Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-97REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, April 14, 1997 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. CASE #97-015 (Continued) Ronn Hechter is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a "fast food establishment" in a B-1 Zone; a I0 foot variance to allow a mar yard setback of 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet; and a 63 parking stall variance to allow a total of 87 parking stalls rather than the 150 parking stalls. This property is located on the east side of Franldin Trail, north of County Road 44 (160th Street). B. CASE #97-024 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback from the Ordinary High Water mark (OHW) in the Shoreland District. C. CASE #97-025 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance Relating to the structure setback and the conversion of existing decks not meeting the required setbacks to three season porches. S. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. CASE #97-023 Eagle Creek Villas requesting a vacation of the Holly Circle right-of-way and the utility easements adjacent to Lot 2, 1-5, Block 2, Holly Court. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discuss amending the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to allow a 5' side yard setback for existing residential structures in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. 8. Adjournment: 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPF~ORTUNfFY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1997 1. Call to Order: The March 24, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Stamson, Vonhof, and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Wuellner Present Stamson Present Kuykendall Absent Criego Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Correction: Take Commissioner "Wuellner" out of first paragraph on page one. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner, Vonhof and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. Public Hearings: A. CASE #97-019 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - Presented by Planner Jenni Tovar. The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) fxom Paul Lemke on March 4, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct an office/retail building on the north side of Gateway Street, across fxom Rademacher's. The proposed building will be 10,400 square feet. The upper level will be occupied by Lemke Chiropractic and two leased tenants. The lower level will be leased to three tenants. The pmporty is zoned B-3 General Business. "Personal and professional services" are conditional uses in the B-3 zone and retail businesses are permitted uses. The subject site consists of 2 acres surrounded by commercial uses. The proposed building will be constructed on the westerly portion of the lot. The easterly portion of the parcel is to be undisturbed and remain natural. Staff recommended approval oftbe Resolutions with 10 conditions; 9 outlined in the staff report with an additional condition regarding a 25 foot roadway and utility easement. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcminXmn032497.doc Page 1 Comments from the public: Applicant commented he was in agreement with the staff report. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Questioned State Highway setbacks. Tovar responded the City's is 50 feet. · Questioned drainage near Highway 13. Tovar explained the drainage ditch near the Highway. · Tree requirements are met. · The floor level of the upper building will be even with Highway 13. · David Chant, 18896 Orchard Court, Lakeville, applicant's architect, described the retaining walls along the building. · Mr. Chant also explained the landscape design and does not see a problem with drainage on the parking lot. · Supported staff report with the outlined conditions. Wuellner: · Questions and concerns answered. Stamson: · Agreed with Wuellner. · Questioned the trash enclosure. Tovar said it met the City's code. · Supportive ofstaffrecommendation. Criego: · Tovar explained the roadway easement on the parking lot. · The City Attorney would draft a liability contract between the City and applicant. · Mr. Chant explained the facade of the building. (Two tone earth-colored brick) · Supportive of staff with the provisions outlined. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECONDED BY WUELLNER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-07PC RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LEMKE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WITH THE 9 CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION REGARDING THE ROADWAY AI~,D UTILITY EASEMENT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Comment by Vonhof regarding the sign permit - Based upon the staff report and the information received, the request is within the Ordinance required and consistent with the area. Commissioners concurred. 1:\97filcs\97plcomm\pcmin\mn032497.doc Page 2 MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-08PC APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR THE LEMKE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING. Votes taken signified ayes by ail. MOTION CARRIED. B. CASE #97-015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - Presented by Planner Jenni Tovar. The applicant requested a continuation to the April 14th, meeting due to plan revisions. The meeting opened at 7:04 p.m. Commissioner Criego continued the meeting to April 14, 1997. Applicant, Ronn Hechter, stated he will be dropping the Conditional Use Permit request with a redesigned plan as well as the variance for parking. The hearing closed at 7:06 p.m. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. REVIEW 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - presented by Director of Planning, Don Rye. The Capitai Improvemem Program (CIP) is one of the tools available to the City to assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive plan. Each year, the Commission has the opportunity to provide input to the development and updating of the CIP if it so desires. Comments from the Commissioners: · Questioned the acquisition of the farm at Lakefront in the Parks' referendum. · Discussed County Road 23 realignment. · Improvements should be made on Main Street and Pleasant Street. · Birch Street should be paved. · Concern for the in_fi:a-structure for the down town area. · Apple Vailey received Federal amounts to upgrade County Road 42 and Cedar Avenue. The City should investigate. Good topic to talk with the EDA. · Access arteriai trails or sidewaiks to and from parks. · The Planning Commission would like to work with the Park Board to discuss additional trails and sidewalks to the new Library. A joint meeting with Planning Commission and EDA should be scheduled. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn032497.doc Page 3 Comments from the public: Gene Ryan, 5051 160th Street, who lives across the street from Burger King, had two complaints. Garbage trucks come to pick up garbage from Burger King at 5:00 a.m. The second complaint is the delivery tracks at 2:00 a.m. The macks are noisy and lights shine into his bedroom. Commissioner Criego suggested Ivlr. Ryan document the incidents and contact the business owners and the City with his concerns. Rye suggested he contact the City Manager and get on the Council's open forum. The City Council can then give staff direction. B. REVIEW FORMATION OF TAX iNCREMENT FiNANCiNG DISTRICT NO. 2-8 - presented by Director of Planning, Don Rye. This district is a part of Development District No. 2, which is the Waterfront Passage Business Park. TIF District No. 2-8 is approximately 1.65 acres located along the east side ofFish Point Road, directly north of Keyland Homes. The property is currently vacant, and is zoned BP (Business Park). Upon inclusion in the Development District, a private developer will construct a 12,000 square foot manufacturing/warehouse facility. Minnesota statutes require the Planning Commission to review the formation of TIF districts for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the Council. Development District No. 2 was formed to promote development of certain property, secure additional industrial, commercial, and housing development and redevelopment opportunities, increase property subject to taxation, provide public improvements to development properties, and designate methods for financing of activities in the Development District. The purpose of the proposed TIF District 2-8 is to finance the development activities of this site. This site is designated as C-BO (Commemial - Business Office Park) on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The property is also zoned BP. The proposed use of the property is consistent with both the land use plan designation and the zoning. Comments from the Commissioners: The Commissioners supported staff. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FORMATION OF THE TIF DISTRICT NO. 2-8 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, FiNDiNG THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Vote specified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcrain~mn032497.doc Page 4 A special zoning ordinance meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 15. Criego will not be available for the April 28 meeting. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn032497.doc Page 5 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A Northgate Office Building (Case/t97-015) Ronn Hechter 15900 Franklin Trail, located on the east side of Franklin Trail, north of 1,6,,~,th Street, south of T.H. 13. Jenni Tovar ~\ YES X NO-N/A April 14, 1997 SUMMARY At the March 24, 1997 meeting, the applicant stated his request for continuance to work with staff and to revise plans that meet the criteria of the ordinance, without seeking variances. The Development Review Committee reviewed the revised site plan with the applicant on April 3, 1997. The applicant has revised the site plan such that variances are not necessary and has changed the proposed use such that a conditional use permit is no longer required. On April 8, 1997, the City received a letter of withdrawal for variance Case #97-016 and Conditional Use Permit #97-015 from the applicant. 97-015PC.DOC 1 16200 F.t~gle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax (612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Apr. 8 '97 10:22 1000 PROPERTY MANRGE TEL 6124598~82 P. 1 We wuald ut lids time w~hdr~y our yarienc~ W9716 us haw uleu~nj portln! requdrmmub. We wuedd at lids tinm WJlhdr~v o~r CU]' ~715. tNNy~~ AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT (Case File ~197-024) JE.., TOVAR. ~ YES NO APRIL 14, 1997 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will change the structure setback from 75 feet to 50 feet on General Development Lakes. This proposed amendment comes at the direction of the City Council in response to a recent variance request, Section 5-8-3 (A. 2.) of the City Code (Shoreland District) provides for the minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of protected waters of the City that have been classified by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as follows: Natural Environment Lakes Tributary_ Streams 1 .Howard Lake 2.Pike Lake 3.Unnamed (Arctic Lake) 4.Keup's Lake (Mystic Lake) 5.Hass Lake 6.Unnamed (Jeffer's Pond) 1. Unnamed (To Upper Prior Lake) 2. Unnamed I;~97files~97ordamd~zoning\97-024~97024pc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER General Develooment Lakes 1. Spring Lake 2. Lower Prior Lake 3. Upper Prior Lake Recreational Development Lake,s 1. Markley Lake 2. Unnamed (Blind Lake) The existing and proposed setbacks for each type of lake are shown in the table below: Natural Recreation. General. Tributary- Development. Development. Development. Development Lakes Lakes Lakes Streams Structure OHW (feet) 150 75 75 75 Proposed Setback 150 75 50 50 Top of Bluff (feet) 30 30 30 30 Unplatted Cemetery (ft) 50 50 50 50 Structure Height Limitation (ft) 35 35 35 35 The proposed amendment will reduce the structure setback from the OHW on General Development Lakes, from 75 feet to 50 feet and on Tributary Development Streams from 75 feet to 50 feet, which are consistent with the DNR standards. Although the proposed amendment reduced the required setback, the following conditions in the existing ordinance should be noted. The existing ordinance allows for setback averaging, with a minimum setback of 50 feet. A property owner, given the right set of conditions, could legally build a structure 50 feet from the OHW, without a variance. The current ordinance allows for the granting of variances by the Planning Commission and City Council. Upon review of the hardship criteria, a variance to the OHW setback can be granted. ^ property owner, meeting the hardship criteria, could be granted a variance by the Planning Commission/City Council and build a structure within the required 75 foot setback. 1:~97flles\97ordarnd~zoning~97-024\97024pc.doc Page 2 Most of the land surrounding the lake has already been developed. Many of the structures existing along Prior Lake were constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1993. Therefore, there are substandard lots with or without structures presenting unique existing conditions for granting a variance. Similarly, due to the number of previously developed lots, setback averaging can be used in many cases to reduce the required setback to meet the needs of the property owner. New lots, that would otherwise have to meet the 75' setback under the current requirements, could be created along the NW side of Lower Prior Lake. However, the potential of this development represents less than 5% of the total lake frontage. The approval of the proposed amendment would allow for existing and new structures to be located 50 feet from the OHW of Prior Lake or Spring Lake. From an administrative standpoint, the proposed change in the ordinance would eliminate interpretations of setback averaging on General Development Lakes. The proposed amendment would also eliminate many variance requests. It would also make the submittal of surveys with building permits less complicated for the applicant. The setback of neighbor's property would not be necessary. One down side to allowing a closer setback is the visual appearance of the shoreline from the lake. Buildings and structures will be located closer to the water. The building separation will remain the same between sideyards. The effect that this negative impact has on zoning is minor. Health, safety or general welfare will not be adversely affected by the amendment. 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. I~ECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments. 1:\97flles\97ordarnd~zoning~97-024\97024pc.doc Page 3 REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Language 2. Hearing Notice 3. DNR Letter 1:~97files~97o rdamd~zoning~97-024~97024pc.doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 97- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-8-3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 9.3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-8-3 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows: Structure Natural Recreation. General. Tributary- Development. Development. Development. Development Lakes Lakes Lakes Streams OHW (feet) 150 75 This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 21st day of April, 1997. 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 __dayof , ,1997. 1:\97files\97ordamd~oning~97-024\ord97xx.doc PAGE 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-8-3 OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 9.3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHW) IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, April 14, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the minimum structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Shoreland District. The proposed amendment changes the minimum structure setback from the OHWM from 75 feet to 50 feet. This would permit structures to be located closer to the lake. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 21st day of March, 1997 by: Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MARCH 29, 1997 1:\97filcs\97ordamd~zoning\97-024\97024pn.doc 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E.. Drior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SENT BY: DNR METRO; 4- 9-97 11:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; Al~ril 9, 1997 M[rlnes_ola DeI . t[t. cnt of Natm'a[ Resourcex ~etro waters - ~vu w~er Ko~, ~t. ~aul, ~5~06-6793 Tel~hon¢: (612) 772-7910 F~: (612) 772-7977 Ma. lane Kansier City ofPfior Lake Planning C~ordinator 16200 EagloCre~kAvenue S.E. PriorLake,~ta 55372-1714 Fax Note 7671 rJale z~r_~ Jpm;e~ ~.. RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE (CASE FILE #97-024 AND 97-025) Dear Ms. Kansier: 1. have reviewed thc proposed amendments to thc Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance and off. er tim following comments t~r consideration et thc upcoming hearing on April 14, 1997. CASE I~ILE #97-024 : SETBACW~S FROM THE ORDIIgARY I-IIGM WATER MARK Tim table provided m your Ma~h 3 !, 1997 memo to rn~ and DRC m~mbers indicates that thc city is proposing a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high wamr mark of RD lakes, GD lalars and Tributary streams. Your existing ordinance requires s 75-foot setback from those shorcland cla~aiflcatlons. Mi-imm stm setback stargtards for shomland, Imf lVfinnc~ota Rol~ 6120.3300, subpart 3.A, sro 150 fret for Natural Enarirormient lakes. 