HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Review of Proposed Revisions to Zoning Ordinance P(? BOX 51f1
���f/ O ;'fi7'i lArii11S1 W
��* '` r �Rf?SF_MC)iaN1 MINNE�C3T�A 5:50fi8
� �f
�i.pc?'���Qt/! ��! � 612 -4?3-4411
Tl'�: C1TY COUNCIL
FROM: MICNAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CtTY PLANNER
DATE: APRIL 24, 19$9
SUBJ: APRIL 25, 1989 - SPECIAL C�UNCIL MEETINt; REVIEW
PRUPUSED ZONING ORDIl�1ANCE REVIEW ANn nISCUSSION
This meeting is the third in a serics of Special c�uncil Meetings set up to
review the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. At the April l£�th Regular Council
Meetin� the Council set additior►al meeting dates for May llth and May 23rd at
fi:30 p.m, on both of those evenings.
At the April 11t1t Speeial Meeting 1he Council spenl cansiderable time discussin�;
Sand &. Gravel Mining Policy and proposed pr�vision t� allow Recycling
Operatians (AAA - auto salvage). The discussion �f these issues was productive
and concluded with the Cauncil Memhers �resent reaching a consensus in favor
of the language inciuded within the Pr�posed Zonit�� Ordinanee with minor
changes in the regulation of Recyling Uperations ta preclucte use of semi-trailors
or buses to store matexials.
The rest of the Aprii Iith Meeting was srent discussin� Questions �4c Comments
which had been subrnitted by Counci( Members and were incorporated into a
review with Staff eomments. The Council revieweci che yuestions on paged 1 and
2 of the review through the questi�n rel'errin� to {�a�c 20 (Seelion 6.3 $.3. I
have recopied my April 11th review wilh the quzstion5 and highlighted the the
last question that was discussed. There are 25 questians remaining to be
diseussed. Tt is recommended that the Council �rocecc� to c�iseuss the remaining
questions, however, limiting discussion to 5 minutes per queslion. This would
allow a11 of the remaining questic�ns tc� be addressect in � maximum of 2 hours
ancl 10 minutes. If more than 5 minules is need tc� ditcuss �► question it is
recommended that we make note of the issue and cc��ne back to address it either
[ater in the.meeting or at a future meeting.
It is further reeammended by Staff that the Council utilize the last half hour of
the meeting to discuss a procedure for corn�leting review of the Qrdinance.
Staff will discuss options for more clelailed review.
; At the meeting copies of cl�anges to lhe }�r��osed f)rdinance which were
reeommended by the Councii at Ehe A�ril llth wil! be distributed. These
changes wiil be in the farm of replaced sheets tc� he inserted into each Council
Members copy of the Qrdinance. These replacement sheets should be reviewed
and questions vr comments directed to my atlentian }�rinr to the next schedufeci
review session.
�
y
r -'�l1 �
/7 �E� Eif)X 510
��%�?�/ O 2875-in5TN ST W
� `�� ' FiC�Sf��P.4(�ItNT. MWNESOTA 5�i069 �
C?��E..'YL2()��t 1��� s,2—a2s-aa>>
TO: CITY COUNC[L
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, CITY PLANNER, AI�P
DATE: APR[L 7, I989
SUBJ; APRIL 11, 1989 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING REVIEW
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW ANu DIS(;USSI(}N
The Gity Couneil held its first Speeial Councii Meeting to initiate formal review vf
the Proposed Zoning (3rdinance on February 14, 1989, At that meeting there was no
consensus of Council Members present as to what wc�uld Me a lagical time period (i.e.
number of ineetings) to adequately review the r�rclinance and reach a consensvs.
Seweral af the items outlined in the Planner's Review for that meeting were
discussed at the meeting in general with no final conclusions being drawn. At the
meeting Staff reeommended that the City Council suhmit in writing for the next
review session, questions and comrnents regarding any specific sections of the
ordinance where it is perceived there may be a problem. 1 have received lists of
questions, comments, and recomrnendations from several C.ouncil Members and have
decided that it wou(d be most appropriate to spend this work session discussing
questions and comments which were submitted by Council Members.
The remainder of this review inctudes a listing of c�ueslions regarding the Propbsed
Zpning Ordinance whieh were generated by Council Mernbers followed by answers or
recommendations from Ci[y Staff.
Aiso being copied to Council is a re��iew entitled PRC?P�SE[a ZONII�TG ORDINANCE-
MAJOR CHANGES/ISSUES, which was previously distributed for the first review
session. Discussion of the issues addressed in this review was not completed at the
February 14th meeting and will be reinitiated 6y Staff.
