Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10D - Bluff Ordinance Amendment MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MAY 5, 2003 tOD JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE AND THE BLUFF SETBACK (Case File #03-29) History: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming structures in the Bluff Impact Zone and in the Bluff Setback. This amendment is a result of the staff review of several permits for structures located along Prior Lake and within a bluff. The amendment will provide some equity in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. In the existing Zoning Ordinance, structures other than stairways and landings are not permitted within the Bluff Impact Zone or the Bluff Setback. The figure below generally illustrates the Blufflmpact Zone and the Bluff Setback. Figure 1: Illustration of Bluff Impact Zone and Bluff Setback BLUFF SETBACK On a vacant lot, this provision is easily applied and enforced. However, as staff is reviewing permits for additions and alterations to existing homes along the lake, we have discovered there are some structures located within the BluffImpact Zone and Bluff Setback. The current language does not permit the City to approve a variance to 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\bluffimpact zone\cc report. doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER allow additions or alterations to these nonconfonning structures. Our only alternative at this time is to deny any requested permits. On vacant lots within the BluffImpact Zone, the City is almost required to issue a variance in order to allow a reasonable use of the property. However, on lots with existing dwellings, it can be argued that there is an existing reasonable use of the property and that a variance is not required. In order to provide a more equitable enforcement ofthe ordinance, the staff is suggesting an amendment to the current language for both the Bluff Impact Zone and the Bluff Setback, as shown on Exhibit A. This language essentially allows additions and alterations as long as they do not extend any further into the BluffImpact Zone or Bluff Setback than the existing structure. In essence, this will allow additions to the street side of an existing dwelling, but not the lake side of that structure. The proposed amendment also requires that the proposed addition meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements. Current Circumstances: The Planning Commission discussed this amendment at a public hearing on April 14, 2003. The Planning Commission generally agreed with the ordinance as originally proposed; however, there was some concern that the proposed amendment would be used as a loophole to allow a nonconforming structure to be virtually removed and replaced in the same location. The Commission tabled this matter until April 28, 2003, and asked staff to research this question. A copy of the minutes of the April 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report. The staff identified two approaches that could be used to prevent this occurrence. The first approach involves a definition of what would constitute an addition. For example, an addition could be defined as "any construction that increases the size of a building or structure in terms of site coverage, height, length, width or floor area ". This definition is intended to say what is allowed and it may not solve the problem of leaving only a small portion of the existing structure. A second approach is to specify what cannot be done under this ordinance. This involves an additional sentence to the proposed ordinance that states: "Any change in the supporting members of the building or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders, will not be permitted as an addition under this provision. " This provision is intended to maintain the existing structure, while still allowing additions. This is the approach the staff recommended to the Planning Commission. 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\bluffimpact zone\cc report. doc Page 2 On April 28, 2003, following review of the additional language, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment. The attached draft ordinance outlines the proposed amendment. The ordinance has 2 sections: (1) an amendment to the requirements in a Bluff Impact Zone and (2) an amendment to the requirements for the Bluff Setback. In essence, the ordinance allows additions or alterations to existing structures located in a Bluff Impact Zone or a Bluff Setback subject to the following conditions: 1. The addition or alteration may not extend further into the bluff impact zone than the existing dwelling. 2. An Engineering Report, prepared according to the provisions in Section 1104.305 of the Zoning Ordinance must be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. 3. The City will submit the building permit application for the addition or alteration to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist for review and comment prior to approval of the permit. The DNR will have no less than 10 business days to review and comment on the permit. 4. The proposed addition or alteration must meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Any change in the supporting members of the building or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders, will not be permitted 'as an addition under this provision." The Issues: The City Council must make a decision whether to amend the ordinance based on the following criteria: 1. There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment will allow improvements to existing structures without allowing further encroachments. It also provides equity in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City. The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan include: . Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable high quality housing. To implement this objective, codes and ordinances relating to development, redevelopment, and maintenance of housing shall be adopted and periodically reviewed to ensure specific direction is provided regarding affordable uses in each district; 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\bluffimpact zone\cc report. doc Page 3 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: . Maintain a choice of and encourage development of quality residential environments; . Promote sound land use; . Enact and maintain policies and ordinances to ensure the public safety, health and welfare. The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these goals and objectives by allowing additional investment to nonconforming structures, without further compromising the bluff. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with Minnesota Statutes. Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend approval of this amendment. The City Council has three alternatives: I. Adopt an Ordinance approving the proposed amendment as recommended. 2. Deny the proposed Ordinance. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance D3-XX a proving the amendment as recommended by the PI ing Co is n. 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\bluffimpact zone\cc report. doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 03- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1104.303 AND 1104.304 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council ofthe City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1104.303 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones, except additions or alterations to existing dwellings located within the bluff impact zone as of the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance (May 1, 1999) may be permitted under the following conditions:-. (1) The addition or alteration may not extend further into the bluff impact zone than the existing dwelling. (2) An Engineering Report, prepared according to the provisions in Section 1104.305 of the Zoning Ordinance must be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. (3) The City will submit the building permit application for the addition or alteration to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist for review and comment prior to approval of the permit. The DNR will have no less than 10 business days to review and comment on the permit. (4) The proposed addition or alteration must meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (5) Any change in the supporting members of the building or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders, will not be permitted as an addition under this provision. " 2. Section 1104.304 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: Bluff Setbacks: The required setback from the Top of Bluff is determined as follows: as measured from the Top of Bluff, the upper end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%. Additions or alterations to existing dwellings located within the bluff setback as of the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance (May 1, 1999) may be permitted under the following conditions: (1) The addition or alteration may not extend further into the bluffsetback than the existing dwelling. (2) An Engineering Report, prepared according to the provisions in Section 1104.305 of the Zoning Ordinance must be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\bluff impact zone\ord03xx.doc PAGEl 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (3) The City will submit the building permit application for the addition or alteration to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist for review and comment prior to approval of the permit. The DNR will have no less than 10 business days to review and comment on the permit. (4) The proposed addition or alteration must meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (5) Any change in the supporting members of the building or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders, will not be permitted as an addition under this provision." This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 5th day of May, 2003. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 10th day of May, 2003. YES NO Haugen Haugen Blomberg Blomberg LeMair LeMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\03 files\03 ordin amend\03 zoning\bluffimpact zone\ord03xx.doc PAGE 2 1 Minnesota Department of Natural Resourtes APR l 0 llW DNR Waters-Central Region, 1200 Warner Road, St Paul, Mtw~- Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-79771 i i: i !, . ~ Iii I,V 1_ -1~'j April 7, 2003 Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Case File #03-29, Modifications to Existing Nonconforming Structures in Bluff Areas Dear Ms. Kansier: Thank you for submitting draft language you propose for adoption in the city's shoreland ordinance as it pertains to additions or alterations to existing non-conforming structures located within the bluff setback or bluff impact zones. I met with you and other city staff last month to discuss this matter. The language you have drafted for consideration is consistent with that which we discussed. The intent of the proposed revisions is to address the issue of existing development on lots that are identified as bluffs. In its current form, your ordinance (based upon minimum state guidelines) would prohibit any addition, expansion, or substantial improvement to an existing non-conformity. The language under consideration for adoption would require an engineering assessrl1eJ1t that addresses the stability of the bluff, and also does not allow encroachment any further in to the bluff impact zone that the existing structure. The notification requirement to DNR also assures the opportunity for this agency to provide input to the process. If the proposed amendment is adopted, please send a copy of the resolution to me. I will then forward it to our headquarters with a recommendation for DNR approval. Please call me at 651-772-7917 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ ~r~~ Patrick 1. Lynch ill DNR Area Hydrologist c: Pete Otterson, DNR Waters " DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity o Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 20g" Post-Consumer Waste PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 14,2003 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the April 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Criego Lemke Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the March 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. -k A. Case #03-29 Consider an Amendment to Section 1104.303 (Bluff Impact Zone) and Section 1104.304 (Bluff Setbacks) of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. This amendment is a result of the staff review of several permits for structures located along Prior Lake and within a bluff. The purpose of the amendment is to provide some equity in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. On a vacant lot, this provision is easily applied and enforced. However, as staff is reviewing permits for additions and alterations to existing homes along the lake, they have discovered there are some structures located within the Bluff Impact Zone and Bluff Setback. The current language does not permit the City to approve a variance to allow additions or alterations to these nonconforming structures. The only alternative at this time is to deny any requested permits. " L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN041403.