HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 8, 1997
PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
DECEMBER S, 1997
FIRE STATION
5:30 . 7:30 P.M.
I. OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NEW ZONINO ORDINANCE-DON
RYE, JANE KANSIER
i: \council\ works\wks 1297 .doc
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM #1
Mayor and City Council (\{~"
Frank Boyles, City Manager ~ ~ ~
Overview and Discussion ofNe Zoning Ordinance
Don Rye has provided a memo (attached) which outlines the topics discussed by the
Planning Commission regarding the proposed zoning ordinance. The entire December 8
City Council Work Session is devoted to a discussion of this important document.
Unless the Council objects, the Work Session format would include:
1. Overview of proposed ordinance.
2. Summary of Issues discussed at Planning Commission hearings.
3. City Council discussion of issues.
4. Direction to staff for resolution of outstanding ordinance questions.
At the conclusion of Monday's work session it is our hope that the Council has achieved
a greater familiarity with the proposed zoning ordinance which is scheduled for City
Council consideration on December 15.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Er-1PLOYER
MEMORANDUM
December 8, 1997
To: City Council
From: Donald Rye, Planning Director
Subject: Overview of Proposed Zoning Ordinance
The City Council has recently received a red notebook containing the proposed zoning
ordinance. This is the most recent draft dated November 13, 1997 and will be the basis
for discussion at the study session. Please remember to bring this document with you. We
have confirmed with each of you that you have received the ordinance.
The proposed zoning ordinance is a complex document and it is my opinion that a review
of the major provisions of the ordinance by the Council is necessary before final action is
taken to adopt the ordinance. The Planning Commission has been in the process of
reviewing the draft ordinance for over a year, both at regular meetings and at special
work sessions devoted solely to the ordinance. Our goal was to complete this review and
have the ordinance before the Council before the end of the year to allow the Council the
opportunity of meeting one of the Council's 1997 goals.
This report will have two sections. The first will comment on the attached memo to
Council from earlier this year which indicated some of the major features of the
proposed ordinance while the second will summarize the results of the public hearings
which have been held to date and the Planning Commissions response to these comments
to this point. The Planning Commission will be considering three specific issues at its' .
meeting the evening of December 8 relating to combination of substandard lots of record,
garages in front yards of riparian lots and treatment of marinas in the ordinance. This is
part of the Commissions continuing consideration of the ordinance and following the
discussion, the Commission should be in a position to make recommendations to the
Council regarding the proposed ordinance.
March 24.1997 Memo
This memo outlined several issues and proposals being considered at that time. Since
then, the Planning Commission has modified some of these issues as follows:
· Combination of substandard lots in common ownership has been a continuing issue
which has yet to be resolved. The DNR has indicated that they strongly favor a
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
provision which requires substandard lots in common ownership to be combined so as
to create conforming lots.
· The Commission decided not to regulate floor area ratios for houses but is
recommending a maximum lot coverage by the house of 30%.
· The section dealing with storage of recreational vehicles has been added to the draft
ordinance.
· The remaining issues discussed in the memo are contained in the draft ordinance.
Public Hearing Input
Testimony at the public hearings on September 22 and November 24 focused almost
entirely on lake-related issues, including the Ordinary High Water(OHW) setback,
impervious surface requirements, bluff definitions and setbacks and application of
floodplain regulations. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes of these two
meetings is attached.
There was differing testimony regarding the OHW setback with some favoring the 50
foot setback but the majority favoring a return to the 75 foot setback. Also, there was
preference expressed for a reduction in impervious surface to 25%. For bluff setbacks,
staff worked with one of the parties presenting testimony at the hearing to develop a
different method of determining the top of bluff for setback purposes and the Planning
Commission concurred in the resulting language.
Essentially the only non- lake related issues arose from the requirement for Certificates of
Occupancy and non-conforming uses. There was concern that requiring a Certificate of
Occupancy for uses made non-conforming by adoption of this ordinance would adversely
affect the properties in question. It was pointed out that such properties would receive
notification and that this was a way for them to protect their non-conforming rights. It
was also noted that this did not apply to non-conformities for other things such as
setbacks or lot size but only applied to non-conforming uses of property.
Issues
The primary issues which have been raised to date are as follows:
· The combination of substandard lots in common ownership
. The OHW setback
· The definition of the bluff impact zone and resulting setbacks
. The requirement for impervious surface coverage
· The requirement for Certificates of Occupancy for new non-conforming uses and new
building owners and tenants.
· Providing for garages between the house and street for substandard riparian lots
. Treatment of marinas in the new ordinance
What staff finds significant is the lack of comment concerning the portions of the
ordinance which affect the remainder of the City not located on the lake. Except for the
Certificate of Occupancy questions, there was virtually no comment on the rest of the
ordinance, including the new districts, the treatment of PUDs, new parking requirements
or the remaining myriad of regulations which will affect development in Prior Lake. We
are not quite sure how to interpret this, but it is probably safe to say that additional
changes to this ordinance will be necessary as we work with it to guide development in
the city.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 24, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The November 24, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof
Kuykendall
Criego
Cramer
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES WERE ACCEPTED AS PRINTED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Continue public hearing to consider a proposed zoning ordinance and zoning
map for the City of Prior Lake.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier highlighted some of the issues.
