HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Zoning May For City of Prior Lake
~r:~
~ .;V\o'E
~::~
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
NOVEMBER 2, 1998
8B
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Historv: On October 5, 1998, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the Council hear
testimony on several different issues and concerns with respect to the
proposed ordinance.
The Council continued the public hearing to November 2, 1998, and directed
staff to review the issues and prepare a response. A copy of this response is
attached to this report.
Issues: The issues raised during the public hearing on October 5, 1998, are
addressed in the attachment to this report. Also attached is a copy of the
original agenda report, dated October 5, 1998, which raises some of the
other significant issues from the Council's previous discussions.
Conclusion: The proposed zoning ordinance is intended to implement the
desired outcomes specified in the Comprehensive Plan. It reflects changes
in land use law and development practices which are common today. The
attached response also attempts to satisfy some of the issues and concerns
raised at the last meeting.
There are three alternatives available to the Council:
1. Close the public hearing and adopt a motion directing the staff to
prepare an ordinance with findings of fact adopting the draft zoning
ordinance.
2. Continue the public hearing as deemed necessary to allow additional
comment.
3. Continue the public hearing and refer specific issues to the Planning
Commission for further study and recommendation.
The staff recommend :Alternative #2 since Councilmember Wuellner
requested that ouncil defer final action on this Zoning Ordinance
un~~ov 8.
.
1:\newzone\97zonord\ccl1298z.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
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED AT ZONING ORDINANCE
PUBLIC HEARING . ,
1) Define point of measurement for setbacks. The Council discussed this issue at some
length during its work sessions, and decided setbacks should be measured from the
furthest point of the building, including eaves, overhangs and cantilevers. There is a
discrepancy in Section 1101.316, which defines how measurements are taken. This
section will be changed to read as follows:
MEASUREMENT. The measurement of distances when required by this Ordinance
shall be done in a straight line in the plane located at a point 1 foot above the highest
point in the surface of the ground along the path of measurement, from the most
exterior fmmdati;:;:: ';;-all noint of a building containing the use to the property line of
the adjacent street, district or lot or other boundary line....
2) Clarify whether or not the Lighting provisions (Section 11 07.1800) apply to single
family residences. These provisions were not intended to apply to single family
dwellings. In order to clarify this intent, Section 1107.1800 will be modified to read
as follows:
LIGHTING. The purpose of this subsection is to minimize the adverse effects iflight
and glare on operators of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and on residential and other
land uses in the vicinity of a light source in order to promote traffic safety and to
prevent the nuisances associated with the intrusion of spillover light and glare. The
requirements of this subsection apply to all exterior lighting except lighting for signs,
which is covered under subsection 1107.400 through 1107.1700, aHEl street lighting
within public rights-of-way. and one and two familv residential structures.
3) Clarify whether or not the Landscaping and Screening provisions (Section
1107.1900) apply to singlefamity residences. The proposed language is the same as
the language in the current ordinance. However, to further clarify that these
provisions do not apply to one and two family structures, the language in subsection
1107.1903 can be modified as follows:
APPLICATION. This subsection applies to all proposed new commercial, industrial,
multi-family residential (projects of 3 or more dwelling units per building), public and
institutional uses as may be permitted, permitted with conditions, or permitted with
conditional use nermits within their Use Districts. +ms r.~p}ies-t;:; :il~::aw
eonstruotioR '.yithir: ~~{ Use :!Jistriets. Uses within the Downtown Redevelopment
District as defined in subsection 1101.400 shall be exempt from this subsection.
Existing commercial. industrial. multi-familv residential (nroiects of 3 or more
dwellim! units ner buildin~). nublic and institutional uses shall also comply with this
subsection, except as exempted herein, when a building permit is issued for their
expansion. Exceptions include additions in which the ground building footprints in
l:\newzone\misc\response.doc
total are under 10% of the existing structures gross floor area or 4,000 square feet,
whichever is less. . ,
:FF- :93":::~.&ViI: :?~Jdevc1opmen-t Distriet as defined ir: :mbseetic:: ~ ~ 01.400 s~cl.~ !:e
exempt from this :::::1;:seetiefr..