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 2003 On vacant lots within the Bluff Impact Zone, the City is almost required to issue a variance in order to allow a reasonable use of the property. However, on lots with existing dwellings, it can be argued there is an existing reasonable use of the property and that a variance is not required. In order to provide a more equitable enforcement of the ordinance, the staffis suggesting an amendment to the current language for both the Bluff Impact Zone and the Bluff Setback, as shown on Exhibit A. This language essentially allows additions and alterations as long as they do not extend any further into the Bluff Impact Zone or Bluff Setback than the existing structure. The proposed amendment also requires the proposed addition meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements. The staff has discussed this amendment with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staff. The DNR staff is comfortable with the proposed language in that it does not allow any further encroachment and allows the DNR to review specific permits. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Stamson questioned if the DNR had any controls. Kansier responded they have the right to appeal the process. Technically the DNR oversees the administration of the ordinance and if the City was abusing it they can take the authority away. They also have the right to take the City to court for not following the ordinance. Their issues are the same as the City's. If there is something we overlook they will notify us. Stamson questioned how it would affect the replacement of a home. Kansier explained in the event a nonconforming structure bums down it can be replaced as long as it meets all the zoning requirements. In a situation like this a lot without a variance would become nonbuildable. In that case, the property owner would need to go through the variance procedure. There would be a defined hardship assuming there were no other buildable locations on the lot. Ringstad questioned if the City knew how many homes on Prior Lake are in the bluff impact zone. Kansier said the City does not know the exact number however; they did identify 10 bluff areas on the lake. Atwood questioned if there is any implications for previous applicants. Kansier didn't believe so; ifthere was a building permit it was either denied or held in the past few months. That is one of the issues the City is trying to address. Criego questioned how the engineering report helps the City determine whether there is trouble on the bluff. Kansier said it was a requirement in the ordinance about 3 years ago. An engineer looks at the bluff, the location of the home and any proposed construction on the site. They determined the stability of the slope itself and recommend building types or mitigation requirements to maintain stabilization of the slope. It is also reviewed by the City Engineering Department. Criego questioned what is the liability issue to the City ifthe structure or slope would collapse a few years down the road? Kansier said it would be no greater liability than the City has today. The engineering report would protect the City and the homeowner. .. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN041403.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 2003 Criego pointed out an issue a couple of years ago on Pixie Point and has been a concern. Kansier said the bluff ordinance was a direct result from that incident. Poppler said the engineer who provides the report must be a certified professional engineer. They would be liable for an error. Comments from the public: Marv Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks Road, complimented the staff and City on reaching the decision to add language to this amendment. He would like to ask that "the bluff' to be very specific. Mirsch felt in the definition the ''toe of the bluff' to the "top of bluff' is part of the bluff impact zone including the 20 foot setback. He would like to see language to replace a home if there would be a fire and the home destroyed. Staff could use the same philosophy as the bluff zone not to increase encroachment so one would be able to replace the home. Mirsch said he researched several insurance policies and interpreted the policies to say that if a portion ofthe house is destroyed in the bluff impact zone, the rest of the house, or a little bit, the zoning and building people would claim the ordinance would not allow a rebuild and the insurance company would not pay for it. He would like to see the ordinance amended to indicate one would be able to rebuild a home if destroyed. Neal Blanchett, 7900 Xerxes Ave, passed out photos of the Pixie Point area and described setback inequities in the neighborhood. In reference to Julie David's proposal, the City has allowed significant new construction but at the same time it has been difficult to modify existing construction. He supported the ordinance in that it helps residents with additional construction. Kathy Kissoon, 15386 Fish Point Road, said they will be doing reconstruction. Kissoon appreciated the ordinance and felt it will help improve and develop properties. If this ordinance is denied it will affect property owners who want to improve. The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Agreed with staffs recommendation. Ringstad: . Agreed. Went through and studied ordinance. Applaud staff as long as the setback is not being encroached further. . Would like to hear what other comments on Mirschs suggestion regarding insurance. A little bit hesitant on putting in language like that but would like to hear from the Commissioners. . L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN041403.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 14. 2003 Criego: . Does staff agree with Mirsch's summary of ''the'' and the 30 feet? Kansier said the illustration from the DNR. It is correct in the text and that is what the City uses. It is neither the staffs illustration nor a simple word processing change. . What about Mirsh's other suggestion to add "the bluffvs. bluff'. Kansier said she did not understand his point. . What about the insurance issue? Kansier responded she remembered Mirsch bringing this issue up before and the City Attorney did not want to have that in the ordinance. She explained it did not have anything to do with this ordinance. It is an insurance issue. The City provides the relief with loss to go through the variance process. It is not something that can be done with this amendment. It is in a different section of the ordinance and was not published. If Mirsch wants to provide language, staff can ask the City Attorney to look at it. . Agreed with staff s recommendations. The diagrams should indicate the correct verbiage. . Make a separate action to have legal council look at the insurance issue. . Approve as written. Lemke: . Agreed with the Commissioners to amend. Stamson: . Agreed with the concept of allowing additions. The concern is the amendment loophole it provides. Explained a remodel situation where problems could occur. . Would like to see