 50 feet. While the 75 foot standard was on paper, the defacto setback was 50 feet. Criego: · Combining lots were acceptable so homes were not squashed on the lake. Rye said there are provisions in some of the DNR criteria to relax some of the ordinances. Kuykendall: · Concern for water quality. Fertilizers running off into the lake is a problem. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Contact previous Planning Commissioners and discuss. 2. Contact the DNR and find out their rationale for the setbacks and impervious surface. 3. The Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District should be notified. 4. The Lake Advisory should have input. 5. Concern for visibility with a 50 foot setback and the neighbor having a 75 foot setback. 6. How all this applies to combining lots owned by a common property owner. 7. How does this fit into our floor area ratio? I:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin\mn041497.doc Page 4 8. Why does our current ordinance not suffice with the two conditions we have? - Setback averaging and building requests. 9. What has the history of granted variances been? Need information from '90 to '95. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE-THE HEARING TO MAY 27, 1997. All in favor. MOTION 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 the structure setback and the conversion of existing decks not meeting the required setbacks to three season porches. The public hearing 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 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. 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 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DA TE: INTRODUCTION: ."~~;i" PLANNING REPORT 4B PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT, TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WA TER (OHW) IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT (Case File #97-024) JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~H ...lL YES _ NO APRIL 14, 1997 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will change the structure setback from 75 feet to 50 feet on General Development Lakes. This proposed amendment comes at the direction of the City Council in response to a recent variance request. BACKGROUND: Section 5-8-3 (A. 2.) of the City Code (Shoreland District) provides for the minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of protected waters of the City that have been classified by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as follows: Natural Environment Lakes Tributary Streams 1.Howard Lake 2.Pike Lake 3.Unnamed (Arctic Lake) 4.Keup's Lake (Mystic Lake) 5.Hass Lake a.Unnamed (Jeffer's Pond) 1. Unnamed (To ,Upper Prior Lake) 2. Unnamed 1:\97files\97 ordamd\zoning\97 -024\97024pc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER General Development Lakes Recreational Development Lakes 1. Spring Lake 2. Lower Prior Lake 3. Upper Prior Lake 1. Markley Lake 2. Unnamed (Blind Lake) The existing and proposed setbacks for each type of lake are shown in the table below: Natural Recreation. General. Tributary- Development. Development. Development. Development ~ ~ ~ Streams Structure Setback from: OHW (feet) 150 75 75 75 Proposed Setback 150 75 50 50 Top of Bluff (feet) 30 30 30 30 Unplatted Cemetery (ft) 50 50 50 50 Structure Height Limitation (ft) 35 35 35 35 The proposed amendment will reduce the structure setback from the OHW on General Development Lakes, from 75 feet to 50 feet and on Tributary Development Streams from 75 feet to 50 feet, which are consistent with the DNR standards. Although the proposed amendment reduced the required setback, the following conditions in the existing ordinance should be noted. . The existing ordinance allows for setback averaging, with a minimum setback of 50 feet. A property owner, given the right set of conditions, could legally build a structure 50 feet from the OHW, without a variance. . The current ordinance allows for the granting of variances by the Planning Commission and City Council. Upon review of the hardship criteria, a variance to the OHW setback can be granted. A property owner, meeting the hardship criteria, could be granted a variance by the Planning Commission/City Council and build a structure within the required 75 foot setback. 1:\97files\97 ordamd\zoning\97 -024\97024pc.doc Page 2 Most of the land surrounding the lake has already been developed. Many of the structures existing along Prior lake were constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1993. Therefore, there are substandard lots with or without structures presenting unique existing conditions for granting a. variance. Similarly, due to the number of previously developed lots, setback averaging can be used in many cases to reduce the required setback to meet the needs of the property Owner. New lots, that would otherwise have 10 meet the 7S' setback under the current requirements, could be created along the NW side of lower Prior lake. However, the potential of this development represents less than S% of the total lake frontage. The approval of the proposed amendment would allow for existing and new