· Numbering system - the entire city code and ordinances are being revised.
· The contents are essentially the same as the ordinance.
· Additional language to clarify the issues.
· Review of the previous meetings issues including lake and bluff setbacks; impervious
surface; flood plain requirements; and the city's authority regarding the Shoreland
District.
· This ordinance applies to all areas in the city, not just the shoreland area.
Planner Jenni Tovar addressed the proposed blufflanguage as outlined in her
Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated November 18, 1997. The definitions
included were "Toe of Bluff', "Top of Bluff' and "Bluff Setback". The DNR is not
opposed to the proposed zoning amendments per Area Hydrologist, Patrick Lynch's letter
dated November 24, 1997. Fourteen communities were surveyed on their bluff definition
finding 11 of the communities adopted the DNR bluff definition stating they had no
problems.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII2497.DOC
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented Bryce Huemoeller's letter dated November
19, 1997.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, the attorney representing Integrity Development
stated the marina is a permitted use in the Conservation District. Mr. Halek, the President
of Integrity Development feels this is a lake community and a marina should be a
permitted use on the lake or the City should establish an additional marina classification.
Watersedge Marina has a permit from the DNR. Marinas are important and a major issue
which should be addressed. The Haleks are also requesting Lot 2 be changed from C 1 to
C2. They have had numerous opportunities to fill the office space for show rooms. This
will never be a neighborhood business area, the main entrance and business will be off
Highway 13. Their focus would be show rooms. They feel this area has been mis-
classified.
Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, permanent home address is 2260 Sargent Avenue, St.
Paul, spoke on the shoreland bluff areas. He feels there is an easy way to change
flexibility in language stating the DNR allows flexibility.
Don Rye addressed some of Mr. Mirsch's comments. A Certificate of Occupancy is not
required for certain performance requirements. It is for land use. This is a procedure to
allow a person to protect himself. Second point regarding regulatory taking. Regulatory
takings are few and far between.
Mr. Mirsch gave an example of a proposed Minnesota Private Property Act for 1998 and
his interpretation of the Act.
Mirsch's interpretation of Non-Conforming Uses and Appeals were different from staff.
The issues were clarified by Rye and the Commissioners.
Cramer asked that the "land use" definition versus "use of land" be clarified. Kansier
explained it was in at least two places in the ordinance.
Larry Schulze was present on behalf of the Prior Lake Association Board. He said he
would like to see the lake setback at 75 feet. He realizes the DNR accepts a 50 foot
setback. There is going to be more and more runoff with the construction around the
lake. Mr. Schulze said the Board does not know why it was changed to begin with. He
understands the Lake Advisory Committee was against the change. He asked if the
Commission would revisit the issue and bring the setback to 75 feet.
,
Rye said 172 variances were granted from '74 to '96.
Dave Moran, 14408 Waters edge Trail supports Mr. Schulze's statement regarding the 75
foot setback. He feels it is a water quality issues. The Watershed has water quality
projects going and feels the setback is moving backwards. Mr. Moran feels there is no
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI 12497.DOC
2
justification to change the ordinance and feels the change was for the administration not
the public.
Wes Mader, member of the City Council speaking as an individual, stated he agreed with
the two previous speakers on the 75 foot lake setback. Had this process been in place in
1996 only one variance would have been affected. The DNR minimum requirement for
impervious surface is 25% and he felt the ordinance was passed because the DNR did not
follow the time limit and the ordinance was approved. Mr. Mader said the flood plain
criteria was mentioned at the last Council meeting, and was disturbed with the exemption
of houses built prior to the flood plain ordinance. It was not reasonable or fair. This is an
opportunity to change. He questioned the 5 foot side yard setback for substandard lots.
His other concern are the lakeshore issue in Sec. 504.202 regarding substandard uses and
decks and the bluff shore issues. Mr. Mader asked if the City had any input from a
qualified engineer with retaining wall expertise.
Kansier addressed the 5 foot setback and how it came about as well as the deck issue.
Mader pointed out the flexibilities in past variance requests.
Joe Passofaro, 16077 Northwood Road, supports the 75 foot setback because of water
quality. We should improve the water quality for the community as a whole. Mr.
Passofaro said he is a realtor and citizens do not like the 10 foot space between homes.
He went on to question the bluff setback footage.
Tovar explained it was for erosion control, aesthetics and structural combinations and it
could also be a vegetative measure.
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, a builder in Prior Lake stated he felt
the 50 foot setback should prevail over the 75 foot setback. He bought two lots on the
lake that would only fit homes with 50 foot setbacks. If there was no data to show a
difference in the water quality the ordinance should not be changed back to 75 feet. His
second concern is the bluff. The new ordinance language is more restrictive than the
previous language.
