Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Twin Island Development MEETING DATE: AGENDA#: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 16, 2006 9A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER A REPORT ON THE ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON TWIN ISLAND Introduction The City Council directed staff to provide a history of the issue of accessory buildings on Twin Island. The bullet points listed in the following section provide a brief summary of the most recent issues on Twin Island. Historv . This issue began when City staff received a complaint about the construction of an accessory building on Twin Island. Upon investigation, the staff concluded that John and Linda Meyer were indeed in the process of building a garage without the proper permits. They were ordered to stop work and did so immediately. . Upon further review of the ordinance, the staff determined no accessory buildings were permitted on Twin Island. The Meyers appealed this decision, and the Planning Commission upheld the staff's interpretation. However, the Planning Commission felt the ordinance should be amended to allow accessory buildings on the island. . After 3 meetings, including 2 public hearings at which the Meyers testified, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory buildings no larger than 240 square feet on the island. The Planning Commission's rationale for limiting this size included: >> 240 square feet is large enough to accommodate what is used on the island during the summer, such as water skis and lawn mowers. >> There are no paved roads on the island, so there should be no motor vehicles. Large boats should be stored off the island. >> Larger accessory structures would fundamentally change the density and the character of the island. This amendment does not apply to just one person, but to every property owner on the island. >> Larger accessory structures would require the removal of more trees. ~ Concerns about the amount of impervious surface on the island. . The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation, further stating: >> Twin Island is a very unique piece of property with just seasonal cabins. >> Garages similar to those on the mainland are not necessary since the accessory structures on the island should be needed only for minimal storage. >> There is no vehicular traffic on the island so a 240 square foot accessory structure should be sufficient. . Mr. Meyer subsequently asked for and received a variance to the minimum lot area for a structure to allow them to build a seasonal cabin on Lots 61, www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.440.9675 / Fax 952.440.9678 62 and 64 of Twin Isles. The variance was granted, but the Meyers did not receive a building permit within one year after approval of the resolution, sot the variance approval expired. Attached is a more detailed account of this history. ISSUES: On the surface, it does not seem consistent the ordinance would allow the Meyers to build a second seasonal cabin without size restrictions, but not allow a larger garage. It is important to realize the distinction between these situations. An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a larger garage size would apply to all the property owners on Twin Island. When the Planning Commission and the Council weighed the Meyers desire to build a 576 square foot accessory building (now 832 square feet) against the impact on the island should all property owners decide to build an accessory building of this size, they felt the potential impact to the island was just too great. There are few opportunities to build additional cabins on the island, while any owner of an existing cabin could build an accessory structure of some sort. This would impact the trees on the island, the impervious surface and the general look of the island. It is possible to amend the ordinance to allow a larger accessory building on Twin Island. An amendment of this type is a policy question to be ultimately determined by the Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has modest financial impact on the City. The City will incur personnel related costs together with costs for preparation and publication of ordinance amendments. These costs may be defrayed by requiring the Meyers to file an application for an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: The Council has the following alternatives: 1. Adopt the report and make no changes to the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Adopt the report and initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a larger accessory structure (as determined by the City Council) on Twin Island. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDED MOTION: As determined by the City Council. Reviewed by: (~ Frank Boyles History of John Meyer and Accessory Buildings on Twin Island September, 1999 City staff received a complaint regarding the construction of an accessory building on the John Meyer property on Twin Island. The staff notified the Meyers that they had not received the proper permits and ordered they cease work immediately. Upon review of the provisions of the existing Zoning Ordinance, the staff determined accessory structures were not allowed on Twin Island. December, 2000 John and Linda Meyer filed an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the existing Zoning Ordinance, alleging accessory buildings were allowed on Twin Island. February 12, 2001 The Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator, reasoning that the language governing Island Development was a special provision and superseded the general language of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission also felt accessory buildings should be permitted on Twin Island and asked staff to prepare a report on accessory structures on the island. February 26,2001 The staff presented a report to the Planning Commission on potential language for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory structures on Twin Island. The staff originally suggested the size be limited to 250 square feet. The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the appropriate size. They suggested 300 square feet, based on the following: April 9, 2001 May 14, 2001 . Twin Island has been set up for seasonal cabins only, most of which are 500-600 square feet in area. . Concerns about impervious surface. . This square footage would allow a large amount of storage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to allow a 300 square foot accessory building on the lots on Twin Island. The Planning Commission heard testimony from John Meyer, who stated his need for a 24' by 24' accessory building (576 square feet). After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and directed staff to redraft the ordinance to allow an accessory structure which does not exceed the size of the principal structure, or 576 square feet, whichever is less. The Commission also directed staff to notify all Twin Island property owners. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing. The Planning Commission heard testimony from Dave Wuellner, a property owner on Twin Island, who was opposed to the size of the proposed accessory structure. He felt 576 square feet was excessive, and that most property owners were able to stay under 120 square feet. The Planning Commission also heard testimony from John Meyer who stated the square footage was necessary because the size of the cabins is getting larger, and some people have more toys than others. The Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion on the size of the accessory structures. Some Commissioners felt these structures should be limited to 12' by 12' while others thought it could be larger. The Commission compromised on 240 square feet, based on the following factors: . 240 square feet is large enough to accommodate what is used on the island during the summer, such as water skis and lawn mowers. . There are no paved roads on the island, so there should be no motor vehicles. Large boats should be stored off the island. . Larger accessory structures would fundamentally change the density and the character of the island. This amendment does not apply to just one person, but to every property owner on the island. . Larger accessory structures would require the removal of more trees. . Concerns about the amount of impervious surface on the island. June 4, 2001 The City Council considered the proposed amendment. The Council voted to approve the amendment to allow accessory structures no larger than 240 square feet, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation and the following rationale: . Twin Island is a very unique piece of property with just seasonal cabins. . Garages similar to those on the mainland are not necessary since the accessory structures on the island should be needed only for minimal storage. . There is no vehicular traffic on the island so a 240 square foot accessory structure should be sufficient. February 26,2002 John and Linda Meyer submitted an application for a variance to the minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet which would allow them build a structure on Lots 61, 62, and 64, Twin Isles. The Meyers also own Lots 43, 44 and 45, Twin Isles. A seasonal cabin is located on these lots. March 11, 2002 The Planning Commission considered this variance request at a public hearing. John and Linda Meyer testified their goal was to have adequate shelter for his family and secure personal property and improve the aesthetics of the island. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution #02-002 approving the requested variance. March 26, 2002 Spring/Summer, 2002 March 11, 2003 The resolution was recorded at the Scott County Recorders office by John and Linda Meyer. John and Linda Meyer made an application for a building permit. This application was never complete, and the building permit file was subsequently closed. As per the City Zoning Ordinance, the approved variance expired because building permits for the structure were not obtained within one year of approval of the resolution.