HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1997
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes: September 8, 1997 and September 22, 1997
Public Hearings:
A. Case #97-090 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5A (FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL
MAP, THE FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION, AND
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Downtown Steering Committee update.
Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS OF THE CITY
CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
OFFICIAL MAP, THE FLOOD PROTECTION
ELEVATION AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
(Case File #97-025)
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR(~~'
X YES NO
OCTOBER 13, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider several amendments to Title 5A
(Flood Plain Regulations) of the City Code. The proposed amendments relate
the references to Minnesota statutes, the establishment of the official map, the
flood protection elevation and nonconforming structures.
BACKGROUND:
Some time ago, the City of Prior Lake submitted a revised flood study to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of this study
was to revise the flood elevations and the flood plain boundaries based on the
outlet in Prior Lake. As a result of this study, the 100-year flood elevation on
Prior Lake was reduced from 909.3' to 908.9'. FEMA recently approved this
revised study and has issued new Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of
Prior Lake.
The approval of this new study, as well as recent changes to the State statutes,
trigger the need for some changes to the Flood Plain regulations. We had hoped
to incorporate these changes into the new zoning ordinance, but time constraints
require that these amendments be done separately.
,J:\9,7fi~s\97oCa m¢~o nipg~97-,ogp\97.0.90pc.dqc
Pa~el
16200 ~ag~e ~.reeK ave. ~.~.. t-nor ~aKe, ~vt,nneso[a 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61Z~'447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
The specific language for the amendments is included in the attached draft
ordinance. Most of the amendments proposed are minor and are essentially
"housekeeping" items. These amendments include the following:
1. Section 5A-1-1 (A): Change the reference to Minnesota Statutes from
Chapter 104 to Chapter 103F.
2. Section 5A-1-2 (A) and Section 5A-1-4 (A): Change the reference to flood
zones from Zone A2 and A7 to Zone AE and A.
3. Section 5A-1-2 (B): Change the date of the official map to November 19,
1997.
The major changes to the ordinance are a result of the action of the State
Legislature. In the 1997 session, the legislature reinstated a mandatory 1' of
freeboard for the flood protection elevation. The result of this action is that the
Flood Protection Elevation must be at least one foot above the flood elevation.
For example, on Prior Lake, structures must be flood protected to 909.9' instead
of 908.9 feet.
This freeboard requirement was removed from the state law several years ago,
and the City of Prior Lake removed it from the local flood plain regulations on
September 17, 1990. One of our concerns was the fact that this new
requirement will make structures built after 1990 nonconforming. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources agreed with the staff's concerns. The DNR
has drafted language which specifically notes that the flood protection elevation
for structures built between September 17, 1990, and the effective date of the
new ordinance does not include the one foot of freeboard. This language allows
these structures as conforming uses, unless the structure is removed for
redevelopment of the property. This effectively addresses the concerns many
appraisers and insurance companies have about nonconforming structures.
ALTERNATIVES:
,1.
2.
3.
Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments.
Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. It must be
noted that the amendments must be adopted by the City Council by
November 19, 1997, so that the City's participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program is not jeopardized.
h\97files\97ordarnd~zoning\97-090\97090pc.doc
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments are required by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Minnesota State statute. Staff recommends
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Letter from DNR
3. Hearing Notice
1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-090\97090pc.doc
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 97- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5A (FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) OF
THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Section 5A-l-1 (A) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by deleting the
existing language and inserting the following language:
Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and 462 (Zoning Enabling Statute)
delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations
designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council of Prior
Lake, Minnesota does ordain as follows:
Section 5A-1-2 (A) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by deleting the
existing language and inserting the following language:
Lands To Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall apply to all
lands within the jurisdiction of Prior Lake, Minnesota, shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, and the attachments and amendments thereto, as
being located within the boundaries of areas designated as Zone AE or
Zone A.
Section 5A-1-2 (B) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by deleting the
existing language and inserting the following language:
Establishment of Official Map: The Flood Insurance Study and Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Prior Lake, Minnesota, both dated November 19,
1997, and any amendments thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and
declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The Official Map shall be on file
in the offices of the City of Prior Lake Planning Department.