4) Clarify whether the Architectural Design Standards (Section 1107.2200) apply to
single famity dwellings. Most of the provisions in this section apply to commercial,
industrial and multi-family residential (3-units or more) projects. However, the
provisions of subsection 1107.2202 (9) do apply to one and two-family dwellings. In
order to clarify the intent of this section, we can add a statement to subsection
1107.2202 as follows:
ST ANDARDS. The nrovisions in subsection 1107.2202 aonlv to commercial.
industrial. multi-familv residential (nroiects of 3 or more dwellin~ units ner buildin~),
nublic and institutional uses.
We can also renumber subsection 1107.2202 (9) as follows:
1107.2203: Architectural Standards Annlvin~ to One and Two Familv Residential
Uses.
5) Lakeshore setback averaging {Section 1104.308 (2)}. The language allowing
setback averaging for the lakeshore setback currently refers to "2 adjacent lots".
The concern is that this language will not allow setback averaging when the lot is
adjacent to a vacant lot. In order to clarify this, the language can be amended in the
following manner:
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. On undeveloped
shoreland lots that have 2 adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such
adjacent lots, any new residential structure may be set back the average setback of the
adjacent structures from the ordinary high water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater,
provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In
.cases where onlv one of the two lots adiacent to an undeveloned shore1and lot has an
existin~ nrincinal structure. the avera~e setback of the adiacent structure and the next
structure within 150 feet may be utilized. Setback avera~in~ mav not be utilized
when an undeve10ned shoreland lot is located adiacent to two other undeveloned
shore land lots. In no instance shall a principal structure be located in a shore impact
zone or a bluff impact zone.
6) Legal Ramifications of Lot Combinations. The City Attorney will comment on this
issue at the public hearing..
7) Certificates of Occupancy for Nonconforming Uses (Section 1107.2305). The issue
here is that the language appears to require a certificate of occupancy for any
nonconforming building. The intent of the language is to require a certificate of
1: \newzone\misc\response.doc
2
occupancy only for nonconforming uses. In order to clarify this, the language will be
revised as follows:
NONCONFORMING USE. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for all legal non-
conforming uses of land or uses of buildings created by adoption of this Ordinance, or
in existence at the effective date of this Ordinance.
8) Fence Height (Section 1101.504). The question of appropriate fence height in the
front yard is a result of a recent variance request. The current ordinance, as well as
the proposed ordinance limits the height of a fence in the front yard to 3 112 feet
(42 "). The proposed ordinance does allow us to measure the height of a fence as an
average height, when the fence section has variable heights.
The 42" height is a fairly standard provision in most zoning ordinances. Limiting the
height of fences in the front yard is primarily a safety issue. The 42" height allows
the drivers of emergency and public safety vehicles to see the front of a house and the
house numbers. This provision, however, is a matter of City policy. The Council has
the discretion to set any height limit it feels appropriate. If the Council chooses to
increase the allowable height of a fence in a front yard, the staff would suggest a
maximum of 4 feet (48 "). We would also suggest these fences have a maximum
opacity of 25 percent. This will allow decorative and chain link fences, and will also
allow a certain visibility to the front yard.
The Council should provide the staff with some direction on this issue.
9) Zoning Map Changes.
. LAKERS RESTAURANT. The Zoning Map has been revised to include this
property within the C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) Use District. This district is
consistent with the current zoning of the property. The Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map will be revised to identify this property as C-NR (Neighborhood Retail
Shopping) as part of the future update.
. RESIDENTIAL AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 13 AND WEST OF THE DAIRY
QUEEN. The Zoning Map has been revised to identify this area as R-l (Low
Density Residential) which is consistent with the current use of the area.
. COMMERCIAL AREA LOCATED ON MAIN AVENUE NORTH OF DOWNTOWN. This
area includes businesses such as Pearson's Auto Body, Dan's Auto Body, and
other automotive uses. The area is located within the Downtown Redevelopment
District; however, it is physically removed from the remainder of downtown due
to its topography. It is the staffs recommendation that this area be zoned C-4
(General Business) which is consistent with the current uses.