Jim Albers, 14992 Storm's Circle, questioned the non-conforming uses and Certificates
of Occupancy, and stated he was misinformed on the issues. He encouraged someone
from staff or the commission to clearly define the uses. Mr. Albers pointed out
clarifications on the following: 501 page 1, under the Bluff definition should be 50 feet
not 30 feet. Page 16, Lot, Substandard, questioned the blanks. Kansier explained once
the numbering system was nailed down the blanks will be filled in. 501, page 31, the
section with common ownership had been dropped. He asked to address common
ownership with City Attorney for loss of building and brought up inverse condemnation.
New ordinance states there has to be a 15 foot space between buildings, 501, page 32.
501, page 32 regarding eaves and gutters - questioned adding gutters in the setback. 502,
page 36 clarify a detached garage an accessory building.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMlN\MNII2497.DOC
3
Marv Mirsch, wanted to clarify the 50 foot vs. 75 foot setback issue.
Loren Jones 5282 Candy Cove Trail, said his concern was for the bluff ordinance. His
home would never conform to the ordinance.
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, pointed out the setback averaging that should
consider evaluation in the setbacks.
Jim Albers asked if anyone checked with an insurance company with the 60% damage
rule. Stamson explained the procedure.
Marv Mirsch, said the ordinance says "structure" market value. The wording in this
ordinance is not going to allow flexibility.
The public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
· The Planning Department has done a great job of updating the Ordinance addressing
issues pertaining to our community.
· Keep in mind these ordinances reflect values and what we hold important in the
community.
· Prior Lake is unique with unique circumstances.
· Supports the 75 foot setback. There are 18.6 miles of shoreline around the lake, not
including the islands. A number of developments have been enacted along the lake _
newer homes are set back 75 feet. The initial reasoning was granting variances near
the 50 foot setback. Realistically it is one of the stronger controls in the shoreland
district.
· The blufflanguage presented in Jenni Tovar's memo is agreeable. It is easily
understood and necessary. The natural features should be protected. The lake itself
should be protected.
· C1 Zoning on Boudin's and Highway 13 - The appropriate Zone should be C2.
Marinas should be a permitted use in the C2 Zone. It would be a good change. It is
the only commercially zoned area on Prior Lake.
· Page 501, page 9, under "Bufferyard" - change the land uses, the language is
incompatible. Two different land uses.
· 502, page 6, "Bed and Breakfast" - conditions should include off street parking
provisions.
· 502, page 6, "Animal Kennels" - noise condition should be addressed or reference
compliance.
· 502, page 9, "Dimensional Standards" - Discuss implications of30% ground floor
ratio.
· Typographical errors need to be corrected.
· Lot coverage - impervious surface - The commission has stood firm on 30%.
Realistically the lots around the lake are 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. It is
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII2497.DOC
4
important we have a standard that is reasonable. Ifwe change to 25% people will not
have buildable lots. The intent of the ordinance is dealing with variances. Are we
generating more variances? It is not productive.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Commissioner Vonhofs comments except the impervious surface.
· Comments from public were useful.
· Agreed with the C2 Zone change - also connect with the property to the north which
is currently zoned Rl. Support the concept of the marina and lake traffic and future
uses.
· C2 add liquor license.
· We should know Savage's zoning and what is the impact.
· Change the use of Highway 13.
· Water quality oflake - voted for the 50 foot setback. There were no facts to support
75 foot setback. The State agrees with 50 feet. We should be consistent with the
State's standard including 25% impervious surface.
· There should be a city-wide impervious surface compliance.
· The majority of homes in the lakefront area are between 50 and 75 feet because of
setback averaging.
· The bluff issue- staff did a commendable job.
· Diagrams should be used throughout the Ordinance. People will understand. Need
good communication.
· Inverse condemnation was raised with the City Attorney. She agreed with the
language.
· Criego:
· Map - agree to change the Boudin area to C2. Does not agree with changing the
entire area up to County Road 42.
· Add marinas as a permitted use in C2.
· Blufflanguage is good.
· Feels the 75 foot lake setback is reasonable. Ifwe do that he agrees to keep the 30%
impervious surface. It is more than quality of water, it is view of the lake. If as a
group we decided to go to 50 feet then should change impervious surface to 25%.
· Flood plain regulations - agreed with a member of the public, if the buildings with the
100 year flood plain ('78 through '90) they should apply within the ordinance.
· Okay with 5 and 10 foot side yard setback. Average between the two side yards.
· Adding the decks is a surprise to me. Delete that and keep within the 50 or 75 foot
setback.
· Garages - no reason to put a garage between the house and street.
· Common ownership should be in the ordinance. Explained the 75 foot lot width.
· Cramer:
· Thank staff and commissioners for their work.