Section 5A-I-2 (C) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by deleting the
existing language and inserting the following language:
The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation at least
one foot above the Regional Flood (to the nearest one-tenth foot as
1:\97files\97ordamdXzoning\97-090\dmftord.doc PAGE 1
indicated in the Flood Insurance Study Text) plus any increase in flood
elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain authorized by this
ordinance. For structures constructed between September 17, 1990 and
the effective date of this ordinance, the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation does not have to include the one foot of freeboard noted in this
paragraph unless the existing structure has been removed as part of the site
redevelopment.
Section 5A-1-3 (Definitions) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by deleting
the existing definition for Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and inserting the
following language:
REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION: The Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation at least one foot above the
Regional Flood (to the nearest one-tenth foot as indicated in the Flood
Insurance Study Text) plus any increase in flood elevation caused by
encroachments on the flood plain authorized by this ordinance. For
structures constructed between September 17, 1990 and the effective date
of this ordinance, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation does not have
to include the one foot of freeboard noted in this paragraph unless the
existing structure has been removed as part of the site redevelopment.
Section 5A-1-4 (A) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended by deleting the
existing language and inserting the following language:
Flood Plain District: The Flood Plain District shall include those areas
designated as Zone AE or Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
adopted in subsection 5A-1-2 (B).
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 3rd day of November, 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.
l:\97files\97ordamd\zoning\97-O90\draftord,doc
PAGE 2
DNR WATERS Fax:612-296-0445 Oct 6 '97 13:52 P.02/05
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
50{1 l..afaypd.e Road
SI, ?nul, ,~linT~esut}t .55155-40__
Jane A. Kansier, AICP
Planning Coordinator
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior L',~.ke, MN 55372-1714
Dear Ms. Kansier:
FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE REVISION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Ci~M~) has completed a Flood Insurance Restudy
for the City of Prior Lake with an effective date of November 19, 1997. By that date, FEMA has
requested that the City make all necessary floodplain ordinance revisions consistent Mth mi_uimum
state and federal standards.
Tom Lutgen and I recently met with Don Rye at Prior Lake City Hall to discuss this issue. The
following revisions to Ordinance 90-04 CFloodplaln Management Ordinance) were discussed with
Mr. Rye:
Section 1.1 STAT[!TORY AUTHORIZ&TIQN: Change the reference to Minnesota Statute
Chapter 104 to Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F;
- Section 2.1 LANrDS TO WHICH ORDLNANCE AI>PL'[ES: Reword as follows: This ordinance
shall apply m all lauds within the jurisdiction of Prior lake, Minnesota show-n on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map and the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the
area designated as Zone AE or Zone A;
- Section 2.2 ESTABI.ISIqMENT OF OFFICIAL MAP: Reword as ~bllows: The Flood Insurance
Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map for Prior Lake, Minnesota, both dated November 19, 1997,
are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a pan of this Ordinance. The Offici~ Map
shall be on file in the Office of the Director of Planning;
- Section 2.3REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION & Section 3
DEFI2,qrrtONS (i.e., Defaxtition of REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION).
The summer 1997 legislative session reinstated a mandatory 1' of freeboard for this definition.
Mr. Rye indicated that the City of Prior Lake does not want to make existing structures
nonconforming (by virtue of vertical elevation) that were constructed when this additional foot of
freeboard was optional. Therefore, reword this section as follows: Generally, the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation at least one foot above the Regional Flood (to the
nearest one-tenth foot as indicated in the Flood Insurance Study Text) plus any increase in flood
DNR [nformatlon: fi12-296-~157. ~-80i)-766-6000 · Ti Y: (~12-29h-5484, 1-1400-fi57-3929
DNR WATERS Fax:612-296-O~5 Oct 6 '97 13:32 P. 03/03
October 6, 1997
Page 2
elevation caused by encroachmcnO in the floodplain authorized by this ordinance. For stractm-cs
constructed between September 17, 1990 and the effective date of this Ordinance, the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation does aoc have to include the one foot of freeboard noted in the
previous sentence unless the existing stmctare has been removed as part of site redevelopment;
and
- Section 4.1 FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT: Raword as follows: The Floodplain Disu-iet shall
include those areas designated a Zone )dE or Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rat~ Map adopted
In Section 2.2.
