Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C - Garages in Front Yards CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT j ~Vt..C - - i'-1 -( ((.J.4F?:r~--- t;~~~/~_~.e~.~+t~/t d ~ 1'1-- b ~ / -j-?; r.. C- · - MEETING D AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: 9C JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT YARD DISCUSSION: History: On October 18, 1999, the City Council considered a variance request to allow a garage to be located in front a the principal structure. The Planning Commission denied the variance request and the applicant appealed this decision to the City Council. The City Council determined the request met the hardship criteria. At the same time, the Council directed by Directive #99-43 that the staff prepare language pertaining to accessory structures located in the front yard. The attached memorandum, dated October 26, 1999, outlines four different approaches to amending the ordinance. The staff requested the Council provide us with some direction about the preferred approach. Current Circumstances: The Zoning Ordinance does not permit accessory buildings within the front yard. The primary purpose of this requirement is to eliminate the aesthetic impact of garages in the front yard. During the review of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission considered language that would allow front yard garages on nonconforming riparian lots. At that time, the Planning Commission rejected this language and determined these requests should be considered on a case-by-case basis through the variance process. The Issues: The attached memorandum lists four different options for front yard garages. One option would allow front yard garages on all lots; the others would limit front yard garages to riparian lots or to lots meeting specific conditions such as topography, exceptional length or width and so on. 1626C9rr!Mgr~O~g~lr~~~i~~~-~J6~Oe.~~1f:1%nnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Faxf(lfff2) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - -r- ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: Conclusion: Any change to the Zoning Ordinance requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission, followed by review and approval of the City Council. Before a hearing is scheduled, the Council should provide staff with specific direction about the preferred approach. The City Council has three alternatives: I. Initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, providing staff with specific direction on the proposed language. 2. Do nothing. This option would require any request for a front yard garage be considered through the variance procedure. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. Staff recommends Alternative # 1. I:\OOfiIes\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\00029cc.doc Page 2 Memorandum TO: Prior Lake City Council FROM: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator DATE: October 26,1999 RE: Front Yard Garage Requirements cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager Don Rye, Planning Director At the last Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare language pertaining to accessory structures located in the front yard. Specifically, the Council asked for some options that will allow the construction of garages in the front yard. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit accessory buildings within the front yard. The exception to this rule is in cases where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of the house is 8 feet or more above the established curb level. In these cases, the garage may be located within the front yard, provided half or more of its height is below grade level, and it is located at least 10 feet from the front lot line. This provision avoids the need for steep driveways, and reduces the impact by requiring the garage be built into the hillside. Based on its review of the Lind appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a variance to allow a garage in the front yard, the Council decided there should be some provisions allowing front yard garages in certain cases. Since the Council did not specify the circumstances in which a front yard garage should be allowed, we are providing a number of different approaches to this issue. Option #1: Allow Accessory Buildings in the Front Yard This is probably the simplest option. It would simply eliminate the language stating accessory buildings are not permitted in the front yard. The ultimate effect is to allow garages in the front yard in any location. If the Council prefers this approach, the staff would recommend that accessory buildings be required to maintain the minimum front yard setback in the district. Option #2: Allow Front Yard Accessory Buildings on Riparian Lots 16200 E~~OPJi~~~~<wtfi.~w~~~~~~9Po~~~~J~~.~g~sota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . One of the reasons for the Council's decision in the Lind case was due to the fact the lot was a riparian lot and, in essence, it has two front yards. We developed the following language during the initial review ofthe Zoning Ordinance. Although the Planning Commission rejected this language, the Council may want to consider it at this time. On nonconforming riparian lots in the Shoreland District, a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be located between the front building wall and the front lot line, subject to the following conditions: ~ The accessory building must be located so that it meets all front and side yard requirements. ~ The accessory building must be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure. ~ The accessory structure may be used only for storage ofvehicles and other residential equipment. There shall be no home occupations or other nonresidential use of the building. ~ The accessory structure must meet all other requirements of 1102.800 (8). This provision is written to apply only to nonconforming riparian lots in the Shoreland District. The provision would not have applied to the Lind property since this lot is not nonconforming in lot area or lot width. The language could be changed to apply to all riparian lots. Option #3: Modify the Existing Provision as it Relates to the Grade of the Lot The existing language allows an accessory building in the front yard when the grade at the front building line is higher than the curb. This can be modified to also allow front yard accessory buildings when the grade at the curb is higher than the grade at the front building line. Some possible language is: Detached accessory buildings may be permitted in the front yard when the natural grade of a lot within the required front yard has an average slope to the front lot line at every point along said line of such a degree or percent of slope that it is not practicable to provide a driveway with a grade of 10% or less. While this language would eliminate the need for steep driveways, it would not eliminate the aesthetic impact of the location of a garage in the front yard. Option #4: Allow Front Yard Accessory Buildings Based on the Setback of an Existing House Another option may be to develop language allow a front yard accessory building based on the setback of an existing dwelling. We have not developed specific language for this option; however, some criteria could include: ~ Exceptionally long lot (based on some percentage of a conventional lot length) 1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\garages.doc 2 >- Setback ofthe house in relation to front yard (again based on some percentage of the required setback) >- Narrow width oflot >- Riparian lots only >- Natural grade oflot >- Apply criteria to existing houses only, rather than all new construction Council Action: Any change to the current language requires an amendment to the ordinance. This requires a public hearing by the Planning Commission, followed by review ofthe Council. We have tried to provide some alternatives for consideration. The Council should provide staff with some direction at this time. If an amendment is initiated, we will need some direction as to the specific language proposed. -* era (tl~ c\.-l-~ 7~.u lh WA.\ ~ . 1!<6-~ s~ loL-~ ~rk~ u.f {}-I.- dovV't. . 'r-~- ~ 'PW'1V'(SiD'- s~ r~Wk- ~&fw- ~))~wW q~L !O~tl.~~ ",1:1.~/ "'--\~~ ~ ~ ~r~ -0 ..f{ Add ~ dt~',~ RDr +~} ~6-Hl ov, i ~ Cij(heA tc> rw-~ '( c,~tM- ~. YUfc"rl4A- /orh. I :\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\garages.doc 3 . T -'-'