Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Garages In Front Yards MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MAY 1, 2000 SA JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING GARAGES AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE FRONT YARD 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. On April 3, 2000, the Council considered a report prepared by the staff that outlined several approaches to this issue. Following discussion about this issue, the Council provided staff with the direction as to the form of an amendment as outlined in the attached minutes of the Council meeting, and directing staff to bring this issue back for additional discussion on May 1, 2000. The Council also noted that Councilmembers should provide additional comments to staff by April 10, 2000. Councilmember Petersen contacted staff on this issue, suggesting front yard garages be allowed on riparian lots in the Shoreland District. Current Circumstances: Based on the discussion of the Council, the staff has prepared the following language. This language is in draft form, and may be considered as a whole, or as individual provisions. 1. Detached accessory buildings designed and used as garages are only allowed on lots with principal structures existing on the effective date of this ordinance {insert date]. 2. On lots with existing principal structures built prior to the effective date of this ordinance [insert date], detached accessory buildings 162&C9~1~r~O~~&rs\~~i~~~-~~~oe.~~lf?r*?Rnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax~~~h 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER *3. designed and used as garages may be located between the front building wall and the front lot line 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. 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). On riparian lots in the Shoreland 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 thefollowing 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. 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). 4. The replacement of detached accessory buildings designed and used as garages, existing on the effective date of the ordinance (insert date] and located between the front building wall and the front lot line is allowed in the front yard 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. 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. 1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\00029cc2.doc Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: d) The accessory structure must meet all other requirements of 1102.800 (8). The Issues: The Council must advise staff as to whether the proposed language addresses the concerns. The language listed above deals only with allowing detached accessory garages in the front yard. The language is intended to cover situations where there is an existing dwelling, either without a garage, or the replacement of an existing garage. One question the Council may wish to address is the issue of existing homes with garages requesting additional garage space in the front yard. 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: 1. 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. 1: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-029\00029cc2.doc Page 3 City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 recommended staffs alternative 2 which would immediately withdraw the City from the ST A effective 12/31/00, and direct staff to notify the STA. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-23 WITHDRAWING FROM THE SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Initiation of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Allowing Garages and Accessory Buildings in Front Yards. RYE: Reviewed each of the options for ordinance language revisions, and discussed the issues before the Council. Also noted that the process for an ordinance requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission level. MADER: Noted that the issue had come before the Council as a direct result of a variance request. Suggested that attached garages on new construction be required. Also recommended that when replacing garages, the grade of the property should be a consideration. The City should also maintain some control over the architecture of the structure, and that where existing detached garages are destroyed and need to be rebuilt, and a residence exists, that it be permitted. ERICSON: Asked why the Planning Commission rejected the language defined in option 2. RYE: Recalled that they determined that this was probably not going to be a common occurrence and could appropriately be handled through a variance. MADER: Noted that many homes on the Lake have detached garages, and the lots and/or the structure of the house in many cases would not be conducive to an attached garage. GUNDLACH: Asked if this is specific only to lakeshore property, and could it be addressed through the definition of front yards in the lakeshore district. MADER: Advised that it was one of the considerations, but not the only consideration. Part of the intent was that if garages were to be built, that it was attractive from the street side. SCHENCK: Asked staff the definition of front yard, and how the ordinance can address expansion of single detached garages. RYf;: The front yard is considered the 'area between the public right-of-way and the front of the house. The staffs concern is how accessory buildings relate to the public right-of-way. In terms of regulating, the relationship is how that property relates to the public right-of-way whether you call it the front yard or the back yard. Detached garages are considered accessory buildings in the current ordinance and the ordinance limits the size of any accessory building. MADER: Suggested that Council members get their comments to staff so that they can proceed with bringing the language to the Planning Commission. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE REVISIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL AT THE MAY 1, 10 -- ----_._----.---------- City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2000 2000 REGULAR MEETING, AND THAT COUNCILMEMBERS PROVIDE COMMENTS TO STAFF BY APRIL 10, 2000. SCHENCK: Believes that the more expeditious process would be to take the proposed ordinance language revisions directly to the Planning Commission without further consideration by the. Council. Believes the Planning Commission process would be compromised by approving the draft ordinance language prior to their process. ERICSON: Asked if the City Council had input prior to the Planning Commission in its last review of this language. MADER: Noted that the Council had input because the language was originally considered as a part of the adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Once the first variance was requested, the Council became aware of a situation that would lead to many other variance requests. Advised that this process is not unique, and the intent is to provide direction for the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes by Mader! Gundlach and Petersen, Nay by Schenck and Ericson, the motion carried. Consider Approval of Initiation of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Fences in Front Yards with More than 25% Opacity. BOYLES: Reviewed the item in connection with the staff report. the intent to make City ordinances more friendly, and the options available to the Council. MADER: Asked Police Chief O'Rourke if there is any concern going from 25% to 50% opacity. O'ROURKE: Noted that his only concern is that shrubbery used with fencing tends to create an opacity greater than 50%. There is no safety issue for officers approaching the house with a 50% fence opacity. Further noted that opacity really makes little difference from a police standpoint, because shrubbery can be used in any case that would limit visibility. BY&: Advised that limiting plantings along fences can be restricted, but would be difficult to enforce. MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A 50% OPACITY. MADER: Noted that in this case there is very specific direction so the issue should go directly to the Planning Commission for its public hearing process. SCHENCK: Asked if there are separate regulations for swimming pools. BYE: Confirmed that there are separate regulations for swimming pools. and that this ordinance applies to front yards only. VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried. Due to illness, Councilmember Schenck left the meeting and did not participate in the Executive Session. 11