HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Free-Standing Parking Lots
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
MARCH 15, 2004
9A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
TO THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
FREE-STANDING PARKING LOTS AS ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICTS (Case File #04-026)
DISCUSSION:
History: On December 15,2003, the Planning Commission and the
City Council conducted a workshop to discuss several potential
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the Council and
the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance allowing free-standing parking lots in
Residential Use Districts. During this discussion, the Council and
Planning Commission also directed staff to include the following
prOVISIons:
. Prohibit storage
. Protect the neighborhood
. Require a Conditional Use Permit
. Specify the distance from the use the parking lot is intended to
serve
. Prohibit structures
Current Circumstances: This amendment would address a minimum
of two situations the City is possibly aware of. The first is Captain
Jack's restaurant. There is a vacant parcel of land across the street
from the restaurant owned by one of the partners. They may wish to
utilize this lot for overflow parking for the restaurant and the marina.
The second area is the DNR lake access on De Witt Avenue. The DNR
owns a second parcel and would like to expand the parking available
for the access. The City Council previously directed the staff to
research additional parking for persons wishing to use the lake.
Section 1107.203 (9) of the Zoning Ordinance currently reads as
follows:
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\cc reoortnqoc . I k
WWW.cILyorpnorae.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
(9) Location of Parking Facilities. Required off-street parking in
the R-l, R-2 and R-3 Use Districts shall be on the same lot as
the building housing the principal use, except in the cases of'
~ A religious institution where parking is regulated by
subsection 1107.303.
~ Condominium developments where off-street parking is
designed on a lot or within a garage on a separate parcel
but within the same condominium development.
The proposed amendment adds a third bullet point to this section,
which reads as follows:
)> Free-standing parking lots accessory to existing
nonresidential and recreational uses, located within the
same Zoning Use District, and located within 500 feet of
the existing use, may be permitted in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and
R-4 Use Districts, subiect to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. Such parking lots must meet all the provisions
listed in Section 1107.203 (11), 1107.203 (13 ) below, and
all of Section 1107.204.
Sections 1107.203 (11 and 13) outline provisions for the control of off-
site parking sites and the use of off-street parking lots. Section
1107.204 outlines provisions for the design and maintenance of off-
street parking areas. This section will regulate setbacks, lighting,
landscaping, buffers and so on.
The proposed amendment also adds a new use category under the Uses
Permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4
districts. This section states:
Free-Standing Parking Lots. Conditions:
1. The parking lot must be accessory to an existing nonresidential
or recreational use located within the same Zoning Use
District.
2. The parking lot must be located within 500 feet of the existing
nonresidential or recreational use.
3. The parking lot must meet all the provisions listed in Section
1107.203 (11 ), 1107.203 (13 ) below, and all of Section
1107.204.
4. No storage of any kind is permitted on the site.
5. No structures are permitted on the site.
The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at a public
hearing on February 23, 2004. There was one resident at the hearing
to speak in opposition to the proposed amendment. This resident was
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\cc report. doc
Page 2
concerned the amendment would allow the expansion of
nonconfonning commercial uses in residential areas. A copy of the
Planning Commission minutes is attached to this report.
The Planning Commission agreed with the ordinance, and included the
conditions prohibiting storage and structures on the site. The
Commission also specified the parking lot and the use it is intended to
serve must be located within the same Use District.
The Commission found this amendment, with the changes, would be in
the public interest, specifically since it would help to reduce parking
on the public streets. The Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval.
The Issues: The City Council must make a decision whether to amend
the Zoning Ordinance based on the following criteria:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
There is a public need for the amendment. It allows the creation of
off-street parking in residential areas under very specific and
narrow conditions. This amendment can help to alleviate on-street
parking, and the problems associated with on-street parking, such
as traffic congestion and safety. At the same time, the specific
provisions pertaining to the parking lot will protect the surrounding
residential neighborhood from potential adverse impacts.
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.
Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include:
. Determine and strive for a balance of commerce, industry and
population;
. Encourage a diversified economic base and a broad range of
employment opportunities;
. Promote sound land use; and
. Maintain high standards in the promotion and development of
commerce and industry.
The proposed amendment strives to accomplish the objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan by providing parking
opportunities for existing business, while still protecting the
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or
Federal requirements.
This amendment is consistent with federal and state laws.
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\cc report.doc
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
Parking lots authorized under this amendment are subject to all
applicable setbacks. These setbacks, while providing protection to
adjacent lots, reduce the number of parking stalls that may be
constructed.
Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend
approval of this amendment.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt an Ordinance approving the proposed amendment as
recommended.
2. Deny the proposed Ordinance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
ernative # 1. A motion and second to adopt
ing the amendment as recommended by the
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\cc report.doc
Page 4
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 04- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.403, 1102.503, 1102.603, 1102.703
AND 1107.203 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Section 1102.403 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following
Section:
(5) Free-Standing Parking Lots. Conditions:
a. The parking lot must be accessory to an existing nonresidential or
recreational use located within the same Zoning Use District.
b. The parking lot must be located within 500 feet of the existing nonresidential
or recreational use.
c. The parking lot must meet all the provisions listed in Section 1107.203 (11 ),
1107.203 (13) below, and all of Section 1107.204.
d. No storage of any kind is permitted on the site.
e. No structures are permitted on the site.
2. Section 1102.503 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following
Section:
(6) Free-Standing Parking Lots. Conditions:
a. The parking lot must be accessory to an eXIstIng nonresidential or
recreational use located within the same Zoning Use District.
b. The parking lot must be located within 500 feet of the existing nonresidential
or recreational use.
c. The parking lot must meet all the provisions listed in Section 1107.203 (11 ),
1107.203 (13) below, and all of Section 1107.204.
d. No storage of any kind is permitted on the site.
e. No structures are permitted on the site.
3. Section 1102.603 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following
Section:
(4) Free-Standing Parking Lots. Conditions:
a. The parking lot must be accessory to an existing nonresidential or
recreational use located within the same Zoning Use District.
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\ord04xx.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
PAGE 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
b. The parking lot must be located within 500 feet of the existing nonresidential
or recreational use.
c. The parking lot must meet all the provisions listed in Section 1107.203 (11 ),
1107.203 (13) below, and all of Section 1107.204.
d. No storage of any kind is permitted on the site.
e. No structures are permitted on the site.
4. Section 1102.703 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the following
Section:
(5) Free-Standing Parking Lots. Conditions:
a. The parking lot must be accessory to an existing nonresidential or
recreational use located within the same Zoning Use District.
b. The parking lot must be located within 500 feet of the existing
nonresidential or recreational use.
c. The parking lot must meet all the provisions listed in Section 1107.203
(11), 1107.203 (13) below, and all of Section 1107.204.
d. No storage of any kind is permitted on the site.
e. No structures are permitted on the site.
5. Section 1107.203 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(9) Location of Parking Facilities. Required off-street parking in the R-l, R-2 and R-3
Use Districts shall be on the same lot as the building housing the principal use, except
in the cases of:
~ A religious institution where parking is regulated by subsection 1107.303.
~ Condominium developments where off-street parking is designed on a lot or
within a garage on a separate parcel but within the same condominium
development.
~ Free-standing parking lots accessory to existing nonresidential and recreational
uses, located within the same Zoning Use District, and located within 500 feet of
the existing use, may be permitted in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Use Districts,
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Such parking lots must meet all
the provisions listed in Section 1107.203 (11), 1107.203 (13) below, and all of
Section 1107.204.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 15th day of March, 2004.
ATTEST:
City Manager Mayor
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\ord04xx.doc PAGE 2
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 20th day of March, 2004.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\parking lots\ord04xx.doc
PAGE 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23,2004
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the February 23,2004, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:31 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
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 9,2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
*
A. Case #04-26 An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow free-standing
parking lots as accessory uses to existing nonresidential uses in Residential Districts,
subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 23,
2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On December 15,2003, the Planning Commission and City Council conducted a
workshop to discuss several potential amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. At that
time, the Council and the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance allowing free-standing parking lots in Residential Use Districts.