Feel free to call me at (612) 2974602 if you have any questions ha this matter.
Sincerely,
DrVISION OF WATERS
Bret Anderson, Planner
cc: Tira Miller
Dale Homuth
Pat Lynch
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE
5A (FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICIAL MAP, THE FLOOD
PROTECTION ELEVATION, AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES
You are hereby notified that the Pr/or Lake Planning Commission will hold a l~ublic
heating at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE, on Monday,
October 13, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the
public hearing is to consider amendments to Title 5A (Flood Plain Regulations) of the
City Code relating to the following provisions:
1. Establishment of the Official Map: The Flood Insurance Rate Map has been revised
and the new date will be November 17, 1997.
2. The Flood Protection Elevation: Revise the current flood elevations based on the map
revisions and rev/se the ordinance to reflect the recent State legislation requiting the
flood protection elevation to be at least one foot above the regulatory flood elevation.
3. Nonconforming Structures: Language will be added to note that any structure built
under the current flood regulations, and without the additional one foot of flood
protection, will not be considered a nonconforming structure.
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 24th day of September, 1997 by:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON SEPTEMBER 27,
1997
~,^ ,- :\97fil~\97qrd~tmdX2o~igg\9~-090\9709,0pn.~q5
162uu ~a9 e ~rceK ave.~.=., ~rior LaKe, ;vtinnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The September 8, 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
and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 11,
1997 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego, Cramer, Vonhof and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
4. Public Hearings:
Cases #97-082 & 97-083 Consider a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a zone change request for the recently annexed
area owned by Deerfield Development.
The Chair opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. and a sign-up sheet was circulated to
the public in attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report.
Deerfield Development has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone
Change for the property located directly south of the Waterfront Business Park and
Wildemess Ponds, east of the Ponds Athletic Complex and west of County Road 21 and
Revere Way. The 260 acres involved in this request was annexed to the City in July,
1997, and is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The applicant is proposing to amend the
2010 Comprehensive Plan to include this property within the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA) boundary, and to designate 62 acres, located in the northwest comer of the
site to the Urban Low to Medium Density Residential designation, 140 acres to the High
Density Residential designation and 58 acres to the Planned Industrial designation. The
L:\97FILES\97?LCOMM~CMINWIN090897.DOC 1
developer has also requested a rezoning of the easterly 58 acres from the A-1 district to
the Light Industrial district.
This property was annexed by order of the Minnesota Municipal Board on July 9, 1997.
During initial discussions with the City staff and the City Council, the applicant indicated
he was interested in a mixed use type development which would include an expansion of
the Waterfront Passage Business Park on the east side of the site, and a combination of
residential uses on the remainder of the property. These discussions indicated the
residential portion of the site would be developed at a total density of about 5 units per
acre, which would equal about 700 units. The developer proposed to develop the
property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which would allow the mixed use
development. The School District has also indicated an interest in a portion of this site as
a potential high school location.
This proposal is the first step in the development of this site. Once the property has been
added to the MUSA and designated for general use types on the Land Use Plan Map, the
developer can begin designing the specific development for the site.
The Planning Commission is considering two applications at this time. The first
application is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include this
site within the City of Prior Lake MUSA boundaries, and to designate the property as R-
LMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential), R-HD (Urban High Density
Residential), and I-PI (Planned Industrial). The second request is to rezone the east 57.76
acres of the property from the A-1 district to the I-2 district.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller representing Deerfield Development and Mesenbrink Construction
stated staff has recommended a slightly different density breakdown than the developer.
The developer met with staff and does not object to the recommendation. Deerfield
Development has continued to talk to the school district about 80 acres and those
discussions are moving along. It is likely they will sign a Purchase Agreement in the near
future. Developers John Mesenbrink and Larry Gensmer were present for questions.
Jeff Elasky, 16951 Wilderness Trail, said he moved out to Wildemess Ponds a year ago
and received different answers from Scott County and the City of Prior Lake regarding
the development. His main concern is for traffic and the safety for his children. Fish
Point Road will be the main feeder. Mr. Elasky was also expressed concern for his
property value. He asked the Planning Commission to take this into consideration when
making their decisions.