75 £cc.t for Rm:reational Dcvdopmcnt lek-cs, ami 50 feet l'or Gcm.'ral I~velopmcnt lairs und Tributau'y streams. These standards ate for ar~as with public sewer systcans available. Historically, tim city of Prior Lake has been more restrictive than the mimmum stem standard for scthack fi'om General Development lakes and Tributa~ streams. Thus, thc proposed amendment m reduce the required structure setback on scwcnat General l~veloprn~nt lakes and Tributa~¢ steams I'rom 75 fact to 50 fret is seccptablc, l~ow~er, the j~ro~osed structure reduction from 75 fe~t to SO feet on sewered ~a~creational Development lal~e~ (Marltle~ and Unnamed Blind)) is not consistent with minimum storewide standara~, and must remain at 75feet I also note that the maximum building height is indicated as 35 f~t. This has been the standard in Prior Lake (and sovcral oth*r communities as well) for some time. Altlmugh Ru: state shorcland roles allow a maximum building height of 25 fe~t, the DNR has routlngly approv~ ordinancca allowing up to 35 f~'t as a maximum building freight. CA~E FILE ~97-025: CONVERSION OF DECKS TO THREE-SEA~ON PORCI]~ This proposed anaendment would lllow the conversion of existing ck:cks not meeting ~hc r~quired sctbacka to three- season porches provided several criteria are met. I would offcr that additional criteria bc added to the four proposed criteria, Thc suggested additions are: * that the deck to bc converted not only existed on the date thc structure s~tbacks were established, but was also approved under a valid building permit issued by the city at thc ~ it was cotmtruct~xt. ,: DNR METRO; 4- 9-97 11:35; 6127727573 => 8124474245; #2/2 Janc Kansic~ April 9. 1997 Panic 2 that ~c r~placen~nt deck or convcrsion meets at [cast 50'/. oFt, he rrxluired scthack l¥om thc ordinary high water ra~k a~ thc sho~cland basin or stzeem. any acl~ti~nai acceeso~ sal~.m~s (gezcbo. platform. ~ b~sc. shcd, crc.) ~t ~g ~ rcquir~ l~c ~ wa~c ~tba~ ~ ~ov~ ~ rc~at~ ~ ~ ~a m~ng ~= rcq~ s=~ before cons~tion is co~c~ on ~ ~l~ ~ or ~v~i~ ~ a ~h. Your ordinanc~ allows 30% impervious surl'ae~ on residential lots within shorcland areas, The revised state shor~larvi atandaxd$ limit imp~'vious surf'aec to 25%. A~ I have discussed with city ataffin thc past, your ordinance viotatss th~ state stazxtatxl for impervious surfacc coverasc. The DNR. has not officially and formally approved your rcwiscd shoreland ordhxance. A~ I recall, the outstanding issues were impervious sttrface coverage and thc combination of existi~ substandard lots of record, I suggest p~haps we m~t again to discuss these outStanding issues so that ~tgreernent ran bc roached, and DI~R. fin~lizatiml and ackmo,,vled~'ncnt of an approved shor~iancl ordinance can oceur. Thank you for IJ~¢ opportlmity t~a rmri~w alxd cmllzlxent on the proposed zoning arncndxncntS. If you have any qucstiorm rcgardlng my commcnts, plcasc call mc at ?72-7910. Patrick I. ~h Ill Area Hydrologist c'. Don Kyc, City Planncr AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING DECKS NOT MEETING REQUIRED SETBACKS TO THREE SEASON PORCHES (Case File f~97-025) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES __ NO APRIL 14, 1997 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would permit an existing deck not meeting the required setbacks to be converted into a three season porch. On March 17, 1997, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced lakeshore setback. The variance involved the conversion of an existing deck to a three season porch. The Council tabled action on this item; however, in response to the appeal, the Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which might address some of the issues raised by this appeal. This amendment relates to the conversion of existing decks which do not meet the required setbacks to a three season porch. (An amendment to the required setback from the OHVVM will also be considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.) In May, 1996, the Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing the replacement of an existing deck not meeting the required setback under the following conditions: 1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; 1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\97025pc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2. The replacement deck is the same size, configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established; 3. The deck is constructed pdmafily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. The proposed amendment is very similar to this language; however it goes one step further. This amendment will allow the deck to be replaced with a three season porch. The proposed amendment to Section 4.1 B of the Zoning Code reads as follows (new language in bold italics): B. All structures, whether attached to the principal structure or not, and whether open or enclosed, including pomhes, carports, balconies, cantilevers and chimneys or platforms above normal grade level, shall not project into any minimum front, side, or rear yard setbacks. Provided, however, accessory structures for all residential districts shall be permitted within ten (10') feet from the rear yard setback. Provided, further, that decks not meeting the required setback may be replaced if the following criteria are met: 1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; 2. The replacement deck is the same size, configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established; 3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. Also provided that existing decks not meeting the required setback may be converted into a three season if the following criteria are met: 4. The construction of the three season porch meets all applicable building code requirements. The deck to be converted existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; The three season porch is the same size, configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established; The addition of the three season porch does not increase the impervious surface of the site beyond the allowed thirty percent; The DNR has also suggested the following criteria be added t,o this amendment: · The deck to be converted not only existed on the date the structure setbacks were established, but was also approved under a valid building permit issued by the City at the time it was constructed. · In the Shoreland District, the replacement deck or conversion meets at least 50% of the required setback from the ordinary high water mark. · In the Shoreland District, any additional accessory structures, including but not limited to gazebos, platforms, decks, boathouses, and sheds, not meeting 1:~97files~97ordamd~zoning~97-025\97025pc.doc Page 2 the required lakeshore setback be removed or relocated to an area meeting the required setback before construction is commenced on the conversion to a porch. This amendment has several implications beyond that of replacing an existing deck. First of all, the amendment applies to all setbacks, potentially allowing decks located within required side yards, rear yards and front yards to be converted to a porch, which in turn could result in porches located within easements (especially in side yards). Additionally, structural requirements for decks are very different than those required for porches or other additions. Many decks, especially older ones, either did not have building permits, or there is no documentation. There would be no way to determine if the structural foundation is adequate for a porch. 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: This amendment is much more far reaching than the provision allowing the replacement of existing decks. Therefore, the staff recommends denial of this amendment (alternative #2). If the Planning Commission finds the amendment is appropriate, we would recommend the additional language suggested by the DNR be included. The attached draft ordinance includes this language. A motion and second recommending denial of the proposed amendments. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Language 2. Letter from DNR 3. Hearing Notice 1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\97025pc.doc Page 3 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-4-1 B OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 4.1 B OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-4-1 B of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 4.1 B of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows: B. All structures, whether attached to the principal structure or not, and whether open or enclosed, including porches, carports, balconies, cantilevers and chimneys or platforms above normal grade level, shall not project into any minimum front, side, or rear yard setbacks. Provided, however, accessory structures for all residential districts shall be permitted within ten (10') feet from the rear yard setback. Provided, further, that decks not meeting the required setback may be replaced if the following criteria are met: 1. The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; 2. The replacement deck is the same size, configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established; 3. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. Also provided that existing decks not meeting the required setback may be converted into a three season if the following criteria are met: 1. The deck to be converted existed on the date the structure setbacks were 0stablisbed and was also approved under a valid building permit issued by the City_ at the time it was consmacted: 2. The three season porch is the same size. configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established: 3. The addition of the three season porch does not increase the impervious surface of tlae site beyond the allowed thirty_ percent: 4. The construction of the three season porch meets all applicable building code 1:~97filcs\97ordamd~oning\97-025\drafiord.doc PAGE I 5. In the Shoreland District. the replacement deck or conversion meets at least 50% of the required setback from the ordinary_ high water mark. 6. In the Shoreland District. any additional accessory_ structures, including but not limited to gazebos, platforms, decks, boathouses, and sheds, not meeting the required lakeshore setback be removed or relocated to an area meeting the required setback before construction is commenced on the conversion to a porch. 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 ,1997. 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 1997. 1:\97files\97ordamd~zoning\97-025\dra~ord.do~ PAGE 2 ; DNR METRO; 4- 9-97 11:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/2 April 9. 1997 Mi,mes_ola Denartrnent ofNatt 'al Resourcex tv~etro wuters - tZ00 Warner ~oaa, st. ~'aul, 1MN-55~06-~793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 Ms. Ianc Kansier City of Prior Lake Planning Coordinator 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue ,i.E. Prlor Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 Fax Note 7671 RE: PI~OPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE (CASE FILE #97-024 AND 97-025) Dear Ms, Kmasier: I have reviewed thc proposed amendments to thc Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance and offer tim following comments for consideration et tl~ upcoming hearing on April 14, 1997. C:~,SE lqLE t~97-024; SETBA~ FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH W-~TER MARK The table provided in yoor March 31, 1997 meano to mc and DRC members indicates that the city is pmpusing a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of RD lakes, GD lakes and Tributa~ strcams. Your existing ordinanc~ requires a 75-f~ot setback from those shorcland classifications. Minimuco stat~ setback standards for shoreland, per 1Minnesota Rules 6120.3300, subpnn 3.A, arc 150 feet for Natural Envlronmcnt lakes, 75 I'c. at for R~creational Dcvelopmcnt lakes, and 50 feet for (3cm:ral Development lakes and Tributary strearn~ These standards ate for areas with public sewer systems available. Historically, the city of Prior Lake has been mm'c restrictive than the minimum stat~ standard for setback from General Development lakes and Tributary streams. Thus, the proposed amcndmant to reduce the rcquircd structure setback on scwcrcd General Development lakes and Tribumw steams from 75 ~ to 50 fi=at is acceptable. ]'Iow~,~r, tk~propos~dstr=c~re setback reduction from 75 feet to 50feet on ~ewered ~creat~onal Development iake~ (Marltte~ and Unnamed (aAa Blind)) i~ not consistent with minimum statewide standards, and must remain at 75feel I also note that the maximum building height is indicaicd as 35 feet. This has been thc standard in Prior Lake (and soveral other communities es well) for some time. Although the state shorcland rules allow · maximum building height of 25 feet, *.ho DNR has routinely approved ordinances allowing up to 35 feet as a maximum building height. CASE FILE #97-02S: CON~/ER~ION OF DEC~[~ TO THREE-SEA~ON PORCI-I~ This proposed amendment would allow the conversion of existing docks not meeting the required setbacks to three- season porchca providcad sovcral criteria are tact. I would offer that additional criteria bc added ~o the four proposed criteria. Thc suggested additions arc: * that thc deck to bc conve..rta~ not only exismt on thc ~1~i¢ thc slructuro sotbacks were established, but was also approved under a valid building permit issued by thc city at thc time it was constructed. SENT BY: DNR METRO; 4- 9-97 11:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; Jane Kamiet April 9, 1997 Page 2 * tl~t thc mpla,~m~nt de~.k or conversion meets at l¢=t 50% oft~ req~r,--4 setback from O~ ordinary high water m~rk of th~ shorclnnd basra or stream. * any a~titional ~ory sll~tctu.~s (gaze. bo. plat£orm, deck, boathmis¢, shed, etc.) not m~eting tl~ required lake or watercourse setbnr& I~ removed or rel~catod to an m'ea me, ting th= rcquix~l setha=k before constraction is commenced on the r~plnc~nent d~k or c~mversion to a pomh. You~ o~dinanc~ allows :30% impervious surface on residential lots ~thin shorcln~d ~rcas. The revised state shomland atandards limit impervious surfa~ to 25%. A~ ! have discussed with city staffin thc pa~t, your ordinance violate thc state standard fl~r imlxnwious sorfacc covcrasc, The DNR. has not of~cially and formally approv'',4 your revised shorchmd ordinance. As [ recall, the outstanding issues v~m imp~rvions surface r~v~agc and thc combiaafioa of existing substandard lots o£rccord. ! suggest perhaps wc m~t again to d~scuss these outstanding issues so that agreement can bc rca~hcd~ and DNR. finalization and ~knowledsmcnt ol' an approved shomland ordinance c~n occur. Thank you for thc opportunity to review and comment on th~ proposed zoning amcncbncnLs. If you have any questions regarding my comments, picasc call mc at 7712-7910. Ama Hydrologist c: DonKyc, City Planncr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE SETBACK AND THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING DECKS NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED SETBACKS TO THREE SEASON PORCHES You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public heating at Prior Lake Fire Station/ti, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, April 14, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to Section 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the minimum structure setback and the conversion of existing decks not meeting required setbacks into three season porches. The proposed amendment would permit existing decks that do not meet required setbacks, to be converted to three season porches. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 21st day of March, 1997 by: Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MARCH 29, 1997 k\97file$\97ordam6~zoning\97-025\97025pn.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OP~DRTUNITY EMPL©YER PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6A Vacation of right-of-way Eagle Creek Villas Holly Circle Jenni Tovar ~ YES X NO-N/A April 14, 1997 The City has received a petition from Eagle Creek Villas to vacate Holly Circle located south from Cates Street. A location map showing the road right-of-way (Exhibit A) is attached for your information. Eagle Creek Villas constitutes a majority of the property owners adjacent to this right-of-way, owning Lots 2, 3, and 4. Joseph Knoblauch owns Lots I and 5. As required by State statute 462.356 Subd.2 (see Exhibit E), the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or acquisition of public lands as it relates to the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon proper notification, State statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states that "no such vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so". Holly Court was platted in 1977. The road right-of-way for Holly Circle and drainage and utility easements on individual lots within the plat were dedicated at that time. This five lot subdivision is undeveloped and remains in a natural state. Currently, there are no utilities or drainage ways through the right-of-way. Lots 1 and 5, owned by Joseph Knoblauch, are currently in the tax forfeiture stage. It is unknown at this time if any governmental jurisdiction has any interest in the property. 97-023PC.DOC 16200 F~le Creek Ave. SE., Prior Lake. Minnesota 5,5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DISCUSSION The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of Holly Circle and the drainage and utility easements comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property? Comprehensive Plan Review The proposed vacation of Holly Circle and drainage and utility easement on individual lots within the plat are: · Not a part of existing or future Transportation Plan. · Not a part of existing or future Park/Trail Plan. · Not a part of existing or future Sanitary Sewer or Surface Drainage Plan. · Not a part of existing or future Watermain Plan. While the Plan only indicates existing and proposed trunk lines 12" or greater, there is a need for a smaller connecting line to run through the Holly Circle right-of-way to better increase the circulation of existing water lines. The proposed vacation does comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Public Need 1. The applicant has presented the City with preliminary plans to include Lots 2, 3, and 4 as part of PUD 82-12 Priorview. These lots were indicated not to be used as single family, but rather as part of the proposed assisted living facility property. Therefore, the issue of access and individual utility/drainage easements are not relevant if the lots are combined and the PUD is amended to include the parcel or if the PUD is re-platted to include the lots. Access to the remaining Lots 1 and 5 would be maintained from Cates Street. The 20 foot drainage easement along Cates street will be retained by the City. 2. The Engineering Department has determined that there is a need to construct a watermain across the property to provide better circulation in the area. This can be accomplished with a utility easement over the existing Holly Circle right-of-way. While there is no public need for Holly Circle or utility/drainage easements on individual lots, there is a public need to maintain a utility easement through the property. 