. BOHLEN PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TITUS ADDITION. This property is
zoned R-l on the existing Zoning Map. According to Mr. Bohlen, his property is
app~vximately 18 acres in size, with one single family dwelling. He has requested
his property be zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision). The purpose of the R-S district is
l:\newzone\rnisc\response.doc
3
C' rt ..
to recognize existing large lot subdivisions, such as the Titus Addition. This
property does not meet that requirement. The site can eventually be developed
when sewer and water services are extended to the area. The staff recommends
the site be zoned A (Agricultural).
l:\newzone\misc\response.doc
4
~ PR~lO
O. ...... ~
€r'E
~:~~
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
OCTOBER 5, 1998
8A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE
DISCUSSION:
Historv On December 18, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution
95-126 which adopted a new Comprehensive Plan subject to review
and acceptance by the Metropolitan Council. On June 13, 1996, the
Metropolitan Council approved the City of Prior Lake's
Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the Regional Blueprint
and without impact on Metropolitan systems.
Since October of 1996, the staff and Planning Commission have been
working to develop a new zoning ordinance which would be the
primary means of implementing the Comprehensive Plan. The
Planning Commission held 11 study sessions on the new ordinance
between January and December of 1997 and conducted public hearings
on the draft ordinance on September 22, 1997 and November 24, 1997.
Numerous Prior Lake residents participated in these meetings and
hearings and their comments are reflected in the hearing record.
The draft ordinance differs from the current in several significant
respects. The ordinance has been reorganized and there are new or
greatly expanded sections covering definitions, district requirements,
performance standards and administrative procedures. Staff will go
over these changes in detail at the public hearing.
In 1998, the City Council held 7 workshop sessions on the draft
ordinance and produced the hearing draft of the ordinance which is
being considered on October 5, 1998.
Jssues During the course of the Council review, several issues were
discussed which constituted a significant change from current
ordinance provisions. These issues were discussed by the Council and
the results of these discussions are reflected in the public hearing draft
of the zoning ordinance.
162Cil~Nm9~E1D~1)bGke, Minnesota fi5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
The most significant issues include the following:
. Combination of substandard riparian lots- The draft ordinance now
states that substandard riparian lots of record in common
ownership can be developed separately provided the lots have at
least 75 feet of frontage at the front building line and has at least
12,000 square feet of area. This provision expires 6 months after
the effective date of the new zoning ordinance. Upon expiration,
any substandard lots in common ownership can only be divided
and recombined if all resulting lots meet the lot width and area
requirements in the ordinance.
. Setback from Ordinary High Water mark- The draft ordinance
specifies a setback from the Ordinary High Water mark for General
Development lakes (which includes both Prior and Spring lakes) of
75 feet compared to the current requirement of 50 feet.
. Recreational equipment storage- This is a new provision which
allows storage of seasonal recreational equipment adjacent to
driveways during the season the equipment is being used and in a
side or rear yard during the remainder of the year. It also allows
for year around storage adjacent to the driveway under certain
conditions.
. Landscape irrigation- The requirement that landscaping be
irrigated has been modified to allow the developer the option of
posting a 2 year letter of credit for the landscaping in lieu of the
installation of irrigation systems.
. R-l districts without sanitary sewer- A new zoning district called
the Rural Subdivision Use district has been added to the ordinance
to allow for existing developments which have been platted in lots
smaller than 10 acres in area but do not have city sewer or water.
. Landscaped parking islands- The current ordinance requires
landscaped islands in new parking lots. This provision has been
deleted in the draft ordinance.
The zoning map is being changed to reflect the new zoning districts
and to reflect the Comprehensive Plan land use designations which
have been adopted. Properties outside the current MUSA boundary
will retain the Agricultural zoning designation until sewer service is
available.
Conclusion- The draft zoning ordinance which is being considered is
intended to implement the desired outcomes specified in the
Comprehensive Plan. It reflects changes in land use law and
development practices which are common today.
There are three alternatives available to the Council:
1. Close the public hearing and adopt a motion directing the staff to
prepare an ordinance with findings of fact adopting the draft
zoning ordinance.
L:\NEWZONE\97Z0NORD\CCI0598Z.DOC
2
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
2. Continue the public hearing as deemed necessary to allow
additional comment.