Jim Palmer, 16986 Wilderness Trail, said its concems were stated by Mr. Elasky.
Steven Frank, 17410 Revere Way, was concerned for the high housing density and the
wetlands but agreed with the City's proposal.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINWIN090897.DOC 2
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
Is the City required to give up any acreage for the MUSA extension? Rye said the
City discussed this with the Metropolitan Council. The City will be doing a general
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to deal with the entire MUSA issue. One
possibility is a "Floating MUSA" where there are no specific lines on the map, the
City would have a basic acreage allocation and allocate to the specific developments
as they come along. It will be an orderly extension of utilities as needed. It has not
been worked out. When the City prepared the Comprehensive Plan, an additional 500
acres were allocated. This would come out of it. If more acreage is needed in the
future the City would have to go back and ask for additional land. The wetlands are
not included in the MUSA acreage.
· Supported the MUSA extension.
· Supported staff recommendation on the density.
· The business park designation is consistent with our plan.
Kuykendall:
· Supported everything stated so far.
· What are other impacts to the City? Rye stated the City still has the remaining
acreage. Current state of affairs is the City has very little acreage left, with the
exception of the Jeffers property on County Road 42 and 21. Metropolitan Council
suggest this could be phased in developers' projects.
· Concerns for traffic are typically handled quite well by the City and does not
anticipate any kind o f problem.
· Is there a need for buffering from other developments? Kansier said the zoning
ordinance provides for certain districts. In this case, there is a natural separation of
woods and wetlands. The new ordinance will contain specifics in zoning and
buffering. There are standards in place.
· Supported proposal by staff.
Criego:
· Any information on how much acreage the school district needs? Kansier said
generally high school sites are around 80 acres. The City does not know any of the
arrangements with the school and developer.
· Huemoeller said the school is looking at 80 acres. There is about 30 acres ofw~tland.
· The low to medium density on this site should be around a total of 70 acres.
· Kansier clarified the maximum number of units (assuming there was no school)
would be 1,500 to 1,700 units under a PUD. That is not saying it would be approved.
That is allowable. It would also depend on the wetlands. Realistically it would be
around 500 and 700 units, minus the school.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINLMN090897.DOC 3
· How does the City achieve affordable high quality housing? Rye explained the
decisions are on land use. When it gets down to the PUD, those specific
determinations will be made.
· Agreed with the City's recommendation.
Cramer:
· Regarding the MUSA line. Will the Metropolitan Council take issue with the types
of housing?
· Rye said at this point the Metropolitan Council suggested they would not get involved
in the zoning process. In the future they will be looking for continuity in the
Comprehensive Plan such as the Livable Community Act.
· Supported staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Concurred with the Commissioners and supported staff's recommendation.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THIS
SITE WITHIN THE CITY MUSA BOUNDARY, TO DESIGNATE THE WESTERLY
202 ACRES AS URBAN LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO
DESIGNATE THE EASTERLY 58 ACRES TO THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
OFFICE PARK.
There was no discussion.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM THE A-1 DISTRICT TO THE
BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before City Council on October 6, 1997.
B. Case #97-080 Amendment to The Wilds Planned Unit Development known as Sterling
South.
The hearing was open to the public and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in
attendance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report.
Shamrock Development has applied for an amendment to The Wilds PUD to allow single
family detached dwellings in Sterling South at The Wilds instead of the approved twin
homes. The Wilds PUD was originally approved as a mixed use development in 1993.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCM~090897.DOC 4
In August, 1994, the Council approved the final plan for Sterling South at The Wilds.
This final plan allowed 88 single family attached units in 44 buildings. In January, 1995,
the Council approved an amendment to the Sterling South plan was approved. This
amendment pertained to the setbacks for this development. To date, eight (8) of the
approved 88 units have been constructed. These units are located on Lots 1, 2, 51, 52 53,
54, 61 and 62.
The proposed amendment will replace the remaining 80 attached units with 80 detached
single family dwellings. The density of the development remains the same since no
increase or decrease in the number of units is proposed. The proposed units will also fit
onto the existing lots, so replatting the property is not necessary. The yards and common
space in the development will be managed by a homeowners association in the same
manner as the townhouse development. The developer is proposing three different
housing styles.