· Zoning map - support the Boudin's parcel to C2. Worth looking into the Commerce
Avenue area with information from Savage's zoning.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII2497.DOC
5
· Business park at 42 and 21. Since this area is adjacent to an R-District, there should
be proper buffering. The C-l area should be located at the corner of Carriage Hills
Drive and County Road 21.There should be proper buffing.
· Flood Plain Ordinance - concur with Mader's recommendation. Get the DNR to
certify homes prior to the 1978 ordinance.
· 5 vs. 10 foot setback - acceptable to average between the homes.
· Bluff setback - staff did a good job clarifying. The four reasons are necessary to have
the Bluff language in place.
· Agrees with 50 foot setback - there is no evidence to say 75 is better.
· Something should be put in place for garages on riparian lots.
· Agreed with V onhof on the noise condition on kennel issues. Get it written down and
settled. Limit kennel to 3 animals. Commissioners should discuss.
· What provisions are in place for substandard lots ifhomes are destroyed? Kansier
explained the ordinance process and legal alternatives and variances.
· 30% impervious surface should be city-wide. Lots in the shoreland district should be
more strictly enforced.
· Stamson:
· Map - agreed Boudin's property should be zoned C2. Marinas should be included.
· Does not agree with the church property or the Commerce Avenue property zoned .
C2.
· Does not support the 50 foot setback - should be 75 feet. Other boards (Lake
Advisory, Watershed and Prior Lake Association) agrees.
· Support leaving the 30% impervious surface.
· Support setback averaging for substandard lots.
· Support garages as permissible in riparian lots and require all setbacks be met.
· Agree with Criego structures built prior to 1978 should be exempt.
· Common ownership - agreed with Criego.
· Bluff setback - will support with the DNR for 25 foot setback.
· Contour lines setback - take measurements from the contour lines.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall:
· Diagrams should be part of the ordinance. It helps the user.
· Bluff issue - support staff - but a licensed civil engineer should be consulted. Adopt
DNR ordinance as is. When there are no facts one way or another keep the ordinance.
Criego:
· Explained both sides of the impervious surface and setback rationale. The ordinance
worked, why did it change?
Vonhof:
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI 12497.DOC
6
· It is a local issue - does it work within our community? The vast majority of homes
on the lake now have been modified under the 75 foot ordinance. The 75 foot change
may have been tied in with the impervious surface.
Kuykendall:
· The lake tour brought up issues of lakeshore setbacks - addressed the setback change
with vegetation landscaping screening. The impervious surface should be city-wide.
· Compromise - keep the 50 feet and impose strict screening. Deal with the water
quality.
V onhof:
· Make this a community standard - not a DNR. Make conditions. There has been no
reason to change. The City is bound by State standards.
Creigo:
· The landscaping will be hard to enforce.
V onhof:
· Impose conditions. Use landscape runoffplans.
Kuykendall:
· We are not going to solve all these issues tonight.
Stamson:
· The DNR has other concerns besides erosion. It is an unique eco-system.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE BLUFF
LANGUAGE AS OUTLINED IN THE NOVEMBER 18, 1997, MEMORANDUM BY
JENNI TOVAR.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ALLOW A COMBINED
SETBACK ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF 15 FEET WITH NO SIDE YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN 5 FEET.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, KENNELS NOT BE AN
ACCEPTABLE USE IN ALL R DISTRICTS. DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS A
PERMISSIBLE USE MUST MEET ALL EXISTING ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCES.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN'\.'vfNI 12497 .DOC
7
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND THE
BOUDIN'S STREET PROPERTY BE ZONED FROM Cl TO C2 AND INITIATE A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO INCLUDE MARINAS IN
THE C2 AND R2 DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CHANGE THE SETBACK
FROM 50 FEET TO 75 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER ON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES AND INCLUDE THE SETBACK
AVERAGING.
Discussion:
· Kuykendall - should include impervious surface city-wide at 30%.
· Criego - should stay at 30% with the 75 foot change.
· Stamson, V onhof and Cramer agreed.
Vote taken signified ayes. Kuykendall nay. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, IMPLEMENT A CITY-
WIDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 30% IN ALL ZONES WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF C3 ZONE.
Discussion:
· Cramer - Make decisions on fact. How does the impervious surface impact the rest of
the City? Move to ask staff to make a recommendation. We want to make sure this is
done right. The Shoreland Ordinance is treated different. Will not support.
· Stamson - Extending City-wide is a big problem for commercial and industrial
districts.
· Rye - It is a big involvement. We cannot do it in 2 weeks.
· Criego - We have imposed impervious surface with 30% ground floor ratio. Not in
favor oftaking any action tonight.
Kuykendall withdrew motion.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND STAFF
INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF A CITY-WIDE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITH
PERIODIC REVIEW.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI12497.DOC
8
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ALLOW BUILDINGS
ELEVATED TO THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION AND BUILT
BEFORE 1978, IN ADDITION TO THOSE BUILT BETWEEN 1990 AND 1997, TO
BE CONSIDERED CONFORMING USES.