some restriction on what can be an addition. An example would be not being able to add more than 50% of the assessed value of the home including a lot. A footprint can't be more than 100% of the existing structure. That prevents an 800 square foot seasonal house into a 6000 square foot house using this ordinance to bypass the variance processes. . Kansier said staff considered some of those options and the goal was to make it as simple as possible. It is a risk the City will have to take if someone would use it as a loophole. . Stamson said the DNR can say it does not meet the ordinance but they can not stop the building permit process. Kansier said the DNR has the opportunity to appeal, they could bring the City to court if they felt the City was abusing it on a consistent basis. They could also pull the City's authority to review anything in the Shoreland Ordinance. The situation Stamson is bringing up can happen. . Atwood questioned if staff was comfortable with the ordinance. Kansier responded staff is fairly comfortable with this amendment. In some respects staff felt it would be too limiting. Just the cost of construction can far exceed the 50%. Increasing the footprint by 100% is a possibility. It is up to the Commission. . This is an issue. When you look at the nonconforming structure rules on existing homes, what you can replace and know what can be built. If it happens to be in the variance request - Stamson read the code. In some ways it is unfair if a house bums down. A resident does not have the same opportunities available. The idea . L\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN04l403.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting April14. 2003 behind the ordinance is not to redevelop an old home into a large brand new home. . Likes the concept of allowing an addition of some sort, but there should be restrictions especially when dealing with a bluff. . The other concern is the DNR's ordinance of not building in the bluff - Our ordinance does not address vegetation. Would like to see a stronger standard on grading and vegetation, something along the Tree Preservation Ordinance. We have talked about this issue before. There should be some preservation. . It is still a bluff - hate to see someone corne in with a bobcat and grade the bluff down under this ordinance. Atwood: . Would support a more restrictive wording in the bluff management. As far as the value of construction of a home issue - would be hesitant to put language in that would perhaps be specific. A footprint percentage might be a reasonable approach. Criego: . Would not disagree with Stamson's suggestion, but it seems that some of the development on the bluff was approved by the Commissioners which had to create some kind of variance otherwise no one would be able to build a home. Actually some turned out to be very nice homes. Samson pointed out in those cases the residents had to go through the variance process. There is more control over the variance process than this. . Agreed with Stamson this ordinance was written for a specific example. It will not work for all. Here is a case where the ordinance is changed for more flexibility but it is not for everyone and it is not controlled. How do you write an ordinance that still allows some control and make sure it meets all needs? . Kansier said it is difficult to write an ordinance to address every specific situation. Staffs purpose for not requiring a variance was that if there was a set of criteria and the applicant met the criteria, why would you not grant a variance? Understands the Commissioners concern, but believes the ordinance covers those issues. One of the purposes for the engineering report is to discuss the impact excavation and fill on the site. There is also a provision pertaining to Shoreland alterations that talks about what vegetation can be removed. The existing ordinances cover the grading and vegetation concerns. Although it can be noted in the ordinance to make it clear. Stamson: . Did not want to make all these variances, just felt the criteria is too encompassing. Kansier said the way to do it is to limit the additions. Language could be put in stating the existing structure must remain. i.e. additions to existing structures must have 3 out of the 4 walls remain. There has to be adequate verbiage to distinguish. Part of this ordinance was to allow people to build up. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cornm\03pcMinutes\MN041403.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 14. 2003 . Stamson pointed out a previous variance request and how this amendment would allow more than a variance. With this ordinance the applicant could have gotten around it. Criego: . Recommended looking at the insurance issue. Lemke: . Questioned if there was a legal building envelop that would accomplish this. Kansier said if the criteria were put in the ordinance and if someone does not agree with the decision they could appeal. . Questioned if someone came in owning a 3 season cabin and would like to rebuild to a permanent home. Kansier said they would come in with a variance request to demolish the existing structure and build a new structure. It would probably be viewed as a reasonable use, but to make it bigger would be another issue. Ringstad: . Agreed - Sounds like we're trying to take out as much subjectivity as possible and have some very subjective language that everyone can work with. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, ASKING STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CURRENT DRAFT ORDINANCE TO INSURE THAT 25 FEET IS CHANGED AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED; STUDY THE DEFINITION OF "BLUFF" VERSUS "THE BLUFF"; INVESTIGATE THE INSURANCE ISSUE TO SEE IF OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN CASE THERE IS DAMAGE TO THE HOME; TO PUT CORRECTIVE VERBIAGE TO ENSURE THE DEFINITION OF ADDITION TO MEAN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE, NOT NECESSARILY REPLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE. CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING, APRIL 28, 2003. Kansier pointed out the insurance issue cannot be added to the ordinance. Staffwi11look at it. Vote taken indi ed ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #03-22 S rock DeveloP~s requesting consideration for a Preliminary Plat to be wn as Th~l~~ ~th, consisting of 12.25 acres to be subdivided into 25 lots for s Ie fa ily residential development. Planning Coordinator Jane Kans'er sented the Planning Report dated April 14, 2003, on file in the office of the Ci lanning epartment. Shamrock Development s applied for a Preli . ary Plat for the property located on the north side of CSAH 82 est of The Wilds 5th Ad . n and east of The Wilds South. L\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN04I 403.doc 6