97-023PC.DOC 2 JT RECOMMENDATION Considering that the proposed vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not eliminate a public need, staff recommends approval of the vacation of Holly Circle with the following conditions: 1. Lots 2, 3, and 4 are combined and added to PUD 82-12 Priorview via rezoning and PUD amendment or the PUD be re-platted_ 2. A utility easement covering the entire right-of-way be granted to the city. 3. The 20 foot drainage easement along Cates Street will be retained by the City. The vacation cannot be recorded until the lots are added to the PUD and a utility easement is granted to the city as suggested. Adopt Resolution 97-11PC, recommending the City Council approve the proposed vacation of Holly Circle as presented or with changes recommended by the Commission. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the developer and/or staff to provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning Commission. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #1. Motion to adopt the proposed Resolution as written or with changes directed by the Planning Commission. A. Location Map B. Copy of Application C. Holly Court Plat D. Memo from Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer E. State Statute 462.356 F. State Statute 412.851 97~023PC.DOC 3 RESOLUTION 97-11 PC RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE VACATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HOLLY CIRCLE LOCATED IN THE PLAT OF HOLLY COURT MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of Prior Lake has considered the vacation of a street right-of-way on the property located as Holly Circle in the plat of Holly Court; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed vacation is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that there is not a public need for Holly Circle. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, recommends to the City Council that the previously dedicated right- of-way for Holly Circle be vacated subject to the following conditions: Lots 2, 3, and 4 are combined and added to PUD 82-12 Priorview via (a.) rezoning and PUD amendment or (b.) rezoning and re-platting of the PUD. 2. A utility easement covering the entire right-of-way be granted to the city. 3. The existing 20 foot drainage easement along Cates Street be retained by the City. '4. The final resolution vacating the right-of-way and easements not be recorded until the final plat is approved. Passed and adopted this 14th day of April, 1997. res97011 .doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CREIGO KUYKENDALL STAMSON WUELLNER VONHOF YES CREIGO KUYKENDALL STAMSON WUELLNER VONHOF NO Bill Creigo, Chair Planning Commission Donald Rye, Director of Planning City of Prior Lake res97011.doc Page 2 CERT. 677' CONDO1016 210 Z08S58 EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT B Applicant: Address: H~me Phone: CITY OF PRIOR LAKE APPLICATION FOR STRia'r, ALLRY AND UT~ulTY VACATION 6/~'C-3-~7~ff- Work Phone: ' Property Owner: Address: ~me Phone: Work Phone: Legal Description of Site to be Vacated: ~ a~t,~ ~ ~ ~-j / -~ -- ~ - +'-_5- Reason for P~quest: (May Attach) SUBMISSION RfDUIREI~E~gTS: (A) Completed Application form. (B) Complete Legal description & Property Identification Number (PID). (C) C~uplete legal description of vacation site. (D) Petition or letter including the signatures and addresses of all property owners who own land adjacent to the proposed vacation site. (E) Survey or map of the proposed vacation site. (F) Filing Fee. (I~LY COMPL~'i'm APPLICATIONS SHALL BE REVIf~ED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. To the best of n~y ~ ~owl~ the information pre~n~on this form is correct. Fe~/ Owfiers Signature CITY COUNC~ ~IONS: THIS SECTION TO BE F~.T.~ 0~ BY THE ~ DIRECTOR APPROVED [~NIfD ~EAR]I~G DATE Signature of the Planning Director Date 4ESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO, : 6124479036 Mar. 18 1997 03:01PM P2 :,-t©L~¥ COURT 1 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D Jane Kansier From: To: Subject: Date: Susan McDermott Jane Kansier Eagle Creek Assisted Living FaciliW Monday, April 07, 1997 10:4SAM Please have the engineer loop the 8" water main at the north side of the property. An easement will be needed through the vacated Holly Court right-of-way. .Page 1 have the powers set forth in section ~ 4. Except as otherwise provided by hat there be a separate board of ap- flanning commission or a COmmittee .Is and adjustments, and it may pro- e given such other duties as the gov- *'e as the board, the governing body ~t the decisions of the board on mat- Jew or are final subject to appeal to flvisory to the council. Heatings by t such time and upon such notice to lng the board. The board shall with- nd shall serve a copy of such order ppear at the heating in person or by reposed by the governing body, the ,re it. Such roles may include pmvi- f written briefs by the parties. The :h shall include the minutes of its ter heard by it, including the final loes not act as the board of adjust- n appeal or petition until the plan- :>y it has had reasonable opportuni. :1 of adjustments and appeals upon gDMENT OF COMPREHEN- ng agency shall prepare the corn- arming agency shall consult with and agencies of the municipality of the comprehensive municipal :e due cognizance of the planning -'d public agencies. The planning tmendments whenever necessary. es. Each municipality in the met- shall review and update its com- ~rovided in section 473.864, sub- '~ent. The planning agency may, t with the municipal cha~er, rec- tt from time to time ora compre- )pred in sections, each of which ~ cai section of the municipality. c pa plan and amendments t? !t ,ting the comprehensive mumCt- ng agency shall hold at least one ~ose of the hearing shall be pub- ~t ten days before the day of~e mprehensive plan or an amend- it has received the recommenda' )m the date an amendment pro- lng agency for its recommenda' dy may by resolution by a tW.~o~ theasive plan or portion thereo EXHIBIT E HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLckNN1NG, ZONING 462.357 as the official municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordi- Subd. 4, Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15. or if new territory, for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivi- sion which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordi- History: 1965c670s5: 1976c 127s21: 1977c347s68: 1980c566s24: 1983c 216 art l s 67:1985 c 62 s 1.2:1995 c 176 s 4 462.356 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; GENERALLY. Subdivision I. Recommendations for plan execution. Upon the recommendation by the planning agency of the comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereof, the planning agency shall study and propose to the governing body reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect, Subject to the limitations of the following sections, such means include, hut are not limited to, zoning regulations, regulations for the subdivision of land, an official map. a program for coordination of the normal public im- provements and services of the municipality, urban renewal and a capital improvements pro- ~am. Surd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of. nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal. or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the re- quirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two--- thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no rela- tionship to the comprehensive municipal plan. History: 1965 c 670s 6 462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUAT1ON; ZONING. Subdivision I. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health. safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height. width, bulk. type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other strnctures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, resi- dence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, a~m'iculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation. COnservation of shorelands, as defined in sections 103F.201 to 103F.221, access to direct sun- light for solar energy systems as defined in section 216C.06, flood control or other purposes. and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. No regulation may prohib- EXHIBIT F 500 :eipts exceed the esti- at any time by resolu- ,until reduce thc sums ze the transfer of sums ."solution to other pur- T OF FUNDS. .,~ting under Optional aser and no order shall rovided in this section. 