Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8D - Ordinance 99-18 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15,1999 8D JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ,rr CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 99-# APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR THE COMBINATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS, LOT AREA FOR DUPLEXES, REQUIREMENTS FOR DECKS NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED SETBACKS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT, SETBACK AVERAGING IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT, AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS (Case File 99-082) History: The City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance, effective May 1, 1999. As we have implemented this ordinance, areas for refinement have been identified. Staff has recommended some amendments. Others were initiated by direction of the City Council. Others have come to light as we have applied the current ordinance and have come across situations which require some changes in the language. Each of the proposed amendments is discussed below. Sunset Provisions for the Conveyance of Nonconforming Lots: Prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, there was extensive discussion on the requirements for the combination of nonconforming lots in common ownership. The previous ordinance did not require the combination of these lots; however, the DNR made it very clear that they would not accept a Shoreland Ordinance that did not include this provision. The current language automatically combined all nonconforming lots in common ownership. However, it also allows a property owner with three 50' wide riparian lots to create two lots, each 75' wide and 12,000 square feet in area. This provision is effective until November I, 1999. The City Council discussed this requirement at a work session on October 4, 1999. The Council was concerned that this language was inconsistent with their original intent to allow the subdivision of all nonconforming lots for the six month period. The Council directed 1:\92file$\9~rdatnd\zoniI).g\99-Q82\99082cc.d.o~ Page 1 162UU Eagle creek Ave. ~.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (b12) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER staff to initiate an amendment that would allow the subdivision of nonconforming lots for an extended period of time. The staff has suggested language that would allow the conveyance of nonconforming lots and extend the sunset provision until December 31, 1999. This would allow the conveyances for a limited period of time. The Planning Commission agreed there should be a time limit, but recommended the date be established as 60 days from the date of the enactment of the ordinance. If the ordinance is adopted by the Council on November 15, 1999, and published immediately, this would extend the application of this ordinance until January 20,2000. Subdivision of Lots with Existing Duplexes: Section 5-4-1.1 of the previous Zoning Ordinance created an exception to the minimum lot area and side yard requirements for the subdivision of a lot with an existing side-by-side duplexes. The purpose of this provision is to allow each unit of a duplex to be located on a separate lot for individual sale. This provision was not included in the new ordinance. Incorporating this provision does not change the density or intent of the ordinance provision. In order to provide for this provision, the original language, shown below, could be added to Section 1101.501: If a lot containing a two-family dwelling is subdivided into 2 lots, the minimum lot area, lot width and side yard requirements may be waived subject to the following conditions: a. A common wall shared by the 2 dwellings is located in its entirety on the boundary line separating the 2 lots; b. The common wall meets the standards of the Building Code for owner-occupied units and any other applicable codes adopted or enforced by the City; c. A covenant or other agreement is approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Scott County Recorder; and d. Each of the 2 dwellings is served separately by public utilities, none of which are shared. Deck Additions in the Shoreland District: The current ordinance contains a provision allowing the reconstruction of an existing deck not meeting the setback requirements. Section 1104.202 (3,a) also allows the construction of new decks that do not meet the setback requirements in the Shoreland District. There is some concern that this provision will allow further encroachment into the required lake setback. In order to ensure that this is not the case, this section could be deleted. Replacement decks not meeting the setback requirements would still be allowed, as would new decks meeting the setback . . . averagmg prOVISIOns. Setback Averaging in the Shoreland District: Section 1104.308 of the zoning Ordinance is the provision allowing setback averaging in 1:\99files\99ordamd\zoning\99-082\99082cc.doc Page 2 the Shoreland District. The language in this section is exactly the same as the language in the previous ordinance. The new ordinance also allows setback averaging to be extended beyond the adj acent lots in some instances. In the past we have interpreted this language to apply to additions to existing structures; however, as written the language applies to new structures only. In order to apply this provision to additions as well as new structures, the section should be amended by simply adding language referring to existing structures. Hold Harmless Agreements: Section 1109.600 ofthe Zoning Ordinance outlines the requirements for certificates of surveys as part of a building permit application. Sections 1109.602, 1109.603 and 1109.604 list the situations and conditions in which a certificate of survey is not required. One of the conditions in each of these sections is that the applicant for the permit sign an agreement holding the City harmless from any damages incurred if the structure is placed inaccurately on the site. The purpose of this section is to reduce the City's potential liability. However, the City Attorney has indicated the City has the same defenses and immunities that it would otherwise have regardless of whether there is a hold harmless agreement. In order