Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8G - Garages In Front Yards MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT .TUL Y 17,2000 8G JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE OO-XX APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT YARD (Case File #00-029) History: On October 18, 1999, the City Council considered a variance request to allow a garage to be located in front of the principal stmcture. 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. On April 3, 2000, the Council considered a report prepared by the staff that outlined several approaches to this issue. The Council provided staff with additional direction as to the form of an amendment. The staff provided the Council with a report for additional discussion on May 1, 2000, and on May 15, 2000. At that time, the Council directed staff to nalTOW the proposed amendment to riparian lots only. To limit the application of this provision to riparian lots, the staff has prepared the following language. J. On riparian lots in the Shore/and District, detached accessory buildings designed and used as garages may be located between the front building wall and the street or private road providing access to the lot subject to the following conditions: a) The accessory building must be located so that it meets all front and side yard requirements. b) The accessory building must be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure. 162b'B~A~1\~~~~~~dX8~i~\g?~~f?i~P<Eg~~~,*tfnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fal~tt2) 447-4245 1\'\ EQIAL OPPORTU-iITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: c) The accessory structure may be used only for storage of vehicles and other equipment incidental to residential uses. There shall be no home occupations or other nonresidential use of the building. d) The accessory structure must meet all other requirements of 1102.800 (8). Current Circumstances: The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on June 12,2000, and heard testimony from two residents in favor of the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission also received the attached letter in favor of this amendment. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment. A copy of the minutes of the June 12, 2000, Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report. The Issues: The City Council must make a decision whether to amend the ordinance based 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. Whether or not a garage should be allowed in a front yard is basically a policy issue. An ordinance provision which does not allow a garage in a front yard is generally for aesthetic purposes. The proposed amendment limits this provision to riparian, or lakeshore lots, that do not have a conventional rear yard. Lakeshore lots, especially those in older subdivisions, tend to be narrower than newer lots. Conclusion: The Planning Commission and the staff recommend approval of this amendment. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance OO-XX approving the proposed amendment as recommended. 2. Deny Ordinance OO-XX. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance OO-XX approving the amendment as recommended by the I: \OOfi les\OOordamd\zoning\00-029\00029cc4.doc Page 2 Planning Commisso n. Approval of this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote of the Coun REVIEWED BY: 1:\OOfi les\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\00029cc4.doc Page 3 T CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1102.800 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: Section 1102.800 (8,b) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: b. No accessory building shall be erected or located within a yard other than the rear yard, except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be located within a side yard unless is abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located between the front building wall and the front lot line. except as listed in subsection k below. k. On riparian lots in the Shore land District. detached accessory buildings designed and used as garages may be located between the front building wall and the street or private road providing access to the lot 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 of vehicles and other equipment incidental to residential uses. 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 ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 17th day of July, 2000. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 22nd day of July, 2000. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 I:' 00files\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\ordOOxx,doc P AG E I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. l'vlinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424'::, :\\ ~J)! ,-\L OF)PU~.TI.:"iITY r.:.r?LOYEp. ~~--~'.----'"-'--'"'-"------"- Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2000 . Recommend there should be a prohibition of outdoor sale of alcoholic beverages. . Also a~ondition that prohibits any outdoor sales that would violate any State Statute or City eft; inance. There should be no conflicts with outdoor sal s. Examples would be cigarette ales, beer garden or adult materials. . Kansier said t re is a provision in the 'Ordinance allowing and beverage sales in an outdoor seating area. \ ' Cramer: \ / . Questioned the languaie.lor outdoor sales. // . Discussed language confl~t. /' . Agreed with Vonhofto add\~e conditiol)f6rpermitted outdoor sales. . Supported the amendment. \\ //1 , ./ Stamson: )< . Supported staff s recommendation. \ . Open to V onhof s proposed ),(nguage. \ MOTION BY VONHOF, J~OND BY AT~OD, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE $>RDINANCE OO-XX ~NDING SECTIONS 1102.1104(5) OF THE PRIOR LAI)E CITY CODE AS PROPOS;ijTH A CONDITION (#6) PROHIBITING T -IE OUTDOOR SALE OF ALCO LIC BEVERAGES UNLESS OTHERWISE E RESSL Y PERMITTED WITHIN T ORDINANCE. V'Ote taken' dicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go before the City Council on July 17, 2000. '* C. Case File #00-029 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.800 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit accessory structures in the front yard on riparian lots. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 12,2000 on file in the office of the Planning Department. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing garages and accessory buildings to be located in the front yard on riparian lots. This amendment was initiated by the City Council on May 15, 2000. In 1999, the Planning Commission considered a variance to allow a garage in the front yard. The Planning Commission denied this request, and the applicant appealed that decision to the City Council. The City Council determined the request met the hardship criteria. At the same time, the Council directed staff to prepare language pertaining to accessory structures located in the front yard. In April and May, 2000, the Council considered a report prepared by the staff outlining several approaches to this issue. The I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 12.2000 Council ultimately decided front yard garages were most appropriate on riparian lots. The Council then directed staff to schedule a public hearing for this amendment. Staff had no objection to the proposed Amendment. A letter dated June 12,2000, from Shery Newtson was submitted in support of the amendment. Comments from the public: Al Joscher, 14872 Estate Avenue SE, said he is for the amendment. Mary Newbaur, 3160 Vale Circle SW, stated she and her neighbors supported the amendment. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . This came about originally as a variance request. . Agreed with the proposal. . There are a number of narrow riparian lots on the lake that have homes where this is appropriate. Cramer: . Recalled the variance situation. . It does not make sense not to be able to replace a garage. . Supported amendment. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners. . Strongly felt this should have been included when the initial Zoning Ordinance was wri tten. . Would like to add "one detached building would be allowed" as opposed to allowing multiple buildings - garages and sheds. There are residents who have multiple sheds where it does not look very good. Rye pointed out there are limitations on total square footage for accessory buildings. Atwood: . Questioned if a shed was defined by size. Kansier explained the dimensions for sheds and garages. . It would not hurt to state "one accessory structure". It would be consistent with other language. . Supported the recommendation. I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200.doc 5 , , _~_HU~_C Planning Commission Minutes June 12.2000 MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE OO-XX AMENDING SECTION 1102.800 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE INCLUDING THE WORDING CHANGE UNDER "K", TO READ "ONE DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING DESIGNED AND USED AS A GARAGE." Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The Council will considered this item on July 17, 2000. D. Case File #00-039 Consider an amendment to Section 06.401 of the Zoning Ordina ce deleting the density increase allowed in a Planne Unit Development. Planning C rdinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning file in the offi of the Planning Department. / , This amendment t the Zoning Ordinance would dele~lthe allowable density increase allowed in a Planne nit Development. This amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. Sect n 1106.401 of the Zoning. Ordinance allows the City Council to increase the permitted de sity in a Planned Unit,Development (PUD) by 10 percent. This increase may be allowed i 't meets the objectiyes of a PUD. The City Council recently stated it is uncomfortable wi the increase in/density, and directed staff to initiate an / amendment removing this pro . sion. ,/ ;' The purpose of the provision is to ovide some incentive to a developer to be more creative in designing a subdivision. ~nerally, the idea behind such a modification is a "give and take" between the develo~r nd the City. The City allows additional density for better design. Eliminating th~,densit modification will not eliminate all incentives provided by a PUD, although thj-s may be t e incentive developers find most attractive. / Cramer: . Has seen changes with the attitude from the public hearing at t Planning Cominission level to the City Council level. There is a danger if a public hearing is held and the Commission says this is what is agreed to and recommends the Council I i Staff recommended approvaYofthe proposed .I I I Atwood questioned the Council's concern with den 'ty. Rye responded density is a very / sensitive issue, especio/ly in a growing area. There were no cOII1fllents from the public. I Comments fro.m the Commissioners: 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn061200_doc 6 To: Planning Commission City of Prior Lake Jane Kansier From: Shery Newtson 14330 Rutgers St. N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Subject: Changing the zoning ordinance to allow unattached garages on the street side of a house. Date: June 12, 2000 I own a lake home on Rutgers St. N.E. I have a front yard (street side) that is approximately 180 feet in length and 100 feet wide. I would like to build an unattached garage in my front yard to store a boat, trailer, lawn mower, etc. The present ordinance would not allow this. All the houses on Rutgers and Watersedge that have unattached garages are on the street side (front yard). Why is this now against the law? A garage on the lake side (back yard): 1. would not be accessible from the street which is a necessity in most cases, since there are no alleys. (No lake homes have alleys.) 2. would look out of place and very strange on the lake side. 3. would block the lake views for us and our neighbors. 4. would not fit in the small lake side yard. 5. would be different from every other house in our area with unattached garages in the front yards (street side). Please vote to change this ordinance, since it makes little sense to lake home owners and is extremely unfair when every other house in the area have unattached garages in their front yards (street side). Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 51e;ry A./LuJ-Iro ~ Shery Newtson Phone: 445-2544 ,,_,__., _..,~__.__.._-----;.._'__~_,..__..._m_..'......._..__.._,._..,.._..