Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Ord Amend Rear Setback CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AUGUST 18, 2003 9A CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR AGENDA ITEM: 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: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the reduction of the rear yard setback to a minimum of 10 feet on lots separated from the lakeshore by a platted common open space. This amendment would Impact all property in the shoreland overlay district regardless of zoning use district. The City Council reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment on August 4, 2003. The City Council deferred action on this item and directed staff to revise the language to include discussion that took place at the meeting. 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." A rear lot line is the property line opposite the front lot line, which is the property line that abuts the public right-of-way or private street. On those lots that have a platted "reserve" area or open space staff has applied both the shore land 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 setback). This situation is present in areas such as Inguadona Beach Circle, Green Heights Trail, Oakland Beach Avenue, and Kneafsey's Street. Issues: Staff has prepared an amendment to the shoreland ordinance that would reduce the rear yard setback to 10 feet on lots that abut a platted waterfront, reserve or designated open space area. This would apply to all zoning use districts; however, it would 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 1:103 filesl03 ordin amendl03 zoninglrear s<<~r~mlRY EMPLOYER Page 1 probably be the most applicable to the R-1 use district, as this is the zoning designation of most property surrounding both Prior and Spring Lakes. In this case, the rear yard setback may be reduced from 25 to 10 feet. The 10 foot setback is consistent with the 10 foot side yard setback required in all residential districts, and also the typical width of a rear lot line drainage and utility easement. It should be stressed that the 75 foot shore land setback would still apply because it is measured from the ordinary high water level, not a property line. At the August 4th meeting, the City Council expressed concem about this amendment would impact the private and public platted open space abutting a lake. A specific example cited was Sand Point Park. To address this concern, staff has drafted language clarifying which properties can maintain a 10 foot setback and incorporated this language into the amendment. Essentially, the revised language makes it clear that only platted "waterfront,' "reserve," or other lots designated as open space on the plat document. Further, the lot in question and the open space must be part of the same plat. Sand Point Park occupies an unplatted parcel of land, and was not platted with Sand Point Addition. Thus, lots adjacent to Sand Point Park and other similar uses will be precluded from maintaining a 10 foot rear yard setback because the designated open space and the lot in question must be part of the same plat. Furthermore, the language makes it clear this ordinance provision only applies to dedicated open space existing on May 1, 1999, the date of the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. It cannot be applied to future subdivisions to limit the scope of the application of the ordinance. 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. 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\cc report2a.doc Page 2 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 preservation 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 overlay district to maintain a similar setback regardless of whether it is a riparian or non-riparian lot. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with Minnesota Statutes. CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment would require a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback on those lots abutting platted land designated as "waterfront," "reserve," or other open space on the plat in which the lot in question is located. This provision only applies to platted open space dedicated prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, or May 1, 1999. 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 on existing lots of record, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission, however, did not support the amendment because they did not believe that was in the public's interest to allow the setback to be reduced to 10 feet from a rear lot line when such a setback would not be penmitted in any other circumstance on residential property. AL TERNA TIVES: The City Council has three alternatives: 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\cc report2a.doc Page 3 1. Adopt the ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow 10 foot rear yard setbacks on lots separated from the lakeshore by platted open space. 2. Deny the ordinance amendment. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. This requires the following motion: REVIEWED BY: 1. A motion and second to adopt an ordinance to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback on lots separated from the lakeshore by platted t:lJj- Frank Boyles, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 03-XX 2. July 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes 3. Letter from Tom & Diana Van Pelt dated July 28,2003 4. August 4, 2003, City Council meeting minutes 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\cc report2a.doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 03- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1104.308 (8) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 11 04.308 (8) (Reduced Rear Yard Setback) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: (8) Reduced Rear Yard Setback: In certain circumstances where a platted lot is separated from the ordinary high water mark of a lake by a waterfront, reserve, or otherwise dedicated open space on a platted lot existing as of May I, 1999, the rear yard setback may be reduced to 10 feet from the rear lot line. The lot must be within the same plat as the platted waterfront, reserve, or otherwise dedicated open space. The structure must also complv with Sections, 1104.303, 1104.304, and 1104.308(2) of this Ordinance. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of ,2003. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of ,2003, Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek A venue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\rear setback\draftord2.doc PAGE 1 ATTACHMENT 2 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 staff's 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 staffs 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 11 04.308 (2) to allow a reduced rear yard setback on lots separated from the lakeshore by a platted common open space. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated July 14,2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The purpose ofthis 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 shore land property in any zoning . L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting July U. 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 shore land 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. Kirchoffresponded 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 if there 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 ifthere 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 ifthat intent were met through this dedicated lakeshore 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 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN071403.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting July /4. 2003 . Rye said it could, if there 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 of the 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. Weare 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. . If people 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 Jines 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\MN071403.doc 12 ,.... "c:--':--." -- ~~-, .--'-~ ',-,' -~ 1:-;: :A~..^~.i:: T 3 :i' 'L:.= ,."< ~L~,.. Ii.\' '\" till, : I '\ 1.( J1 28 2003 ,,'\"\' 'U'" ,. I \\ .\ Vi \ 1 11.,...<0' I UL--~ July 28,2003 Mr. Frank Boyles Mr. Don Rye City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE PriorLake,1fN 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 Iakeshore 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 bad 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 of a future deck and compared our lakeshore 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 of the community. However, in this particular case, I think that there are extenuating circumstances to consider. In addition to the lack oftruthfuiness 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 bllHtin,g 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 headerl1edger 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 headerlledger 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 fuct that the lot sizeJhouse 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 corner 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 fuct 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, /C,h.-- y Tom & Dina Van Pelt --- .-- rU'I'" roo i I / / I / , ___...1 L..-------- / I \ / / 2.... / .- / I . ~ '"",/ \ .- Scale in feet I \ I I I \ \ " 30 60 90 ~_J I \ <(' ... 1'" ~-. '>oj --. ..:.. ,., ..." ,..,. ... tJ._ ,..,. r ...- .,--.1 tLJ ( ( ~'--,' '.1 ,..<( ( ..... ('! ,\:5- ; l\ ,I 1') ; JAnO)LOCKS-1 y.// ! I -SAND A1j~ ~ 1, l.l " "..\\..J " r"" I .. \.. \..... ("",I~,.. I ...1' , <::4'" 1 "vI""'" . . 1"1- / I~ I/o: . ~ ( ~ \, a f:,i: '-,. o '" \ \ I \ ,?4.n- J!... "0' \ ." ~ I I, D '" \ \ NOTE: THE HOUSE [S NOT STAKED AT THIS TIME. LEGEND PROPOSED ELEVA nONS LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT ON MONUMEIQT lWER POLE :LEPHONE BOX ~s METER 'DRANT nER VALVE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF Ii 14024 AT BOULDER RETAINING Wr APPROX. 50. FEET EAST OF SE COF LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00 - DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE I hereby certify that this survey \&l""c! 1"\,...1"\....,........ 10.'1 ......... ,...,.. ............... ......." I .......--. 1-I~1""'\~.o.Jt"'\ . Th^~""" ~ ..-~~ .". .:'!'o.- -- - ..: ,,-- ..... .~... - :. ..,.:.