The rationale is if you have any structure built any time as long as it is built to the 100
year flood elevation that it can be a conforming structure.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT SUBSTANDARD
RIPARIAN LOTS GARAGES ARE AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY BUILDING
WHICH MEETS ALL SETBACKS OF.
Cramer withdrew the motion for further discussion.
Discussion:
· Creigo - discuss the deck issue and common ownership. Would like to see past
verbiage.
· Kuykendall - move on and discuss later.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION TO THE DECEMBER 8, 1997, MEETING TO DISCUSS COMMON
OWNERSHIP AND GARAGES ON RIPARIAN LOTS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
Commissioner V onhof left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
A. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a 42 foot variance from the location
of the top of bluff setback to allow a structure to be constructed within the bluff and
bluff impact zone for the property located at 16091 Northwood Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes who is
proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage. An existing
house will be removed to accommodate the proposed structure. The lot is located in the
Northwood subdivision on Prior Lake.
The applicant is proposing to build a house in the bluff and bluff impact zone as defined
by the current zoning ordinance. Considering the proposed ordinance has yet to be
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII2497.DOC
9
adopted, this report and recommendation reflect the existing ordinance. The applicant is
requesting a 42 foot variance from the location of the top of bluff setback to allow a
structure to be constructed within the bluff and bluff impact zone rather than the required
30 foot setback from the top of bluff and out ofthe bluff impact area as per City Code
Section 5-8-3.
Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials in the
bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top of bluff setback would
allow the applicant to excavate and fill within the bluff and impact area as indicated on
the survey. If a variance to the bluff impact zone or setback to the top of the bluff are
granted, then the resolution should specify that storm water be diverted from the roof
away from the bluff towards the front of the house. This could be achieved with gutters
and/or grading.
Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet the intent of the Shoreland District
in the preservation ofthe natural features of Prior Lake. Pat Lynch, ofthe DNR, has
verbally recommended that no variance to top of bluff or bluff impact zone be granted.
He is of the opinion that there exists a legal building envelope to accommodate the
proposed house and the ordinance as it exists today is what we must adhere to.
At the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staffwas directed to work
with Mr. Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes and Mr. Albers of Edina Realty to draft revised
bluff definitions and setbacks to be clarified and specific so as to be easily interpreted and
understood. This has been done and a copy of the proposed language is attached. The
revised language is to be considered as part of the Zoning Ordinance amendment and
public hearing the same day as this hearing. The applicant feels that the proposed
ordinance meets the goal as directed by the Planning Commission. Rather than wait for
the proposed amendment to be approved and adopted by the City Council, the applicant is
applying for this variance to expedite his project schedule.
Staff recommends denial of the variance to top of bluff and bluff impact zone.
Comments from the public:
Chris Deanovic, Hillcrest Homes, said he was waiting to see ifthe commission came up
with a new bluff criteria and that time was an issue. Deanovic distributed a document
showing where the project would sit between the neighboring homes. He is proposing to
remove the existing house.
Win Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road, attended the last meeting with Hillcrest Homes
and stated their proposal is blocking his view of the lake. The existing home is a small
home where they can see over it. The other neighboring homes are in line with each
other. He asked the Commissioners to grant the variance with limits. He built his house
in 1973 granted by the County Commissioners, who at the time restricted his home width
to 25 feet. It is a narrow home.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI12497.DOC
10
Jim Albers, pointed out the neighbor's house and their proposal. He feels they are
following the shoreline.
Win Simonson, questioned Albers distance and contour of the lake and corrected the
lakeshore. Simonson went on to explain the neighbor's home is flush with his. The cliff
varies in elevation. His neighbors cliffs have fallen into the lake creating different
elevations. He feels the proposal should be granted by keeping the structure flush with
his.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· The hardship criteria have not been met.
· There is some belief an ordinance mayor may not be changed.
· Cannot support request.
Criego:
· If the issue was strictly one of when the new ordinance would be passed, but having a
hard time seeing this when the neighbors are being blocked off.
· This was obvious to the developers when they bought the property. (Albers stated a
permit issued on Red Oaks that does not meet the setback requirements.)
· If mistakes are made in the past the City should not continue to make them.
· Build and blend in with the neighborhood. Albers said his structure follows the
contour of the lakeshore. His interpretation was different from Planning. He accepts
there is a certain amount of blockage.
Win Simonson, showed an illustrated map of the location indicating the straight
shoreline, not slanted as Albers pointed out.
Cramer:
· This has not changed from the last time. Working with the current ordinance, the
applicant does not show any of the hardship criteria.
· Time is not a hardship criteria.
· Does not support.
Kuykendall:
· Deny request for the same reasons.
· Strongly supports changing the ordinance.
