Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/20022. 3. 4. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Case #02-110 Mark Danes, is requesting a variance from the average shoreland setback, a variance from the minimum 15 foot side yard setback separation between buildings on adjacent nonconforming lots, and a variance from the side yard setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property located at 16308 Park Avenue. Case #02-113 Randy and Patrice Simpson a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling for the property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road. Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning the height and opacity of fences on comer lots. Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of Temporary Uses) and 110 t .510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance. Case #02-114 Consider an amendment to Section 1102.1105 (Dimensional Standards in the C-3 District) of the Zoning Ordinance. Old Business: Case #02-112 Ray Brandt is requesting consideration for a final PUD plan consisting of 28.19 acres to be developed with 148 townhouse units and open space. This property is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2002 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the October 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lemke Present RJngstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Correction in the September 23~d, Minutes - Page 10, Criego: relates to driveway entrance should be "to reduce the width of the driveway". The Minutes were approved as amended. 4. Consent: A. Case 02-088 Gau Variance Resolution Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ringstad did not remember the committee approving the driveway variance. After looking at the Minutes, they agreed the variances approving the setbacks for the stoop and eave. Criego believed there were other requests for variances that the Commission did not vote on. Kansier said there was another Resolution denying the requests. The Commissioners can make another motion denying the requests. Criego recalled a third request. Lemke pointed out it was not a separate request, it was part of the front yard setback. Kirchoffstated there were only 2 requests. She also confirmed there were 2 Resolutions attached to the original report. L:\02FILES\02planning ¢omm\02pcminulesWiN 101402.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02- 011PC APPROVING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE AND DENY A VARIANCE FOR A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case 02-097 Mark Liesner is applying for a 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the RS (Rural Subdivision Residential) zoning district and a 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot minimum setback from a tributary river for the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2"d Addition Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Mark Liesner is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 4525 Jackson Trail (Lot 13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The site is a vacant, riparian lot, as it abuts an unnamed tributary watercourse connected with Pike Lake. Trees are scattered throughout the property. Municipal water and sewer is currently unavailable to the site. The applicant requests the following variances: 1. A 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the R-S zoning district to allow a 34,628 square foot lot. 2. A 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an unnamed tributary watercourse. The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S and SD. The subject lot does not comply with the minimum lot area established by the zoning ordinance, because it was platted in 1974, prior to the current ordinance being adopted in 1999. Moreover, the proposed dwelling does not comply with the minimum setback from the tributary watercourse that extends along the east portion &the site. Since the property is a legal, nonconforming lot of record and the required watercourse setback significantly constrains the site's buildable area, variances are warranted. The property owner cannot construct a reasonable use without relief from the zoning L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutcs~MN101402.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 ordinance. However, the 76 foot setback variance seems excessive considering a dwelling can be constructed on the property while maintaining a greater setback. Staff supports the lot area variance, but not the 76 foot tributary watercourse variance. A reduced 40 foot setback variance is appropriate, because it provides more protection to the tributary. Tiffs is also consistent with the variance approved by the Planning Commission in 1999. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance requests and recommended the house pad be reoriented to increase the setback from the watercourse. If this relocation is not feasible, the DNR expects that at least the 30 foot setback, approved in 1999, would be met. Staff recommended approval of the requested 52,492 square foot variance from minimum lot area and a 40-foot tributary watemourse setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for an Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) from Scott County. 4. The ISTS shall comply with applicable regulations. 5. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. Questions from the Commissioners: Criego questioned why the 1999 variance was approved at 70 feet but now staff suggests a 60 foot variance. Is that directly related to the DNR request? Kirchoff stated the staff was recommending a 40 foot variance based upon the DNR recommendation. Ringstad questioned if the DNR was involved in the first request in 1999. Kirchoffsaid they did respond to the lot area at that time. There was no mention of the setback variance. Comments from the public: Applicant Mark Liesner, 8679 Sunset Court, Shakopee, stated he was confused on the staffs recommended changes on setbacks from 1999. He felt the setback was doubled. Liesner said the location of the house proposed by the DNR does not result in a different elevation. It is also a different orientation causing the neighbor to look at the entire rear of the house. Liesner felt the DNR was not so firm on their 60 foot setback. He felt the 60 foot setback makes it impossible to build a home. If the variance was not possible he would want at least the 30 foot setback as proposed in 1999. He felt the DNR took the L:\02FILES\02planning eomm\02pcminutes~vIN 101402.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 liberty of changing the design of the house and then suggested it would allow a 60 foot setback. Liesner went on to give a brief history of the lot. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Remembered this clearly in 1999. The variance provided in 1999 should be the same as today. Does not see any reason to change it. · Approve the lot area and setback from the unnamed stream to allow a 70 foot variance. Lemke: · Agreed. Atwood: · Agreed. Ringstad: · Agreed. If it was good in 1999 and extended in 2000, it should be approved as well as the additional variance request. Stamson: · Concurred. Believed it was excessive in 1999, but if they proved the request at that time, then willing to stick with it this time. · It worked in the past. · Approve a 30 foot setback. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02- 014PC APPROVING A 54,492 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 2 ACRE LOT AREA FOR PROPERTIES ZONED RS (RURAL SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL) AND A 70 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT M1NIMLrM SETBACK FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY WATERCOURSE A FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEIvlKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 02- 015PC DENYING A 76 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 100 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY WATERCOURSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~lNl01402.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 B. Case 02-108 Jim Deanovic - Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and Jeffers Estate are requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the north ~ of the Jeffers property from R-L/MD and C-BO to R- HD. This property is located west of CSAH 21 and south of CSAH 42. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansi~r presented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Jim Deanovic, the Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and the Jeffers Estate have filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the south side of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designations to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on approximately 160 acres of vacant land. This property is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-5 (Business Office Park) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicants are in the process of developing a plan for the entire 320 acre Jeffers parcel. The most recent concept plan identifies a mixed use development consisting of single family homes, townhonses, senior housing, and apartments. The development could also include parkland, a transit hub, a fire station site, and a potential school site. The site would most likely be developed as a Planned Unit Development. This property is also located within the Shoreland District for Jeffers Pond, which is currently classified as a Natural Environment Lake. The DNR is in the process of reviewing the City's request to reclassify this lake as a Recreational Development Lake. In any event, the overall density of this development will be determined by the lot area in the Shoreland District. Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested. Questions from the Commissioners: Atwood questioned if the recreational lake designation is compatible with the density. Kansier said the density would be significantly less than what would normally be permitted under a high density designation. It would allow clustering. The overall density would be scattered throughout the site. The density would be consistent with the recreational development lake. Atwood questioned if staffis assuming the DNR is going to go ahead and approve the reclassification. Kansier responded staff was just trying to move the development process along and when the classification is known, the developer will have to make a decision whether to go forward. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWiN 101402.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 Criego questioned the Business Office Park zoning/high density and suggested leaving the remaining portion of the 160 acres a Low to Medium density. Kansier said there was no specific indication of the area involved. At this point, the developer asked for the designation for the whole northern portion because it gets very limiting to specifically define, especially at the Comprehensive Plan stage. The next stage, should this go forward, would be a Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Rezoning application. They then could more definitely identify the high density residential areas and provide a legal description. Criego questioned seeing the PUD in conjunction with the zoning. Kansier said the applicant will probably file all the applications together. Criego questioned the 50 foot OHWM (Ordinary High Water Mark) setback. Why the change from Prior Lake's 75 foot OHWM? Kansier explained it does not affect the setback of the lake. It would remain the same. The drawing identifies a trail or easement to buffer the lake itself. Adjacent lots would still be required to meet the 75 foot setback. Comments from the public: Gary Tushie, of Tushie Montgomery, the architect representing both developers, stated the staff had done a great job reviewing the project. Tushie clarified the 50 foot conservancy area around the lake is not a setback area. That area will be put into public ownership. The high density areas will be very low. The only portion of the high density in the project will be the senior rental, which is the only area even close to the requirements. Overall, the densities are low. Jim Deanovic, developer, wanted to point out they have changed their plans due to the input in the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan meetings. One of the most important changes was the 50 foot buffer to preserve as much existing vegetation and included the park. What the Commission is looking at tonight would reduce the impervious surface to protect the waterway and lower the density. During the 2020 Vision meetings it was important there would be a school site and fire station. Many participants at the meetings would like to see all types of lifecycle housing. Another important factor in the meetings was the trail and parks. All changes in our proposal were made due to the 2020 Vision. Criego stated he felt the project was wonderful, but questioned the high density and commercial acreage designation. Why the purpose of the entire 160 acres? Deanovic responded there are pockets of higher density uses and it will be in the PUD. This process is the only way to get it through the ordinances. It is complicated because of the overlay districts. Kansier said the applicants gave the simplest legal description which was for the north half of the property. It would be very hard to write a legal description to describe a concept plan. That is why they gave the description for the entire north half of the property. Kansier explained the proposed designations. L:\02F1LES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 101402.doc 6 ?lanning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 Criego questioned the high density area falling into the RI zone. Kansier and Deanovic responded. Criego questioned Deanovic why he felt it was necessary at this time to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Kansier stated under ordinance, the applicant is required to follow this process. The applicant needs the designation for the use, not the density. Paul Viereck, 3465 140th Street, Shakopee, questioned the selling price on the walkout town_homes on the lake. Deanovic responded they would be as low as $150,000 to $250,000. Viereck did not want to see a low-end housing project. He felt it is a concern along County Road 42 and didn't want a similar Five Hawks housing project. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Recalled an earlier meeting that Mr. Jeffers had a desire to keep a large portion of the 320 acres a significant park~educational center. Is that going to be in the southern part? · Kansier said the park will be in both areas. Mostly the southern half of the property. · Paul Oberg, the executive for the Jeffers Estate, spoke on the wetland and vegetation. Mr. Tushie stepped in and clarified his comments. · The physical characteristics of the north 160 acres, especially the lake, stream and some topography changes, seem to be consistent with the 2020 Plan. · It is the best use of the property. · Agreed with staff's recommendation and supported the request. Atwood: · Believes it will be a beautiful developed area with the trails and parks. · However small the Business Park area, felt she could not support reducing the business office park area in Prior Lake. The topography may need to be addressed, but did not feel the Comprehensive Plan should be amended at this time. Criego: · It looks like there could be 980 units on the 160 acres. The developers agreed. · Questioned staffon the density. Kansier said the number of units would be well below a straight zoning. If it was just R1 it would be around 1,200 units. · Is that taking out wetlands? Kansier said it was. The percentage of wetlands in the entire property is about one-third. · Overall it is a good plan, have concerns on the high density for the entire 160 acres. But will go along with staff's recommendations. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 101402.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting October ]4, 2002 Lemke: · Commercial and Business Office land is precious in this City. Wish there was a way to replace this. · Appreciate Commissioner Atwood's concern. Familiar with the property and agreed with staff, the topography does not lend itself for that use. · Support the amendment. It is a wonderful development. Criego: · The City needs more commercial property, but early on in the conversations, there were some comments made in allocating other commercial acreage in Prior Lake. That should solve the problem. · The topography is tough, even for the developer. · Asked staff on their thoughts of additional acreage identified for commercial use in Prior Lake. Lemke spoke of swapping back land. Rye explained the zone change along County Roads 42 and 18. He went on to give a brief explanation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 1995. If the City looses whatever this is, 40 acres or so, is that significant in light of the other properties? It's open for argument. In the past, City Council asked us to go back and look into the community for other areas of replacement. The Planning Commission can raise the issue in a recommendation to the City Council. Stamson: · Generally agreed with Criego's concern on designating the whole are as high density. · Recalled if it's designated all high density and try to zone only part if it low density, where there is a conflict, the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence. Rye said generally that is true, but the Shoreland District makes it different. The Shoreland District changes the density. That is the protection. · The Shoreland designation will rule on density. It's just the uses on this land. · Agreed with the other Commissioners' concern on loosing the Business Office space. Have to question if the City is really loosing it. In reality, the area is not suitable for the business office park. Nothing is lost. · Overall, it is a great development. · Need to recognize the south half is largely public space. · Asset to the City. Support the recommendation. Open discussion: Atwood: Questioned if there would be lifecycle housing. Kansier said there would be, but there is a lot of reviewing to be done. L:\O2FILES\O2planningcomm\O2pcminutes~MNlO1402.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD DESIGNATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson. Atwood nay. MOTION CARRIED. This matter should go before the City Council on November 4, 2002. A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:11 p.m. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Case 02-071 Ray Brandt is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility easements located on the Timber Crest Park property. This property is located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. New easements for the existing and relocated utilities will be rededicated as part of the final plat. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ray Brandt has filed an application to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements located within the Timber Crest Park property. New easements for the existing and relocated utilities within the existing easement will be dedicated as part of the final plat of Timber Crest Park. There is no need for the retention of the existing easements once the new development has been platted and the new easement is dedicated. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of this request, subject to the condition the documents vacating the existing easement will not be recorded until approval of the final plat. Questions from the Commissioners: Criego questioned why there wasn't any discussion on the easement during the original public hearings. Kansier responded it was identified in the plans for relocation. Staff had several discussions with the developer. It is no surprise. Sewer pipes are relocated all the time, prior to the final development. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Generally, the hurdle to a vacation is that there is no public need. The intention is to provide sewer service which will be accomplished through the redevelopment. L:\02FILES\02planmng comm\02pcminutesXMN 101402.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 2002 · Supported the vacation. Lemke: · Support staff's conclusion and recommend approval to the City Council. Criego: · Still have a problem with the overall development. Against this particular PUD and still feel the same way. Ringstad: · Agreed with Stamson and Lemke, approve the vacation. Atwood: · Concurred. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Nay by Criego, MOTION CARRIED. This matter is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on October 21, 2002. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Commissioner Lemke will not be able to attend the October 28, meeting. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Community Development Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteskMN 101402.doc 10 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CASE FILE: 5A CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 16308 PARK AVENUE CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO-N/A OCTOBER 28, 2002 02-110 INTRODUCTION: Mark Danes (representing David and Sheryl Colucci) is requesting variances from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 16308 Park Avenue (Lot 11, Lakeside Park). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is a riparian lot, and is served by a private driveway. A seasonal dwelling, constructed in 1920, currently occupies the site. Topography is relatively flat as it ranges from 926.8 feet at the existing private street to 904 at Prior Lake. In order to construct the proposed dwelling shown on Attachment 3, the following variances are required: A 7.3 foot variance from the required 65.2 foot average shoreland setback to allow a 57.9 foot shoreland setback. (Section 1104.308(2) Setback Requirements for Resident/al Structures.) A 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation required between structures on adjacent nonconforming lots to a allow a 12.4 foot separation. (Section 1101.502 (8)Required Yards/Open Space.) A 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot side yard setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length to allow a 7.3 foot setback. (Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards.) 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Planning Report - Danes/Colucci Variance October 28, 2002 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The property was platted as Lot 11, Lakeside Park in 1921. minimum lot area and width permitted by the zoning ordinance for nonconforming shoreland lots with munidpal sewer and water (i.e., 50 feet of lot width and 7,500 square feet of area). The existing buildable area is approximately 2,500 square feet. The depth of this area is approximately 96 feet and width approximately 27 feet. Although this may not be an ideal shape, it still provides ample area for a dwelling. The lot complies with the The existing cabin (see picture above) maintains a 68 foot setback from the ordinary high water (OHW) level (904 contour), and a nonconforming 182 square foot (10.4 feet by 17.5 feet) boat house is located 11.5 feet from the OHW. The existing cabin will be removed to accommodate the proposed dwelling. DISCUSSION: The applicant is seeking variances to construct a single family dwelling with attached two stall garage on the property. As shown in the follow/ng table, the proposal complies with all applicable bulk standards, except for required minimum side yard and shoreland setbacks: TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF PROPOSAL TO ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Setbacks Ordinance Requirement Proposal Front 50 feet 58.5 feet S/de (north) 10 feet 10 feet (south) 15 feet*/13.6 feet** 12.4 feet/7.3 feet Shordard 65.2 feet 57.9 feet Impervious Surface Coverage 30 percent 29.5 percent Building Height 35 feet 34 feet *minimum separation between structures on nonconforming lots. ** minkmtm required setback when building wall exceeds 50 feet in length. According to Section 1104.308 of the zoning ordinance, "an shordard/ors that hate 2 adjacent lots with exio'tb~g prb'tcipal structures on both sud~ adjaxeat lots, any new msidmtid ~ ... may be set back the average setback of the adjacent muctures frcm the ord;vzary high water (OHW) le~ or 50 fea, ~m~er/s greater." The property to the north is set back 55.4 feet from the 904 contour and the property to the south is 75 feet, so the average is 65.2 feet. The proposed setback is shown as 57.9 feet, thus the 7.3 foot variance. On nonconforming lots, a 15 foot side yard separation setback is required on nonconforming lots of record, provided the following: the sum of the side yards totals 15 feet andyard encroachments ~.e., eaves) maintain a 5 foot setback. The proposed separation between the proposed structure and the dwelling to the south is t2.4 feet. The existing Planning Report - Danes/Colucci Variance October 28, 2002 Page 3 dwelling to the south is 5.1 feet from the property line, so the proposed dwelling must be setback 9.9 feet from the side lot line to comply with the required separation. Within the residential use districts, the zoning ordinance requires an additional side yard setback for building walls that exceed 50 feet in length without a break equal to 10 percent of the wall. The south wall of the proposed dwelling is 72.33 feet in length, so a 13.6 foot side yard setback is required (3.7 feet plus 9.9 feet). This setback is in addition to the required separation setback. The proposed setback from the south property line is 7.3 feet. The picture to the left shows the current separation between the existing cab'm and dwelling to the south. In terms of the other bulk standards in the R-1 use district, the front yard setback proposed by the applicant is 58.8 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, but the setback may be the average of the adjacent structures provided the average is no less than 20 feet or greater than 50 feet. The average in this instance would be 58.1 feet, bnt the required setback can be no more than 50 feet. Sh/fting the proposed dwelling to the maximum 50 foot setback would eliminate the shoreland setback variance. Accordingly, if the proposed dwelling was shifted to the east by 8 feet (from the lake), the driveway would be reduced in length and k is likely that impervious surface will also be reduced. The application indicates that 29.5 percent of the subject lot and adjacent unplatted shoreland are proposed to be covered with hard surface. However, the driveway shown on the survey is only 8 feet in width, which does not seem realistic. The driveway should be minimum of 10 feet in width. However, requiting the driveway to be a minimum of 10 feet in width with the house at the 58.8 foot setback would exceed the maximum 30 percent impervious surface coverage permitted for properties located within shoreland overlay district. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Comments: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance requests and recommends denial of the shoreland setback variance because the dwelling can be shifted to east to maintain the average shoreland setback (see Attachment 5). Applicant's Perceived Hardship: The applicant believes that the shoreland setback variance is warranted because the "proposed house will be back further than the other two houses because of shoreline on the north side" and the side yard separation variance should be granted because it is "only close Planning Report - Danes/Colucci Variance October 28, 2002 Page 4 to the garage not the house." That is, only a portion of the dwelling does not comply with the minimum separation. Relief from the building wall additional setback is warranted because the bedrooms would be too narrow and the upper level is only 46 feet in depth as proposed. VARIANCE HARDSHIP FINDINGS Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The subject lot was platted at only 8,544 square feet, which is significantly less than the current ordinance would require for a riparian lot, but it complies with the minimum dimensional standards for nonconforming lots of record. However, there is ample buildable area on the property. Strict application of the shoreland setback and side yard separation provisions do not appear to result in an undue hardship upon the owner in constructing a reasonable use, which is a single family dwelling with attached garage. The 13.6 foot building wall setback results in a difficulty and warrants a reduced setback, because the buildable width is reduced to 27 feet. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoin'rog property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The conditions (i.e., shoreland and side yard setback) applying to the land in question pertain to other land within the R-1 zoning district. The site is not unique because the majority of the lots on Prior Lake are nonconforming, in terms of width and area. The additional building wall setback creates a 13.6 foot minimum setback, which means the sum of the side yards would total 23.6 feet, when the zoning ordinance only requires 15 feet. Both adjacent structures are only 5 feet from the interior property lines leaving the subject property to maintain two 10 foot side yard setbacks. This situation is peculiar to the property. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the owner. The granting of the proposed shoreland and side yard setback variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property Planning Report ~ Danes/Colucd Variance October 28, 2002 Page 5 owner. Although the dwelling will have to be long and narrow, a reasonable use can be made of the property without encroaching into those required setbacks. A variance from the additional side yard setback appears to be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. Without some relief from this setback, the buildable width would be limited to 27 feet. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the proposed variances may affect the perception of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. However, requested relief will likely not endanger the public safety, but will allow a new single family dwelling to be constructed that encroaches into a required minimum setback. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surround'rog area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the shoreland setback and side yard separation variances will impact the character of the immediate vicinity by affecting the perceived health, safety, and comfort of the area. The variance from the additional setback for a building wall over 50 feet will likdy not impact the character of the neighborhood, because a 15 foot separation will still be maintained from the structure to the south. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding 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." Allowing the encroachment into the shoreland and side yard separation setback is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance allows variances where reasons of strict application of provisions would create an undue hardship. The strict application of the additional setback likely creates a hardship for the property owner. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or d'ffficulty. Planning Report - Danes/Colucci Variance October 28, 2002 Page 6 The granting of the shoreland setback and side yard separation variances will serve as a convenience to the applicant because they can be eliminated with a redesign of the dwelling. The variance from the building wall setback is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardsh/p. 8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property. The alleged hardship for the shoreland and side yard separation setbacks resuks from the actions of the property owner. The footprint of the proposed dwelling created the difficulty, not the area or width of the lot. Conversely, a provision of the zoning ordinance and the side yard setbacks of adjacent structures created the difficulty for the additional building wall setback. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. A new home will significantly increase the value of the property. CONCLUSION: The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 and SD. The proposed dwelling encroaches into the required shoreland setback, side yard separation setback, and additional setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet. Since the property has an appropriately-sized buildable area for the lot without variances, the shoreland setback and side yard separation setback variances are not warranted. The proposed dwelling can be shifted to the 50 foot front yard setback, thus eliminating the shoreland setback, and the side yard separation setback may impact the perception of overcrowding in the immediate vicinity. The adjacent structures only maintain a 5 foot side yard setback requiring the subject property to maintain a minimum 10 foot side yard setback to equal the 15 foot side yard separation. This creates a difficulty when there is the additional building wall setback required in conjunction with the 10 foot side yard setback. Staff recommends denial of the shoreland setback variance and the 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation between buildings on nonconforming lots, but recommends approval of a 3.6 foot variance from the additional setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length. Th/s setback variance will allow the structure to maintain a 10 foot side yard setback found on other properties within the R-1 zoning district. Moreover, it will provide for a 30 foot wide buildable area. Planning Ret~n - Danes/Colucd Variance October 28, 2(302 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the 6.2 foot variance from the 65.2 foot shore!and setback and the 2.6 foot variance from the 15 foot side yard separation setback, based upon the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of variances. 2. A reasonable use can be constructed on the site without these two variances. Staff recommends approval of the 3.6 foot variance from the 13.6 foot additional setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length, with the following conditions: The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. 3. The driveway shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width. 4. Impervious surface shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting the variances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for spedfic purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission £mds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTIONS REQUIRED: The staff recommends approval of this request in part, and denial in part. This requires the following motions: 1. AMotion and second adopting Resolution 02-017PC approving a 3.6 foot variance from the 13.6 foot additional setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length for the construction of a single family dwelling. Planning Report - Danes/Colucci Variance October 28, 2002 Page 8 A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-018PC denying a 6.2 foot variance from the 65.2 foot shordand setback, a 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation between buildings on adjacent nonconforming lots, and a 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet for the construction of a single family dwelling. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Location map Applicant's letter Survey Dwelling plans Comments from DNR received October 15, 2002 App~cable regulations Resolution 02-017I~ Resolution 02-018PC Location Map for Danes/Colucci Variance ATTACHMENT I 400 Feet ATTACHMENT DANES CONSTRUCTION 1100 Butterfly Lane Jordan, MN 55352 952.492-5109 OCT - October 7, 2002 City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RE: Variances for 16308 Lakeside Ave, (Lot 11, Lakeside Park) In response to your letter of October 2, 2002, the following is a request of variance and description of hardship related: 15' variance to house next door, 2.6' variance. Hardship - width of lot is 50'. Only to close on garage not the house. 7' variance on deck with set back averaging.. Hardship -proposed house will be back further than the other two houses because of shoreline on the north side. Over 50' wall on south side. Hardship: width of lot is 50'. Bedrooms would get to narrow if house was jogged 42". Garage is only 24' wide, only two car garage. This is only for one level, upper level is only 46'. Sincerely, Mark A. Danes Danes Construction, LLC For: Dave & Sheri Colucci APPLICANT'S LETTER ~NT 3 SU." VEY ATTACHMENT. BUILDING PLANS ATTACHMENT 5 have reviewed' (Danes Variance) for the following: Water City Code Grading Sewer Storm Water Signs Zoning Flood Plain , Road Access Parks Natural Features al issues Assessment Electric Roads/Access Policy Gas Building Code Erosion Control Other Comments:Rec°mmendati°n: __ Approval ,~ (/dt"~'en ial~~Conditional h'~.~"Appr°~'al 1- Please return any comments by Thursday, October 17, 2002, to Cynthia Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Phone: (952) 447-9813 Fax: (952) 447-4245 e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorla ke.com DNR COMMENTS 1:\02fiies\02variances\02-110\referral.doc Page 2 ATTACHMENT 6 Zoning Code 1101.503 (7) (8) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) On a corner lot where the rear yard abuts the side yard of an interior lot, the setback for a detached accessory building is the same as the required front yard of the interior lot. Nonconforming lots of record in the R-1 and R-2 Use Districts may have side yards of not less than 5 feet if the following criteria are met: The sum of the side yards on the nonconforming lot is at least 15 feet. No yard encroachments, as permitted in subsection 1101.503, are located within 5 feet of an adjoining lot. A minimum separation of 15 feet is maintained between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. Yard Encroachments. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements: Eaves, gutters and basement egress windows, provided they do not extend more than 2 feet into a yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than 5 feet from any lot line. (Amd. ord. Ol-lO, pub. 9/8/01) Yard lights and nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in the R-l, R-2, and R-3 Districts. Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security purposes if these meet the regulations of subsection 1107.1800. Flag poles, bird baths and other ornamental features detached from the.principal building which are a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line. Canopies no more than 12 feet wide are permitted in the "R-4", "C~1", "C-2", "C-5" and "1-1" Districts if they are open at the sides, comply with provisions of subsection 1101.506 and provide 14 feet of clearance if located over any access roadway or fire lane. (6) The following shall not be encroachments on front yard requirements: Awnings and door hoods which extend 5 feet or less into the required front yard. A vestibule which extends 5 feet or less into the required front yard under the following conditions: The vestibule shall be designed, constructed and attached to the principal structure in compliance with the building code. The vestibule shall be constructed of materials compatible with those of the principal structure which meet the requirements of subsection 1107.2200. May ], ]999 CiO' of Prior Lake APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1101/p35 Zoning Ordinance 1104.308 (1) (2) public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent properly owners. Examples of the non-significant conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of watercraft allowed to be securely moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alteration. The covenants must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as much as practical, from view from public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Placement, Desi.qn, And Hei.qht Of Structures: Piers And Docks: Setback requirements from the ordinary high-water mark shall not apply to piers and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be controlled by applicable state and local regulations. Setback Requirements For Residential Structures: On shoreland lots that have 2 adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential structure or any additions to an existing structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high-water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In cases where only one of the two lots adjacent to an undeveloped shoreland lot has an existing principal structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure and the next structure within 150 feet may be utilized. Setback averaging may not be utilized when an undeveloped shoreland lot is adjacent to two other undeveloped shoreland lots. In no instance shall a principal structure be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone. (amd. Ord. 99-18 - pub. 11/45/99) The following shall not be considered encroachments into the lakeshore or bluff setback: Yard lights and nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in the R~I, R-2 and R-3 districts. Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security purposes if these meet the regulations of subsection 1107.1800. Flag poles, bird baths and other ornamental features detached from the principal building which are a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line. d. The following shall not be encroachments on front yard requirements: Q~. of Prior Lake May 1, 1999 l104/plO (2) 1102.405 (1) Zoning Ordinance any customers or students, the home occupation has received a Ce~ificate of Occupancy. All home occupations shall be subject to an annual inspection to insure compliance with the above conditions. All applicable permits from other governmental agencies have been obtained. Group Day Care/Nursery School in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a. At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided. b. The outside play areas are fenced and screened with a buffer yard. Drop off and loading points are established which do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements. Dimensional Standards. No structure shall exceed 3 stodes or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, except as provided in subsection 1101.508. (2) The ground floor area ratio within the R-1 Use District shall not exceed 0.3. (3) The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exception and modifications contained in provisions (4) through (9) below and in the Subdivision Ordinance shall govern the use and development of lots in the "R-I" Use District. Lot Area (Sq. ft.) 12,000 Lot Width (ft.) I Front Yard (ft.) 86 I 25 Side Yard (ft.) 10 Rear Yard (ft.) 25 (4) The depth of the front yard of a lot shall be at least 25 feet. If the average depth of at least 2 existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question are less or greater than 35 feet, the required front yard shall be the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50 feet. (5) Through lots and corner lots shall have a required front yard on each street. (6) The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2 inches for each 1 foot the length of the building wall exceeds 50 feet. The additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a lot. (Ord. O0-08-pub. 6/10/00) CiO; of Prior Lake May 22, ]999 1102/p14 ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION 02-017PC A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 13.6 FOOT ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIRED WHEN A BUILDING WALL EXCEEDS 50 FEET IN LENGTH FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Mark Danes, on behalf of David and Sheryl Colucci, has applied for variances from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit; 16308 Park Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 11, Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #02-110PC and held a hearing thereon on October 28, 2002. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The 13.6 foot building wall setback results in a difficulty and warrants a reduced setback, because the buildable width is reduced to 27 feet. The additional building walt setback creates a 13.6 foot minimum setback, which means the sum of the side yards would total 23.6 feet, when the zoning ordinance only requires 15 feet. The side yard setbacks of adjacent structures are only 5 feet leaving the subject property to maintain two 10 foot side yard setbacks. This situation is peculiar to the property. l:\02files\02variances\O2-110\approve resolution.