'ery order shall specify :he fund from which it credit of the fund from h all then outstanding I contract requiring the the same is to be paid, ;ach such contract. The ~keeping and disburse- i from some unforeseen ~r if any calamity or any ~f making extraordinary surer of emergency debt at not more than seven at maturity shall be lev- lion of an issue of such 3ved by all the members , designate a legal news- r, in which shall be pub- ~ to be so published and in the public interest to 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public ~'ounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four- fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed reso- lution as well aa the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts upon any pub- Igc water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed resolution is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least .30 days before the heanng on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natu- ral resources is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of lbo real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over orhcial signature, the words ~entered in the transfer record.' The notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. Histo~: 1949 c 119 s 102:1953 c 735 s.12:1957 c 383 s I: 1967 c 289 s 15:I969 c 9 s 85:I973 c 123 art 2 s l subd 2:1973 c 494 s II: 1976 c 181 s 2:1986 c 444; 1989 c183s4:1990c433s2 412.861 PROSECUTIONS, VIOLATIONS OF ORDINA~NCE$. Subdivision I. Complaint. All prosecutions for violation of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused be arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall thereafter be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue thereon. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to any police otficer, marshal, process oi~cor, court oi~cer, or constable of any town or city in the county, to the sheriff of the county, or all of them. Subd. 2. Formandcontentsofcomplalnt. It shall be a sufl:tcient pleadingofth¢ ordi- nances or resolutions of the city to refer to them by section and number or chapter. They shall have the effect of general laws within the city and need not be ~iven in evi- dence upon the trial of civil or criminal actions. Judgment shall be given, if for the plaintiff, for the amount of fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed, with costs; and tbe judg- ment shall direct that, in default of payment, the defe, aanZ be committed to the county jail for such time, not exceeding 90 days, as the court shall see fit, The comnUtment shall state the amount of judgment, the costs, and the period of commitment. Every person so committed shall be received by the keeper of the jail and kept, at the expense of the county, until lawfully discharged. The committing court may release the defendant at any time upon payment of the fine and costs. Subd. 3. Appeal to court of appeals. Appeals may be taken to the court of appeals in the manner prescribed by court rule. On appealing, the defendant shall give bond to the city, to be approved by the court, conditioned that, if the judgment be affirmed in whole or in part, the defendant will pay the judgment, and all costs and damages awarded against the defendant on the appeal. In case of afflrmance, execution may issue against both defendant and the defendant's sureties. Upon perfection of the appeal, defendant shall be discharged from custody. History: 1949 c 119 s 103:1953 c 735 s 13:1955 c 867s 7; 1973 c 34 s 5:1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2; 1976 c 2 s I32:1983 c 359 s 66:1984 c 387 s 2:1986 c 444 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 7 DISCUSS DIFFERENT APPROCAHES TO REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR EXISTING DWELLINGS (Case File ~96-099) JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATO~ YES ){ NO APRIL 14, 1997 The purpose of this item is to discuss some different approaches to dealing with side yard setbacks for existing dwellings. As you may recall, in October, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced sideyard setback. The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one sideyard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. The staff suggested an amendment which read as follows: Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R~1 (Suburban Residential) and the R-2 (Urban Residential) Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling existing on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less than five (5) feet, as long as a minimum separation of ten (10) feet is maintained between structures on the lot and adjoining lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on October 28, 1996, and subsequantly recommended denial of the proposal on the basis that 5' would become the standard setback and could cause crowding and create a solid wail effect, especially along the lake. I:~q6files~96zoamnd~sideyard~96099pc2.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNFFY EMPLOYER The Council considered this amendment on November 18, 1996. After much discussion, outlined inthe attached Council minutes, the Council decided the proposed amendment was not the approach they wished to take. The Council ultimately denied this amendment, and directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to develop a set of criteria that would address the substandard situations. At this time, no real action is required of the Planning Commission. The staff is bringing this item to your attention in order start some discussion. The actual amendment can be considered as a part of the new zoning ordinance. There are several different approaches to this situation, some of which we have discussed briefly in the past. One way is to allow setback averaging, which allows one to average the setback and still maintain the minimum. Another way; is to develop a specific set of criteria under which to apply a standard. This approach is similar to the idea of permitted uses with conditions. The staff will be avialable to discuss these ideas, and any ideas the Commissioners may have at the meeting. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of 11/8/96 Council Meeting 2. Staff Agenda Report to Council 1:\96files\96zoamnd~sideyard\96099pc2.doc Page 2 I 1/18/96 PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Consider Approval of Ordinance 96-XX Amending the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to Allow a Five Foot Sideyard Setback for Existing Residential Structures in R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. City Manager Boyles explained the amendment was from the discussion regarding substandard lots which automatically had five foot sideyard setbacks. Council directed that staff prepare an ordinance amendment. It has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, and they do not support the amendment. Mayor Andren discussed the inequity between large and substandard lots that arises, and she agreed to some degree with the position of the Planning Commission. People should not automatically be rewarded for having a substandard lot, when others who have large lots and want to improve them are unable to do it. Is there is another way of doing it without having the complications that some of the Planning Commissioners were concerned about. Planning Director Rye said the other possibility was the variance process. The variance criteria are essentially set by statute. There is a setback standard for various districts and uses. This can be dealt with either by changing the standard or considering individual cases during the variance process. Mayor Andren said if all the other criteria are met, the amendment prevents people from utilizing the property in a reasonable way. Planning Director Rye said it would make it more difficult in certain cases. He cited examples of a garage addition and a house addition. The things that were suggested were averaging provisions, considering the angle of the house in front vs. back. Mayor Andren said it is inequitable, she is not interested with an individual problem, but with the community. Substandard lots should not be rewarded. Planning Director Rye said that substandard lots were created long ago, and by law the City has to allow reasonable use of the property. If there is a lot which is otherwise legal, that was built before the ordinance was in effect, with a six foot side yard, it does not preclude you from making additions to the property. Mayor Andren said that the law regarding variances does not allow ,a lot of leeway, and does not allow a lot of leeway, but it does not work for everyone in the real world. She asked if the averaging provided for people to have breathing room. Planning Director Rye said in most cases the house is built parallel to the lot line; the proposed language would not help them. Mayor Andren asked if there were some criteria that could be added for the granting of variances. Five Foot Sideyard Setback I 1/I 8/96 PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilmember Kedrowski said most of the issues have been on older homes, is there some way to qualify it by the age of the property? Planning Director Rye said they tried to do that in this language by limiting it to houses that are existing today, so that if someone had a legal lot, they could not come in and get a lesser setback. Councilmember Kedrowski said he was concerned with those cases of people who have lived in the community, established a position, but need to expand their homes. There are those who subdivide property and those who are part of the mature community. Mayor Andren said then there would be differentiation, and she didn't know if that could be done. Councilmember Mader said he had difficulty with the suggestion that there would somehow be a set of ordinances which are fair and reasonable and everyone will love. There has to be compromise. He asked whether Planning Director Rye thought this was a good ordinance or a bad ordinance. Planning Director Rye said it was an approach that he did not agree with. The variance provisions are there to deal with this issue, and if the Council wants to take that opportunity to distribute equity throughout the community, they could. Councilmember Mader said that his concern was that when this came up, the Council was dealing with the issue of asking for a variance. He said his perception was that the variance was granted on the grounds that the ordinances were not entirely equitable. Now here we are saying that maybe this is the best we have in terms of ordinance. If Planning Director Rye and the Planning Commission do not think this is a good ordinance, and there is not strong support here, he will vote against it. City Attomey Pace said there are criteria for granting a variance, a justification of why there is a variance from literal and strict interpretation of a zoning ordinance. She said there may be other ways to go, setting conditions for applying for a variance. Under certain circumstances, then some people would not be eligible to apply for a substandard lot. Councilmember Greenfield saint "substandard" was an awkward term, and there was discussion when they were renewing the Shoreland Ordinance almost two years ago. They were still left with open-ended questions on how to deal with it. They tried to create some type of criterias that would alleviate certain circumstances. City Attorney Pace said the Shoreland District does say that if certain criteria were met, it is a buildable lot. 11/18/96 PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Planning Director Rye said maybe it wasn't even a variance criteria, it was just stating that a setback will apply under these circumstances. Councilmember Greenfield said he would feel uncomfortable dealing with this the way it is currently proposed. He said the Planning Commission was very careful. He did not want to create an erosion of the ordinance. Development of special criteria was an avenue to explore. Mayor Andren said the other one that was dealt with was a permitted use, when the resident had to go through, living room to get to the deck and it was somewhat unreasonable under the circumstances. There was discussion on how to accommodate large lots so there was more of a reasonable use and so they could improve the property. Councilmember Schenck said that on sideyard averaging there still is nothing. The Council is interested in finding out mom about this. What does that take? Planning Director Rye said it takes a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, and bring it back to the Council. Mayor Andren said it was something to wait on, City Attorney Pace is working on the issue, including averaging. MOTION BY GREENFIELD SECOND BY ANDREN TO DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. Councilmember Kedrowski recognized Assistant City Manager Tremere, who said that there were ways that it could be addressed. He said that equity could not be guaranteed in all cases, and people would still have situations requiring the variance process. He said that what the Council was dealing with was setting standards; he agreed with the City Attorney that there may be some procedural alternatives. The Mayor called the question. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY GREENFIELD SECOND BY ANDREN TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH THE CITY PLANNER AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO DEVELOP A SET OF CRITERIA THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE SUBSTANDARD SITUATIONS, GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS FOR HEARINGS, AND RETURN WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. 11/18/96 PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Upon a vote, ayes Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. . D. Consider Appeal of Hillcrest Homes, Inc. from a Decision of the ZoIling ~x~ Officer Relating t° Setback Averaging' / · P}~mning Director Rye presented the report. The setback averaging i~/from the ord~ary high water level. One of the lots is vacant, so they dets/mined that setbabl~ averaging could not be used. There was a single family dw)Mling, and the applicatx[s came in and requested demolition and wanted to buildfih the lots. The bui!d, in.g ~,.r~. it came in and according to the ordinance, aversg~mg could not be applied to i~is permit since there were not houses immediatgl'y adjacent on both sides. The Planing Commission concurred with the appeal;// · Councilmember Kedrowski asked if the City had a legal~obligation. · City Attorney Pace ~id even if staff made an incCect interpretation, individual citizens are charged wi~, knowledge of the buildi~ng ordinance, it is a discretionary act and the City has imnSunity. ! · Councilmember Kedrowsk~'asked if they build on the other lot first, and then come back to this one, does that affOrd them the ~¢pormnity? · Planning Director Rye said aSs~ume tl~ir is variance on one lot, then averaging could apply to this lot. It would h~ve~o be through a variance. Both of the lots are about 50 feet wide. · Councilmember Kedrowski s ist was to grant setback variances closer to lakeshore. · Planning Director Rye sgi'~ the existing structure, setback was about 54 feet, the house that was tom do?n was about the same, and the property adjacent to that was 55 or 56 feet. / · Councilmember owski said if they applied f6r a setback variance, it would bably b give/t pro e o them. / · Planning Dir/e~ctor Rye said probably, if that is the only way to make the lot buildable. / ~'- · Councih~ember Kedrowski asked if it is the obligation of staff to tell people what to apl:ff'y for? · P.~. 'rig Director Rye said they don't tell people what to apply fo'i~xthey tell them ,/~their options. Hillcrest Homes Appeal Setback Aver STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: 8C JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #96-XX AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CITY CODE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS NOVEMBER t8, '1996 The purpose of this item is to consider approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and City Code pertaining to the required side yard setbacks for existing dwellings. On October 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced side yard setback. The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one side yard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. The staff has proposed the following language: Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the R-2 (Urban Residential) Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling existing on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less than five (5) feet, as long as a minimum separation often (10) feet is maintained between, structures on the lot and adjoining lot. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment on October 28, 1996. After much discussion, the Commission recommended denial of this amendment. The attached minutes of the Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this matter. The Planning 96099cc.doc PAGE 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUN[TY EMPLOYER ISSUES: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REPORT ATTACHMENTS: Commissioners were mainly concerned this amendment would cause 5' to become the standard side yard setback. This in turn would cause a crowding, or a solid wall, effect, especially along the lakeshore. The Council directed the staff to prepare an amendment which would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and would address the inequity which allows a 5' side yard setback on substandard lots but a 10' setback for standard size lots. The proposed amendment is one approach to meet this directive. There are other approaches the Council may wish to consider. For example, the side yard setbacks for all dwellings, new or existing could be reduced to 5 feet. Another approach is to allow averaging of the side yard setbacks, so that the setback may be less than 10' at any point, as long as the average is the minimum setback. 1. Adopt the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the staff. 