3. Continue the public hearing and refer specific issues to the
Planning Commission for further study and recommendation:
Alternative 1
Frank Boyles
City Manager
L:\NEWZONE\97Z0NORD\CCI0598Z.DOC
3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 30, 1998 ~
THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TH1'flty UNCIL
FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER _ ^ ,..~
NOVEMBER 2, 1998 AGENDA MATERIAL
These materials were received after the agenda was sent out:
Agenda Item 8B - Zoning Ordinance
Attached is a letter from C H Carpenter Lumber requesting that their property be
designated as C-4 rather than C-2 on the official zoning map.
Agenda Item 8C - 1999 Improvements
Attached is a memo from Sue McDermott reporting on the attendance at the
informational meetings about these proposed projects.
I:\COUNCIL\AGENDA \11 0298.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
C.H. CRRPENTER LBR.
TEL:612-447-4042
Oct 28'98
14:12 No.012 P.Ol
.-- -)
~
J
OotaQef 28, Jr'"
: e~,y of 'ds,,. t..tll,
: AJ:, C, oJ"",,1 'IQivu'.
. 'b"..,
16200 :)1_918.C"... Ave.
.'rior ~k.,~~Si3"-11.
, .
, I
,0..1' J"nnl. f .
i
!
.. are l'equ..&1ntJ thee 1n _ propo.,ed zon1nq ol'cHanco that C.Ii. CDrpt::;~r!r
.L~I' b. .~Q.d C-. r_t",-&, th.n the pcoposed ~~-~.
Tht C...f ....~.............Q_I..L.__
;-. A,'
Fr.. ,..1.,.
I'-r~'\\ r~ @@OW! g ~
. , I
lJ i
" oor 2 8 9IJ
. . :,,;
"
I
I
.J.L_. .._.--___._.
I
I
. '"
.1.
I'
.... .~.J~!J'.
.
!
I
I.
I
DATE:
October 28, 1998
FROM:
Frank Boyles, City Manager . 0
Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer ji.
TO:
RE:
Informational Meeting - 1999 Improvement
Projects
Jeff Evens and I conducted two informational meetings for the 1999 Improvements on
Tuesday, October 27. The following is a summary of issues raised by residents in
attendance:
Area 1 - Candy Cove Park and Lakeside Manor and Area 2 - Centennial Street
Twelve people signed in on the sheet provided, nine residents of Area 1 and three from
Area 2. There were at least two additional residents of Area 2 present at the meeting that
did not sign in.
AREA 1: The majority ofthe questions related to how and why the area was chosen for
reconstruction and assessments. At least two of the property owners expressed the need
for storm water improvements. Several residents want additional street lighting.
Concern about the affect the construction will have on driveways, landscaping, sprinkler
systems and access were also voiced. In summary, some of those present see the need for
reconstruction, some do not, and some were in attendance to gather information.
AREA 2: Since Centennial Street is currently a gravel roadway, proposed assessment to
the benefiting properties is 100% of the cost of improvements in accordance with the
City's assessment policy. This was a major concern with those present as there are only 6
properties proposed to be assessed for the improvements. There was a lot of discussion
about right of way. Existing right of way consists ofa 50-foot strip with approximately a
60' radius cul-de-sac at the west end. Since the existing road is quite narrow, residents
maintain yard areas, some of which are in public right of way, up to the roadway.
Currently there is a group of trees in the center of the cul-de-sac. A resident asked if the
trees would remain and staff indicated that it would be necessary to remove the trees. In
summary, those present appeared to be opposed to any improvements to Centennial
Street.
AREA 3 - NORTH SHORE OAKS FIRST ADDITION UTILITIES
AREA 3: Six residents were in attendance, four who live in the First Addition and two
from the adjacent Second Addition. Three of those present from the First Addition
claimed that they never received or signed a petition for the improvements and are
opposed to the improvements. One of the residents present is in favor of the project due
to a failing septic system. Five of the eight affected property owners signed a petition last
December.
Residents from the adjacent North Shore Oaks Second Addition are opposed to sanitary
sewer being installed in the rear yards. Apparently when sewer was installed in the
Second Addition, the residents were told that it could not be constructed in the rear yards
and feel the same should apply to the First Addition.
Fence, shed, and power pole relocation and tree removal were also areas of concern.
g:\projects\ 1999\ 11 candm \infomtg.doc
2