HomeMy WebLinkAbout8G - Nonconforming Lots
.-
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
4-0
SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
8G
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
2.2-
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE oo~ 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
arises out 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 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.
Section 1101.501 ofthe Zoning Ordinance identifies those situations
in which a nonconforming lot is buildable. Section 1101.501 is
intended to reduce the number of nonconforming buildable lots.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to extend these provisions
to lots separated by a street. However, the amendment, as originally
proposed, places two limitations on construction on these lots. First of
all, the proposed amendment gives a property owner the choice of
combining the lots. If a property owner chooses to combine the lots,
there is a prohibition on resubdividing the lots in the future. Second,
the provision is limited to lots separated by a private street.
1:\00files\00ordamd\zoning\00-046\00046cc2.doc Pa.,ge 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (bI2) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T
In order to accomplish these objectives, the staff and the Planning
Commission 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 property owner must apply to the City for approval of a lot
combination.
~ The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenant with
the Scott County Recorder in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney. This deed restriction or covenant must include
provisions that restrict the resubdivision of the 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 11 08.404 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.
Current Circumstances: The City Council considered the proposed
amendment on August 7, 2000. The Council deferred action on this
item in order to allow staff to address the following questions:
1. How can this provision be limited so that it will not create
additional problems?
2. Should this proposal apply to lots on public streets as well as
private streets?
The Issues: The discussion at the August 7th City Council meeting
was based on the concern that the application of this amendment may
be too broad, and could have more far-reaching affects than intended.
1:\00fi1es\00ordamd\zoning\00-046\00046cc2.doc
Page 2
In order to limit the effect of the proposed amendment, the following
criteria can be included:
~ There must be an existing principal structure on one of the two lots
in common ownership.
~ The location of the principal structure on the lot must preclude the
ability to construct a legal accessory structure on that lot.
This language is intended to limit the application of this ordinance to
existing single family dwellings nonconforming lots.
The City Council also questioned whether or not this amendment
should apply to lots separated by public as well as private streets. The
question of whether this provision should be applied only to lots
divided by a private street, or broadened to apply to lots divided by a
public street is a policy issue. The rationale behind limiting this
provision to lots on private streets is based on the fact that private
streets are generally controlled by a homeowners association or some
other entity in which the property owner has an underlying interest. A
public right-of-way, on the other hand, is controlled and maintained by
the City. Furthermore, the impact of this provision is limited by its
application to lots on private streets. However, allowing lots divided
by a public street to utilize this provision should not significantly
increase the number of lots available.
The Zoning Ordinance contains the following criteria that the Council
must evaluate when considering an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance:
· 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 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 ofthis amendment.
1:\OOfi1es\OOordamd\zoning\00-046\00046cc2.doc
Page 3
AL TERNA TIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Ordinance DO-XX approving the proposed amendment as
recommended.
2. Deny Ordinance DO-XX.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
1 :\00fi1es\000rdamd\zoning\OO-046\00046cc2.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 ofthe 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 property owner must apply to the City for approval of a lot combination.
~ The property owner must file a deed restriction or covenant with the Scott County
Recorder in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This deed restriction or covenant
must include provisions that restrict the resubdivision of the lot.
~ There must be an existing principal structure on one lot.
~ The location of the principal structure on the lot must preclude the ability to construct a
legal accessory structure on that 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.
1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\ordOOxx.doc
PAGE I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E1-IPLOYER
. ........0.... .__..... ...~. .......-.. .. .. .~.__.._.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 18th day of September, 2000.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 23rd day of September, 2000.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
I :\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-046\ordOOxx.doc
PAGE 2
City Council Meeting Minutes
August7,2000
KA SIER: Suggested adding the language to both the preliminary plat resolution and the PUD
resol ion. The conditions are the same.
PACE: S gested language such as "the developer agrees to work with the City to develop an optim
trail syste alignment".
WENSMANN: It could be considere either way. It would depend on t
WENSMANN: In icated that he had no problem with that language, and indicated that he was
compromise an ork together to get to an amicable resolution.
GUNDLACH: Asked h w the tree count issue was being resolved.
NICK POL T (Pioneer En . eering): Explained that by removing lots along the no
plan was brought into con rmance with the City's tree preservation policy.
PETERSEN: Asked if a regional ail system through a development is an a et or a detriment.
PACE: Noted that additional language be included in the pr minary plat plan and preliminary PUD
resolution to be added at 2(1) and B(12) r pectively.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY PETERSEN
AMENDMENT TO THE WILDS PUD.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen a
ROVING RESOLUTION 00-69 APPROVING AN
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY TERSEN APPROVING
REZONING FROM PUD TO R-1, A FROM PUD AND R-1 AND
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, etersen and Ericson, the motion c ied.
NO BY PETERSEN APPROVING RESOLUTIO 00-70 APPROVING A
PLANNED UNIT DEVEL MENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AS AMENDED AT 2(L).
undlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
MOTION BY MA R, SECOND BY PETERSEN APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-71 A ROVING A
PRELIMINARY LAT TO BE KNOWN AS WENSMANN 1ST ADDITION AS AMENDED AT 12).
VOTE: Ayes Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consider Approval of Ordinance DO-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).
RYE: Provided the staff report in connection with the agenda item and explained the review process
proposed.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE ao-xx APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COMBINATION OF
9
-- -'--"~'" "~>_...._""......._~.~--~..._------
City Council Meeting Minutes
August7,2000
NONCONFORMING LOTS DIVIDED BY A PRIVATE ROAD BUT UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP
(CASE FILE 00-046).
PACE: Asked if the combination of the lots is determined made based upon the criteria set out in the
report, and suggested that there needs to be criteria as a basis for the determination.
RYE: Explained that the combination is a condition of the approval. It start with a building permit
application so there is criteria.
MADER: Asked if this applies to only nonconforming lots, or substandard lots, or both. Asked if this
could be addressed on a variance basis. Concerned how this action would affect status of the road if it
were a public street, what rationale there would be for distinguishing between a public and private
street, and what other impacts this action may have on other areas within the City.
KANSIER: It applies to any lot that doesn't meet the current ordinance requirements.
PACE: Advised that a use variance cannot be granted in this case as regulated by state statute. Noted
that these are platted lots and only applies to private streets so there is a finite number.
RYE: Commented that once the approval is given and the restrictions are imposed, the status of road
changing would have not have a material impact on existing lots, but future lots would be unable to
take advantage of the provision. The amendment was limited to private streets because the owner has
an ownership interest in the street and seem a reasonable distinction.
MADER: Commented that legally the rationale is reasonable, but that it may not be practical when we
try to explain why this person can, and another person can't. Suggested asking staff and the City
Attorney to address whether the ordinance should be broadened to include public streets as well, in
what circumstances, and whether we would be opening a door that will lead to additional problems.
THE MOTION AND SECOND WITHDREW THE MOTION.
MOTION BY MADER, SECOND BY ERICSON TO DEFER THE ITEM BACK TO STAFF FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
Consi pproval of Appointment to Fill the Vacancy on the Economic De
Acting May and City Council Liaison to the Lake Advisory Commit
ERICSON: Noted er received by Kevin Busse and that there is a id concern by residents in the
area. 7 process for addressing the traffic concerns on 160th Stree .
10