HomeMy WebLinkAbout10D-Rear Yard Setback on Lake
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
AUGUST 4, 2003
10 D
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK ON LOTS SEPARATED
FROM THE LAKESHORE BY PLATTED OPEN SPACE
(Case File No.: 03-71)
INTRODUCTION:
History: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider an
amendment the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear yard setback to
10 feet on lots separated from lakeshore by a platted common open
space. This amendment would impact shoreland property in any use
district.
There are numerous parcels around the lake which appear to be
riparian lots, but are not since private or public common open space
lies between the parcel and the lake. The question here is not
whether the common open space can be used to calculate the
required 75' setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (it is) but
whether the additional 25' required rear yard setback should also be
applied. Under the present ordinance, both setbacks must be
applied. This amendment would allow a reduced rear yard setback,
yet still maintain the required setback from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHW).
On July 14, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this item, and recommended denial of the amendment by a vote of 4
to 1. Meeting minutes are attached.
DISCUSSION:
Current Circumstances: The Zoning Ordinance defines a rear yard
setback as "an area which extends along the full width of the rear lot
line between the side lot lines and toward the front lot line a distance
as specified in the required yard regulations of the district in which the
lot is located." On those lots that have a platted "reserve" area or
open space staft has applied both the shoreland setback and rear
yard setback, which in some instances places the structure more than
75 feet from the ordinary high water level (or the minimum shoreland
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear s,,\Q~r~PMlMJl-mY EMPLOYER Page 1
setback). This situation is present in areas such as Inguadona Beach
Circle, Green Heights Trail, and Kneafsey's Street.
The Planning Commission has recently reviewed several requests for
this type of rear yard variance. In 2002, a 9 foot variance was
granted from the 25 foot rear yard setback on property located at
16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SE, which is adjacent to platted open
space abutting Prior Lake, to allow for the construction of a single
family dwelling. The dwelling was proposed to comply with the
average 62.5 foot lakeshore setback. However, in 2000, the Planning
Commission denied a 12 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear
yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck addition on
property located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue NE, which is also
adjacent to platted open space. The deck would have maintained a
97 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Prior Lake,
utilizing the common area. (Note: The current property owner has
submitted a letter supporting the ordinance amendment. It is located
in Attachment 3.)
Issues: Staff has prepared an amendment to the shoreland
ordinance that would reduce the rear yard setback to 10 feet on those
properties that abut a platted reserve or open space area. This would
apply to all zoning districts; however, it would probably be the most
applicable to the R-1 use district, as that is the zoning designation of
most property surrounding both Prior Lake and Spring Lake. In this
case, the rear yard setback would be reduced to 10 feet from the
minimum required 25 feet. The 10 foot setback is consistent with the
10 foot side yard setback required in all residential districts. The 75'
shoreland setback would still apply because it is measured from the
ordinary high water level, not a property line.
The historical purpose of a yard setback was to provide open space
for light and air, lessen the congestion of public streets, and decrease
fire hazards. The rear yard setback is more commonly associated
with individual privacy. In the instance of a lot separated from the
lakeshore by platted common open space (where the structure would
still be required to comply with the minimum shoreland setback) the
rear yard setback would be duplicative. These particular lots are not
abutting lots with dwellings, so the purpose of protecting individual
privacy would be moot. The structure would still have to maintain the
required minimum shoreland setback.
The proposed ordinance amendment is intended to allow the City to
achieve two objectives in a more customer-friendly manner. The
amendment allows a reduction in the required rear yard setback, but
1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\cc report.doc
Page 2
still provides for a 10' rear yard setback from the private property line
which preserves open space, light, air and so on. At the same time,
the amendment preserves the required 75' setback from the OHW,
and allows the common open area to be utilized in this calculation.
Because the common area is within 75' of the OHW, the erection of
structures by an association or any individual is not permitted.
Attached is a letter from Tom and Dina Van Pelt, who would be
affected by this amendment (attachment 3).
Zonina Ordinance Amendment Findinas:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states that
recommendations of the Planning Commission and final
determinations of the City Council shall be supported by findings
addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the
following policies:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
The amendment would ensure equal protection of properties that are
in the shoreland overlay district. Lots that abut platted open space
would have to comply with the same requirements as those that abut
the lakeshore.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes
of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted
plans or policies of the City.
One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to:
· Prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of
structures and population by regulating the use of land and
buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land
surrounding them.
Goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan include:
· Ensure fair and impartial hearings and application of ordinances.
Ordinances, codes, and policies should be maintained through
regular review, evaluation, and when warranted, revisions or
repeal, to avoid obsolescence and ineffectiveness;
· Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the safety
and preseNation of property. Require high standards of design
and materials used for all structures.