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A variance from the additional side yard setback appears to be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. Without some relief from this setback, the buildable width would be limited to 27 feet. The variance from the additional setback for a building wall over 50 feet will not impact the character of the neighborhood, because a 15 foot building separation will still be maintained from the structure to the south. The zoning ordinance allows variances where reasons of strict application of provisions would create an undue hardship. The strict application of the additional setback creates a difficulty for the property owner. 9. The contents of Planning Case #02-110PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variance to allow for the construction of a single family dwelling: A 3.6 foot variance from the required 13.6 foot setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet to allow a 10 foot side yard setback. (Section 1102.405 (6) Dimensional Standards.) The following conditions shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the subject site: 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. 3. The driveway shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 28, 2002. ATTEST: Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\02 files\02variances\02-110\approve resolution.doc 2 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION 02-015PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 6.2 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 65.2 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK, A 2.6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT NONCONFORMING LOTS, AND A 6.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 13.6 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED WHEN A BUILDING WALL EXCEEDS 50 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Mark Danes, on behalf of David and Sheryl Colucci, has applied for variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit; 16308 Park Avenue, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 11, Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #02-110PC and held a hearing thereon on October 28, 2002. The Board of Adjustmem has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. The subject lot was platted at only 8,544 square feet, which is significantly less than the current ordinance would require for a riparian lot, but it complies with the minimum dimensional standards for nonconforming lots of record. However, there is ample buildable area on the property. Strict application of the shoreland setback and side yard separation provisions do not appear to result in an undue hardship upon the owner in constructing a reasonable use, which is a single family dwelling with attached garage. l:\02files\02variances\02-110\deny resolution.doc 1 16900 E~§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55379-1714 / Ph. (952} 447-4230 / F~x (952} 447-4945 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The conditions (i.e., shoreland and side yard setback) applying to the land in question pertain to other land within the R-1 zoning district. The site is not unique because the majority of the lots on Prior Lake are nonconforming, in terms of width and area. The granting of the proposed shoreland and side yard setback variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. Although the home will have to be long and narrow, a reasonable use can be made of the property without encroaching into those required setbacks. The granting of the shoreland setback and side yard separation variances will impact the character of the immediate vicinity by affecting the perceived health, safety, and comfort of the area. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding 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." Allowing the encroachment into the shoreland and side yard separation setback is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The granting of the shoreland setback and side yard separation variances will serve as a convenience to the applicant because they can be eliminated with a redesign of the dwelling. 10. The alleged hardship for the shoreland and side yard separation setbacks results from the actions of the property owner. The footprint of the dwelling created the difficulty, not the area or width of the lot. 11. The contents of Planning Case #02-1107C are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances to allow the construction of a single family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey: A 7.3 foot variance from the required 65.2 foot average shoreland setback to allow a 57.9 foot shoreland setback. (Section 1t04.308(2) Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.) A 2.6 foot variance from the required 15 foot separation required between structures on adjacent nonconforming lots to a allow a 12.4 foot separation. (Section 1101.502 (8) Required Yards/Open Space.) l:\02files\02variances\02-110\deny resolution.doc A 6.3 foot variance from the 13.6 foot side yard setback required when a building wall exceeds 50 feet in length to allow a 7.3 foot setback. (Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards.) Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 28, 2002. ATTEST: Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\02files\02variances\02-110\deny resolution.doc 3 ~IENT I E~o PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CASE FILE#: 5B CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 2933 SPRING LAKE ROAD CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO-N/A OCTOBER 28, 2002 02-113 INTRODUCTION: Randy and Patrice Simpson are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 2933 Spring Lake Road (part of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and 30 feet of vacated 6~ Street right-of-way and a portion of the platted Reserve). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property is a riparian lot that abuts Spring Lake. The property is also a comer lot with frontage on Spring Lake Road and 6m Street (an unimproved road). A single family dwelling, constructed in 1969, cttrrenfly occupies the site. In 1992, an addition was constructed to the dwelling that does not comply with the minimum from yard setback from the 6m Street right-of-way. At ks dosest point, the dwelling is 19.3 feet from the property llne. In order to construct the proposed addition shown on Attachment 3, the following variance is required: A 15 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback to allow a 10 foot setback. (Section 1102.405(3) Dimensional Standards.) BACKGROUND: Spring Lake Townsite was platted in the 1850s, so the individual lots do not comply with current minimum standards set forth in the shoreland ordinance. The subject site is a a portion of vacated 6 Street compilation of all of Lot 6 and 28 feet of Lot 5, along with e~ and the platted Reserve abutting Spring Lake. A portion of the 6~h Street right-of-way was 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Planning Report - Simpson Variance October 28, 2002 Page 2 vacated in 1977 and the reserve portion between the platted lots and the lake was vacated in 1987. The total property width is 108 feet and the area is approximately 27,300 square feet, both of which are consistent with minimum required dimensional standards for riparian lots on General Development waters. The existing single family dwelling maintains a nonconforming 19.3 foot front yard setback from the 6m Street right-of-way. The garage portion of the existing dwelling maintains a 60 foot setback from the property line abutting Spring Lake Road. DISCUSSION: In conjunction with the variance application, the applicant seeks an appeal of staff's interpretation of the subject property being considered a comer lot. The zoning ordinance defines a comer lot as "a lot situated at the jurwtion of, and abutt~ on 2 or more inmm~ing streets... " The subdivision ordinance de£mes a street as "a pub/i: or prb. nte thom~are that/s use~ or /minded to be use~ for passage or travd by pa/mr/am and mSkJes." The property is located at the intersection of Spring Lake Road and 6m Street. Sixth Street is not an improved right-of- way, but is utilized for access to Spring Lake. The Spring Lake Townske plat shows the right-of-way for 6~h Street situated between Block 49 and 50. Therefore, the property is a comer lot, and the zoning ordinance requires that a comer lot have a front yard on each street (Section 1102.405(5). The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a 698 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. The addition is proposed to be located 10 feet from the property line abutting the 6th Street riOt-of-way and 42.5 feet from the property line abutting Spring Lake Road. The zoning ordinance requires stmctures to be set back 25 feet from the front lot line, which abuts a street. Also, comer lots are required to have a front yard on each street. The picture to the left shows the existing dwelling in relation to the 6th Street public right-of-way. Currently, the garage maintains a non-conforming setback. The zoning ordinance specifically prohibits "the ~ ~ exTuvs/on, ~g or extras/on of rtcrm3foan/~." The proposed addition seeks to expand an existing nonconformity by Planning Report - Simpson Variance October 28, 2002 Page 3 encroaching further into the required setback. A garage addition could be constructed on the property without encroaching into the setback. In order to justify a variance from zoning ordinance provisions, the applicant must demonstrate that an undue hardship is present. An undue hardship means that "theprqterty variane, if grantod, will not alter that essomla! da~racter of the locality." Since the property is zoned R-l, Low Density Residential, a reasonable use would be considered a single family dwelling with a two-stall attached garage. This use is present on the property. A garage addition could be constructed without a variance. Staff has prepared a site plan showing a 24 foot deep by 17 feet wide (408 square feet) addition that meets both required front yard setbacks (see Attachment 5). The suggested addition complies with the average 41 foot front yard setback from Spring Lake Road and the 25 foot setback from the 6~h Street fight-of-way. Applicant's Esth-nate of Hardship The applicant believes that "by attaching the garage Iai storage area can be connected and the plan would be visually pleasing and would not have the look of an ill-planned addition" and "the zoning ordinance would allow us to build a larger structure 832 sq. ft. as dose as 5 foot with a 10 foot average on the other side of the lot .... [1It is in the interest of the homeowner and the City to see a garage that is architecturally pleasing attached to the home vs. a freestanding garage in the front yard." Further, "city staff has previously allowed building to the west and did not require a variance for setbacks. Staff at that time did not view our lot as a comer lot." The applicant has also mentioned "the City vacated ~/i of platted 6m Street in 1977. It appears Council at that time also did not see the need to keep the public's interest in this unused roadway." HARDSHIP FINDINGS Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the temis of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. Planning Report - Simpson Variance October 28, 2002 Page 4 The subject property has ample buildable area, since it is a compilation of a lot and a portion of another in addition to vacated fight-of-way and Reserve area. There are no exceptional conditions assodated with the property that present an undue hardship for the property owner. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The alleged condition, that of this being a comer lot, is found throughout the Gty of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any comer lot. There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. A reasonable use is present on the property. The 15 foot front yard setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial fight of the property owner. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property without any variances. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Although the granting of the 15 foot front yard setback variance may not impact public safety, it will allow a structure to be located 10 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet from an unimproved public fight-of-way, which is used for Spring Lake access. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surround'mg area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the variance will impact the character of the neighborhood by allowing a structure to be located approximately 12 feet from an unimproved street, which is used as access to Spring Lake. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the 15 foot variance will be contraryto the intent of the zoning ordinance. One purpose is to encourage "the ellmination of non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." The proposed addition will expand the nonconformity of the setback. Planning Report - Simpson Variance October 28, 2002 Page 5 The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The granting of the Variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the ske. The hardship resuks from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. Staff believes that the proposed design is what created this application for relief, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Although the garage addition will increase the value of the property, staff does not believe that it is the sole purpose of the request. CONCLUSION: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a garage addition to a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 and SD. The subject property complies with the minimum lot area and width established by the zoning ordinance for riparian lots. The applicant believes that this property should not be considered a comer lot because the fight-of-way is not improved. The property is a comer lot and should be required to maintain all required setbacks as all other lots that from the intersection of two ~treets. The applicant's perceived hardship is self-created, since there are other options for the construction of additional garage space. A garage addition that meets the two required front yard setbacks can be constructed. Therefore, staff does not support the variance request because the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested 15 foot from yard variance to allow a 10 foot setback from the 6~h Street right-of-way based upon the following: 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a hardship exists to warrant the granting of the variance. 2. A large garage addition can be constructed within the buildable area of the property. planning Report - Simpson Variance October 28, 2002 Page 6 3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the existing structure. However, should the Planning Commission approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged C',ty Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. ALTERNATIVES: Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the drcumstances. In this case, the Plarming Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting the variance. 2. Table or continue discussion of the kem for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTIONS REQUIRED: The staff recommends denial of the request, thus requiring the following motion: 1. A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-019PC denying a 15 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Location map Applicant's letter Survey Addition plans Conforming addition A portion of Spring Lake Townsite plat Applicable regulations Resolution 02-019PC Location Map for Simpson Variance ATTACHMENT I rE BLVD Site VALE CIR VALE lq 400 0 400 Feet ATTACHMENT Variance Request for Randy & Patrice Simpson 2933 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake MN. 55372 The applicants hereby request an interpretation of Section 1102.405 paragraph 4 relating to setbacks and the definition of a comer lot. In the event Staff and the Planning Commission nde in the fact the applicants do have a comer lot, the applicants request a variance for setback from 25 feet to 10 feet. The applicants bought the home in 1999 and in 1990 built on a addition that included a garage and family room that was within 20 feet of the vacated 6th street. Staff at this time did not interrupt the lot as a comer lot and permitted the addition. Now twelve years later staffto be a comer lot has interrupted the same lot and now we are not able to extend our garage as requested. The plans are to build 698-sq. ft. garage connected to the existing garage and extended out to the setback for an ordinary platted lot of 10 feet. By attaching the garage storage area can be connected and the plan would be visually pleasing and would not have the look of an ill-planned addition. Along with the garage additional living space would be added to the east that would not need a variance. The request of the Simpson's is based on the following 1. City Staff has previously allowed building to the west and did not require a variance for setbacks. Staff at that time did not view our lot as a comer lot. 2. The property was platted in 1857, which is now 145 years ago and to date no road has been constructed or maintained as a roadway. Also the fact the road deed ends 150 feet for the intersection with Spring Lake Road and was never platted to the lake. In our eyes there is no purpose for this lot being interrupted as a comer lot. 3. Scott County District Court Hauser vs Dvorak addresses abandon streets in and around the platted roadway in question. 4. The City vacated ½ of platted 6th Street in 1977. It appears Council at that time also did not see the need to keep the publics interest in this unused roadway. 5. Zoning ordinance can not be written to cover all lots and in this case the 25foot set back is excessive for ½ of an unused street. This lot should be considered as an interior lot. 6. The zoning ordinance would allow us to build a larger structure of 832 sq. ft. as close as 5 foot with a 10 foot average on the other side of the lot. If attached this structure is only limited by impervious surface. If my calculations are correct I could build a 2171 sq. ft. garage if attached. 7. I believe it is in the interest of the homeowner and the City to see a garage that is architectualy pleasing attached to the home vs. a freestanding garage in the front yard. Two other considerations to resolve this issue would be to 1. Vacate the Platted Street completely and use the new proposed County Park to the west as access to the lake. Vacated street would then be turned over to the adjoining owners. 2. Vacate the Street and retain the property as a park or walk way access to the lake. Thank you in advance for you consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or additional supporting documents. Randy Simpson OCT - 8 25 ],2 SPRING SURVEY ATTACHMENT PLANS ATTACHMENT 5 HOUS[ CONFORMING ADDITION -ER ~ v E SUBJECT SITE - LAKE $7 L L{ PORTION OF SPRING LAKE TOWNSITE PLAT (2) 1102.405 (1) ATTACHMENT 7 any customers or students, the home occupation has received a Certificate of Occupancy. All home occupations shall be subject to an annual inspection to insure compliance with the above conditions. k. Ail applicable permits from other governmental agencies have been obtained. Group Day Care/Nursery School in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a. At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided. b. The outside play areas are fenced and screened with a buffer yard. Drop off and loading points are established which do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements. Dimensional Standards. No structure shall exceed 3 stodes or 35 feet in height, whichever is less, except as provided in subsection 1101.508. (2) The ground floor area ratio within the R-1 Use District shall not exceed 0.3. (3) The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exception and modifications contained in provisions (4) through (9) below and in the Subdivision Ordinance shall govern the use and development of lots in the "R-l" Use District. Lot Area (Sq. ft.) (4) 12,000 Lot Width (ft.) 86 Front Yard (ft.) 25 Side Yard (ft.) 10 Rear Yard (ft.) 25 (5) (6) The depth of the front yard of a lot shall be at least 25 feet. if the average depth of at least 2 existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question are less or greater than 35 feet, the required front yard shall be the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50 feet. Through lots and corner lots shall have a required front yard on each street. The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2 inches for each 1 foot the length of the building wall exceeds 50 feet. The additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a lot. (Ord. 00-08 - pub. 6/10/00) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS May. 22, 1999 1102/p14 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION 02-019PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Randy Simpson has applied for a 15 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit; 2933 Spring Lake Road, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: the northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6~h Street, Scott County, Minnesota. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #02-113PC and held a hearing thereon on October 28, 2002. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property has ample buildable area, since it is a compilation of a lot and a portion of another in addition to vacated right-of-way. There are no exceptional conditions associated with the property that present an undue hardship for the property owner. The alleged condition, that this is a corner lot, is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. Two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot. There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. l:\02files\02variances\02-113\deny resolution,doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A reasonable use is present on the property. The 15 foot front yard setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property without any variances. The granting of the variance will impact the character of the neighborhood by allowing a structure to be located approximately 12 feet from an unimproved street, which is used as access to Spring Lake. According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the other dwelling abutting the 6th Street right-of- way is located approximately 20 feet from the property line. The granting of the Variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. Staff believes that the proposed design is what created this application for relief, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. 10. The contents of Planning Case #02-113PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variance to allow the construction of a single family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey: 1) A 15 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback from to allow a 10 foot setback from the 6~h Street right-of-way (Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.405 (3) Dimensional Standards.) Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 28, 2002. ATTEST: Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director l:\02f'fies\O2varlances\O2-113\deny resolution.doc 2 SPRING LAKE o~ _ ATTACHMENT I PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: CASE FILE: 5C CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING FENCES ON CORNER LOTS CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO OCTOBER 28, 2002 02-106 INTRODUCTION: The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a resident, who resides on a corner lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway (see Attachment 2). The property owner would like to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway; however, the current ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards. On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of amending the fence ordinance concerning corner and riparian lots. Overall, the Commission felt as though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not recommend changes to the ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow corner lots to have a fence six feet in height along a side street. BACKGROUND: Section 1102.405 of the zoning ordinance requires that corner lots have a front yard on each street. A front yard is defined as "an area which extends along the full width of the front lot lines and toward the rear of the lot line a distance as specified in the required yard regulations for the district in which such lot is located.' A front lot line abuts a street. Thus fences on such properties shall comply with maximum height and opacity requirements for front yards, as stated in the fence ordinance. The zoning ordinance currently defines a fence as "any artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials erected to enclose or screen areas of land.' 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 ^N mu^L OPPORTUNrr~ mPLov~ Planning Report - Fence regulations October 28, 2002 Page 2 City Code Section 1101.504 regulates the height and location offences. Relevant portions are underlined. This section currently reads as follows: 1101.504 Fences. Fences may be permitted in required yards, subject to the following provisions: (1) The height of fences and walls permitted in required yards shall be limited. The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall section. Fence posts may extend no more than 8 inches above the required height limit of a fence. In the case where the fence section has variable heights, the height of the fence shall be the average height. Fence heights shall be limited as follows: A fence or wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height if it is located in any side or rear yard. A fence or wall may be located in a front yard if the fence or wall does not exceed 4 feet in height and 50 percent opacity. Fences in the front yard shall be limited to decorative fences, such as picket fences, split rail fences and decorative iron fences. Chain link fences are not permitted in the front yard. (amd. Ord. 00-07-pub. 6/10/00) A fence or wall shall not exceed 8 feet in height if the yard in which it is placed abuts State Highway 13 or County Roads 21, 42, 82 or 83. A fence or wall exceeding 8 feet in height may be allowed if placed in any side or rear yard separating a commercial or industrial use from a residential use, a school, church or other public building. A fence or wall may exceed 6 feet in height in any side or rear yard when it is installed as part of a bufferyard, but may not exceed 8 feet in height. A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of subsection 1101.506, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard. Where a fence or wall 6 feet in height or less is used as part of an animal kennel or run, it may not be located in any required side or front yard, and it shall be located at least 10 feet from any rear lot line. 0) Temporary snow fences shall be permitted in any yard from November 1st to April 1st. No fence, hedge or wall or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted which is not in compliance with subsection 1101.506. (5) Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height constructed as a result of this subsection shall be constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90% opaque. It shall Planning Report - Fence regulations October 28, 2002 Page 3 be considered a structure, shall require a building permit, and shall meet ail Minnesota State Building Code requirements for a structure. No fence may be located in any public right of way. The zoning ordinance does not specifically limit the height or location of fences on corner lots, but as mentioned, a corner lot is required to have a front yard on each street. The height along both public rights-of-way is limited to 4 feet and 50 percent opacity. Properties abutting roadways that are classified as arterials in the Comprehensive Plan are specifically permitted to have fences along that particular lot line that do not exceed 8 feet in height. Since fences that are less than 6 feet in height are not considered structures, a building permit is not required. Also, fences are only permitted in drainage and utility easements if they do not affect drainage patterns. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared an amendment to the fence ordinance permitting fences on corner lots to be a maximum of 6 feet in height provided the fence abuts the side street lot line (or the frontage without the garage), and the side street is designated as a collector roadway in the comprehensive plan (see Attachment 1). The new language in the ordinance is in bold and underlined. As presented in the previous Planning Report to discuss the amendments, other suburban communities allow fences along the side street lot line of a corner lot. The following language is proposed to be added to Section 1101.504 (Fences) of the zoning ordinance: A fence on a corner lot shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence shall not exceed 6 feet in height along the side street lot line. 2. The front yard shall be determined by the location of the garage. The direction the garage is facing shall be considered the front yard 3. The side street shall be designated as a collector roadway in the comprehensive plan. 4. The fence shall be located behind the nearest front corner of the principal building along the front lot line. Allowing the fence to be a maximum of 6 feet in height is in keeping with fences permitted in side and rear yards. The note about the location of the garage will ensure that a 6 foot tall fence is not located close to a driveway, which may inhibit visibility. Staff has included a provision that requires the side street be a collector roadway. The roadway functional classification roadway system map is located in Attachment 3. Planning Report - Fence regulations October 28, 2002 Page 4 Collector roadways by definition have 1 to 2 lanes and are designed for long trips within the city and have access to and from arterial roadways. Properties abutting arterial roadways are permitted to have fences up to 8 feet in height. The location requirement, behind the dwelling/structure, shall serve to protect visibility and aesthetics. To illustrate how the ordinance amendment will impact a corner lot, staff has prepared a site plan noting the possible location of a fence (see Attachment 4). ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FINDINGS: Section 1108.600 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance states the following criteria must be met in order to justify an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance: 1. There is a public need for the amendment. The amendment will allow corner lots to have a 6 foot fence along the side street lot line that is a collector roadway, which will allow more privacy in the rear yard. 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. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "protect the residential, business, industrial, and public areas of the community and maintain their stability." The proposed amendment will protect the aesthetics of the properties that abut collector roadways. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. There are no specific State or Federal requirements related to fence location. CONCLUSION: Whether or not corner lots shall be given the right to have a 6 foot tall fence along a side street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided that the fences are only placed along arterial and collector roadways, these intentions should be carried through with this proposed amendment. The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will offer visual protection for the "rear yard~ of corner lots located on collector roadways. Planning Report - Fence regulations October 28, 2002 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the City Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the City Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance. ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment 2. Letter from Tim & Diane House dated September 23, 2002 3. Functional Classification of Roadways 4. Site Plan l:\02f~les\02ordamendkzoning\02-106 fence\pcrepon-corner lot fence ord.doc ATTACHMENT I ll01.504Fences. Fences may be permitted in required yards, subject to the following provisions: (1) The height of fences and walls permitted in required yards shall be limited. The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall section. Fence posts may extend no more than 8 inches above the required height limit of a fence. In the case where the fence section has variable heights, the height of the fence shall be the average height. Fence heights shall be limited as follows: ~A fence or wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height if it is located in any side or rear yard. ~A fence or wall may be located in a front yard if the fence or wall does not exceed 4 feet in height and 50 percent opacity. Fences in the front yard shall be limited to decorative fences, such as picket fences, split rail fences and decorative iron fences. Chain link fences are not permitted in the front yard. (amd. Ord. O0-07- pub. 6/10/00) >'A fence or wail shall not exceed 8 feet in height if the yard in which it is placed abuts State Highway 13 or County Roads 21,42, 82 or 63. >'A fence or wail exceeding 8 feet in height may be allowed if placed in any side or rear yard separating a commercial or industrial use from a residential use, a school, church or other public building. >'A fence or wall may exceed 6 feet in height in any side or rear yard when it is installed as part of a bufferyard, but may not exceed 8 feet in height. >A fence or wail in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of subsection 1101.506, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard. ~A fence on a corner lot shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence shall not exceed 6 feet in heiqht along the side street lot line. 2. The front yard shall be determined by the location of the garage. The direction the garage is facing shall be considered the front yard 3. The side street shall be desiqnated as a collector roadway in the comprehensive plan. 4. The fence shall be located behind the nearest front corner of the principal building along the front lot line. (2) Where a fence or wall 6 feet in height or less is used as part of an animal kennel or run, it may not be located in any required side or front yard, and it shall be located at least 10 feet from any rear lot line. (3) Temporary snow fences shall be permitted in any yard from November 1st to Apdl 1st. (4) No fence, hedge or wall or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted which is not in compliance with subsection 1101.506. (5) Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height constructed as a result of this subsection shall be constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90% opaque. It shall be considered a structure, shall require a building permit, and shall meet ali Minnesota State Building Code requirements for a structure. (6) No fence may be located in any public right of way. ATTACHMENT September 23, 2002 Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator p]annln~ Dep~a [zx~ent p!annin$ Commission City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, SE Prior Lake, lVIN $5372-1714 Dear Ms. Kansier: Per the direction from Don Rye (as I will not be able to address the Planning Commission on September 23), I am formerly writing you to address the changing of the City of Prior Lake's Fence ordinance, which ~ allow me to install a six foot fence along my property line on Carriage Hills Parkway. On August 19, I formerly went before the Prior Lmke City Council to address my concerns over the present Fence Ordinance. I indicated before the Council that I am here this evening to hopefully receive a va_dance from the City's present fencing ordinance, which will allow me to install a six foot privacy fence on my property line that parallels to Carriage Hills Parkway. I wish to install 140 feet of maintenance free vinyl fencing. There are several reasons why I want to install a six foot privacy fence that parallels to Carriage Hills Parkway, they include: 1. The high level of automobile traffic. 2. The high level of pedestrians using the sidewalk, which is between our property line and Carriage Hills Parkway, for walking, eyelhig, rollerblading, skateboarding, etc. 3. Residents that walk their pets on the sidewalk allow their animals to use our yard as a waste area. 4. Snowmobiles use our yard as their winter play ground, which they run over plants, bushes and sm~all trees. I have had several conversations over the past two months with Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator for the City. According to Steve, the present City Fence Ordinance does not allow me to install a six foot fence on my property line because, according to Mr. Horsman, my side yard is classified by the City Fence Ordinance as my front yard. It never oocorred to me, prior to talking with Mr. Horsman, that my side yard, which fronts Carriage Hills Parkway, would be classified as my front year, which fronts the Culdesac of Nighfiagale Circle. Would the average tax paying citizen of Prior Lake understand that their side yard could possibly be considered their front yard? I was completely surprised that my side yard is my front yard according to the City's Fence Ordinance. The second part of the Fence Ordinance permin~ to thc obstruction a f~nce would cause at an int~rseotion. On my property, the "property marker" from the back of'my property to thc front of' my property, which parallels Carriage Hills Parkway, measures in access of'205 feet. I would like to install 140 feet of fencing, b%fi~'nnin~ i~om thc backyard "property marker." With more than 65 feet l~)~alning to my fxont yard "property marker," this more that meets the provision in the City's Fence Ordinance that states; "No fence, hedge or wall or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted which is not in compliance with subsection 1101.506 (50 feet clearview trian e)." By changing the present City Fence Ordinance to allow residents to install six foot privacy fences on their property line, which parallels Carnage Hills Parkway, it will not impair an adequato supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanlor public safety. Moreover, the changing of the City's Fence Ordln~ne~, will not unreasonably impact on the character and clovelopment of the neighborhood, unreasonably dLmini~h or impair established property values in the surrolmdln~ area, or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area. By changing the present Fence Ordinance to allow us to install a privacy fence will not merely serve as a convenience to my wife and I, but we believe is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue lack of privacy. I certainly welcome you, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Rye, out to our property, should that be necessary. With that said, I am asking the Plannin8 Commission to change the existing City Fence Ordinance to allow residents along Carriage I-liIl~ Parkway the right to install six foot privacy fences, as recommended by the City Council and the August 19~ Council meeting. By passing the Fence Ordinance change and presenting your changes to the City Council on Ootober 21", I along with numerous neighbors along Carriage Hills P~y may begin the process of installing six foot privacy fences. Ms. Kansier, I thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. 14458 Nightingale Circle, NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 cc: Frank Boyles Don Rye 0 0 0 ATTACHMENT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Certificate of Survey for: METRO CLASSIC LOT AREA - 16,463 sq, ft. HOUSE AREA =2~35 s~ft, DRIVEWAY AREA 1,303 sq.ft. ATTACHME~IT 4 2422 Enterprise Ddve Men¢otQ Heigh{s, MN 55120 (851) a81-1914 F~1-9~ E-mail: PI~EER~RESSEN TER,OOM E-marl; PIONEER2~RESSENTER. COM 14458 NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE BENCH MARK TOP OF PIPE ELEV.=969.24 ~ C.a. 966,2 968,C ~0 \ 968.8 968,8 x 968.8 6 '~0 \ ~ __ -- __ 968,7 x -.-O.L __ 971,2 ~ S88'27',D-~"g 969,4 968,8 48,34 141.79 / "~ ~ ._-. ~ POSSIBLE FENCE LOCATII~N 4 f VAC~NT.~ 969.3 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY / 969,4 / ~ .¢¢ / 969,2~''' ~ 'to / 22.95 69.0 TOP OF PIPE ELEV.=969,01 966.6 MH, PRO'PO~FD NOU.C;F eLEVATION LOWEST FLOOR ELEVA'RON: ¢/~,~/, ~ SITE PLAN PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5D PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY USES (Case File #02-1'15) JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO OCTOBER 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to temporary uses within Non-Residential districts. This amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. The proposed amendment has two parts. The first part is an amendment to Section 1101.1000, adding a definition of temporary uses. The second part is an amendment to Section 1101.510, expanding the types of temporary uses permitted in nonresidential districts and establishing a procedure for those types of uses. DISCUSSION: DEFINITION: The Zoning Ordinance currently lists specific uses that may be allowed as temporary uses, but does not include a general definition of temporary uses. To remedy this, the staff suggests the following definition be added: Temporary Uses. A use established for a duration of 6 months or less with the intent to discontinue the use upon the expiration of the time period. TEMPORARY USES: Section 1101.510 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the types of uses allowed as temporary uses. These include construction and sales trailers for new developments, carnivals, festivals and promotional events, temporary outdoor sales, agricultural commodities (Christmas tree sales) and pollution abatement structures. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to expand the types of temporary uses allowed in nonresidential districts. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 1:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\02-115 ternp~s~e~)~,Lr~'~f~j~N[TY EMPLOYER Page 1 The City's authority to allow temporary uses is in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.3597, Subdivision 2. A copy of this statute is attached to this repod. Based on the statutory language, the staff and the City Attorney have drafted the following language: (8) Temporary Uses in Non-Residential Districts. Any use not otherwise permitted in a nonresidential district by the City's Zoning Ordinances may be allowed subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must set a specific date by which the temporary use will be terminated. The duration of the use may not exceed 6 months. b. The property shall be allowed only one such temporary use at a time. c. The use will not involve the construction of any new structures, the exterior alterations of any existing structures or any permanent land alteration on the site. d. Parking for the use must be located on the site and must comply with the parking requirements listed in Section 1107 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Uses located within an existing building must comply with all applicable City ordinances and State statutes, including, but not limited to, building code, fire code, and electrical code. The applicant must obtain the proper permits prior to occupancy of the site. f. Requests for such temporary uses will be processed as a conditional use permit. The applicant must submit an application for a conditional use permit, as outlined in Section 1108.200 of the Zoning Ordinance. g. No temporary use will be permitted if the use will impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. h. The applicant must agree to any additional conditions that the City may deem appropriate at the time it grants permission for the temporary use. i. The City reserves the right to deny a temporary use if the City believes such use is incompatible with the public interest. The City also reserves the right to change its Zoning Ordinances. A change in the Zoning Ordinances may terminate a temporary use, j. As part of the Conditional Use Permit for the temporary use, the applicant and the owner of the property must enter into a 1:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\02-115 temp uses\pc report, doc Page 2 contract with the City settin.q out the terms and conditions of the temporary use and the penalties for violation thereof. This amendment is intended to accommodate those circumstances in which the establishment of a temporary use will serve a public purpose. The ordinance is not intended to encourage such uses on a regular basis. As noted in the attached memorandum from the City Attorney, we have some concerns about the risk of abuse of this provision of the ordinance. Neither the staff nor the City Attorney has experience with temporary uses of this nature. We may want to reevaluate the provision after the first application has been completed. RECOMMENDATION: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be met to change the ordinance. These are: 1. There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment may accommodate those circumstances in which the establishment of a temporary use will serve a public purpose. The public health, safety and welfare will continue to be protected by the Building Code provisions and other City ordinances and State statutes. 