HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B2 - Ord Amend Deck Surveys
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
FEBRUARY 17, 2004
9B2
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
REQUIRE FUTURE DECKS TO BE INCLUDED ON SURVEYS FOR
NEW DWELLINGS (Case FHe #04-04)
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
Historv: On December 15, 2003, the City Council and Planning
Commission held a joint workshop where nine potential zoning ordinance
amendments were discussed. One of which addressed amending the
ordinance to require a future deck to be shown on a survey for a new
dwelling. The Council and Commission supported the amendment and
directed staff to prepare language.
On January 26,2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this item, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment.
Meeting minutes are attached to this report.
Backaround: Section 1109.500 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a
building permit be issued prior to the construction, alteration, or expansion
of a structure. An application for a building permit must include a survey
showing existing and proposed structures, unless exempted under
Section 1109.600. The current ordinance does not require that future
additions, such as decks, or structures be noted on the survey.
In 2003, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and
Appeal, heard three requests for rear yard setback Variances for deck
additions to existing single family dwellings. The Planning Commission
denied all three, but two applicants appealed the decision to the City
Council, who overturned both denials.
The common element of each Variance request is that a deck was not
shown on the original survey. Moreover, all dwellings were built at the
minimum rear yard setback (or close to it) leaving no area for a future
deck. On the approved building permits for 14946 Oakland Beach and
2830 Fox Run, staff noted problems with the proposed or future decks.
Both were granted setback Variances by the City Council.
L:\04 FILES\04 ORDIN AMEND\04 ZON~~~ouncil report.doc
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
With the proposed amendment, staff is attempting to eliminate these
situations thereby reducing the number of requested rear yard setback
Variances.
DISCUSSION:
Issue: As previously noted, the current ordinance does not require a
future deck to be noted on a survey submitted with the dwelling building
permit application. However, the proposed amendment will require that it
be included. The proposed language is as follows:
"An application for a building permit for a new residential structure
shall include the location of a future deck. This provision
precludes the installation of second story doors, deck ledger
boards, and so forth, on a structure that does not allow for a
minimum 10 foot deep deck in addition to the minimum yard
setback required in the use district or other applicable setbacks.
If the location of a future deck addition is not shown on the survey
submitted with the building permit application, the property owner
must sign a statement that a deck cannot be constructed in the
future. This statement shall be recorded against the property at
Scott County."
The provision intends to avoid Variance requests by encouraging a
homebuilder to either plan for a future deck or to acknowledge there will
not be a deck addition in the future. This will eliminate the assumption by
subsequent owners that a deck will be permitted. Such a requirement will
not place an undue burden on the property owner. It merely requires prior
planning on the part of the homebuilder. Many deck designs are similar,
so a unique design plan is not likely necessary.
The amendment also applies to attached residential units, such as
town homes. However, decks and/or enclosed porches are typically
shown on approved development plans (e.g., Planned Unit Development
and Final Plat) as well as the building permit application itself. Since
decks are typically built with the townhome units, it would be rare that a
Variance would be requested to construct a deck addition on a townhome.
Nonetheless, if a deck is not constructed or shown on approved
development plans, this ordinance would apply.
Zoninq Ordinance Amendment Findinqs
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states that recommendations
of the Planning Commission and final determinations of the City Council
shall be supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed
amendment to the following policies:
L:\04 FILES\04 OROIN AMEND\04 ZONING\Oeck Amendment\city council report.doc 2
CONCLUSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATION:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
There is a public need for the amendment. It will require that future decks
be shown on surveys to eliminate future variance requests that cannot be
supported due to the lack of hardship.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of
this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or
policies of the City.
The Zoning Ordinance purports to:
. Prevent over crowding of land and undue concentration of
structures and population by regulating the use of land and buildings and
the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them.
Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include:
. Ensure fair and impartial hearing and application of ordinances.
. Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the public
safety, health, and welfare.
The proposed amendment strives to accomplish the purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance and the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan by efficiently using the time of the Board of Adjustment and Appeal
and City Council.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or
Federal requirements.
This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws.
The amendment clarifies the circumstances and conditions under which a
deck can be added to a dwelling. It intends to operate as a remedial
measure implemented to resolve past situations. The amendment will
eliminate or reduce the need for rear yard setback Variance applications
for deck additions. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff
recommends approval.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendment.
2. Deny the ordinance amendment.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
Staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires the following
motions:
1. A motion and second amending the Zoning Ordinance to add
language that requires future decks to be shown on surveys for new
dwellings.