2. Further discuss this issue and direct the staff to provide additional information to the City Council. 3. Deny the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. Adopt Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt the proposed ordinance. This action requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. Proposed Ordinance Planning Report dated October 28, 1996 Minutes of October 28, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting Reviewed' By~ ~y~es, City-Manager 96099cc.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-4-1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-4-1 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby mended to read as follows: Title 5, Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended by adding (D) as follows, and renumbering the succeeding provisions: D. Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R-1 (Suburban ResidentiaO and the R-2 (Urban ResidentiaO Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling existing on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less than five (5) feet, as long as a minimum separation of ten (10) feet is maintained between structures on the lot and adjoining lot. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 18th day of November, 1996. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the Drafted By: Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 day of ,1996. ord96xx.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4D PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR EXISTING DWELLINGS (Case File #96-099) JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATO~ DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR X YES NO OCTOBER 28, 1996 The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to revise the required sideyard setback for an addition to an existing dwelling. On October 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced sideyard setback. The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one sideyard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. In May, 1996, the Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing one 5' sideyard setback for substandard lots, as long as a minimum separation of 10' is maintained between structures on the lot and on the adjoining lot. The proposed amendment is very similar to this language; however it goes one step further. This amendment will allow an addition to any existing structure to have a sideyard setback of 5 feet. The proposed amendment reads as follows: 96099pc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the R-2 (Urban Residential) Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling existing on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less than §ve (5) feet, as long as a minimum separation often (10) feet is maintained between structures on the lot and adjoining lot. 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendments as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendments. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Language 2. Hearing Notice 96099pc.doc Page 2 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 96- __ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-4-1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-4-1 of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows: Title 5, Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 is hereby amended by adding (D) as follows, and renumbering the succeeding provisions: D. Existing Residential Dwellings: In the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the R-2 ('Urban Residential) Zoning Districts, an addition to any residential dwelling existing on the date of this ordinance may have one side yard setback of no less than five (5) feet, as long as a minimum separation of ten (10) feet is maintained between structures on the lot and adjoining lot. 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 ,1996. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the Drafted By: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake __ day of .,1996. dr'afford.doc PAGE I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, October 28, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 5-4-1 (C) of the City Code and to Section 4.1 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance which will allow an addition to a residential structure existing on the date of the ordinance to have a 5' side yard setback, subject to certain conditions. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public heating. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 9th day of October, 1996 by: Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON OCTOBER 12, 1996 l:\96zoamnd\sideyar~96100pn.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SUBJECT: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Gary Staber, Building Official October 28, 1996 Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, file ~96-099 I support a five foot setback on all substandard lots as specified in your memo dated October 16, 1996. I do not support an amendment that would use the year a structure was built to determine a setback requirement. In subdivisions that are partially developed we could have identical lots with different setbacks which would give the appearance of inconsistency. From an enforcement perspective it is difficult as you know to have any ordinance requirement structured on a lot by lot basis. If a setback requirement is based off year built it will require a good deal of research by staff to answer a relatively easy setback question. I think the ordinance needs more work before adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Vote taken s y Vonho~f:_Kayk~ , S son, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. "-~ ~ - ~ - A rece~_was-calied at 8:48 p.m. The me~iihgreg~ened at 8:52 p.m. Public Hearing Continued. D. CASE #96-099 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXIST1NG RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS Criego read the Opening Statement for public hearing. There was no attendance by the public. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staffreport. The amendment is to the Zoning Ordinance revising the required side yard setback for an addition to an existing dwelling. On October 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced side yard setback. The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one side yard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. Rye commented on the City Council's feelings that an amendment be brought forward which would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Staffapproach was to allow one 5' setback to an existing structure. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · The original ordinance was written for substandard lots and tries to make an exception for them. It seems backwards to give people with larger lots the same 5 feet side yard setback. If the City wants it uniform it should have been left at 10 feet. Wuellner: · This recommendation came up before the Commissioners by a previous staff. It did not pass at that time. Commissioners felt in time, it would become the norm. · Crowding along the lakefront is getting worse. This will exacerbate the problem. · Keep as is. Not in favor. Vonhof: · Staff was requested by City Council to do tiffs. · Does not agree with it. It will not solve the problem. · There are still going to be large lots coming in asking for variances for other setbacks which could be denied and end up in front of the Council. Kuykendalh · Why do we have setbacks? Light, air, fire, do not want a wall effect. Safety issues. · Not unreasonable to have Council come back with request. There is no fixed rationale on 10 feet. Come up with a reasonable concept. What if you used a percent? · Rye addressed possible problems using a percentage. He also pointed out easements along the lot lines. Criego: · Why is a side yard variance more important than front and back setbacks or impervious surface? · This is just going to reduce standards. There is no logic. In a substandard lot variances should be given. Side yard made sense. · Just because a person wants to take care of a second family, the City should not have to change the ordinance to accommodate two families. · You don't stop at existing residential dwellings. If the City is going to implement this, do it across the board. · Does not like this and is not in favor of supporting. Vonhof: · The toughest variances the Commissioners had, are the large lots not making the hardship criteria. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMIvlEND CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Open Discussion: A wall effect on the lake is not wanted. Nothing wrong with 10' standard as it exists. People will take advantage of the setback. A neighbor can use an other's property to satisfy his addition leaving no alternative for his neighbor's potential use. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner and Stamson, nays by Vonhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 5. ~01'~-l~ines~': None