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 goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan include: · Determine and strive for a balance of commerce, industry and population; · Promote sound land use; · Maintain high standards in the promotion and development of commerce and industry; · Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the public safety, health and welfare. The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these goals and objectives by allowing some uses on a temporary basis, and by requiring these uses to meet very specific standards in order to protect the public interest. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.3597, Subdivision 2. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 1:\02fi~es\02ordamend~zoning\02-115 ternp uses\pc report.doc Page 3 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment 2. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.3597 3. Memorandum from City Attorney 1:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\02-115 temp uses\pc report,doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 02- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.1000 AND 1101.510 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1 I01.1000 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the definition of temporary uses as follows: Temporary Uses. A use established for a duration of 6 months or less with the intent to discontinue the use upon the expiration of the time period. Section 1101.510 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add paragraph 8 as follows: (8) Temporary Uses in Non-Residential Districts. Any use not otherwise permitted in a nonresidential district by the City's Zoning Ordinances may be allowed sub.iect to the following conditions: a. The applicant must set a specific date by which the temporary, use will be terminated. The duration of the use may not exceed 6 months. b. The property, shall be allowed only one such temporary, use at a time. c. The use will not involve the construction of any new structures~ the exterior alterations of any existing structures or any permanent land alteration on the site. d. Parking for the use must be located on the site and must comply with the parking requirements listed in Section 1107 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Uses located within an existing building must comply with all applicable City ordinances and State statutes~ including~ but not limited to, building code~ fire code~ and electrical code. The applicant must obtain the proper permits prior to occupancy of the site. f. Requests for such temporary uses will be processed as a conditional use permit. The applicant must submit an application for a conditional use permit, as outlined in Section 1108.200 of the Zoning Ordinance. g. No temporary use will be permitted if the use will impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. h. The applicant must agree to any additional conditions that the City may deem appropriate at the time it grants permission for the temporary use. 1:\02files\02ordaraend~zoning\02-115 temp uses\draflord.doc PAGE I i. The City reserves the right to deny a temporary use if the City believes such use is incompatible with the public interest. The City also reserves the right to change its Zoning Ordinances. A change in the Zoning Ordinances may terminate a temporary use. j. As part of the Conditional Use Permit for the temporary use, the applicant and the owner of the property must enter into a contract with the City setting out the terms and conditions of the temporary use and the penalties for violation thereof. 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 ,2002. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 day of .,2002. l:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\02-115 letup uses\draftord.doc PAGE 2 Minnesota Statutes 2002, 462.3597 Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Statutes 2002, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 462 462.3597 Interim uses. Subdivision 1. Definition. An "interim use" is a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Subd. 2. Authority. Zoning regulations may permit the governing body to allow interim uses. The regulations may set conditions on interim uses. The governing body may grant permission for an interim use of property if: (1) the use conforms to the zoning regulations; (2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; (3) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and (4) the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for permission of the use. Any interim use may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations. Subd. 3. Public hearings. Public hearings on the granting of interim use permits shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357, subdivision 3. HIST: 1989 c 200 s 2 Copyright 2002 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/462/3597.html 10/23/2002 halleland lewis nilan sipkins & johnson Attorneys at Law/P.A. 600 Pillsbury Center South 220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 65402-4501 Office: 612.338.1838 Fax: 6'12.338.7858 www.halleland.com TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Jane Kansier Suesan Le~ Pace Joseph G. Schmitt October 23, 2002 Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments File No. 20245-0002 We have reviewed the two proposed amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance. We have several comments to the proposed amendments. These suggestions (revised language in italics) are as follows: We suggest revising Paragraph 8 of the Temporary Use Amendment to read: "Temporary uses in non-residential districts. Any use not otherwise permitted in a non-residential district by the City's Zoning Ordinances may be allowed subject to the following conditions:" This revision specifies that we are revising the Zoning Ordinances, but not other City Ordinances. The other limitations on a potential temporary use remain in full force and effect. We suggest revising Paragraph 8(a) of the Temporary Use Amendment to read: "The applicant must set a specific date by which the temporary use will be terminated. The duration of the use may not exceed 6 months." This language is designed to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, subdivision 2. We suggest revising Paragraph 8(b) of the Temporary Use Amendment to read: "The property shall be allowed only one such temporary use at a time." The current language is unclear as to whether the property is permitted only one temporary use at a time or one temporary use ever; this revision eliminates the uncertainty. We suggest revising Paragraph 8(0 of the Temporary Use Amendment to read "all applicable City ordinances and State statutes," to include State statutes as well as ordinances. We suggest adding a new paragraph to the Temporary Use Amendment that would read as follows: "No temporary use will be permitted if the use will impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take L:\02FILES\02ordamend~zoning\02-115 ternp uses\attorney Memo.doc the property in the future." This language is designed to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, subdivision 2. We suggest adding a new paragraph to the Temporary Use Amendment that would read as follows: "The applicant must agree to any additional conditions that the City may deem appropriate at the time it grants permission for the temporary use." This language is designed provide additional flexibility to the City and to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, subdivision 2. We suggest adding a new paragraph to the Temporary Use Amendment that would read as follows: "The City reserves the dght to deny a temporary use if the City believes such use is incompatible with the public interest. The City also reserves the right to change its Zoning ordinances. A change in the Zoning ordinances may terminate a temporary use." This language is designed provide additional flexibility to the City and to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, subdivision 2. We suggest adding a new paragraph to the Temporary Use Amendment that would read as follows: "The applicant and the owner of the property must enter into a contract with the City setting out the terms and conditions of the temporary use and the penalties for violation thereof." This language is designed provide additional protection to the City and ensure that the owner is aware of the temporary use and responsible for any inappropriate use, We suggest revising Paragraph (2) of the Requirements for Fences Amendment to read 'q'he front yard shall be determined by the location of the garage. The direction the garage is facing shall be considered the front yard." This language is a bit more specific as to how the location of the garage shall determine the front yard in a corner lot context. We believe that these revisions improve the specificity and capture the spirit of the amendments. In addition, on a separate note, we are concerned that a temporary use in a TIF District may cause the building or structure to lose its TIF eligibility. This does not need to be addressed explicitly in the ordinance, but we do believe that it should be addressed by staff in the application process. Finally, we are concerned that even with these protections, there is some risk of abuse of the process. You may be interested in reevaluating the addition of these provisions after the first application has been completed. If you have any questions about these revisions, or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact us. L:\02F[LES\02ordamend~_oning\02-115 temp uses~attorney Memo.doc PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5E PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1102.1105 (DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IN THE C-3 DISTRICT) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (Case File #02-114) JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO OCTOBER 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the required rear yard setback in the C-3 (Specialty Business) district. This amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the "C-3" Specialty Business Use District is '~o 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." Setbacks in the C-3 district are somewhat unique in that the ordinance defines both a minimum and a maximum setback in many cases. The ordinance also identifies a "build-to line" along Main Avenue. The table below identifies the required setbacks: Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Front yard - Minimum Setback None - Maximum Setback 10 feet measured from the right-of-way Side Yard - Minimum Setback None - Maximum Setback 10 feet unless parking is located within the side yard. Rear Yard - Minimum 10 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio 3.0 Minimum Floor Area Ratio 0.5 Build-To Line Along Main Avenue a build-to line is established a distance of 5 feet from the inner edge of the street right-of-way (in most cases, this is the inner edge of fhe sidewalk). At least 70% of the building fa(~ade that fronts Main Avenue must be built out to this line. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 1:\02flles\02ordamend~zoning\02-114 C-3\p~f~IA~_O~ppoRTUNiTY EMPLOYER Page 1 The purpose of the minimum and maximum setbacks and the build-to line is to fully utilize the lot area within the downtown district and to create a pedestrian- friendly streetscape. This is best accomplished by building as close to the street frontage as possible. Parking and landscaping requirements are not applicable Tn the C-3 district. As shown in the table, only the rear yard has a minimum setback requirement (10'). The front and side yard requirements have no minimum setback, and in fact, have a maximum 10' setback. In the past several months, the Planning Commission approved a variance to the minimum rear yard setback requirement for the Carlson Hardware building. The Lakefront Plaza building also hopes to locate a deck along the north side of the commercial portion of the building, overlooking Lakefront Park. This deck would be located less than 10' from the rear lot line. Based on these, and potential future applications of the ordinance, the staff Ts suggesting the required rear yard setback in the C-3 district be eliminated. RECOMMENDATION: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be met to change the ordinance. These are: 1. There is a public need for the amendment. The required rear yard setback in the C-3 district is a policy issue. The Building Code provisions for construction of a building with no setbacks will protect the public safety interests, so the required setback serves more of an aesthetic purpose. It seems reasonable to eliminate this setback so all of the area of the relatively small lots within the downtown district is usable. 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. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is "Economic Vitality." The objectives and policies related to this goal include, among others, to "establish a theme for positive identification for redevelopment of existing commercial areas in focal locations including...Downtown..." and to "encourage, regulate, and promote non-polluting and aesthetically pleasing commercial and industrial development." The proposed amendment is consistent with this goal. The proposed amendment is also consistent with the goal of the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan for the redevelopment of the Downtown area. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is not inconsistent with any State or Federal regulations. 1:\02files\02ordamend~_oning\02~114 c-3\pc report, doc Page 2 Based on the above findings, the staff recommends approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment as recommended by staff and indicated in the attached draft ordinance. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment 1:\02flles\O2ordamend~zoning\02-114 c-3\pc report, doc Page 3 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 02- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1102.1105 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1102.1105 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1102.1105 Dimensional Standards. These are the lot requirements for lots in the C-3 District. Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Front yard - Minimum Setback None - Maximum Setback 10 feet measured from the right-of-way Side Yard - Minimum Setback None - Maximum Setback 10 feet unless parldng is located within the side yard. Rear Yard - Minimum !0 feet None Maximum Floor Area Ratio 3.0 Minimum Floor Area Ratio 0.5 Build-To Line Along Main Avenue a build-to line is established a distance of 5 feet from the inner edge of the street right-of-way (in most cases, this is the inner edge of the sidewalk). At least 70% of the building fa¢ade that fronts Main Avenue must be built out to this line. Maximum Height 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. Multiple use structures with residential uses on the upper floors may be a maximum of 45 feet. 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 ,2002. ATTEST: City Manager l:\02filcs\02ordamend~zoning\02-114 c-3~draftord.doc Mayor PAGE 1 Published in the Prior Lake American on the Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 day of ,2002. 1:\02files\02ordamend~zoning\02-114 c-3\draftord.doc PAGE 2 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS TIMBER CREST PARK JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO-N/A OCTOBER 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION: Ray Brandt and Pulte Homes have applied for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan for the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. The total site area in the PUD includes 28.19 acres, zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The development consists of 148 townhouse units and common open space. BACKGROUND: On September 3, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution #02-134 approving a Plarmed Unit Development Preliminary Plan for this site, as well as a preliminary plat. The resolution listed the following conditions of approval: 1. Outlot B must be designated as "Park" on the final plat. This park must be rough graded to City specifications. 2. The developer must address the ownership and maintenance of Outlot C. 3. The developer must provide scaled plans for the building exteriors. The exterior materials of all buildings with more than 4-units must consist of at least 60% Class I materials. 4. The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, dated August 6, 2002. PROPOSED FINAL PLAN Density: The plan proposes 148 town_house units on a total of 28.19 acres. Density is based on the buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 21.87 net acres. The overall l:\02filcs\02puds\timber cr final\pc report.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER density proposed in this plan is 6.77 units per acre. Maximum permitted density in the R- 4 district is 30 units per acre. Building Styles: The proposed plan calls for a townhouse style development consisting of 4-, 6-, and 8-unit buildings. There are two different building styles proposed. The first style, called Village Homes, is a 2-story, attached single family style dwelling with tuck- under garage. These buildings are located on the south side of the site. The plan includes 48 of these units in 6- and 8-unit buildings. The first style is a 2-story, row house style with tuck under garages. These buildings are located on the outer ring of the site, to take advantage of the natural grade. The second building style, called Manor Homes, is a 2- story attached single family dwelling. There are 100 units in 25, 4-unit buildings. Building elevations and sample floor plans for each of these buildings are attached to this report. Setbacks: The plan proposes a 25' setback from the front property line, a minimum 30' rear yard setback, and a minimum 25' building separation (foundation to foundation) between the townhouses. The plan also notes a 30' setback from any wetland. Lot Coverage: The R-4 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.35. The ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.125. Useable Open Space: The R-4 district also requires 600 square feet of useable open space per unit for cluster developments. The required open space for this development is 88,800 square feet; the plan indicates a total of 115,909 square feet. Parking: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Each the 100 Manor Home units have two car garages; each of the Village Home units have a one-car garage. The plan also provides 72 off-street parking spaces in the townhouse area for guest parking. A total of 320 off-street parking spaces are provided, which is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Landscaping: The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies 315 trees, which exceeds the proper number of trees for the development. This plan is also consistent with ordinance requirements for size and species of the plantings. The developer has also submitted an irrigation plan for this site. Signs: This proposal includes 1 project monument sign. The plan does not identify the location of this sign. The proposed sign is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Lighting: Streetlights will be provided on the private streets. The cost and maintenance of the streetlights on the private streets wilt be borne by the homeowner's association. l:\02files\02puds\timber er final\pc report.doc Page 2 Streets: The PUD plan includes the use of private streets to serve the townhouse development, which will be maintained by a homeowner's association. The streets also meet the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Sidewalks/Trails: The plan proposes a sidewalk on the north side of Bluff Heights Trail and on the north side of Timber Crest Drive, as well as a pedestrian path through the public park and the common area (Outlot B), which eventually connects to the sidewalk along CSAH 21. Parks: This plan includes a 2.78 acre park site, located at the southwest comer of the site. This is the best location for a park on the site, in that it is accessible to both this development and other developments in the area. The site must be graded to meet minimum standards. Phasing: This project is proposed to be completed in a single phase. ANALYSIS: The Final PUD Plan is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plan. However, prior to final approval the development must revise the plan to include the location of the monument sign. This change is a minor revision to the plans; however, it must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council for final approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission must review the Final PUD and make a recommendation to the City Council. The staff suggests the following findings: 1. With the above listed revision, the Final PUD Plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan. 2. The Final PUD Plan is consistent with the criteria for a PUD listed in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan is also consistent with the City Council findings listed in City Council Resolution #02-134. The staff also recommends approval of the Final PUD Plan be subject to the following conditions: 1. The following revision must be made before the plan proceeds to the City Council: a. The plan must be revised to include the location of the monument sign. 2. The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council. 3. A signed PUD agreement must be approved by the City Council. 4. Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final approval information. Once set will be filed at the Planning Department and l:\02flles\02puds\timber cr final\pc report.doc Page 3 maintained as the official PUD record. The second set will be returned to the developer for their files. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the PUD Final Plan subject to the above conditions and to any other conditions deemed necessary. 2. Recommend denial of the request, based on specific findings of fact. 3. Continue this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the listed conditions. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution #02-134 2. Reduced Copy o£PUD Plans 1:\02files\02puds\timber cr final\pc report.doc Page 4 l/i Y ? 0 m~ (y) ,,~ / III ~C W Z © II II l! INNESO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN RESOLUTION 02-134 RESOLUTION APPROVING TH E TIMBER CREST PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MOTION BY: PETERSEN SECOND BY: LEMAIR WHEREAS: Ray Brandt has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Timber Crest Park; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan at a public hearing on June 24, 2002, on July 8, 2002 and on August 12, 2002; and WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said PUD Preliminary Plan has been duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the PUD Preliminary Plan; and WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan for Timber Crest Park on September 3, 2002; and WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA: The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. It hereby adopts the following findings: a) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction and land development. The developer is utilizing standard construction and design practices for the townhomes. The lookout style of the buildings in some areas utilizes the natural grades of the site where possible. A similar development, without the private streets and setback modifications, is possible as is a conventional development in the R-4 district; however, a PUD of this type results in less density than may be otherwise permitted in the R-4 disl~ict. b) Higher standards of site and building design. Same as above. l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\pudres.doc PAGE 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 c) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser cost. Maintenance of private streets, including plowing and future repairs, is done by the homeowners association. This reduces City costs in providing services to these homes. Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. The common open space on the site will be available to all residents of the development as passive open space. The same amount of common open space is required as part of a conventional development. Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles. Encourages a more creative and efficient use of lantt The use of the private streets allows for fewer driveway openings on the public streets. Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and access. The townhouse units are sited to take advantage of the natural views of the wetlands. The plan provides screening from the adjacent County road. Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the Redevelopment District will be achieved. This criterion is not applicable. Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where large tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the use(s) has the potential to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties. The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use of private streets. Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of the site. There is no park dedication or open space dedication over and above that required under conventional procedures. The developer is maximizing the use of the wetland area by providing walking trails around the wetland that eventually connect to the public sidewalk along CSAH 21. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of utilities. The design creates a unified environment in that all of the buildings will be constructed of similar materials. The extension of the existing private street allows for efficient movement of traffic. The landscaping plan will also enhance this area. The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. The use of the PUD will allow the clustering of the townhouse units. l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\pudres.doc PAGE 2 o) Ifa project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other phases. This project will be constructed in a single phase. Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot. This is not applicable. A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use District unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance. 0 The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; 2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line when the property abutting the subject property is in an "R-J" or "R-2" Use District; 3) No building within the project shall be nearer to another building than ~ the sum of the building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly connected to another building; and 4) Private roadways within the project site may not be used in calculating required off-street parking spaces. The modifications requested by the developer include the following: · The use of private streets. Normally, a development of this type would require a minimum right-of-way width of 50' and a 28' to 32' wide surface. The developer is requesting a 32' wide private street. The additional 18' of right-of-way would be accommodated by the use of easements adjacent to the private road. · Reduced setbacks between buildings. The required separation between buildings under the PUD provisions is 72 the sum of the heights of the buildings, or 29' and 35' in this case. The developer is requesting a 25' separation between the buildings. These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the Council. The City Council found this modification to be consistent with the goals and intent of the PUD criteria in that it allowed the clustering of the townhouses to preserve the natural terrain. The Timber Crest Park Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan is hereby approved subject to the following conditions a) Outlot B must be designated as "Park" on the final plat. This park must be rough graded to City specifications. b) The developer must address the ownership and maintenance of Outlot C. c) The developer must provide scaled plans for the building exteriors. The exterior materials of all buildings with more than 4-units must consist of at least 60% Class I materials. d) The developer must address all of the issues in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, dated August 6, 2002. Passed and adopted this 3rd day of September, 2002. YES NO Haugen X Haugen Gundlach X Gundlach LeMair X LeMair Petersen X Petersen Zieska X Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager l:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\timber crest\pudres.doc PAGE3