structures to be located SO feet from the OHW of Prior lake or Spring lake. From an administrative standpoint, the Proposed change in the ordinance would eliminate interpretations of setback averaging on General Development lakes. The proposed amendment would also eliminate many variance requests. It would also make the submittal of surveys with building pennits less complicated for the applicant. The setback of neighbor's property would not be necessary. One down side to allowing a closer setback is the visual appearance of the shoreline from the lake. Buildings and structures will be located closer to the water. The building separation will remain the same between sideyards. The effect that this negative impact has on zoning is minor. Health, safety or general welfare will not be adversely affected by the amendment. At TERNA TIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDA TIO~ The staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REaUIRED~ A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments. 1:\97fi/es\97 ordamdlzoning\97 -024\97024pc.doc Page 3 IT ACHMENTS: ,1 Ordinance Language aring Notice .JNR Letter 1:\97files\97 ordamd\zoning\97 -024\97024pc.doc Page 4 ~cNT BY: DNR METRO; 4 - 9 - 97 11: 35; 6127727573 => 612 .;.L......... MinneSOla Dellartnlcnl of ~atura' RPl..:Ollfce.\. ."" Metro-WatcTs - 200WarneT Koal.l~ St. Paul. M1ir'5S106-07SJ Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 ...J~ ~"<:~ ;, ~ ,.. . 1",- I'). ..J .. ...-...;:.. April 9, 1997 Poat-ir Fax Note 7671 To "- P""nell n""-",,,- [Jut.. ~-7 From '-P ..) Co. ~<Z.. Ms. Jane KansiCl' City of Prior Lake Planning Coordinator ) 6200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake. Mi.nne.sota 55372_ J 714 ax II Phone It '1,/ 'L. -) '1. (0 J I Fit" It RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTs TO PRJOR LAKE ZONlNG ORDINANCE (CASE FILE #97-024 AND 97-025) ~ Ms. J<ansier: 1 bav. reviewed the PropOsed amendments to the Prioc Loire Zonin. Onlinance and ome the fOllow;ng eom.....1s tor considcrlllicn lit the upcoming hearing On April 14. 1997. CASli: ro.F. 1197-024 : SETBACJ<!l FlloP4 THE ORDTN"ARX J{TGlI WATER M"RIl; The "'ble prOV;dod in your Much 3 I, 1997 memo to '"" and ORC member. indieates that the cily ;s JlIOposing a minimum 50-foot setback from the onlinory high W.1e< mad: of lID lakes, GD L1kes and Tribu.ory '!reams, Your exist;.. ord;.._ reqWces · 75-fuot setback from those sborcI.nd d".;fieations, Miniowm.tate .etback 'landarda for .horelaod, jlet'Mmne.ota Rules 6120,3300, '.bpart 3,A. ace 150 fec. for N"........ Environn>ent Joke., 75 feet for Roere.tiona1 Developmen, I...... and 50 feet for 0""""" Deve/opmQ,.lakcs and Tributazy 'll'Cams, ~... 'landanls arc roc areas with public sewer SY'lems .vailable, Hj.tori~,!he city of Prior Lake has been more restrictive than the minimum star. 'landanl for .etback from General Dcv./opmcz" lakes and Tributazy '!reams, Thus. the proposed amendment to reduce the n:quircd .true..... setback on SCWercd G.....a1 Develop,"""l I..... and Trihutazy steams from 75 feet to 50 foot i. accept.ble, H_, '''e I"Dposed ,rruauru<tb..k re<IM<tio. from 7S feet to so f- on '- &cr..nm.oI neoe/O['nlen' 14... (Markley and U.n.","" (do BI.nd)) .. not con,.".", "'itIJ minu""... ".'''''Ide """d4nh. and _at reln.i" at 7S f- I also note that the max;mum building heigh. i. ;ndieated as 35 feet. Tbi. bas been !he standanl in Prioc Lake (and 1CVcraJ oth... eo_ties .. weD) lOr ..... t;'"'" Allhou"b!he .t"", sh"",land ndes allow . maximum bu;ldi"" heigh' of 25 feet, the ONR h.. routinely .PJlIOvod onli....,.,. allowing up to 35 feet as . maximum buildmg hc;ght. CAsE FILl;; 1197-025 : CONVF.R..~IQN OF I)ECK.~ TO THR1!;/!-SEAliOI\( ~ORCJfES 10;. proposed ....adme.. would ."- the eonv....ion of e><ist;.g decks not meeting lb. required .etbacks to three- season porehes prov;ded SCVeraI eriteria arc met. [would _ lbat additional eriteria bo added to the four proposed criteria. The suggested additions are: · tha. the deck 10 be eonvCrtod not only existed o. th. date !he .lrveture ..'hacks Wele estabr;.hed, bUl was also approved under a valid building pcnnit issued by the city at lhc time it Was constructed. /)Nr~ r"I"I.I.lIlill;..'II: (i12.2~)~-61.'7. I-SOO-7()I'HiClClCl . TTY; ("~~ .'t,I(; .'i..x~. ")(/,)0-"'57-3"19 ."III:IIU~11 ()PJhn1IJUII~ ':III"lnyr:r \\,1", V;IIIlI'.~ I>i\",'r..:if~' ft l>rlnr"'ll fin ~I.'I. ~"".~.~" "'aJ"-o, ("'lfH;UIIHI~ :J '-.I Minim,,",..f 111'.; P""'("'.""'UlJc. W"",. SENT BY: DNR METRO; 4- 9-97 11 :35; 8127727573 ~> 812' "<.'< ~ ~(/]), ~ ~ !\II inneSOl a Del"lurtnlcn L u(r;-.r atura I R f""O.lln.::e., Metro"'Watcrs. ZOOWarncr R.OAU, St. Paul, MN'5.5106-67S.3 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 .' . '1~. "-. J Poat-ir Fax Note 7671 Oat. 4'-7 From ' r'~ -, ~. Apri19.l997 To "?'-................;:. L .....,.l.. Co. ~~ '1'1 'L. -) 1 Co .~ -- P!'Ione ~ Phone If Ms. Jane Kansicr City of Prior Lake Planning Coordinator 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lilke. Minnesota 55372- ) 7] 4 Fu ~ F"l< 11 RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PRJOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE (CASE FILE #97-024 AND 97-025) Dear Ms. Kansier: 1 have reviewed the proposed amendments to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance and offer the following comments ter considcralion lit the upcoming hearing on April 14. 