to be more customer friendly, this requirement should be eliminated. To do so, the ordinance should be amended to delete the sections referring to the need for a hold harmless agreement. Current Circumstances: The Planning Commission considered these amendments at a public hearing on October 25, 1999. The Planning Commission was comfortable with the proposed language and recommended approval of these amendments. The only change recommended by the Commission concerned the extension of the provision allowing the conveyance of nonconforming lots to sixty days following the adoption of the ordinance. A copy of the draft minutes are attached to this report. The Issues: These amendments were written in response to the Council's directive, and to clarify the existing ordinance. The Council must determine whether the proposed language is consistent with their original intent. The DNR has reviewed the proposed changes to the Shoreland regulations and has no objections. Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend approval of this amendment. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has three alternatives: I. Adopt Ordinance 99- XX approving the proposed amendment as requested. 2. Deny Ordinance 99-XX. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. 1: \99files\99ordamd\zoning\99-082\99082cc.doc Page 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 99- XX approving the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is require~ Approval of this ordinance requires a 4/5 vote OfIUCil. (I Frank Bo es, i Manager 1:\99files\99ordamd\zoning\99-082\99082cc.doc Page 4 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 99- XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.501,1104.202,1104.308, 1109.602,1109.603 AND 1109.604 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1101.501 (3,c and d) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: c. If 2 or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of or subsequent to the passage or amendment of this Ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area and lot width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot area or lot width requirements established by the Ordinance, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with area or width below the requirements ofthis Ordinance. If necessary to assure compliance with other provisions of this Ordinance, the lots shall be combined, except that owners of nonconforming lots of record in common ownership may convey ownership of one or more lots to another owner until January 20, 2000. d. Nonconforming riparian lots in Shoreland District, under common ownership with an abutting parcel of property on or after the effective date of this Ordinance, may be further subdivided to create buildable parcels which meet the following standards: ~ The lot must have at least 75 feet of frontage at the front building line and at the Ordinary High Water elevation. ~ The lot must be at least 12,000 square feet in area above the Ordinary High Water elevation. This provision is effective for 6 months follo'.ving the effective date of this Ordinance and expires on November 1, 1999 until January 20,2000. 2. Section 1101.501 of the Prior Lake City Code is amended to add the following language: 1:\99fi1es\99ordamd\zoning\99-082\ord99xx.doc PAGE I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Ei--IPLOYER (4) If a lot containing a two-family dwelling is subdivided into 2 lots, the minimum lot area, lot width and side yard requirements may be waived subject to the following conditions: a) A common wall shared by the 2 dwellings is located in its entirety on the boundary line separating the 2 lots; b) The common wall meets tlte standards of the Building Code for owner-occupied units and any other applicable codes adopted or enforced by the City; c) A covenant or other agreement is approved by the City AUorney and filed with the Scott County Recorder,' and d) Each of the 2 dwellings is served separately by public utilities, none ofw/zich are shared. 3. Section 1104 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete Section 1104.202 (3,a) in its entirety. 4. Section 1104.308 (2) ofthe Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: (2) 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, or any additions to an existing structure, may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high-water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In cases where only one of the two lots adjacent to an undeveloped shoreland lot has an existing principal structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure and the next structure within 150 feet may be utilized. Setback averaging may not be utilized when an undeveloped shoreland lot is adjacent to two other undeveloped shoreland lots. In no instance shall a principal structure be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone. 5. Section 1109 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete Section 1109.602 (5) in its entirety. 6. Section 1109 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete Section 1109.603 (4) in its entirety. 7. Section 1109 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to delete Section 1109.604 (2) in its entirety. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 15th day of November, 1999. I :\99fi I es\99ordamd\zoning\99-082\ord 99xx.doc PAGE 2 ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 20th day of November, 1999. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 I: \99fi1 es\99ordamd\zon ing\99-082\ord 99xx .doc PAGE 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 25. 1999 Kuykendall questioned the retaining wall on Outlot C. Heuschele said it was right on the property lhte. The DNR and homeowners would like to see it remov~ and re-landscaped similar to the.~st ofthe development. ,/ p y . r The public hearirig,was closed..":" \ ,.' Comments from the 'Cpmmissioners: " V onhof: ., . . This is the third time this has been before the Commission. homeowners, he does not see a problem. .' Kuykendall: . Agreed with V onhof. 