The proposed amendment strives to serve the purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and accomplish the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing all structures in the shore land
1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\cc report. doc
Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 03- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1104.308 (2) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE
The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1104.308 (2) (Setback Requirements for Residential Structures) of the Prior Lake
City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures: On shoreland lots that have 2
adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential
structure or any additions to an existing structure may be set back the average setback of the
adjacent structures from the ordinary high-water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater,
provided all other provisions of the Shore land Overlay District are complied with. In cases
where only one of the two lots adjacent to an undeveloped shoreland lot has an existing
principal structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure and the next structure within
150 feet may be utilized. Setback averaging may not be utilized when an undeveloped
shoreland lot is adjacent to two other undeveloped shoreland lots. In no instance shall a
principal structure be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone.
On a lot separated from the Ordinary High Water Elevation by a public or private common
area, the rear yard setback may be reduced to 10' from the rear lot line. This provision is not
intended to allow a reduction of the required setback from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake this 4th day of August, 2003.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 9th day of August, 2003.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\ord03xx.doc
PAGE 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
---~
~"~~~~:'~~TtACtiMa:.> T 3
I . ---.---
" I. I
t" i" : I
'!~( J1.282003 Ii:
'i 1'\ I I I,ll Ii
Ii \ \ .i:.tj'
lU 'UL- IL..' I
July 28,2003
Mr. Frank Boyles
Mr. Don Rye
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
PriorLake,~ 55372
Gentlemen:
We are writing to express our disappointment in finding out that the Planning
Commission apparently turned down a request from the city staff to change the set back
requirements when considering lakeshore property that is part of a beach association. As
part of this letter, we are requesting that the full City Council reconsider the Planning
Commission's action on this item. In particular, we would like to address the council in
person regarding the situation concerning the repeated denials that we have had seeking
approval to build a deck on the lakeside exterior of our house due to the size of our home
versus the size of our lot.
As we explained to both of you when we met in Mr. Boyles office on June 27th, when we
purchased what, at the time was a spec home at 14624 Oakland Beach Ave. SE from
Messenbrink Construction, both Larry Gensmer and John Messenbrink neglected to tell
us that a deck wasn't allowed on the home due to the previous variance(s) that had been
granted to allow construction of the home on what was apparently a non-conforming lot.
Actually, both Messers. Gensmer and Messenbrink said that one could be built but that
the sale price didn't include construction of the deck. Instead, as the future owners of the
home, we were informed that we would be responsible for the construction of the deck.
We actually stood out in the back yard "eye-balling" the back of the house with these
gentlemen prior to writing an offer to purchase on the home and talked about deck
construction and possible sizes ofa future deck and compared our lake shore neighbors'
respective decks to a possible deck addition on our future home. It was quite a shock to
stop down at City Hall a couple of months later after we had purchased the home and
found out that a deck wasn't allowed because of the house size/lot size issue which we
weren't aware of when we purchased the home.
We respect that fact that any well run community needs to have ordinances and
regulations that insure and enhance the desirability and overall appearance ofthe
community. However, in this particular case, I think that there are extenuating
circumstances to consider. In addition to the lack of truthfulness of the builders of this
home, the actual construction of the home would lead a purchaser to assume that the
construction of a deck on this home would be a given. The home was obviously
.
inspected by the City's building inspector(s) a number of times during construction as
well as providing a final inspection and issuing a certificate of occupancy. In spite of
these numerous inspections, the home was constructed with header/ledger boards on the
back of home where a deck would be built coming from the living space from the main
level of the home. Not only were the header/ledger boards put in place to accommodate
the construction of the deck but sliding glass doors totaling 12' in width were also
allowed to be installed to accommodate traffic into and out of the main living space unto
a future deck space. If a deck was never to be constructed on this home, why was a
construction plan approved and allowed to go forward with these features, which clearly
would indicate the potential for a deck to be added at some point in the future?
When we met in June, we talked about the fact that the lot size/house size issue that is
presently preventing the construction of a deck doesn't consider the common sense fact
that we have no issues with the actual set back of a proposed deck from the lake itself.
I've enclosed a copy of a survey prepared by Hansen, Thorp, Pellin, Olson, Inc. of Eden
Praire that indicates that a 12' deck on this home would be 97' from the 904 high water
line on the east comer of the deck and 100 ' from the 904 high water line on the west size
of the deck. A copy of the survey is attached for your review. With this distance set
back from the high water line, we should be able to comfortably address any lakeshore
set back issues that a deck may cause. The fact that a portion of the distance between the
water line and our lot line consists of beach association property seems to us to be
irrelevant to the issue of whether a deck is warranted for this property. The actual
distance from the water is the issue and we have plenty of room to comfortably meet any
set back conflicts.