The approved PUD plan specifies the setbacks for each of the lots. The amendment
proposes a standard front yard setback of 25' from the back of the curb, a 5' rear yard
setback, and minimum 10' separation between buildings. In order to accomplish these
setbacks, and to ensure the units will fit on the existing lots, the developer has specified
which plan may be placed on each lot.
Comments from the public:
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, Prior Lake, requested replacing the #3 unit with a revised
unit with a larger floor plan, subject to staff approval. The change was to add a porch due
to public demand. Mr. Stanton gave a brief description of the unit designs.
Roger Bohlig, 2831 Wilds Lane, is not against the proposal but is concerned with their
combined units losing property values. There are four twin homes in Sterling South fight
now. He is pleased with Mr. Stanton's work.
Mr. Stanton said the same exact unit space will be built but the price will be higher than
existing twin homes because of building costs. Most of the unit prices not located
directly on the golf course will be $225,000 to $250,000, while those on the course will
be pushing $300,000.
Ray Crowder, 11309 Rich Circle, Bloomington, will be a potential neighbor to Mr.
Bohlig and was also concerned with the property values. He wanted to know if there was
any study done on the impact of twin homes in with single family.
Commissioner Kuykendall said he was not aware of any study.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
L:\97FILES\971~LCOMM~CM~090897 .DOC 5
Kuykendall:
· His personal feelings would be to buy a single family home over a twin home. The
size is the same and the price should be similar.
· The original plat was approved three years ago with twin homes as the trend.
· Mr. Stanton stated the builder David Carlson did a very good job in the niche market.
It was difficult to market in The Wilds at that time. The market quickly changed. He
explained Sterling North development in The Wilds. There is a higher demand for
single family. The market changed dramatically.
· Questioned side yard setbacks,
· Stanton said the setbacks are greater and explained the minimum space between any
building is 10 feet.
· Supported the proposal.
Criego:
· Sees as a benefit to neighbors and the developer.
· A single family home will sell faster than a twin home.
· Favored the proposal It is a plus for everyone.
Crflmer:
· Supported development. This will jump start the neighborhood.
Stamson:
· Supported amendment.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with staff's report.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO
STAFF'S CONDITIONS, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE REVISED PLAN #3
DESIGN.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business: None
6. New Business:
A. Appoint representative to Downtown Redevelopment Steering Committee.
Atler a brief discussion, Dick Kuykendall was appointed as representative with Bill
Criego as an alternative.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMIVlSPCMINXaMN090897.DOC
6
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Commissioners and staff discussed the downtown redevelopment moratorium.
Commissioner Kuykendall noted the lake tour came across a number of lake homes that
were not in compliance with the City codes. He would like feedback fi.om Jenni Tovar
on those issues.
Further discussions included the new zoning ordinance process and timeline, lake issues,
high water, groundwater and surface water.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CMINkMN090897.DOC 7
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 Conumssioners 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 Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Vonhof Present
Stamson 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 mainta'm 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 cimumstances 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\97PLCOMMXPCMIN~MN092297.DOC 1
The Planning Commission has suggested a modification in the Shoreland District to
allow combination of lots resulting in a lot width of 75 feet instead of 90 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. R1 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 R1 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~CM~092297.DOC
2
· Accessory structures have been modified with a height limit restriction and
limitations on where they can be placed.
Commercial districts - The C 1 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 of traffic 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% of the 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 parla'ng. 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\97PLCOMIvI~PCMINNvlN092297.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 of the 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~vIN092297.DOC
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 Shomland 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 lakeshore 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 all lakeshore 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:\97FILE S\97PLCOM.M~PCM~092297.DOC 5
Comments from Commissioners
Vonhof:
· 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. If the 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 Vonhof's 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 heating can be delayed for
months until all owners are notified.
· The issue ofgrandfathering 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 Vonhofon 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 o~,vnership 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 ofg0 feet for riparian lots. The changes are more lenient.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~092297.DOC
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 KLrYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~092297.DOC 7
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CM~092297.DOC
8