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