In conclusion, we understand that it's not the City of Prior Lake's problem that a couple
oflocal businessmen misrepresented the facts regarding a product that they had for sale.
However, it does seem that the City had a number of opportunities during the
construction process to stop the construction of the home in the :final form in which it
appears if it didn't intend for this home to ever have a deck added. Finally, this seems
like the classic "no harm, no foul" situation. Our neighbors have no objection to the
construction of a deck to our home. We have plenty of set back space from the high
water mark on the lake. By approving a deck for this property, the City has the
opportunity to increase the value of this property for many years to come while providing
us the opportunity to experience what every Minnesotan desires when they purchase a
lake property - the chance to fully enjoy a marvelous asset like Prior Lake itself
Thank you for your consideration of this letter and for sharing it with the City Council
members. We look forward to having an opportunity to discuss it in person with the
council members at a future meeting.
S,ely,
/~ 'I--
Tom & Dina Van Pelt
.
fU Ir
rUf
,
--_J
24.81 \
,
\
\
\
.. -
I "-
. ....
Scale
II
30
I
I
I \
90 \
\
\- -----:,~------l
.., ':' 20-2~
~... ,;......,1
I ~::4... I
" oJ"~
I ..
,~
f\. '\,~ \.'
, , I""" 1
.. \.. '..~
,'" .;......, .. \
,J I
,
in feet
---L\
60
~--
--,.
..:-
,....
....'"
~#
1..-
Ll_
~#
r- ~.-
..--..J td
( ( ~--_./
II ......<(
( --
(I / \:=:
/ 1ft I
/ I II i
PAn~LOCKs-Jy. I. I
-SAND A8~
. . . ~ ),
.. .
l~
//
/
/
/
I .
I I I ~
_lo. nMBER [WAlL 1\
\ \
)
I
N~
/ I~
. .:J
//0::
I ~
( :
""oX
"'.
o
ClII
\
\
f,
o
0,
\
\
\
,....
L_J
<('
.....
"'...
,'"
(....#
10.-
Nal.
\~{
\ \,\..~~,
, "
'....
NOTE:
THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT
THIS TIME.
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
* 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING W;
APPROX. 50. FEET EAST OF SE COF
LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00
ON MONUME~T
)WER POLE
LEPHONE BOX
~S METER
'DRANT
~TER VALVE
OE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
~
DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared by me or under my
C"Or.,..."',..,:....:-._ __~ .........L I _-.... ..... ~1,1"
1.17 t:lan.sen ~~orp ,
.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
· It creates a city-wide equity. It gives some leeway in situations when one has to
be closer.
· Concurred with staffs findings.
Lemke:
· Agreed. Lemke gave an example of requiring more impervious surface
(driveway) with the ordinance.
. Support the change.
Criego:
· Does not feel strongly one way or another. The only downside is that there could
be a situation where you want to build a house and utilize that space taking up the
impervious surface.
· As long as it does not exceed 30 percent impervious surface.
. Support staff.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Stamson but touched on Lemke's comments on ways to reduce
impervious surface, especially around the lakes.
· Supported the recommendation.
Atwood:
. Support staff s recommendation.
Stamson:
· This probably affects a small number of properties.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF ORDINANCE 03-XXX AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.306, 1102.405, 1102.505,
1102.605 AND 1102.706 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on August 4,2003.
D. Case #03-71 Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 1104.308
(2) to allow a reduced rear yard setback on lots separated from the lakeshore by a
platted common open space.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated July 14, 2003, on file in
the office ofthe City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to reduce the rear yard setback to 10 feet on lots separated from lakeshore by a platted
common open space. This amendment would impact shoreland property in any zoning
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July J 4, 2003
district. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission regarding this proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment would require a 10 foot rear yard setback on those lots abutting
platted lakeshore common open space. Structures would also have to comply with the
minimum shoreland setback. This would still prevent the overcrowding of land yet allow
the fair application of ordinances, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment.
Criego questioned what the typical backyard setback would be. Kirchoff responded the
rear yard setback would be 25 feet. Rye said the reason for the 10 feet is that typically
there are easements which are 10 feet.
Lemke questioned what would happen ifthere was a structure on the platted open space,
like an association and it was 10 or 15 feet from the lot, would the 10 feet apply or 25
feet from the two structures. Rye said it was not anticipated there would be a structure on
the common area.
Lemke pointed out under this proposal there could be less than 50 feet between
structures.