During this discussion, the Council and Planning Commission also directed staff to
include the following provisions:
. Prohibit storage
. Protect the neighborhood
. Require a Conditional Use Permit
. Specify the distance from the use the parking lot is intended to serve
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN022304.doc
1
...,."._,.._.,...,_..______.~...._~.<.""i."..,..,"',.,.,_;......~^'.__.._.,.~,._~~..,.f..~_........_"_..__"",<.,_._""'I4O.~_.._"..,....I..,.~..._,..~'"'''''__''_............_''_..,..._''''_,.,............._'''',.".,.,..~".''....~.N.;.__~""""..,'..,,~....-'....,.-""----...,
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23.2004
. Prohibit structures
There are two current situations driving this amendment. The first is Captain Jack's
restaurant. There is a vacant parcel of land across the street from the restaurant owned by
one of the partners. They may wish to utilize this lot for overflow parking for the
restaurant and the marina. The second area is the DNR lake access on De Witt Avenue.
The DNR owns a second parcel and would like to expand the parking available for the
access.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow free-standing parking lots within Residential
Districts under specific circumstances. The specific conditions applied to these parking
lots are intended to limit the application of the provision and protect the surrounding
residential area. By requiring a conditional use permit, the amendment also allows public
input on a specific proposal.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based
upon the findings the staff recommended approval.
Stamson questioned if a Conditional Use Permit can be revoked. Kansier said "Yes,
there are standards set out in the ordinance as to what would qualify for revoking a
permit." One is not meeting the conditions of the permit. If one does not utilize the
permit within a certain amount of time it will automatically expire. There are criteria and
a process laid out.
Ringstad requested abstaining from the conversation and voting.
Comments from the Public:
Bill Criego, 16350 Park Avenue, agreed with the DNR access parking use, which is a
valid public use. However, he felt Captain Jack's is a private profit oriented business that
is a non-conforming use and grandfathered in about 30 years ago. By allowing this
ordinance to go through, the City is allowing anybody who is non-residential to apply for
a Conditional Use Permit. Criego stated Captain Jack's was a grandfathered-in-type
facility. By allowing this ordinance to go through, the City will be allowing a
grandfathered facility to expand. The criteria for the CUP is basically not for a residence.
If the applicant meets the criteria will it automatically be granted? Or does the
Commission have the ability to allow or disallow at your will? Captain Jack's has a
parking problem. Do you want to expand it? Not an easy decision. Most of the
approved uses are during the day or early evening. By allowing this, parking will be
allowed until 1 :00 am.
Criego's other concern is the allowable impervious surface on a parking lot in the Rl
district. Would that be allowed to take place in an Rl District? The ordinance should not
be used for non-conforming uses; grandfather approaches or to expand a nonconforming
use and consider the hours of operation.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23, 2004
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Valid concern on imperious surface issue. Kansier responded the maximum is
30%. In commercial, industrial districts and park and recreational uses the
impervious surface can go up to 75% with required storm water treatment. Ifit's
in a residential district alone it is 30%.
· Isn't that something that needs to be addressed? Kansier responded the DNR
would fall into the park and recreational use requirement. The other use would
have to apply for a variance.
· Because this is not specific to Captain Jack's were any of the neighbor's notified?
Kansier responded "No, because it is a general text amendment and not specific to
Captain Jack's".
. Always hesitant to vote in favor of amendments specifically driven. However,
there is a public need for parking in both of these instances.
. A Conditional Use Permit would give the perimeters implied by staff.
· It would be interesting to hear the neighbors. Don't know if anything is valid but
it is significant.
Stamson:
. Unless there was a specific application the neighbors would not be notified.
Atwood:
. There is a public need - support the amendment.
Lemke:
. Atwood addressed many of my thoughts. There are problems in neighborhoods
on many days especially with the DNR parking lot. It is useful and necessary.
There is a public need.
. Criego brought up the impervious surface which is a very important point.
However, under the CUP process it would be better to look at for each individual
case.
. As far as an expansion of a nonconforming use - not totally convinced it is an
issue. The building is not expanding. The additional parking would address that
problem.
. Would like to listen to the Commissioners.