COUNCIL QUE5TION5 & CnMM�NTS:
Page 1. Section 2.1; Why are we promoting transiti�n frc�m rural to urban?
Staff comment: To accommc�date logical expansion of the original viltage
at comparable density; to accommodale residential c�evelc7pment comparable
to other third ring metro communities. To acc�mmodale population growth
while maintaining an adequate leyel �f public services ineluding provision
of public water and sewer. For example: restricting development to only
Rural Residential develo�ment is not environmentally sound (promotes
ground water contamination) and is also not efficient from the perspective
of initial capital improvements expenditures and long-term maintenance of
public irnprovements.
' Page 12. Section 4.2 A.2t Old langua�e CN,(�UIY4(I cc�mbinaiic�n if land is under same
ownership adjacent to fot in questi�n - why not keep lhal language?
Steff comment: If tot was legally divided a court would likely deeide that
untess Ehere was environmental concerns which wciulcJ �reclude deveta�ment
without endangering the }�ublic health safety a»cl «�elfare that ciemandin�
lot combinaEion would �e a iaking ef the prc���ertv.
p s Proposed Zoning Ordinance - REVIEW & DISCUSSION
Special Council Meeting Review
Aprfl 11, 1989
Page 13, Section 4.4: Item C frorn an eariier draft had been elirninated - "All
Single-family Attached Develo}�ments tvhiCh have cot�dc�minium pwnership
shall be permitted only by PUD. Why ncat keep that tanguage?
Staff comment: City Att��rncy actcis�d this as hein� unneeessary and
defeating the purp�sc c�f h.it�in� :► clistiitet �c�ni►i� district fc�r attached
housing {R-2 Single Fa�nily Attacl�c�l F�csict�rtce t)i5trict).
Page 13. Seetion 4.9 C: �ld language limiteci outdoor storage to 2 Recreational
Vehieles - why was this ehanged? C�uld we restrict outdoor storage to
Agriculture District? :
5taf[ Camment: The Flanning Cc�m�nissi�n concluded that many
homeowners have several RVs (snc�wn�oE�ilc, hoat, cam�er) and that it may
not be acceptable to th� �ublic ko lim�t outd«c�r st.c�rage �f RVs. There is
ltagic to limiting outdoor storage of RVs to recluce the appearance af
ctutter in the residential districts. This matter warrants discassion by
City CounciL -
Page 14. Section 5.1: Shoutd we usc a ciif[erent name c�r nun�her (c�r RE District?
Staif Camment: Staff recommends fhat the RE Resiciential Executive
District be renamed to thc R-1 Low Density 5inglc Family Residentiat
District.
Page 16. SecEion 4:14: Should any provisi�ns he macle far campers of short stay?
Staff Commentt Sta[f is in agreem�:nl lhat il is nc�t appropriate to allow
tents, RVs or any c�ther cy}�e of temporary d�velling to be used in any
district unless other than in a c�evel�ped campgrc�und.
Page 19. Section 6.1 B: Kennels and keeping of furbearing anim�ls should require
more aereage (i.e., 20 acres).
Staff Cammenf: As ('it.y Planner, 1 �ti�r�t�ld tcncl tc� agree that keeping oC
furbearing animals sht>utd reqt�irc more tl�an fivc ��cres caf land; h�wever,
because kenneks are mueh mnre preualent �ncl since there is a greater
demand for them, it may be unreasonabie lc� require a minimum of 20 acres
for kennels. Councit should discuss this issue ancl reach a consensus.
Page 20. Seetion 6.3 B.3. Should veterinary clinics, kennels and keeping c�f
furbearing animals be alt��vecl 'rn the R�tral Rcsidencc District?
Staff Comrnent: As cited in earlier questi�n --- this should be discussed
by CouneiL
Page 24. Section 6.7 A; Delete tast three w�rds in para�r���h [end paragraph with
«�Pportunities"J.
Staff Comment; (,00ct iclea! W'e shc�uld not assu�ne ���l�at the needs c�f a
contemporary family are.
2
,
�� Proposed Zoning Ordinance - REVtF,W ric UISCUSSION
Special Council Meeting Revlew
April 11, 1989
Page 25. Section 6.8 B: Languagr frc�na an c.irlier ciraft. madc rc�ference to same
uses as R-3 Districi. Wl�y ���ati thai I�>>tgua�*e clrc��peJ? Should there be
language placing conditions c�n RV storage 5imi}ar to R-3 District?
Staff Comment: Include 4, 6, 7, S) ar�d lO from Section G.7 B.
Page 38. Section ?.1: LoC size5 fc�r RE T)istrirt �h�►u1c1 I�r Iart;cr --- 22,0OO square
foot minimum. Lot Si"I.CS for R-1 Disirici shciuld '<1I50 he larger -- 12,0�0-
15,OD0 square foot minimnm.
Staff Comrnent: Based upon prc�hibitive construction casts for
improvements, it would nc�l he practical to require larger than 22,OOE3
square faa[ rninimum ic�t size in the RE District. it i� �t lhe discrclinn of
Council to raisc ihc minimun� Ic�t siz�; fr<�ni I�,1)t)tl cc� 22.IIOQ square fcet in
the RE District. il wt�ultt rcclucc �»:iximun� cic�a�itv ��nd prohal,ty lielp to
better meet the intenl �f the t�istriet. Thc prc>p+�sec) 1Q,��0 syuare Coot
� lofi size r�i�im�um for the R-1 t3isirict n�aatehes our current standard and is �
comparable to reqnirements [c�und in mc�st ot)ter metro suburbs similar in
character to Rosemount. Raising minimt�m lot size in the R-1 Districk to
12,000 or 15,�QQ square fcet cc�uld make it difficutt tor developers in
Rasemouni to com�ete with develc�pers in other ec�mmunities and would
raise the cast of housing in that District. It is u� t<� City Council to
evaluate these impticatic�ns.
Page 39. Section 7.2: The ordinance needs extra provisi�ns Tor "Central Business
District" (i.e., ptain roek faced hlock is nol acceptable}.
Staff Comment: Council should discuss this issue and give staff an
indicatian of what is acceptabtc so that new �rovisic�ns could he drafteci.
Page 39. Seetion '7.2: Stanctards for accessory buildings should be less stringent
east of Akr4n Avenue fc�r buildings nc�t ior agricultural use. Maximum
square footage east of Akran Avenue - 2,400. Maximum square fovtage
west of Akron Avenue - 1,200.
Staff Comment: This st�ndarcl is rcasc�nal�l� anct cc�t�l�l l�e set u� with a
special overlay district.
Page 40, Section 7.2 A.S: Should t'irsl senlence regarding prefabrieated meial
storage buildings also include RR District?
Staff Comment: Yes.
Page 41. Se�tton 7,2 5.b. Remoc-e Il, -- LiSG a5 hdrg�tining chi�� as we currc;ntly do,
Rernove d. -- does "closely matchcs" mc;an samc eolc>r?
,
Staif Commentc Council should ciiscuss cvhether or not metal roofs present
a problem on aecessory t�uilciings. The lerm "c(osely matches" refers to
style, not color,
3 ',
.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance - REYIEW & nISCUSS[ON
` Speciat Coancil Meeting Review
April lI, 1989
Page 42. Section 7.2 A.S. (footnote #1}; Dc�es this rnean the total floor area of all
the accessory bui(ciings combined? ls the comparisc�n to the main floor
area of the prineipal building only?
Staff Comment: This fc>�I.nc�te is nc� lo«ger ncedeei hec.tuse of language in
Section 7.2 A.S. (}tage 40) tvi�ieti +�l��ccs r�;�lriclitsn5 on square 1'e�tage of
accessary buildings.
Page 43. Sectian 7.2 C.l.d: Does this a11ow clecks t� encrc�ach into yard setbacks?
Why�
Staff Comment: I am unccrtain h�«� these pr���isions c�riginated, but will
` have an answer at the meeting.
Page 44. Sectian 7.2 C.l.f: How c�ors a ha}ccyijy di(fcr fron� a deck?
Staff Comment: A balcony is genera}Iy cantilevered frc�m the wall of a
structure without svpport underneath and is usually sma}ler than a deck.
Page 47. Section 8.1 H: Is the ininimum perkin� reyuireci 1'c>r a senior high school
adequate?
Staff Comment: It is the intentic�n c�l' st�+f�f kc� ccansull wilh Independenk ,
Schoal District 196 in order to better determine what ihe parking needs
for a high schooi are.
Page 51. Section 8.1 L.6: Should the minimum of 3-1./2 fect be higher?
Staff Comment: The stanctarcl of 3-1,�2 feet is has�d upon the height
needed to screen headtights Crom vehict�s. Unless Gc�uncit is interested in
totally screening the view of vehic(es ik is nc�t necessary tc► go higher.
For safeEy reasons it may be unwise to tc�ially �creen parking areas. :
Page 53. Section $.3 B: Are minimum planting�; adeqnate?