Criego said it prohibits people from building on the common area if there is structure
setback. Rye said some common areas are dedicated to the public and others are
dedicated to the residents in the plat. Typically the association lots are on outlots or a
collection of platted lots.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· With consistency or fairness of the 75 foot setback. If that's what is required of
others and substantially more than that. It is not fair to allow this.
· Rye said visually from the lake or from anywhere else you do not know there is a
property line. The intent of the 75 setback is to maintain a minimum distance
between the lake and the structure. It seemed to staff if that intent were met
through this dedicated lake shore the purpose has been served.
Stamson:
· This seems highly unfair. It seems the 75 foot and 25 foot setbacks meet separate
goals. The 75 feet is to make sure the structure is far enough back from the
lakeshore. The 25 feet is to provide some useable space behind the home. It
doesn't create 100 feet.
L:\03 FiJes\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
· Rye said it could, ifthere was 75 feet of common space, and then you are back
another 25 feet from the property line. It is not so rare; a lot ofthe common
lakeshore is significant in its depth. It is not a matter of 10 or 15 feet.
· In the instance where the common area is 75 feet or greater it creates a larger
setback.
· First concern is that this is dedicated to just lakeshore. We are essentially saying
if there is open space behind your backyard, you don't need a back yard. If
you're not on a lake and you back up into a park, how is that different? It is not
fair. Rye said there are no park setbacks. The 75 feet has nothing to do with
maintaining a back yard, it is strictly to protect the lake. Throw out the lake and
you don't need the 75 feet. If its okay for people living on the lake that simply
have some open space behind them to do away with their rear yard, why can't I
do away with my rear yard? There is no difference.
· In my mind the 25 feet is to create usable space in your yard.
· Rye replied this basically gives one the option to put on a deck and are currently
precluded because of a 25 foot setback.
· Then we are allowing people to take the back yard activity and move it onto the
dedicated common space. You are imposing someone's backyard onto the
common area with no recourse. It doesn't even require an easement.
· Ifpeople need 25 feet for a back yard anywhere in the City then I don't why they
don't need 25 feet in the Shoreland District. It's a hard and fast rule. Ifnot, then
lets do away with.
Lemke:
· The rear setbacks in this case are more typically done for uniformity and
aesthetics. It's different from front yard setbacks where there are site lines for fire
and other matters. An example is the downtown designation where you can build
right to the street. We don't have 10 foot alleys between buildings. A 25 foot
rear yard setback is more for aesthetics. When you have 75 feet of open space
from the lake, you have met the intent of the 25 feet.
Stamson:
· The point is the 75 feet and 25 feet do not have anything to do with each other.
And the fact that one is there and the other is not is irrelevant.
· Another example is that the City does not maintain the park or open space but
sometimes that space is dedicated for public use. So by now eliminating that
person's back yard, they're moving all their stuff onto the public space, you have
hindered the public space.
· It is really granting someone a rear yard they do not own. The homeowner's
associations now have to maintain someone's backyard. And the homeowners are
not party to this, they can't say no. We haven't given them the option.
· Now instead of having 30 people in their back yard, they'll have 30 people in the
common area.
Lemke:
· It could be that the people we are talking about own the land.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 14, 2003
Samson:
· They do not own the land exclusively; they own it with the association. There is
no opportunity to give the association a say if they want a structure less than 25
feet away from the property line.
· The argument of having 25 foot back yards is so someone can't build a house on
the property line. That's what this essentially does - it allows you to create a
house on a homeowners association, they mayor may not be part of. Depends on
where in town you are talking. And there is no recourse for that party. The party
being imposed upon has no voice.
Criego:
· We have many setbacks, all for a purpose.
· Agreed with Stamson that 25 feet is for a rear yard setback is set aside for people
to utilize. It doesn't make any difference where it is located; they should have a
minimum 25 foot area to work in. Just because they live near some open area,
that should not allow them to reduce that amount of area.
· Whoever owns the public/common area will be limited in its use because now
homes could be much closer to the lake and actually inhibiting others to build. It
is not up to us to judge what or what cannot be built on particular properties if the
ordinance allows it.
. This is dangerous territory.
· Would rather see something on a variance situation based on the uniqueness of
the property rather than make this a common ordinance across the City.
Ringstad:
· After listening to both sides make their arguments, agree that this should be
determined on a case by case basis.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Ringstad and Criego. Valid points - it's not just a gazebo, it is a
home by the open space.
· It is beneficial to look at these on a case by case basis.
. Would not support.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DENY THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
Ayes by Ringstad, Atwood, Criego and Stamson, nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED.
This will be heard by City Council on August 4,2003.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN07l403.doc 12