HomeMy WebLinkAbout9G - Nonconforming Lots
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AUGUST 7, 2000
9G
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE OO-XX APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE COMBINATION OF NONCONFORMING
LOTS DIVIDED BY A PRIVATE ROAD BUT UNDER SINGLE
OWNERSHIP (Case File #00-046)
History: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the treatment of nonconforming
lots under common ownership but divided by a private road. This item
is a result of a request for a garage permit by a property owner of two
such lots, where the house sits on one lot, and the garage sits on the
other.
A nonconforming lot is defined as a lot of record which does not meet
the minimum lot area or lot width requirements of the Zoning District.
Section 1101.501 of the Zoning Ordinance further clarifies when a
nonconforming lot is buildable. Subsection 3, c also addresses the
combination of nonconforming lots as follows:
If 2 or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with
continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of or
subsequent to the passage or amendment of this Ordinance, and if all or
part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area and
lot width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual
parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel
shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot
area or lot width requirements established by the Ordinance, nor shall
any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with area or
width below the requirements of this Ordinance. If necessary to assure
compliance with other provisions of this Ordinance, the lots shall be
combined, except that owners of nonconforming lots of record in
common ownership may convey ownership of one or more lots to
another owner until January 20, 2000.
1620(PrMgf~O~!g~'A't~~i~'g~-'P~1~ro~~~~;<\efinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / FaxP(~i2) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
This section applies only to nonconforming lots that are adjacent or
contiguous to one another. It does not address situations involving
nonconforming lots in common ownership but divided by a private or
public street. Under the above provisions, and the provisions of
Section 1101.501, each ofthe nonconforming lots in this case are
considered separate buildable lots.
There are a number of areas in the City, especially in the older
subdivisions, where this is a common occurrence. For example, the
attached map identifies a situation where the property owner owns a
lot adjacent to the lake and a second lot across the street. In this case,
the owner would like to utilize the second lot for an accessory
structure, but is unable to do so because the Zoning Ordinance does
not allow an accessory structure on a lot without a principal building.
Current Circumstances: The provisions of Section 1101.501 are
intended to reduce the number of nonconforming buildable lots. It
seems reasonable, therefore, to extend these provisions to lots
separated by a street. The provision should be limited in two ways.
First of all, it should give a property owner the choice of combining
the lots, although the provision should be written so that once
combined, the lots cannot be subdivided. Second, the provision should
be limited to lots separated by a private street. Private streets are
generally controlled by a homeowners association or some other entity
in which the property owner has an underlying interest, as opposed to a
public right-of-way which is controlled and maintained by the City.
In order to accomplish these objectives, the staff suggested the
following language be added to Section 1101.501:
Two or more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership
separated by a private road or driveway may be combined and used as
a single buildable lot under the follOWing circumstances:
~ The combination of the lots must be approved by the City.
~ The developer must file a deed restriction or covenant in a from
acceptable to the City Attorney with the Scott County Recorder.
This deed restriction or covenant must include provisions
restricting the sale of the lots as one lot.
~ Any structures on the combined lots must meet the minimum
setbacks of the Use District in which it is located.
The Planning Commission discussed this item at a public hearing on
July 10,2000. The Planning Commission agreed the lots should be
given some consideration. However, the Commission was concerned
about situations where a vacant lot might be surrounded by single
I :\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\00046cc.doc
Page 2
family homes. The Commission felt there should be some public input
as to the location and design of a garage in these instances. The staff
suggested the following language be added to the proposed
amendment:
~ In those cases where a detached accessory structure is to be
located on the portion of the lot which is separated from the
principal structure by the private road or driveway and there are
existing residential structures adjacent to or in close proximity to
the proposed structure, the Planning Commission shall hold a
public hearing on the request upon receipt of an application and
following the notice requirements for a variance pursuant to
Section 1108.404 of the City Code. In evaluating the application,
the Planning Commission shall not apply the hardship criteria for
variances. The Planning Commission review shall determine
whether the design and location of the detached accessory
structure is compatible with the surrounding properties in terms of
architecture, building materials and placement on the lot. If the
Planning Commission denies the application, the applicant shall
have the right to appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant
to Section 1109.400 of the City Code.
On July 26, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the proposed amendment. Copies of the minutes of the Planning
Commission meetings at which this issue was discussed are 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 ofthe 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 limit or reduce
the number of nonconforming lots. It also provides property owners
the option of utilizing both nonconforming lots. Furthermore, the
amendment establishes a public review procedure to ensure the
accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding properties.
Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend
approval of this amendment.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\00046cc.doc
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Ordinance 00- XX approving the proposed amendnient as
recommended.
2. Deny Ordinance oo-xx.
3. Defer this item and provide staffwith specific direction.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt
Ordinance 00- XX approving the amendment as recommended by the
Planning Commissio Approval of this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote
of the COUll .
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\00046cc.doc
Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 00- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.501 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1101.501 (3,d) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby deleted as currently
written and amended to include the following language:
Two or more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a private
road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot under the following
circumstances:
>- The combination of the lots must be approved by the City.
>- The developer must file a deed restriction or covenant in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney with the Scott County Recorder. This deed restriction or covenant must
include provisions restricting the sale of the lots as one lot.
>- Any structures on the combined lots must meet the minimum setbacks of the Use District
in which it is located.