'J( Criego: . In full agreement with Commissioners. . Keep Outlots A and B, as natural as p Cramer and Stams9n: Concurred with th~ 'Commissioners. , MOTION BY'VONHOF, AMENDMENT AS P REPORT. "" NDALL, TO'APPROVE THE ITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF " \ ~ ~, \, , 7k e following amendments to the Zoning n 1101.501 (3, c) and (3,d) extending the sunset provision to allo f existing nonconforming lots under common ownership. . An am ction 1101.501 adding subparagraph (4) allowing the waiver of the minim ea and side yard requirements to subdivide a lot with an existing two-family ling under specific conditions. . An amendnlent to Section 1104.202 (3,a) deleting the language allowing a deck addition, other than a replacement deck, that does not meet the setback requirements in the Shore land District. . An amendment to Section 1104.308 (2) to allow setback averaging for additions to existing structures in the Shoreland District. . An amendment to Sections 1109.602 (5), 1109.603 (4) and 1109.604 (2) to remove the need for a hold harmless agreement when issuing permits for which a certificate of survey is not required. 1 :\99fi1es\99p1comm\pcmin\mn 1 02599.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 25, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Some ofthe amendments were initiated by direction of the City Council. Other amendments have come to light with applications and situations which ma ire some changes in the language. Wes Mader, 3470 Sycamore Trail, stated several of the t I 'ms he discovered from applicants having difficulty trying to get building pe t appeared to him, the City had not accurately captured the inte . . the Zoning OrdI ~;~;i regard to the November extension date, Mr. Mader exp re were two prgyjsions for subdividing lots. One was to subdivide 1 7~ foot lofs/granting a 6 month grace period. The 50 foot lots did not have'ch was not consistent. The Council was not clear in t scussion ow the t. He did not feel any rigid consensus on the Council e line. cil was going to leave that up to staff. Comments from the public: Mike Hodgens, 2306 West 52nd Street, Minneapolis, wasi~,il~!l}~d with the amendment's grace period not being long enough to noti~lromeowners in case transactions need to be made. ' The public hearing Comments from the Co . . . . . Stamson: . Support the Hold Harmless Agreement. It is an issue the Commissioners agreed to let go. . Support setback averaging and deck additions. Staffs rationale make sense. 1 :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 1 02599.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 25. 1999 . Support subdivision of lots with existing duplexes. . Regarding the conveyance of non-conforming lots - his recollection is when the Commission discussed this, the intent was not to extend the ordinance 6 months for 50 foot lots. That was the rationale the 6 month extension for the 75 feet came into effect. There was a lot of discussion by the Commissioners, however the majority felt the rules should take place immediately upon publishing. The Commission came up with the 75 foot width and 12,000 square foot lot size as the numbe because they are legal lots and balance with the rest of the city. Someone w' ts could split it equally. It was never the intention ofthe Planning Com to allow subdivision or conveyance of 50 foot lots. Does not support. Criego: . Recollects when the workshops with City Council to short term or a grace period, there were mixed op' . Concern for deck on the 15% was the added info ordinance. . Kansier said it has been in the Shoreland Ordinance sin with the ordinance change this year. . Did not remember this being a conce raised at the recent Council workshop. setback averaging and replacement oftn This would give an additi enefit by setback. . Agreed with the Co . In regard to dec percent on a de 1 . Agreed with the subdI ates to the conveyance of non-conforming lots. It s extend uary 31 or February 27. It is not enough time for peog1 0 0 somg>with their property. . P on with the t lot iss~#has not changed. The DNR indicates that a 75 foot lot at the lake i tisfacifiry. It is the City that imposed the 90 feet. Kansier . ed it is 90 at ont lot line and 75 feet at the ordinary-high-water. with ales ringent measurement. The 90 foot width on the street side ent. ~less and setback averaging. ly one way or another. Fifteen . Cramer: . Agreed witn Commissioners' comments on the hold harmless, setback averaging and deck additions although open to discussions on the deck addition. Some concerns with decisions the Commission have made in the past. . Support subdivision of lots with existing duplexes. . After being on the Commission for 2 years, it has been a rather divisive issue between the Commissioners regarding the sunset provision on non-conforming lots. It does seem to make sense to have the sunset clause coincide with the other clause of a timeline to January 31. That should put an end to the issue. I :\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn I 02599 .doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 V onhof: . Having been on the Commission for a while and through the process of re-writing the zoning ordinance, changes were anticipated. There would be unintended impacts. . Agreed with Commissioners on the Hold Harmless Agreement, setback averaging in the Shoreland District and deck addition. . Suggestion for sunset provision - rather than go with a date from 60 da date of passage, to go with a date set by the City Council. It would staffs recommendation to allow the same amount of time. Criego requested comments from the other Commission o feet at the street. " he would be open . Rye said that is e with the 86 feet. Open discussion: Stamson's recollection was the DNR requires 75 f~ That is why it was passed that way. If those are not the to discussion. The City should not be more restrictive than true with the DNR numbers, because ifno e City would ha Kuykendall requested obtaining the exact i 0 . Stamson agreed. V onhof suggested staff bring MOTION BY CRIEGq,i;SECOND,<! VONHhJIP RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ORDIN~~E 99-XX.~ENDING.~;ECTIONS 1101.501, 1104.202, 1104.308, 1109.601~011'<M,i:~~\&~~g,~,aiqF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE WITH THE CHANGE 0 SUNSET'PROVISIONS FOR THE CONVEYANCE ON NON-C ING TO HAVE A DATE 60 DAYS FROM ENACTMENT FROM CIL. ce wa acted May 1, and so far nothing regarding the deck issue has ommISSIon. Kuyke . The or 1 come befo Vote taken indi ated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 1 02599.doc 6