1997. CASE FILE #97-024; SETBACKS FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARf\ The table provided. in your March] 1, 1997 memo to me and ORe members indicates that the cily is proposing a minimwn 50.foot set.back from the ordinary high water mark of R.D lakes, GD lalu:s and Tributary slrcams. Your cxisling ordinance requires 3 75.f.col sctbiSCk from those shorclanc1 classifications. Minimum state setback standards for shoreland, per Minnesota Rules 6120.3300, subpart 3.A, arc 150 feet for Natural Environmcnt lues, 75 feet for IU:creational Development lakes. and 50 feet. for Gen~"Tal Development lakes and Tributary streams. ~ese standards are [or areas with public sewer systems ~vailable. Historically. the city of Prior Lake has been more restrictive than the minimum stab:: standard for setback. from General Development lakes and Tributaly streams. Thus. the proposed amendment to reduee the required structnrc setback on sewercd Genera! Development Jakes and Tributary steams rrom 75 feet to 50 fcet is 8C(:Cptablc. HO""'~#:T, tlr#: proposed structure setback rt!Jllc:tiun from 75 ft!d to 50 f~er on ;sPJO't:u .&creational Developm#:nt laila (Markley and Unnalft#:d (a"a Blind)) is no/. cona;91ent wit}r minimum stalew;dt: ltQndurds, and 1IWSt 1'emain al 75 fut. I .uso note that the maximum building height is indicated as 35 feet. This bas been the sa.andMd in Prior Lake (and several other communities as weD) for SOme time. Although lh.c state shorcla.nd ruJes ~ow a maximum building height of 25 feet, the DNR has routinely approved. ordjnan~ ll!lowing up to 3S feet as a maximum building height. CASE FILE #97.025 : CONVERSION OF DECKS TO THREE.SEASON PORCHES This proposed amendment would allow the conversion of existing decks not meeting the reqwred sClblU:k.s to three- seuson porches provided scvcw criteria .u'C met. r would offer- that additional criLeria be.:: lidded to the four proposed criteria. The suggested additions are: · that the deck to be converted not only existed on the date the sl.nJc:turc setbacks were established, but was also approved under a valid building pennit issued by the city at the ti.nu: it WlIS constructed. I)NI~ 111(1.11111;11;'.>1\: 611-1'11')-61:17. I-SIlO-7nn-nOOO . TTY: ('L~ .'\J(; 5~x... 1.)(I)O-"'5i-.\II~'1 ..\III:IIUOII C)I1'hJt1t11111~ 1:1IIf1lny~r \\'Ihl V;~hll',.. I)it,;,'r,.i,~' ft Prim,..,1 fHl ~''''. ~..::.~,I ~:lfh.'1 C:llfll~IIH:"Y :J c.~ ,'ytinimllnl IIf In(,; ?1I"".("'I"",fllICI \V;I.-1.... ~--- -- ".----- -rr-- r BY: DNP AETRO; 4 - 9 - 97 11: 35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/2 Jane Ki1l1Sicr April 9, 1997 Page 2 . that the replacement deck or conversion meets at lellSt 50% ofthc required setback from the ordinazy high water mACk of the shorcland basin or stream. " any additional accessory structures (gazebu. platform. deck, boathousc, shed, ClC.) not meeting the required lake Of walctcourse setbar:k be removed or reloc:ated. to an area meeting the required setback before construction is commenced. on the replacement deck or conversion to a porch. Your ordinoncc o.llows 30% impervious sucfa&:e on residcntiallots within shorcland areas. The revised. state shon;la.nd ::Ilandards limit impervious SlUfag; to 25%. As r have discussed with city staff in the past, your ordinance violates the state standard for impervious surface CQverage. The DNR has not officially and fonnally approved your revised shorc1and ordinllDce. As I rcc:alJ., the outstanding issues were impervious surface coverage and the comhination of existing substandard lots of record. I suggest perhaps we meet again to discuss these outstanding issues so that agreement can be reached, and DNR finalization md acknowledgmcnt of an approved shon::land arciinanc:c can occur. Thank you for the opportunity to review and cnrnmeQt on the proposed zoning amendments. If you have any questions regarding my comments, plc:1SC call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, '-1 t:J ---- . ..J-"'- t. JU. _1;-"\ ~4+' Patrick J. ~h m An:a Hydrologist c: Don Rye, City Planner NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-8-3 OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 9.3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK (OHW) IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT 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 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Shoreland District The proposed amendment changes the minimum structure setback from the OHWM from 75 feet to 50 feet. This would permit structures to be located closer to the lake. 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 21st day of March, 1997 by; Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MARCH 29, 1997 I: \97fi1es\97 ordamd\zoni!!g\9 7 -o24\97024pn.doc ] 6200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. MJnnesota 55372-] 714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER