Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Accessory Struct on Island MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREP ARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JUNE 4, 2001 9C STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON ISLAND LOTS History: The purpose of this report is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow an accessory structure to be located on a general development lake island lot that meets the minimum required area and conditions. This amendment was initiated at the direction of the Planning Commission on February 12, 2001, as a result of an appeal to the PlaIming staff s interpretation that Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.309 prohibited accessory structures on island lots. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the staff s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Commission also directed staff to research the issue and prepare ordinance amendment language for consideration. Current Circumstances: On April 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow accessory structures on island lots. The original proposal limited the size of an accessory structure to 300 square feet. The Commission discussed proposed options for the amendment and heard testimony from a "Twin Isles" property owner. The Commission then directed staff to revise the proposed ordinance amendment to allow accessory structures on island development. The proposed revisions limited the size of an accessory structure to 576 square feet or the size of the principal structure (seasonal cabin) whichever is less, and required a 100 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 14, 2001. At that time, the Planning Commission heard testimony from a Twin Isle seasonal cabin owner who supports all amendment to allow accessory structures on island lots, but was concerned about the square 1:\01 files\OI ordamend\zoning\twnisJ 01-012\ccreport.doc Pa~ 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (902) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1-" ,- r footage as proposed. He believed the draft amendment accommodated one individual and not the majority of property owners. The original appellant also spoke at the hearing and again expressed the need for an accessory stmcture of this size (576 sq. f1.) for secure storage of personal property and stated that some people have more "toys than others". He stated he had talked to other Twin Isle residents and they all agreed there was a need for accessory stmctures. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment at length. The Commissioners agreed that accessory stmctures should be allowed on island lots; however, the Commissioners were concemed about the size and impact of these stmctures. The Commission recommended the following language be added to Ordinance Section 1104.309 Island Development: (10) One detached accessory structure is permitted per lot on general development lakes subject to the issuance of a building permit and the following conditions: y The lot must meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements listed in Section 1104.309, and y The structure shall comply with all other required conditions and yard setbacks as stated in Section 1102.800 (8), and y The structure shall not occupy an area greater than the principal structure (seasonal cabin) or 240 square feet, whichever is less, and y The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet, and y The structure shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and y The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However, the structure may contain an electrical system, with the properpermi~, and y The structure shall be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure (seasonal cabin), and y If the structure is located below the regulatory flood plain elevation it shall be built in compliance with the applicable flood proofing requirements of the building code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance, as required, and y The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be immovable from its approved location. The minutes of the April 9, 2001, and the May 14,2001, Planning Commission meetings are attached to this report. 1:101 fileslOI ordamendlzoningltwnisl 01-0 121ccreporLdoc Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: Issues: Whether or not an accessory structure should be allowed on island lots is a policy issue. The unique circumstances pertaining to island lots and development warrant limitations on the number and size of structures, tree preservation and impervious surface conditions. However, the current ordinance only provides for seasonal cabin structures on the islands and without permitting accessory structures, equipment storage appears to be an issue. The Council should consider whether to permit limited accessory structures and the size and conditions for these structures should be determined. When determining whether to amend the ordinance, the City Council must base their decision on the following criteria: . There is a public need for the amendment; or . The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City; or . The adoption of the amendment is consistent with state and/or federal requirements. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to encourage development of quality residential and environmental improvements to the island lots. Conclusion: Both the PlaJ.ming Commission and the staff recommend approval of this amendment. The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance 01-XX approving the proposed amendment as recommended. 2. Deny Ordinance Ol-XX. 3. Defer action on this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative #1. nd to adopt Ordinance 01- XX approving the mmended. Approval of this ordinance requires a of the City Council 1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\twnisl 01-0 12\ccreport.doc I I Page 3 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 01- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1104.309 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: Section 1104.309 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: (10) One detached accessory structure is permitted per lot on qeneral development lakes subiect to the issuance of a buildino permit and the followinq conditions: ~ The lot must meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements listed in Section 1104.309, and ~ The structure shall comply with all other required conditions and yard setbacks as stated in Section 1102.800 (8), and ~ The structure shall not occupy an area oreater than the principal structure (seasonal cabin) or 240 square feet, whichever is less, and ~ The maximum heioht of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet, and ~ The structure shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the ordinary hiqh water mark (OHWM), and ~ The structure shall not be desioned or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewaqe treatment facilities. However, the structure may contain an electrical system, with the proper permits. and ~ The structure shall be compatible in desiqn and materials with the principal structure (seasonal cabin), and ~ If the structure is located below the requlatory flood plain elevation it shall be built in compliance with the applicable flood proofinq requirements of the buildinq code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance, and ~ The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be immovable from its approved location. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 4th day of June, 2001. 1:\0 I files\OI ordarnend\zoning\twnisl 01-0 12\ordO I xX.doc PAGEl 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . r r ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of ,2001. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek A venue Prior Lake, MN 55372 ]: \0 I files\O I ordamend\zoning\twnisI 01-0 12\ordO I xx.doc PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14,2001 DRAFT 1. Call to Order: Ch . V onhof ca11ed the May 14, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Crie , Lemke, Stamson and V onhof, P1 'ng Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator ane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermo , oning Administrator Steve Horsman d Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. The Minutes from the presented. Present Present Present Absent Present 2. Roll Call: 3. Commissi er V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: tK A. Case File #01-012 (Continued) Consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory structures on Island developments. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 14,2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On February 26,2001, the Planning Commission considered proposed language for an ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing for this amendment. On April 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The original proposal limited the size of an accessory structure to 300 feet. The Commission discussed proposed options for the amendment and heard testimony from a "Twin Isles" property owner. The Commission then directed staff to revise the draft ordinance amendment with conditions to allow limited accessory structures on island development. L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\nm05140 I.doc 1 I r r Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 The revised language limits the size of an accessory structure to 576 square feet, or the size of the principa1 structure on the lot, whichever is less. It also requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the ordinary-high-water mark. Whether or not an accessory structure should be allowed on island lots is a policy issue. The unique circumstances pertaining to island lots warrant limitations on the number and size of structures and on the amount of impervious surface. However, the current ordinance only provides for seasonal cabin structures on the islands and equipment storage appears to be an issue without an accessory structure. It does not seem unreasonable to allow limited accessory structures; however the size of these structures should be determined as a policy issue. The staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments for this report. In essence, the DNR would not oppose adoption of the ordinance amendment as proposed. Staff did receive comments from two Twin Island residents regarding no accessory structures or use permitted on a lot without an established principal use. The second concern was a requirement that all structures contain an enclosed septic system. Lemke questioned the principal structure pertaining to the variance applicant. Horsman explained the accessory structure ordinance. Criego question if the lots were combined, would they ever be able to separate. Horsman said not for the purposes of subdividing and building. Comments from the public: Dave Wuellner, 16930 Walnut Avenue, also owns a cabin on Twin Island, Lots 6 and 31. Wuellner had three concerns. The first was the language stating there had to be a principal structure to be able to add an accessory structure. Wuellner was on the Planning Commission at the time the Zoning Ordinance was written. He said he didn't realize the way the ordinance was written that it precluded anyone on the Island from having any reasonable shed. It was an oversight on the Commissioner's part. It is important to have an accessory structure but the concern is the excessive square footage. It is a convenient figure that this square footage was given to accommodate someone who started to build a garage without a surveyor building permit and got caught. Now there is an amendment to change the whole ordinance just to accommodate him. It is not the right thing to do in the planning sense. Wuellner stated he did put up a shed, but stayed below 120 square feet. This garage would be an enormous structure on an island where the majority of the houses are not even that big. In fact, it was put on 4 lots that just a few years ago were clear-cut. There is a tree preservation ordinance. This is the last place on Prior Lake where there are cabins. The rest of the lake is being redeveloped. This is a seasonal "up north" area. Hate to see this area damaged. The City should not change ordinances to accommodate one individual. L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn051401.doc 2 ,. " . - .... '. .- ~..=---"';'------~--...,;,.~..,'-,~~ ....'_"O'-"'....^~""--'~_~_....:.,....-._...__~_......J..-...'..__..._ .h. Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2001 Criego questioned what size structure would be appropriate. Wuellner said he couldn't speak for all island property owners. Wuellner questioned what would be allowed on the mainland. What is the norm for the R1 district? Horsman responded 832 feet maximum for a detached garage with impervious surface conditions. Wuellner felt the Commission is accommodating a resident who did not abide by the rules and got caught and now he wants to go ahead and change the ordinance. Criego questioned what would be a fair accessory size. Wuellner said he doesn't know the right answer, but did not want to make the decision for everyone and just because someone did it anyway, the law has to be changed to accommodate it. It is the wrong way to go. Zoning Ordinances are put together for the long range. The accessory structures have typically been 10x12 foot (maximum) storage sheds. John Meyer, 3313 Twin Island, said a number of the older cabins are smaller and the newer seasonal cabins are larger sized. The pattern of residential homes is the same. Every generation's home is getting larger. Meyer said there is a need to secure one's property and stated some people have more toys than others. He felt the proposed ordinance language is correct. Meyer said he talked to the Twin Island residents and all agreed there is a need for accessory structures. The hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . No one is arguing there shouldn't be a storage facility. · It is not inappropriate to bring up the discussion on the size of the accessory structure. The proposed square footage is large. . It should be reasonable. Stamson: · Opposed the proposal. It fundamentally changes the density on the Island. The long-term goal has been to minimize development and preserve the Island. Larger structures were discouraged so residents were not permanently living out there. . Allowing a garage-style structure will increase the development. · Long term it will attract people to increase their cabin size and use because of having other types of things they can store that were not anticipated or allowed in the past. · Part of the concern is if a 572-foot garage is allowed, 572 feet plus the surrounding area and driveway will have to be cleared. That square footage turns out to be at least 1,000 square feet. Many trees will have to be removed. What happens when 4 or 5 more structures are constructed? People will be clear- cutting to accommodate larger structures. A significant amount of trees will be removed. . Accessory structures are warranted and should be allowed on a smaller scale. L:\O 1 files\Ol plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn05I40 I.doc 3 I I I i Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 . Agreed with Criego that a 12 x 12 foot structure could be allowed. A larger structure could be put in with minimum destruction to the landscape and trees. . This proposal is too much. It is too drastic and will affect the character of the island based on one application. It is unwarranted. . Very strongly opposed. Criego: . Agreed with Commissioner Stamson, his position has been well thought out. . Against large structures, clear-cutting the trees. . Keep this island as natural as possible. . The residents do need large accessory structures out there. . More than happy to approve a 12x 12 square foot structure. . Would be against anything larger. Lemke: . Did not feel the 24 x 24 foot size was unreasonable. It is 100 feet away from the lake setback. . There is a tree replacement ordinance in place. . Does not see other structures like this that will be able to fit in. These lots happen to be large enough to accommodate that size structure. . The property owner has some right to use his property. V onhof: . Believed in the general principal of allowing accessory structures on the island is necessary . . Agreed with all of the conditions set forth. . Did have a question on the size. There were previous discussions about boat storage. . In previous discussions before this was drafted, boat storage on the island was determined to be around 300 to 400 square feet. . Everything else in the draft is acceptable. OPEN DISCUSSION: Stamson: . Disagreed in previous discussions with boat storage. That is why the requirement of a principal structure had to accommodate it. Most of the lots do not accommodate a boat getting to them. Especially on certain steep lots. The road would have to be utilized and that is not maintained. Large-scale items should not be stored on the Island. . Storage of boats should be off-site. We are pushing that way with storage off the Island. The ordinance does not allow boats to sit in the driveway. It has to be put in the back or side yards. L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn05140 I.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 14,2001 · It is inappropriate to have a structure that size. The storage should be big enough to accommodate what is on an island during the summer, water skies, and mowers and that type of thing. Criego: · Agreed with Commissioner Stamson. The purpose of the accessory structure was waylaid. When the issue was brought up, I felt there was a need for accessory structures. The question is size. Never visualized it to be 576 square feet. . I was thinldng a 12 x 12 structure was appropriate. . 500 feet or half the size of the cabin is just asking for trouble. . Agreed there would be a problem with the trees coming down. You can talk about tree preservation, but for a tree to grow it would take 20 years. Do we want the Island to look considerably different? . The residents need accessory structures but nothing of that size. 120 square feet is good. Lemke: . At the last meeting, the Commissioners settled on 300 feet. . Explained the outside dimensions of the buildings. Atwood: . In looking over the Minutes, 300 feet was settled on. . 576 feet square feet is too large. Lemke: . If the DNR, who is as protective of the lake as anyone did not oppose this. Some weight should be given to that. Stamson: . In the past, the Commission has been more restrictive with the island than the DNR. The Commissioners have always been more restrictive with the Shoreland area as well. . If 20 people came forward clamoring for a change it would be different. But to make a significant change than what has been done in the last 50 years based on one single application seems imprudent. . Agreed with having accessory structures but the size should be much smaller. . Agreed with Wuellner, 576 square feet has a major impact on the island. MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE SECTION 1104.309 OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE CODE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE CHANGE IN THE THIRD ITEM THAT THE STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE LARGER THAN 168 SQUARE FEET. V onhof felt 160 square feet was too small, 300 feet would be better. L:\O I files\O I pIancomm\O I pcminutes\mn05I40 I.doc 5 I r T Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2001 - Atwood agreed with 300 square feet. Lemke said you might as well go with 320 square feet and keep it at building sheet size at 16 x 20. Atwood felt 240 square feet would be a compromise. V onhof said the concern is the bulk of the structure. Criego said he was okay with 240 square feet. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO AMEND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 240 FEET. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case iles #01-026 & 01-027 Consider an application fo a Preliminary Plat to be known as ark Nicollet Addition and a Senior Care Ov lay District for a development to b own as Crystal Care. Planning Coordinator J Kansier presented the Plannin eport dated May 14,2001, on file in the office of the 'IT Planning Department. have filed an application to develop in Trail, and directly south of the Park g: . Approve a Preliminary Plat for 11.60 a es; . Approve a Senior Care Overlay Dis . c or the development of a 60-unit assisted living facility. The proposal calls for the subdivis' n of the existin 1.60 acre parcel into 4 lots. Lot 1, Block 1, is the existing site of t e Park Nicollet clinic. Lot 2, Block 2, is the proposed site ofthe assisted living facil' . The remaining lots wil evelop at a future date. Crystal Care, LLC, is the eveloper of the assisted living fac 'ty project. Park Nicollet Health Systems, the cu ent property owner, will develop the rem . ning commercial lots. The staffrecomm ded approval of the proposed preliminary plat an Overlay Distric ubject to the following conditions: Preliminar Plat: 1. The d eloper must obtain a Watershed District permit prior to any work 0 the site. 2. The developer must address the following Engineering Department comments: 1.:\0 I files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\mn05140 I.doc 6 ~~~;~~~~mmiSSionMeetingpC MINUTES APRIL 9, 2001 credit a developer gets for different types ofland. When the arezto th" orth develops it-will create some potential for trail connections. . ,<V Any issues with parkland abutting up to commercial developrt;y' t? Kansier said ere are no problems. .// /' , ~ MOTION BY~GO, SECOND BY STAMSON, FOR AVARlANCE ON THIS PARCEL FOR CtJL:DE-SAC STREETS A AND B AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. ./ Vote taken indicated ayes by'al~. MOTION CARRIED. , ' MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND'BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OOBEFORE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED BYTHE STAFF 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUDING OUTLOT A BECOMING PART-OF THE pARK AREA, AS WELL AS PARK PLAN B PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. . / '-, Vote taken indicated aye~Y by all. MOTION CARRIED:-" / ' .// MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO REC'oMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PREL,1MINARY PLAT WITH THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY THE PLANNING' COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE SAME CONDITIQNS AS APPROY'ED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. . vGt6taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The earliest it would go before the City Council would be May 7, 2001. '\ ~ B. Case File #01-012 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory structures on Island developments. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 9, 2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The purpose ofthis public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow accessory structures to be located on general development lake island lots. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on February 12,2001. On that date, the Planning Commission considered an appeal to the Planning staff s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant contended the provisions of the ordinance allowed accessory structures on islands. The Staff, however, concluded the ordinance prohibited accessory structures on islands. The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs' interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures on the islands. However, the Commission directed staffto research the issue and prepare language for an ordinance amendment for consideration. Currently, the ordinance .on L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 7 . J T l[ Planning Commission Meeting Apri/9.2001 island development does not allow for accessory structures because accessory structures are considered a "Use" and "Accessory Uses" are not a listed permitted use under this ordinance section. Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments in his letter dated March 29, 2001. Lynch stated the DNR would not oppose adoption of the proposed amendment. Criego: . What happens when the cabin is smaller than 300 feet? Would the proposal still remain at 300 feet for the accessory structure? Horsman said it has not been addressed in this amendment. . What size lot can this be put on? Horsman said Condition #4 states the minimum lot size on Twin Island is 15,000 square feet or two contiguous side-by-side lakeshore lots, whichever is less. This would also apply to the accessory structure. . What happens with the common roadway on Twin Island? Horsman said it does permit lots separated by a private roadway to have accessory structures. Stamson: . Questioned the lot sizes on Twin Island. · The average lot may not meet the requirement, but several lots are side-by-side and contiguous and owned by the same property owner. Comments from the public: John and Linda Meyer, 3313 Twin Island Circle (Prior Lake address), thanked Commissioners and staff members for their time and suggestion for going forward with this topic. Meyer addressed some of the above issues including access to the island. There are a total of 64 lots. Meyers own Lots 43, 44, 45, 62 and 64. They would like to store vehicles and equipment in a garage on the island. It will make the neighborhood more appealing. Year-round residency is not permitted on the island. It is not secure or pretty to have storage outside. Accessory structures will enhance the beauty of the area. Allowing owners to store grills, lawn equipment, etc., is important. Meyer explained his proposed garage would be 7% of the impervious surface lot area. Meyer also felt their property is unique because their lots are interior and at the highest elevation no one will be able to see the garage. The lots are 26 feet higher than the ordinary high water mark. The proposed garage is 24 by 24 square feet. Meyer felt the size of the garage should not be larger than the resident's primary structure. Suggested a detached private garage should not exceed 25% of the lot area, whichever is less. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting April9,2001 Atwood: . It is hard to- know. Felt a 300-foot accessory structure was reasonable. . The amendment was well done and addressed our concerns. Stamson: . This issue was discussed at length over a couple of meetings; the general consensus was not to promote garage-type structures on the island. Mr. Meyer's circumstances were not unreasonable but did not square with the rest of the island and what it would create. . At this point, there has never been any accessory structures allowed on the island, or any great clamoring for them. It came about because of Meyer's issues. Through the Commissioners' discussions it was felt it would be reasonable to have some type of structure. The island community did not initiate the issue. . Largely what is before the Commission is what was discussed and agreed upon. . Would like to see the 100- foot setback or setback from the primary structure whichever is greater. It is not a water-oriented