· The property was there for neighbors to buy.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-
20PC DENYING A 42 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE LOCATION OF THE TOP OF
BLUFF SETBACK TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN
THE BLUFF AND BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
SETBACK OF 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF AND OUT OF THE BLUFF
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII2497.DOC
II
IMP ACT ZONE PER CITY CODE SECTION 5-8-3 FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING.
Discussion:
· Kuykendall - I think there should be a friendly amendment to the effect the
Commissioners recognize there are changes being proposed. The Commissioners
fully support recommendations made tonight.
· Criego - Does not disagree with what was called out in the ordinance. Highly
recommend the developer who will not be living here but to work with the neighbors.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Chris Deanovic questioned the common ownership issue not being addressed in the new
zoning. Would like to see the verbiage before the hearing.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :24 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII2497.DOC
12
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 1997
To: City Council
From: Donald Rye, Planning Director
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Update
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the City Council of issues and proposals
stemming from the review of the proposed zoning ordinance to date. The following is not
in order of importance but rather follows the outline of the ordinance in the order it is
written.
. Combination of substandard lots- The ordinance proposes that where two substandard
lots abut one another and are in common ownership when the ordinance is adopted,
the lots must be combined and only one building permit will be issued on the
combined lots.
. Height limits- The height limits are increased by 50% for certain structures such as
chimneys, church steeples and the like. Taller structures would only be allowed by
conditional use permit.
. A provision to allow temporary uses such as construction trailers has been added.
. A section defining individual land uses has been added.
. Home occupations- the Commission wants to reconsider home occupation provisions
dealing with maximum floor area and prohibitions on storage and warehousing.
. Floor area ratio- The ordinance proposed restrictions on floor area ratios, which is
intended to limit the bulk of structures on the lot to avoid overcrowding.
. New R-4 district- high density residential district (up to 30 units per acre) would also
allow mixed use PUDs, including housing, retail, office and service uses in one
development.
. A section regulating site lighting has been added.
. A section regulating architectural ,design has been added.
. PUD process- PUDs are treated as an overlay on existing districts, not as a separate
zoning district.
. Certificates of Occupancy will be required for changes in use or occupancy of
existing buildings.
16200 Ea~~~~ S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
· Non-conformities- Certain non-conformities must comply with ordinance
requirements within specified time fi-ames. such as signs, lighting and off-street
parking.
· A section will be added dealing with storage on residential property, particularly
boats, trailers and large vehicles.
· Variances will require a formal public hearing with mailed and published notice.
· A procedure has been added dealing with Comprehensive Plan amendments.
CCMEMO.DOC/DR
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The September 22, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Cramer
Kuykendall
Criego
V onhof
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes: None
4. Public Hearings:
A. CONSIDER A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP FOR
THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
The hearing was opened to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in
attendance.
Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing statement.
Planning Director Don Rye gave a brief overview of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
and presented the outline of the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions. The following are
highlights:
. One of the purposes of the revisions is to protect residential, business and industrial
areas of the community and maintain the stability of that development. The
ordinance will regulate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
. The ordinance definitions were expanded in order to make clear the intent. Diagrams
will be included.
. Lots of record. Determine under what circumstances lots are buildable or not
buildable. The significant feature of this provision is a requirement that
nonconforming lots in common ownership cannot be developed or split apart to allow
development on both parcels. Currently our ordinance deals with this issue only in
the Shoreland District. The language will be clarified.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
· The Planning Commission has suggested a modification in the Shoreland District to
allow combination of lots resulting in a lot width of75 feet instead of90 feet
currently allowed in the district.
· Only one principal building on a lot will be allowed unless there is a conditional use
permit. There is no language at this time.
· Added encroachments in permitted yards which includes projections of fireplaces,
door stoops or bay windows.
· The fence section has been modified to allow higher fences along major roads (8 feet
instead of 6 feet). This is intended for more protection to the adjacent properties.
· Added temporary land uses. Currently there is no provision for temporary land uses.
On site storage for equipment and material during construction, temporary buildings,
carnivals, promotional events. Also, Pollution abatement structures, gas stations for
example.
· New zoning districts - Permanent Districts are Agriculture, Four Residential, Five
Commercial Districts and the Industrial District. Overlay Districts are PUD' s,
Shoreland and the Flood Plain will be added.
· Clarified land use descriptions as regulated in the ordinance - commercial, industrial
and residential. A provision was added for the Zoning Administrator to make a
determination based on a number of criteria in the ordinance and rendering a decision.
. Added two categories of permitted uses.
· In the specific districts themselves the agriculture district definition is the same, land
use modified to fit definitions. Rl district expanded to reflect statutory requirements
(residential daycare facilities). Dimensional requirements in the definitions remained
the same. There is an addition of a maximum ground floor ratio in the Rl District.
Foot print cannot exceed 30% of the lot coverage. There will be a provision dealing
with condominium structures and setbacks.