L:\04 FILES\04 ORDIN AMEND\04 ZONING\Deck Amendment\city council report. doc 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
J Planning Commission meeting minutes
REVIEWED BY:
L:\04 FILES\04 ORDIN AMEND\04 ZONING\Deck Amendment\city council report.doc 4
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 04- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1109.502 AND 1109.503 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Sections 1109.502 and 1109.503 of the Prior Lake City Code are hereby
amended as follows:
An application for a buildinQ permit for a new residential structure shall
include the location of a future deck. This provision precludes the
installation of second stOry doors, deck ledger boards, and so forth, on a
structure that does not allow for a minimum 10 foot deep deck in addition
to the minimum yard setback required in the use district or other
applicable setbacks. If the location of a future deck addition is not shown
on the buildinQ permit application, the property owner must siQn a
statement that a deck cannot be constructed in the future. This statement
shall be recorded aQainst the property at Scott County.
11 09.50~3 The applicant shall be responsible for determining the following:
~ Whether permits or approvals are required from any other
governmental agency.
~ Whether the property is located within a protected wetland.
~ Whether a structure will be built over an existing easement.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of _, 2004.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
L:\04 FILES\04 OROIN AMEND\04 ZON~~Wt104-XX.doc
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004
1. Call to Order:
Acting Chairman Atwood called the January 26, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad
and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent*
*Stamson arrived at 6:38 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 12,2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Atwood read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
..... A. Case #04-04 An amendment to Section 1109.500 requiring new single family
residential structures to include the location of future decks.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated January 26,2004, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
On December 15, 2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
workshop where they discussed nine potential ordinance amendments. One of which
addressed amending the ordinance to require a future deck to be shown on a survey for a
new dwelling. The Council and Commission supported the amendment and directed staff
to prepare language.
Section 1109.500 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a building permit be issued prior to
the construction, alteration, or expansion of a structure. An application for a building
permit shall include a survey showing existing and proposed structures, unless exempted
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNOI2604.doc 1
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26, 2004
under Section 1109.600. The current ordinance does not require that future additions or
structures be noted on the survey.
The proposed amendment promotes efficacy in the City's judicial and legislative bodies.
It attempts to eliminate or reduce the need for rear yard setback variance applications.
The language is consistent with the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes.
Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. This proposal will eliminate some of the confusion we saw with the three
variance/appeals in 2003.
. Cynthia laid this proposal out very well.
. Support.
Lemke:
. Clarified the proposed ordinance - is there any assurance that a second buyer
would be aware of this recorded document? Kansier and Kirchoff responded by
explaining the recording and building permit process.
. Kansier said one safeguard has to do with the fact they will not be able to put up a
patio or ledger board so it will not appear as if a deck is allowed. A second or
third home buyer will not have the expectation a deck can go there.
. Support. Agree with staffs Findings, there is a public need for the amendment.
. This will accomplish one or more ofthe purposes ofthe ordinances.
Perez:
. Agreed the loopholes will be covered.
. The fact there will be no doors or ledger boards will eliminate the impression of a
future deck.
. Support.
Atwood:
. Supported staffs Findings.
. Felt if the document is recorded it will be disclosed at the time of closing.
. Ringstad gave a brief background on the closing process. Hopefully realtors will
encourage prospective buyers to do some of the research at City Hall to check on
the history ofthe property.
. There is a sense of clarity for future builders and homeowners.
Stamson:
. Does not have a problem with this. This came out of deck situations from 2003.
The applicants were well aware ofthe deck requirements. The builders did not
allow space for a deck.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 2
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26, 2004
· Another situation was a professional builder where we can assume he knew what
he was doing not allowing a space for a deck. The deck was added illegally
without a permit.
· This amendment does not solve the cases referred to. The amendment might be
clearer in some situations but this did not make any steps in solving the problem.
. The real issue is to maintain the ordinance as written. Writing more is not going
to make it simpler if we don't follow them anyway. The existing ordinance was
clear before. In all cases the applicants were aware of the situations.
. Atwood pointed out decks at Sand Pointe Development.
· Stamson said that was fine, the decks probably were not illegal. People put up
ledger boards and don't get around to building decks for a while.
. Kansier explained assumptions are made that applicants can just get deck
variances. This amendment should eliminate the assumption by not allowing the
ledger and patio boards. Residents won't assume they will have a deck.
· It would help with fraudulent behavior, but the 2003 variance cases, the applicants
were well aware there was no space for decks. It was a conscience decisions to
ignore the ordinance.
. This amendment does not address those variance cases.
Lemke:
. This will avoid the patio doors with no place to build a deck.
Stamson:
. It doesn't stop people from putting in patio doors after the City inspects it. It
won't solve the problem. It might make it clear for people who follow the rules
and are clear on what should happen anyway.
. The 2003 deck variances were situations where people did not follow the rules.
. Don't know if you can write rules - we just need to hold them accountable. That
was the failure.
. Support the ordinance. It moves us a little forward but will address the issues that
it grew out of.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on February 17, 2004.
B. Case #04-05 An amendment to Section 11 01.800 designating the R-l (Low
Density Residential) Use District as the Zoning District for newly annexed land.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 26,
2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNOI2604.doc 3