structure; it is simply a storage structure. . The rest of the language is what had been discussed in previous meetings. Criego: . Agreed with 100 foot setback and would make that a condition. The structures should not be visible. . Questioned the drain field and wells. Horsman said you can't go over the drain field. . Rye said under the current regulations it would be difficult to meet the requirements to put in a new drain field for sanitary systems. Maybe for a gray water system. The County rules on that. The City does not have the information for gray water. Depends on the amount of water coming out of the structure. . A well has to be put in or use the common well. . There is not a lot of room for accessory structures. . Mr. Meyer is unique owning 5 lots on the island. . Three Hundred feet is adequate for the average property owner. . Should the accessory structure be measured by the size of the lot? . Kansier said you could make the size a percentage of the lot area. It will be restricted by the amount of impervious surface (30%). Administratively it is easier to pick a number. . Vehicles should not be stored on the islands. The garage is not for auto use. . Most cabins and out buildings are hidden in the summer. In the winter they stand out. . Why do we want to change this ordinance? Most residents on the island have accessory structures and it makes sense to have something there. It should be legalized. Okay with 300 square feet for storage area. . Ownership should have some play into the size of the building. L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 9 I I ~ Ii Planning Commission Meeting April 9, 2001 Lemke: . Meyer's situation is unique with 5 lots. His proposal does not seem unreasonable. . The garage is 7% of the coverage of the lot. His size is not unreasonable. . Which is better aesthetically, a wel1-designed garage or docks covered with tarps? . What about limiting the garage to no more than a percentage of the principal structure? . Can something be drafted to al10w Mr. Meyer to build his 500+ foot garage? No one else has his situation. . What about a variance request? Rye said it would be a hardship criteria issue. Criego: . There are other islands to consider. If the language was made a percentage, it might solve everyone's problem. Stamson: . Concern for others constructing garages. It wil1 make a big impact on the island. The City is introducing something to the island that was not there. . Questioned the DNR rules. Their maximum square footage is 400. Rye explained the slopes and setbacks. The DNR has to approve it any change. . Questioned DNR's accessory structures on the lake compared to water-oriented structures. Kansier said if it is not on an island, it is just like any other lot. They are limited in impervious surface and a maximum detached structure size with minimum ground floor area. The DNR does distinguish between island and non- island structures. Al1 the runoff from islands wil1 run into the lake. Riparian lots have at least some runoff directed away from the lake. As the ordinance is written, the DNR and City do not allow accessory structures on islands. Criego: . Questioned lot size and impervious surface. . Kansier explained the gray water conditions and setbacks. Standards have to be met. . Basically it is only residents with larger lots who can build accessory structures. . Surprised there are not more island owners present to discuss this matter. Lemke: . This issue should be revisited and let the DNR comment on this. They seemed happy with structures up to 400 feet. Stamson: . That is DNR's existing rule. They do not allow general accessory structures. The City has a more restricted standard than DNR's water-oriented structures so they are okay with it. Now all of a sudden if we expand it to something they don't allow at all, it will be a different scenario. LIOI fileslOI plancommlOI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting April9,2001 Atwood: . Questioned staff mentioning it would be easier administratively with a number. Kansier explained when someone calls and asks what kind of accessory structure they can have on an island lot, staff can say a maximum of 300 square feet. Ifit's a percentage then we say how big is this lot? Percentages are harder to deal with. But it is workable. . Horsman said there is limited island development. Percentages would probably work. . Rye said if there is going to be a sliding scale is should be based on the primary structure, not the size of the lot. Stamson: . Weare discussing an island with a platted road that is rarely used. There have been no previous requests for this type of building. Now it's going from one extreme to another based on one request. . Weare introducing or promoting vehicles where there never has been traffic. . Large structures are not needed on the island. . The use is not appropriate for the islands. . There has only been one request. Lemke: . Meyer's request does not seem unreasonable given the size of the lot. Stamson: . Not arguing the structure, arguing the use. It is not appropriate on an island. It is an awful big step to take without other input other than one request for it. The Commissioners agreed on the 100-foot setback from the ordinary water line. The property owners on Twin Island were notified of the ordinance. It was not specific to size of accessory structures. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES NOT TO EXCEED THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SIZE AND IN NO CASE EXCEED 576 SQUARE FEET; A 100 FOOT SETBACK NOT CLOSER THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER ISLAND REQUIREMENTS. Criego: . We are solving problems for multiple islanders not just one. V ote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood and Lemke, nay by Stamson. MOTION CARRIED. Atwood requested staff to notify the island residents. L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 11 If - i Planning Commission Meeting April 9. 2001 f- Criego: · Encourage island residents to come forward and give the Commission input. 6.... Case File # 01-014 Shepherd of the Lake Church is requesting a zone Ch~,~~~ the property located in Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 Scott ,--~ty. \. Planning CoOrdinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated Apri file in the offi6~f the City Planner. / \ ' Shepherd of the L~e Lutheran Church has filed an application for a ZO~hange on the property located nortft.'<2f CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Ro,ad, about 1/8 mile west of CSAH 21. The '~oposal is to rezone the property from the *1 (Agricultural) district to the R-4 (High Depsity Residential) District. . \ j' \ / Staff felt the proposed R-4 di~'trict is consistent with the Compi~hensive Plan Land Use designation. The R-4 district alIo~s residential developme9-t'with densities up to 30 units per acre. In this case, the applicarit.,is proposing to develop the entire site as a faith based community, consisting of religious w.prship, senior housfng, community recreation and social space, education, daycare and a"G\onference ce;Iter. The first phase of this development will consist of a church buil~ing. Th,eie is no timeline for the development of future phases. \\, /i "- Lemke: / \ . Question on extension of service~/ Kansier explained the process and the developer's contract. / ./ \\ Comments from the public: ,'/ \ I \ Steve Erickson, BWBR ArchiteCts, said the first issue was 'to have the Comprehensive Plan amended. The next prqcess is that the rezoning is consistent with the / , Comprehensive Plan and l)ses. The applicant's estimation is that the process is moving along at the appropriate/pace. The only other issue is the scheduJ~ for water extension on the site. In the event, ,t-he construction on County Road 42 does no~coincide with the Church's schedule 9fthe construction, they would accelerate their pl~ and enter into a developer's agre~/ment wit~.the City. They will c~ntinue ahead with pl'ii\lls for the property but hiye no defimtIve schedule for breakmg ground. \\ The public h:~aring was closed. ' I // Commeli.ts from the Commissioners: If L<JDke: / .,' . The request is valid and should be rezoned. \, \ \ '\ \ '\ L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 12 Petition Twin Isle Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 The following property owners on Twin Isle, Prior Lake, Minnesota agree that a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory structures on Island development is needed and that the size of the accessory structure should be limited to the size of the principle structure on the lot, or 576 square feet, whichever is less. Property Owner Name (Print) cfl;~ Address John M. Meyer 3313 Twin Isle Utf1 L 6'-/ (8 ~~~ ... ;/~ j);~ q~ rzv<-I< -V "-7# ~/YJLc/~ ~LCtL ~-)~ -~7~J tl/t;;)- tit r Lcd 00 //7 {,/ J> I j[ ill -0 ~ \a ( u ( :D f1' JUN-04-2001 08:32 AM MVC 952 440 5998 P.01 June 4, 2001 Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers: I am writing you to express my support for the Planning Commission's recommendations on the building of accessory structures on island lots as it stands in its current form. The current recommendation is for no larger than 240 square feet, and I have strong feelings that it should be limited to no more than this. When we enacted the current Zoning Ordinance, I was on the City Council. When the ordinance was in development, I served on the Planning Commission. I am convinced that the omission of accessory structures on island lots was an oversight at the time - there is an obvious need for them, provided that they are paired with a corresponding principal structure. I do not want to see accessory structures built on vacant lots, nor do I want to see more than one accessory structure per principal structure. This matter was brought to light a couple of years ago when it was discovered that a property owner on Twin Isle was building a 576 square foot garage on his back lots without a building permit. Not only had he already poured much of the foundation and concrete slab, he had also clear-cut all of his back lots of every tree that previously existed. What was once a virgin forest is now an open grass area. Not only do we have ordinances prohibiting construction without permits, surveys, and inspections, we also have a tree preservation ordinance that was c1ear1y ignored by this property owner and so far by the City of Prior lake. This property owner has been working for the past two years to get the City of Prior lake to allow him to continue building this immense structure, to the point that he warns you to re-write to whole Zoning Ordinance to accommodate his illegal activity. I do not want to see the city ignore good planning practices in order to avoid confrontation with one individual who has such little regard for a special place like Twin Isle. Thank you for your consideration, ~~ David Wuellner 16930 Walnut AvenueaPrior Lake, MN 55372 I 1