Perez:
. Echo Lemke's thoughts on the expansion. It will allow more parking and find a
place to park that is not on the street. There is a safety issue and the biggest
concern.
. It's not an expansion - its additional parking.
. The impervious surface is a valid point.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23,2004
. Like the fact it is driven by a CUP. The neighbors would have a say if application
driven.
. No reason to hold up the ordinance - there is a public need.
. The DNR access parking is important and needed. Based on that and the fact
there is a CUP attached to this I am in favor of the amendment.
Stamson:
. Are the Wagon Bridge Marina and Grainwood Park in the Rl District? Kansier
said "yes".
. Both have parking problems.
. Agreed with Commissioners. There is definitely a public need especially the
DNR.
. There has been some discussion of expanding Captain Jacks - the building will
not be added on to. The parking lot being added is to address the current use and
problem as opposed to expanding. The additional parking will help the situation.
. This will solve the problem not create a new one.
. Criego' s concern for the late night parking impact is not any different than what
we allow most things - churches, schools that are open during the day is a valid
one.
. Growing up on Lake Minnetonka knowing the lake, this is a common situation.
We often discuss the lake is unique; you have to live with people's storage in the
back yard - boats, boat structures, etc.
. Living on the lake has different neighborhood situations.
. Would like to see additional conditions - specifically no storage of any kind on
the property. An example would be that Captain Jack's rents slips and no storing
boats there over the winter because they are not using the parking space. I hate to
say "no parking over night" because someone drinking may leave their car.
Nothing more than 48 hours.
. No structures of any kind on the additional parking lot.
. The primary use must be the same for residential district uses. It has to be
specified that the use is in the same residential district. That's what creates the
hardship for that particular property.
. Add the three conditions and will support.
. This will not create any new problems. The public need is addressed.
General Discussion:
. The points brought up are valid - storage, keep the distance within 500 feet.
. Downtown might be justified but not through this process.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
. NO STORAGE OF ANY KIND ON THE PROPERTY.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
February 23.2004
. NO STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND ON THE PROPERTY.
. THE SPECIFIED USE MUST BE WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
V ote taken indicated ayes by all with Commissioner Ringstad abstaining. MOTION
CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on March 15,2003.
B. C e #04-21 An amendment to Section 1107.2200 of he Zoning Ordinance
to add ma rials to architectural materials standards.
thia Kirchoff presented the Planning Rep dated February 23,2004, on
f the City Planning Department.
On December 15,2 3, the City Council and Plannin ommission held a joint
workshop to discuss p tential zoning ordinance ame ments, including an amendment
allowing additional mat . als to be considered Clas materials.
The Planning Commission . scussed potential ch nges at their regular meeting on
February 9,2004. The Co 'ssion supported ending the ordinance to add fiber
cement siding as a Class la mat . ai, allow s etic stucco as a Class I material, require
a higher grade of vinyl siding, an increase t number of attached residential units that
must comply with the more strict m terial s ndards.
The proposed amendment allows fiber ent siding as a Class la material, considers
synthetic stucco a Class I material, spec' s vinyl siding grade, and increases the number
of units in one residential building that u adhere to the stricter material standards.
Based upon the findings set forth in t s repo , staff recommended approval.
Comments from the Public:
Kelly Murray, ofWensmann Ho es, said they aske taffto look at this issue. She
asked how the 60% calculated. urray presented a bu ding plan indicating the
calculation area and is trying t figure the calculation are . Kansier said staff calculates
the surface of the front of th uilding. Staff does not go t ee dimensional nor are the
roof areas included as the fr nt. Murray disagreed on the ca ulations and said there is a
big difference for them.
Kansier explained the c culation includes the face of the buildin d garage doors,
although they are not ass I. The windows are included as Class I ut shutters are
considered decorativ Under the proposed ordinance staff would not 'nclude the shakes
and garage doors.
Murray felt the d ails actually helps the building but hurts the calculation. urray said
she was struggli g that only 30% of the 60% requirement can be Hardy Boar in the
residential dist . ct. Her concern was with their 10-unit buildings.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN022304.doc
5