>- In those cases where a detached accessory structure is to be located on the portion of the
lot which is separated from the principal structure by the private road or driveway and
there are existing residential structures adjacent to or in close proximity to the proposed
structure, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the request upon
receipt of an application and following the notice requirements for a variance pursuant to
Section 1108.404 of the City Code. In evaluating the application, the Planning
Commission shall not apply the hardship criteria for variances. The Planning
Commission review shall determine whether the design and location of the detached
accessory structure is compatible with the surrounding properties in terms of
architecture, building materials and placement on the lot. If the Planning Commission
denies the application, the applicant shall have the right to appeal the decision to the City
Council pursuant to Section 1109.400 of the City Code.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 7th day of August, 2000.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\ordOOxx.doc PAGE 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~. .,..._--_._'.-~.__._-"'.._-_.-.."--,~_..,..,'. ...........,~-""._..._,-, _.,.._.~".."~....--~~_._-.,.__..,.._.-..-....".~._-.-"",,,.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 12th day of August, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
I: \OOfi les\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\ordOOxx.doc
PAGE 2
Ordinance Amendment
42
49
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Rudnicki said there has been a visible increase of traffic and speed. He also felt he City of
Prior Lake needs more businesses.
Atwood ques . oned Rudnicki and staff on the traffic on County Roads 42 and 21. Rye
explained the. ounty's plan for rerouting and connecting the roads to County Road 18.
County Road 4 will be upgraded from McKenna Road to the west. ye also commented
on the rolling to\,ography.
The hearing clos~d at 7:06 p.m.
.
e Commissioners:
Criego:
. Did not oppose t e use of the property.
. Understood the is ues with County Road 21.
from the road and e proposed housing.
. There is plenty of a eage left to the south of ounty Road 42 for a business park.
. This project will add 0 the community.
. Agreed with staffs re ommendation.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Criego on t
. Does not jeopardize futur
. Supported amendment.
.
There is a far better site to the east
.
rsection when completed.
dinance at this time.
.
.
MOTION BY CRIE 0, SECOND BY AT OOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE COMP ENSIVE PLAN AME MENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION.
This matter ould go to the City Council on July 1 or August 7, 2000.
B.
Case File #00-046 Consider an Amendment to Section 1101.501 of the
Zoning Ordinance relating to the combination of nonconforming lots divided
by a private street but under single ownership.
11
I :\OOfiles\OOplcomrn\OOpcrnin\mn062600.doc
3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated June 26, 2000, on file in
the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
relating to the treatment of nonconforming lots under common ownership but divided by
a private road. The staff brought this issue to the Planning Commission as a result of a
request for a garage permit by a property owner of two such lots, where the house sits on
one lot, and the garage sits on the other. There are a number of areas in the City,
especially in older subdivisions, where this is a common occurrence.
Staff felt the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan to limit or reduce the number of nonconforming
lots. It also provides property owners the option of utilizing both nonconforming lots.
Comments from the public:
Jennifer Barncart said she will be closing on the lot in question. Ms. Barncart questioned
if the original development was intended for garages. Rye explained the development
was platted in the 1920's and the lots were probably intended for lake cabins. The private
streets also include walkways down to the common waterfront area. Back then, there
were no controls on subdividing land in terms of lot size.
Criego questioned Barncart on the garage lot location. She responded it was on the street
side, not on the lake.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Questioned the private vs. public roads which divide properties.
Criego:
· Questioned if there are homes on the adjacent lots? Could there be a devaluation or
degradation of the area if a garage was set between homes? Barncart said there is an
adjoining vacant lot and garage.
· Concern for a blanket ordinance like this. It could be a problem for the neighbors.
· Questioned the lot size. Rye said approximately 50 foot wide by 75 foot deep.
. Agreed with the example but not a city wide ordinance.
· Another concern is the deed restrictions and combining lots.
V onhof:
· If this is allowed, the lot should be combined. There has only been one time when the
Commission allowed a lot across a public roadway to be considered with impervious
surface.
· If this is allowed, it has to be looked at legally as one lot and tied together forever.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcrnin\mn062600.doc
4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2000
. No problem with it, but it may need a condition subject to working with contiguous
lots and be in character with the neighborhood. There should be requirements.
. Private or public streets are not that significant in a residential area. Many of the
private streets are almost built to public standards.
. Change to include "public or private residential streets". Then you eliminate the
possibility of collectors and above that qualify.
Criego:
. Agreed ifthere is verbiage to fit into the community. Does not want to leave it open-
ended where you can put a garage in-between homes.
Rye commented there could be general language then clarify with examples.
V onhof:
. There should be an ability to have the City or the Planning Commission look at the
situation and say this is or is not appropriate.
Jennifer Barncart explained the neighborhood layout.
V onhof:
. Pointed out the garage area would have to have some kind of landscaping. It is
appropriate but think about the implications to make it apply. This could be done
administratively, but staff needs direction.
Rye suggested coming back with some language. The Commissioners agreed.
Ken Lillyblad, questioned the location of the proposed property and commented on the
private road.
The Commissioners agreed there should be language where a person may apply for a
garage in a certain situation subject to conditions.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO JULY 24, 2000, AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH
LANGUAGE BASED ON DISCUSSIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
I: \OOfi les\OOp 1cornrn\OOpcrnin \mn062600 .doc
5