Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Zoning Ord. Revisions CITY COUNCIL REPORT 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: DECEMBER 20, 2004 lOA JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REPORT CONCERNING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND DRIVE-THROUGH BANKS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT INTRODUCTION: The City Council has directed staff to examine our ordinance provisions and recommend revisions as appropriate. As redevelopment has occurred in the City, specifically in the downtown area, there have been several questions and discussions about building height issues. The City Council recently adopted an amendment to the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to address some of these questions. However, this ordinance does not apply in all situations, especially for single building developments, and developments which are not a PUD. This memorandum discusses two of the major design issues we expect to face in the near future. The purpose of the memorandum is to provide the Council with some background information in order to provide staff with further direction. DISCUSSION: The design issues include: . Structure height . Drive-through banks in the C-3 District BUILDING HEIGHT: Under the current Zoning Ordinance, maximum building height is 35' in all districts. The height of a building is measured from the height of the curb adjacent to the building. In most cases, this is the street from which the building takes its access. However, in the case of a comer lot or a double frontage lot, both streets are included in the height calculation. www.cityofpriorlake.com 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoni~~'fl~i~.ia'lt~~4~5-dr Fax 952.447.4245 Page 1 The diagram below illustrates how building height is measured: STOey T oX- FLAT ~M::NT ~ lt~1!.U iimta Historically, building heights were limited for public health and aesthetic reasons. Public health advocates viewed height limits as a means of assuring light and air to buildings and streets below. From a public safety perspective, height limits mitigated against the need for specialized aerial equipment. Aesthetically, height limits were also seen as a way of lending visual unity and human scale to buildings. Today, technology and building codes address most of the public health and safety issues. For example, sprinkler systems must be installed in all multi-story buildings. The aesthetics of building height is a function of community standards. Additional building height also has advantages. It allows a more efficient use of space, especially in areas where buildable land is scarce and expensive. In downtown areas, additional building height allows the construction of dwelling units above retail and other commercial uses. In a downtown area, density is needed to support the commercial uses. The Twin Cities metropolitan area includes a wide spectrum of examples of height regulations, from downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul to suburbs such as Savage and Lakeville. The staff researched building height regulations for cities comparable to Prior Lake. The table below outlines these results: CITY MAXIMUM BillLDING HEIGHTS RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Apple Valley 35' 30' - 60' 25' - 45' 40' Bumsville 35' 30' minimum 25' - 30' minimum NA (Heart of the City District) 50' maximum 50' maximum Eden Prairie 40' 45' 30-40' 40' Lakeville 25' - 35' 35' 35' 35' - 45' Savage 35' (2 'li stories) 45' (structure setback must equal building height) Shakopee 35' 35' 55' 45' 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\building height\cc report.doc Page 2 Considering that each "floor" is about 10' high, the above requirements provide for buildings 3 to 6 stories in height. We can look at height as a general, city-wide standard, or as a standard specific to each Zoning Use District. The requirements can even be further refined by use. As a general rule, the staff suggests the following: . R-I'l R-2 and R-3 Districts: 35' maximum. This height is generally sufficient for lower density residential uses, such as single family homes and townhouses. The 35' maximum is also consistent with the maximum height permitted in the Shoreland District. . C-I District: 35' maximum. This district is often adjacent to single family or other low density residential areas. Taller buildings would have a greater impact on the adj acent properties. . C-3 District: 55' maximum. The most appropriate area for increases in height is the downtown (C-3) district. An additional fourth or fifth story would allow the creation of more dwelling units in this area. It would also allow different types of mixed-use development, such as retail and office uses. This would allow the retail to remain at street level. The increase in height might also encourage underground parking. The downside of allowing additional height in the C-3 district is its adjacency to the R-l and R-2 districts on the fringes of the downtown. If this is a concern, the staff can explore ways to mitigate this potential problem. . R-4'l C-2 and C-4 Districts: 45' maximum. In this case, we might also want to review the location of the building in relation to any lot lines, especially for adj acent residential uses, to lessen any potential impact. . C-5 and I-I Districts: 45' maximum. As part of this discussion, the Council should keep in mind that industrial buildings tend to have more mass than other commercial buildings, in that the walls tend to be larger with few windows. DRIVE- THROUGH BANKS: City staff recently received a request to establish a bank with a drive-through window in the downtown (C-3) district. According to Section 1102.1100 of the Zoning Ordinance, "the purpose of the "C-3" Specialty 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\building height\cc report.doc Page 3 Business Use District is intended to provide for a variety of commercial and residential uses within the framework of a traditional downtown area. The district also contemplates and provides for pedestrian circulation, urban and civic design and the creative reuse of existing buildings. " When this section of the ordinance was adopted in 2001, it was specifically intended to prohibit drive-through facilities of all kinds, whether restaurants or banks. The reason behind this exclusion was to eliminate the surface area usually needed for these types of facilities. A bank would be a good fit in the downtown area. Most banks require some sort of drive-through facility. In order to preserve the integrity and character we are trying to achieve downtown, it may still be necessary to limit drive-through facilities in some fashion. There are ways to accomplish both objectives. For example, the number of drive-through lanes could be limited. The location of these facilities could be regulated so they are not on the street front. Other possibilities might include reducing the amount of stacking usually required for these facilities. The Council might also want to consider requiring a conditional use permit in order to ensure public review of these facilities, even though this process can take 30 or more days longer than administrative review. ISSUES: According to Section 1108.501, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance may be initiated in the following manner: . The Planning Commission may initiate an amendment by motion; . The City Council may initiate an amendment by motion to refer the amendment to the Planning Commission; . Any individual may initiate an amendment by petition. The staff is requesting direction from the City Council on how to proceed with these two items. One suggestion is for the Council members to determine which, if any, of the proposed amendments they are interested in pursuing. Once that decision is made, the City Council can formally initiate the amendments and direct staff to schedule the amendments for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\building height\cc report. doc Page 4 CONCLUSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: The City Council may also direct staff to bring each of the proposed amendments to a workshop. This approach will provide staff with some perspective on what direction to take during the process of actually drafting the proposed amendment. Another suggestion is for the Council to direct staff to bring all of the amendments to the Planning Commission for further discussion. This does not trigger the public hearing process; it does, however, allow the Planning Commission to discuss the need for any amendment and the potential language. The staff would then report the results of these discussions to the Council during the workshop. The Council may also choose to take no action. This does not preclude any individual or group from filing a formal petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The staff is requesting Council direction on these matters. The City Council has four alternatives: 1. Initiate the amendments and direct staff to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission for review of the amendments. 2. Direct staff to bring potential amendments to a City Council workshop for future discussion. 3. Direct staff to bring the potential amendments to the Planning Commission for further discussion and report the results of this discussion to the City Council. 4. Take no action. Staff recommends Alternative #1. This requires the following motion: 1. A motion and second to initiate the desired amendments and to direct staff to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Com ission for these amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 1:\04 files\04 ordin amend\04 zoning\building height\cc report.doc Page 5