Staff Comment: Pro�osed stanctardti .ii�c cc�m�,aral�lc to th�se used in many
ot$er communities. H�wever, sc�mc comn�unitic:s have sQphisticated
standards for type (species), siz_e and ptacement of landscape materials. If
it is the desire c�f Cauncil, staff cc�uld clxaft a mare detailed section
regarding landscaping requirements.
Page 57. Section 9,1 C: For Nalura) Encirc>nment Vti'�tcrs, why did lot area
requireme�ts go t'rom �1U,Uf){?/2(i,(}Ot) t� t�3,t)�011��,OOO? � � � � �� � �
� � � Sta�'f Comment: � The standar�i for minimum 1�ot size (sewere�d) in the � � � � �
Shoreiand Qverlay Regulations for Natural De�elopment Waters was
changed to 18,4�0 to eonform to our Standard for the RE District. The
18,OOQ square foot minimun� ���as used fUr b�th w•ater front loks and csther
lots. If Council sees the neec�, this n�ini►i�um can hc raiseei.
� .
.
Praposed Zoning Ordinance - RE�`IEW & DiSCUSS[QN
' Speciai Couneil Meeting Revietv
April 11, 19$9
Page 59. Section 9.1 F.S: Language from �revic�us ciraft required that all
applications be submiEted to DNR --- new language only talks ahout
hearings. Why?
Staff Comment: This tan�i�a�;e c��nfc�rn�s with DNR - Shoreland
Regulations. The City has enforeernrnt responsibilif}� for state designated
"Public Waters."
Pagc 67. Section 10.3 B.3: Add ". . . . . at the discretion af City Gouncil.
Staff Comment: F.nforcemc»t res�<►n5ihiliiies gcnertilly rest wilh City
Staff, however C�uncil may eertainfv rrmc�c�c this authc�rity from staff, if
d�sired. �
Page 77. Seetlon 14.5 B: Should we require permits ta }�un�}� a se�tic tank?
Staff Comtnent: I wiil discuss this yurslion a► the mccting.
Page S5. Sectian 15: Lloes this sectican allo��v fc�r tl�c C:itj- Council lo have final s�y
in all matters?
Staff Commeat: Yes.
Page $5. Section 15.2 C: Ft�r F'ul�lic He<rrin�: �iu1i('ic.iiitjn, cli5lance shoulci be
increased from 350 feet tc� �!4 milc in AG and RR Districts.
Staff Comment: TMis idca makcs scnse and shoulcl he considered by
Council.
Page 87. Section 16.2 C: Is this in our old ordinance?
Staff Comment: Ycs.
Page S7. Section Ib.2 E: Why nc�t a sim�le ma,jc�ritv tn ar#�rove zoning change?
Staff Comment: Because of the �c�tenli�i( significance of a zoning
amend�ent, requiring a 2/3 vc>te to aEa�rove is a safe�uard to ensure that
a ctear consensus has bcen reacheci.
Could there be a time limit on new reaoning? 1 f a develc�per has �oning
ehanged and then the projrct dies, coulcl l'hc Iancl then revert back to the
zqning that it hac� before the cievelc�rer asked for the change? A time
limit might be set at lwo c,r tl�ree years. If nc� �ictic�n on a project has
occurred, then the lanci w�ould hc rezoncc! E�aek to i1's origina( z�ning.
Staff Comment: Zoning ehanges cannot be conditional; however, Council
may elect to approve projects hy PUD ���hich would include a deadline for
construction start after wl�ich th� approcal wcauld n� l�nger be fiinding.
5
a
Proposed Zoning Ordinanee - REVIEW & UtSCUS51ON
' Speciai Couocit Meeting Review
April 11, 1989
Could there he an automatic tvaitin� ��cri«ci an the rc�oning of land that
would end when Ihe clet�el��per a�ldally comes in with grading plans and
request permits to start a }�rc�ject?
Staff Gomment: Yes. Council c�uld withhoicl re�c�ning until eonstruciion
is ready to begin. This is a uery goc�c� idca, especiaily for commerciai
projects or large residential pr�c�jects.
Could there be signs �osted c�n the lancl that w�as to he rezoned, notifying
anyone that saw them ihat the ianc# was tc� be rezc�ned, and then ksted
about when the rezoning hearing would be held? This would atso mean
that a waiting period of up to thirty, sixty or more days hefore rezoning.
Staff Cumment: Re�anings couid be handled in Ehis manner as is done in
other communities. This would slow lhe pr�cess and be more costly to the
developer. Council should discuss this o�li�n and reacl� a eansensus.
li �