· The R3 District is similar to the current R2. The main difference is R2 does not
permit duplexes, allows smaller lot size with a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. for
single family. R3 allows 2 family while remaining same lot size. R4 is the high
density district - difference proposed does not permit single family housing. It will
permit two family or larger dwellings and allow a higher density of 30 units per acre
(3 story apartment building). Provides wide range of housing as provided in
Comprehensive Plan.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
2
· Accessory structures have been modified with a height limit restriction and
limitations on where they can be placed.
· Commercial districts - The CI neighborhood business district is currently the B 1
district. It provides low intensity business to the surrounding area. The intent is to
keep small in scale in terms oftraffic generation. Uses do not propose problems for
nearby residents. Conditional and permitted uses have been modified. Limited hours
of operation are 6:00 a.m. - 11 :30 p.m.
· The C2 Business District is a general commercial district providing a variety of land
uses.
· The C3 specialty business (down town area) has been added. The land uses are
intended to reflect in a traditional downtown area. More pedestrian uses. The scale is
limited due to the area.
· The C4 district is intended to handle a variety of things including some of the heavier
commercial not intended to be with the rest of the commercial areas. Regulate
outside storage, sale of equipment, access and how delivery occurs.
· The C5 Business park is identical to the existing ordinance. The land uses have
modified slightly to fit into the classification scheme. Only change is 35% ofthe lot
can be covered by structure. This proposal would change to 50% coverage.
· I1 is the general industrial district which is intended for more extensive uses.
Structures that can not be built at the highest standard such as the business park.
Performance standards:
· Off street parking. The section has been greatly enhanced providing for a variety of
circumstances the present ordinance does not include. It will detail standards for
parking design.
· The current sign ordinance is going to be incorporated into this document. It is
currently a separate ordinance.
· There is an added section on lighting. One security requirement for lighting addresses
service parking. It also provides for submittal of lighting plans on new construction.
It would impose light level standards to reduce lighting on neighboring properties.
· There is a general section dealing with conditional uses. Each use is listed in the
specific section.
· A section was added on architectural design. The purpose is to promote a higher level
of development within the community. Provisions include screening, location,
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
3
appearance, requirements for exterior surface materials and establishes several classes
of material. General design criteria has also been added.
· PUD - Currently the PUD process has characteristics of being its own separate district
and being an overlay. Procedurally it creates problems in administering which the
City is trying to clarify. A PUD is a process that is applied within an existing zone
district. The proposed provisions will set up criteria that has to be met in order for the
PUD to be acceptable within the community.
· The Administration section has been expanded - most significantly in the non-
conforming section. The intent is to clarify with how they are dealt.
Nonconformitities are treated in a different fashion.
. A section was added allowing the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan.
. A section was added for conditions where applicants can get a partial refund on the
application fees, depending on what happens with the application.
· Procedure for Comprehensive Rezoning.
The City Attorney has recently completed her review of the documents and comments
will be coming forthwith.
Comments from the public:
Marvin Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, (summer residence) his permanent address is 2260
Sargent Street, St. Paul, stated he has two 50 foot lots that were denied building what he
considers a minimal home. Mr. Mirsh stated when the City added sewer and water
several years ago, sewer stubs were added to each lot. Furthermore, he has been paying
for them. He presented handouts and a slide show pointing out his property and proposal
as well as his neighbor's new home where no variances were required. He would like to
see the bluff setback ordinance modified and allow flexibility. Mr. Mirsh feels the City
has a moral, ethical and legal obligation to the residents.
Wes Mader, 3470 Sycamore Trail, noted he is a member of the City Council, and was
speaking as an individual. The proposed lakeshore ordinance still regulates impervious
surface at 30% while the DNR regulates 25%. This puts the City in conflict. The
ordinance remained inactivated for a long time because the DNR would not approve it. It
was made an ordinance by the City by default. This issue should be addressed. Mr.
Mader stated he did have a bias for the stricter restriction. His information indicates there
are approximately 80 homes below the flood plain. He has heard the City has given
conflicting information to citizens and asked to look at clarification ofthe ordinance in
the flood plain. Secondly, he asked to look at the property values and give consideration
on how to deal with it.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
4
Mr. Mader was concerned for the changed lakeshore setback. He stated he is opposed to
the 50 foot change. The Lake Advisory was not aware of the proposal and their position
was never communicated to the Planning Commission or City Council. The Prior Lake
Association (which represents approximately 400 families) sent a letter to the City
Council and mayor indicating an unanimous decision by their 9 board members to correct
this matter. He does not see a good argument to reduce the setback to 50 feet. Has an
interest in protecting the lake. Mr. Mader asked the Commissioners to reconsider and
correct.
Hunt Russell, 15402 Forsythe Road, said he was concerned with the bluff setback He
will be rebuilding his home and in the future expanding with a deck. He is afraid he
would not be able to get a variance. Mr. Russell asked the Commissioners to take those
issues under advisement and modify the ordinance. He agreed there are very large lake
homes on small lots.
