Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Ord Amend Riparian Lots 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: NOVEMBER 3, 2003 10A CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR RIPARIAN LOTS ON GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES (Case File No.: 03.112) AGENDA ITEM: INTRODUCTION: History: The purpose of this agenda report is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning minimum lot width for riparian lots on General Development Lakes. Susan Salaam is requesting this amendment to reduce the minimum lot width required for riparian lots on General Development lakes from 90 feet to 75 feet. The proposed amendment would allow the subdivision of property located at 6096 150th Street. According to the applicant's amendment, the minimum lot width would be based upon the area of the lot. Essentially, the greater the lot area, the less the minimum required lot width, but in no case would it be less than 75 feet. On October 13, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment, and recommended denial by a vote of 3 to 1. The majority of the Commission supported staff's recommendation. They felt that there was not a public need for the amendment. DISCUSSION: Current Circumstances: Property Historv: In 1994, an Administrative Land Division and lot width Variances were approved to subdivide the subject property into two lots with five conditions. At that time, staff recommended approval of the subdivision because the property was considered three lots of record and approving an administrative land division for two lots would reduce the density. (Note: A single family dwelling was present on the property at time of subdivision application, thus the three lots were considered one parcel of land.) The argument in support of the subdivision with variances was that when and if the existing house was destroyed it would not be considered one parcel, but three lots. At that time, staff pointed out that approval of prior subdivisions created precedent. It must be noted the City approved L:\03 Files\03 Ordin Amend\03 Zonin~,~j~H~~~tlb&ttE!~~port.doc Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 1 . I Ii - the subdivision against the recommendation of the DNR Area Hydrologist. The subdivision was also approved contrary to Minnesota Rule 6120.3300, which prohibits the conveyance or development of nonconforming contiguous lots under single ownership. The Zoning Ordinance currently states that two or more contiguous non-conforming lots under single ownership are considered one parcel, and no portion may be sold or subdivided to create lots that do not comply with minimum ordinance requirements (Sec. 1101.501 (3)(c)). The ordinance also permitted property owners to convey ownership of one or more of the lots to another owner until January 20,2000. In 2000 and 2001, the City approved a Lot Combination of the two lots created in 1994. A vacation of the drainage and utility easements was also approved. These actions allowed the applicant to create one lot, and install a pool on the property in 2001. The current application seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of the property once again. The applicant also applied for lot width Variances to subdivide the property, however, the application is still incomplete for review. Shoreland Ordinance: The Shoreland Ordinance requires that newly created riparian lots on General Development lakes (Le., Prior Lake and Spring Lake) meet the following standards: Area Lot width at front yard Lot width at setback Ordinary High Water Level Single Family 15,000 sq. ft. 90 feet 75 feet Lots The minimum lot width is measured at the minimum required front yard setback. A front yard setback is defined as "an area which extends along the full width of the front lot line between side lot lines and toward the rear lot line a distance as specified in the required yard regulations for the district in which such lot is located." Since the majority of lots on Prior and Spring Lakes are zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), the minimum front yard setback for most riparian lots is 25 feet. Minnesota Rules 6120.3300, Subp. 2a. requires that riparian lots on General Development lakes may be no less than 15,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. Minnesota Rule 6120.2800, Subpart 1. establishes "minimum standards and criteria [that] apply to those shorelands of public waters of the state which are subject to local L:\03 Files\03 Ordin Amend\03 Zoning\Riparian Lot Area\cc report.doc 2 . 1 . r, .. government land use controls. They are intended to be incorporated into local government shoreland management controls. Each local government is responsible for administration and enforcement of its shoreland management controls adopted in compliance with these standards and criteria. NothinG in these standards and criteria shall be construed as orohibitinG or discouraGinG a local Government from adootinG and enforcinG controls that are more restrictive." (Emphasis added.) The minimum lot area and width requirements adopted by the City of Prior Lake were reviewed and approved by the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to state law. (Minn. Stat. 9103F.221, Subd. 1 9 (a) (2003).) While this standard is more restrictive than state rules, the DNR has allowed the City flexibility in other areas (e.g., 30 percent impervious surface coverage). The applicant has prepared an amendment to the shoreland ordinance that would reduce the minimum lot width to allow a subdivision of property located at 6096 150th Street. The applicant owns Lots 10, 11, and 12, Eastwood. The three platted lots individually do not comply with current ordinance requirements. The total property width is 151.3 feet. As noted in the previous section, to create a new riparian lot it must be demonstrated the lot is 90 feet in width at the front yard setback. In this case, the property cannot be subdivided into two lots without a Zoning Ordinance Amendment or a Variance. The proposed amendment does not seek merely to accommodate existing lots of record but allow for the creation of new riparian lots on General Development Lakes. Prior and Spring Lakes are the only such lakes within the City. The applicant's proposed amendment reads as follows: (5) Riparian Lots Width: In the case of single family lots that are riparian to sewered general development lakes, the front lot width may be reduced by 1.5 feet for each 1,000 square feet of lot area in excess of 15,000 square feet, to a minimum lot width of not less than 75 feet. Non-riparian lots in the shoreland overlay district are not addressed in the proposed amendment. Non-riparian lots are required to be 12,000 square feet in area and 86 feet in width at the front yard setback. These minimum standards also apply to non-shoreland lots in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) use district. (Note: Minnesota Rules 6120.3300, Subp. 2a. F. sets forth the following minimum standards for non-riparian lots: 10,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width.) L:\03 Files\03 Ordin Amend\03 Zoning\Riparian Lot Area\cc report.doc 3 I J r . rr . Issues: Local Government Discretion: Minnesota Statute S103F.221, Subd. 5 states "a municipality may adopt and enforce ordinances or rules affecting the use and development of shoreland that are more restrictive than the standards and criteria adopted by the commissioner." The City of Prior Lake adopted more restrictive lot width requirements, not unlike many other communities. Local governments are given the discretion to adopt shoreland regulations that are consistent with goals and polices of their Comprehensive Plan and Official Controls. The applicant offers the following justifications for the amendment: 1. Minnesota Rule 6120.3300, Subp. 2a, requires riparian single family lots adjacent to sewered general development lakes to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area and 75 feet in width. 2. The proposed amendment complies with the DNR Rule and allows reasonable flexibility to oversized lakeshore lots. Minnesota Statutes and Rules do not preclude a local government from adopting more restrictive shoreland regulations. The state rules are minimum guidelines, and local governments are given the authority to promulgate regulations consistent with goals and policies. Prior Lake can have higher minimum shoreland standards. The existing ordinance complies with Minnesota Rules and does allow reasonable flexibility to develop riparian lots. A local government can use its discretion to determine what is "reasonable." Inconsistencv with Comprehensive Plan and Zonina Ordinance: The proposed amendment creates an inequitable situation. Under the proposal, non-riparian lots would be required to have 86 feet of width regardless of lot area, whereas, a newly created riparian lot could have only 75 feet in width. It does not appear to "preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shore lands, and provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the state." (Minn. Rules 6120.2600 (2003).) ZoninQ Ordinance Amendment FindinQs: 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: L:\03 Files\03 Ordin Amend\03 Zoning\Riparian Lot Area\cc report.doc 4 I J . I~ 11 1. There is a public need for the amendment. There is no public need for this amendment. The amendment would benefit one individual. It is inconsistent with the past practice of the combination of nonconforming lots by pure operation of law of the Zoning Ordinance. If approved, non-riparian lots would have more restrictive lot width requirements than riparian lots. Riparian lots are more environmentally sensitive than non-riparian lots, so it is imperative that they are larger to protect water quality 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. The Zoning Ordinance intends to: . Conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community. . 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. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to: . Ensure fair and impartial hearings and application of ordinances. All ordinances must be developed and enforced in the public interest. The proposed amendment neither accomplishes the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance nor furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It is in direct conflict with the purpose of conserving natural resources and environmental assets (Le., Prior Lake), because it would permit riparian lots to be reduced in width. Furthermore, smaller lots would increase the density of development on General Development Lakes, and possibly overcrowd environmentally sensitive land. The proposed amendment is discriminatory as it provides greater protection to riparian lots, than to non-riparian lots within the shoreland overlay district. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is inconsistent with City Code provisions and City Council policy directing the combination of nonconforming lots. CONCLUSION: The ordinance amendment would serve only the interest of the applicant, not the public. It is inconsistent with Prior Lake adopted official controls and plans, as well as State and Federal law. The applicant contends that the amendment should be approved because L:\03 Files\03 Ordin Amend\03 Zoning\Riparian Lot Area\cc report. doc 5 11 . .. .. it is consistent with the minimum shoreland standards set forth in Minnesota Rules. State law allows local governments to adopt shoreland regulations that are more restrictive. Prior Lake has chosen to use its discretion to adopt more restrictive minimum standards. The subject property was subdivided in 1994 into two lots, and the applicant combined the two lots into one in 2001. At present, the applicant wants to amend the ordinance to allow a subdivision of the property. There is an issue with a subdivision because a pool was constructed after the lots were combined. An accessory structure cannot exist without a principal structure. Sased upon the findings in this report, staff recommends denial of the applicant's proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The City Attorney is opposed to the applicant's proposed amendment in light of previous ordinances requiring the automatic combination of nonconforming lots held in common ownership and the effects of the amendment on riparian property owners. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt the ordinance amendment permitting riparian lot width on General Development lakes to be reduced to 75 feet. 2. Deny the ordinance amendment. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends Alternative #3. This requires the following motion: REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant's Proposed Ordinance Amendment 2. October 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting minutes L:\03 Files\03 Ordin Amend\03 Zoning\Riparian Lot Area\cc report. doc 6 11 . f. EXHIBIT A [To Combined Application for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Text and Variance] Applicant/Owner: Susan A. Balaam Property: Lots 10, 11 and 12, EASTWOOD, Scott County, Minnesota AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Applicant requests that Section 1104.302 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance be amended to add the following Subdivision (5): (5) Riparian Lots Width: In the case of single family lots that are riparian to sewered general development lakes, the front lot width may be reduced by 1.5 feet for each 1,000 square feet oflot area in excess of 15,000 square feet, to a minimum front lot width of not less than 75 feet. Explanation: 1. Minnesota Rule 6120.3300, Subp. 2a, requires riparian single family lots adjacent to sewered general development lakes to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area and 75 feet wide. 2. The proposed amendment complies with the DNR Rule and allows reasonable flexibility to oversized lakeshore lots. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 11 . '"I Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2003 Stamson: . Explained the permitted with conditions requirement has to be spelled out in the ordinance. Lemke said he could agree to that. . Kansier explained the ordinance. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 1102.1500 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on November 3,2003. ~ D. #03-112 Susan Balaam is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the lot width of riparian lots on General Development lakes from 90 to 75 feet. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 13, 2003, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. Susan Balaam is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text to reduce the minimum lot width for riparian lots on General Development lakes from 90 feet to 75 feet to accommodate a subdivision of property located at 6096 1 50th Street. The proposed amendment would establish the minimum lot width based upon the area of the lot. Essentially, the greater the lot area, the less the minimum required lot width, but in no case would it be less than 75 feet. In 1994, an Administrative Land Division and lot width Variances were approved to subdivide the subject property into two lots with five conditions. At that time, staff recommended approval of the subdivision because the property was considered three lots of record and approving administrative land division for two lots would reduce the density. Staff also pointed out that approval of prior subdivisions created precedent. It must be noted the City approved the subdivision against the recommendation of the DNR Area Hydrologist. Furthermore, the subdivision was approved contrary to Minnesota Rule 6120.3300, which prohibits the conveyance or development of nonconforming contiguous lots under single ownership. The applicant has prepared an amendment to the shoreland ordinance that would reduce the minimum lot width to allow a subdivision of property located at 6096 l50th Street. The applicant owns Lots 10, 11, and 12, Eastwood. The three platted lots on their own do not comply with current ordinance requirements, and the total property width is 151.3 feet. To create a new riparian lot it must be demonstrated the lot is 90 feet in width at the front yard setback. In this case, the property cannot be subdivided into two lots without a variance or an ordinance amendment. The proposed amendment does not seek merely to accommodate existing lots of record but allow for the creation of new riparian lots on L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNI01303.doc 11 ATTACHMENT 2 II . I, _ Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2003 General Development Lakes. Prior and Spring Lakes are the only such lakes within the City. The ordinance amendment would serve only the interest of the applicant, not the public. It is inconsistent with Prior Lake adopted official controls and plans, as well as State and Federal law. The applicant contends the amendment should be approved because it is consistent with the minimum shoreland standards set forth in Minnesota Rules. State law allows local governments to adopt shoreland regulations that are more restrictive. Prior Lake has chosen to use its discretion to adopt more restrictive minimum standards. The subject property was subdivided in 1994 into two lots, and the applicant combined the two lots into one in 2001. At present, the applicant wants to amend the ordinance to allow a subdivision ofthe property. There is an issue with a subdivision because a pool was constructed after the lots were combined. An accessory structure cannot exist on property without a principal structure. Staff cannot support the applicant's amendment because it does not promote the pubic interest and is discriminatory. Comments from the Public: Bryce Huemoeller represented Sue Balaam on the ordinance amendment. Huemoeller stated this is an interesting section of the Zoning Ordinance. People forget about the 90 foot width frontage requirement for riparian lots. Where did the 90 foot recommendation come from? After researching the matter Huemoeller did not come to any conclusion. This requirement is standing in the way for someone to have full use of their property. It is also a good time to look at this ordinance requirement and the impact it has on a certain number of lots in Prior Lake. Balaam's property is a combination of three 50 foot lots for maybe 57,000 square feet. Her proposal is to give a homeowner some flexibility to deal with their property and still comply with the philosophy ofthe Comprehensive Plan. It also provides reasonable assurance there will be adequate environmental protection. Northwood and Eastwood additions were platted at 50 foot widths and approximately 300 feet long. Huemoeller felt the requirement came into play sometime in the mid-80's but could not track it down. It is a requirement that does exceed the minimum DNR rules and therefore has the flexibility as a City to make this change. The DNR's regulations are 50 foot setbacks and 25% impervious surface and the City's trade offis 75 feet and a 30% impervious surface. The City still has 15,000 square foot lot requirements and they are not asking to change it nor intend to change it. Huemoeller felt their proposal is consistent with DNR rules and the old lake lots need more flexibility because of their design and terrain. All of the standard protections apply. Lakeshore lots are regulated more than other lots and that reason alone is a reason to treat lakeshore lots differently. Non-riparian lots do not have 75 foot setbacks and lots not in the Shoreland District do not have to meet the 30% impervious surface. Huemoeller L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNlOI303.doc 12 II . r. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2003 stated the proposal is reasonable, fair and still meets the DNR requirements. He felt it would be easy to administer but there might be other ways to look at it. In summary, Huemoeller and Balaam asked to recommend approval to the City Council or to send it back to staff for tweaking. He felt it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . This ordinance was not just carried over from the previous ordinance. This was debated very heavily. At one point we discussed 90 and 90 feet, but do not remember why. Commissioner Criego would know. . Concur with staff - it has not been a problem around the City. For the most part, the ordinance works. . There is no public need for the amendment. . Appreciates the applicant's desire to have something more flexible but this works for the community. . Stick with the existing ordinance. Atwood: . Agreed, this is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . The State allows local government to be more restrictive. If Prior Lake errors, it errors on the side of what is in the best interest of the community. . This is not in the best interest of the community. . Support staffs findings. Ringstad: . Agreed with the Commissioner's reasoning. There does not appear to be a public need for the amendment, it is just for the benefit of the applicant. . Agreed with staffs recommendation. Lemke: . The concern seems to be an equitable situation. How is that different in equity in having a 15,000 square foot lot size versus 12,000 square foot for non-riparian lots? Kansier and Rye stated it is a State Rule. There is an environmental public interest in requiring the larger lot area adjacent to the lake. . Some inequity is built into the system by virtue of it being a riparian lot. . In doing a quick calculation, it would seem that in order to get the width at the front yard from 90 feet to 75 feet it would require a minimum lot size of25,000 square feet. This does not appear to be unreasonable. Where there is a public need, I don't know. . Support the amendment. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNl 0 1303.doc 13 II . II' .. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2003 MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. Vote taken indicated ayes by Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on November 3,2003. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #03-115 Consider a request to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements and a portion of the Duluth Avenue right-of-way located on and adjacent to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Enivid 1 st Addition. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 13, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The purpose of this application is to facilitate both the construction of the post office and the ring road. The vacation of the existing utility easements will provide additional land, and a better arrangement for the new building. At the same time, the Postal Service will dedicate new easements to cover the existing utilities and the new storm water pond. The Postal Service will also dedicate a road easement for the realignment of Duluth Avenue as part of the ring road construction. The vacation of this easement and the dedication of the new easements will facilitate the construction of the post office and the ring road, and is therefore within the public interest. The Planning staff recommended approval of this request. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · The hurdle on vacations is in the public interest. Cannot see any reason this is not in the public interest. Lemke, Atwood and Ringstad: . Agreed. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENTS AS REQUESTED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on October 20,2003. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNI01303.doc 14 II I rr ..