Jim Albers, 14992 Storm's Circle, is a realtor and has dealt with several with lake
projects. Mr. Albers questioned the proposed zoning ordinance not being complete. One
of his concerns was for common lot ownership. There are a number of people in Prior
Lake who are not in the Shoreland District owning multiple lots and are not aware of the
proposed zoning. These residents believe they have buildable lots and Mr. Albers feels
they should be notified. Current zoning as it stands, limits structures with setbacks and
impervious surface regulations. Most of the new homes are built to the maximum. This
will decrease the number of building sites on the lake and drive the price up. The fact the
common ownership definition is in the general definitions and not just the lake shore will
affect the entire City.
Marv Mirsh, 15432 Red Oaks Road, pointed out he received the proposed ordinance in
July, however the Shoreland ordinance is not in the proposed zoning draft. He felt there
should be an interim draft with the proposed changes.
Larry Schulze, 14321 Shady Beach Trail, President of the Prior Lake Association, said
the lake shore setback should return to 75 feet and felt the process was done too quickly.
He also stated the Prior Lake Association board members felt it should be changed.
Commissioner Kuykendall asked Mr. Schulze if any other Lake Association members
were polled on the setback issue. Mr. Schulze said "No, just board members."
Hunt Russell, 15402 Forsythe, asked if alllakeshore property owners could be notified by
letter. Jane Kansier responded the City does not have the means to do that and all public
hearing notices are in the Prior Lake American newspaper.
Chuck Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail, stated his concern for bluff setback issue will put a
hindrance on his proposed new home.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
5
Comments from Commissioners
V onhof:
· A good point was brought up regarding the availability of the proposed zoning
ordinance. The commissioners have been working on it close to a year. Suggested
before the next hearing that all the amendments and changes including the Shoreland
District be incorporated and available to the public.
· Setback from the lake - feels it should be 75 feet. He is not in favor of reducing
controls that have been in affect for many years. Ifthe Planning Commission is going
to consider reducing the setback there should be some type of increased screening
requirements in exchange rather than given up a substantial setback.
· Bluff setback - there is good reason for this proposal. This year a new home came
close to falling into the lake. The erosion into the lake is a problem. The lake needs
additional protection. Many of the controls from a planning and zoning perspective
are set in motion to protect the lake. The City should look at the impact on the
existing structures and how to mitigate that. Maybe there are some sort of
engineering standards set up so a person could rebuild on a damaged or destroyed
structure. This issue should be discussed further.
· Reserved further comments at this time.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Vonhofs points except the 50 foot lakeshore setback issue.
· Notifying property owners by phone or mail is very difficult and costly.
Compounding the problem is absentee owners. The hearing can be delayed for
months until all owners are notified.
· The issue of grandfathering and rebuilding is difficult. Boathouses for example are
State regulated as well as City regulated. There is rationale behind these ordinances.
· Agreed with incomplete information. In the interest of time and not delaying the
process the City had to move forward. Would like to continue the hearing.
Criego:
· Agreed with V onhof on the lake setback issue - was absent at that meeting.
· Testimony by the public indicates tightening as well as loosening regulations. It is a
very tough decision to decide what is best for the community. Everyone has different
interests.
· The 30' bluff setback is not changing.
· It was mentioned 80 homes were located in the flood plain. Should look at that
section.
· Common ownership of property has been and issue in Prior Lake. A large number of
lots are 50 wide on the lake. The common ownership has been in the ordinance. He
believes the lots should be at the minimum, to combine lots but allow 75 feet wide
lots instead of 90 feet for riparian lots. The changes are more lenient.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
6
Cramer:
. Appreciated comments from the public.
· Look into the rebuild issue with the bluff setback concern.
· Will research the 50 foot vs. 75 foot lakeshore setback and common ownership lot
Issue.
· Believes the hearing should be continued to make recommendations.
Stamson:
· Supports current bluff setback ordinance.
· Does not support the averaging proposed by Mr. Hunt but is willing to look at the
replacement issues.
. Does not support the 50 foot setback.
· The most difficult issue is the common ownership. Support for the ordinance is the
guidance of the DNR and State.
Rye described the modification regarding common lots. The Planning Commission has
asked for language regarding substandard riparian lots and current lots of record, that
recombination of those lots into 75 foot lots would be permissible as opposed to DNR's
requested 90 foot width.
Criego:
. Felt another area should be discussed is the 30% floor space.
· Rye explained the foot print.
Kuykendall:
· Suggested changing some of the colors on the map.
· Should have continuity of zones. Example of PDQ next to Assembly of God Church.
· There could be a possible negative impact with the setback distance on the bluff. A
reasonable way of working with the distance would be if an engineering study would
show if it was feasible to take some other action.
Criego:
· The property owner of a bluff zone area could request a variance. The DNR process
still has to be followed.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND
CONTINUING THE HEARING TO THE NOVEMBER 24, 1997, MEETING. ALL
REVISED MATERIALS AND UPDATES SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
7
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN092297.DOC
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
8