HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Review of Proposed Revisions to Zoning Ordinance �
e � P C� BOX 51t1
� ���� {,� 2875 145TH S7. W
/-��+,�y�y'�� q� R05EMt?I�NT. MINN€SE)1'R 55(368
� (Jc7G l:I L�VI��-� 612-423-4411
�.
TO: C[TY COUNCIL
FItOM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER
DATE: MAY 30, 1989
�
SUBJ: MAY 31, 1989 - SPECIAL COUNCIG MEETINE; REVtEW
!'ltnP()SEt) Z()NIN(, t)RI)1NAN��: - REVI�W & 1)lSE:USS1t)N SESSIUN
This raeeting is the fifih in a series of 5pecial Council Meetings set up #o
review the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. This is the last �cheduled review sessian
and it is the desire of Staff that Cauncil resolve all rernaining issues or conCerns
regarciing the Ordinance ta all�w a final drafl to bc prdduced afEer review of
the revised document 6y the City Attorney.
Over the last several review sessions, City Council has discussed a list of
questions which had previously been submittea by City Councit Members.
Enclosed with this review is a copy of that lisl (Mema dated April 7', 1989). At
the last meeting the remaining questions on the list (beginning on page 4-
question pa�ge 43 Section 7.2 C.l.d.) were discussed. In the left fiand margin on
the list of questions, I have indicated if any changes have bee made in the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance text based on discussian by the Couttcil.
The pnrpose of this meeting is to discuss and hopefully reach a consensus on
thase question which were left unanswered during preuious review sessions.
Below is a list of just thase questions which have been left unresolved:
Page 19 Sectian 6.1 8.4.: Should public and institutional uses only in the
Fublic and Institutional District?
Pa�e ly Sectlon b.l �t Shauld kennels and k��ping of furbesrlr�g �nimals
require morc aereage (i,e. 20 acresj.
Page 2p Section 6.3 B,3.s Should veterinary clinics, kennels and keeping of
furbearing animals 6e allowed in the Rural Residence District?
Page 38 Sectlon 7,1: Shouid tot sizes for RE District should be larger--
22,OOQ square fooC minimum? Should toi sizes for R-1 Districc be
larger -- 12,OQ0-15,000 sqnare foot minimum?
Page 39 Settion 7.2: Shauld adciitional aesthetic provisions for the "Central
8usiness District" be added (i.e. plain rock faced block is not
acceptable}?
The following two question have been generated by Staff which address
important issues which musi be resolved prior to acting on the Praposed Zoning
Ordinance:
. -
�
�,..,
Landfilts: Is the City Councit prepared to adopt the curxent versian of the
Propased Zoning Ordinance which does not permit landfills in any
district?
Pa�e 26 Section 6.9: Should the types of permitted uses in the C-1
Neighborhood Commercial District be further restricted to avaid •
undesirable competition with the C-2 and C-3 Commercial Districts?
Cauncil Members should be prepared to discuss and resolve the questians listed
above and also to identify any additional issues regarding the ordinance which
may be of concera. At this point it is the recammendation of Staff that Counc'rl
proceed with acting on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance as soon as pos$ible.
Depeading on the length of time needed far review hy the City Attorney, a
public hearing to consider adoption could be held as soon as June 20th,
►
Staff is extremely confident that the Proposed Zoning Ordinance as drafted is a
far superior document to the current ordinance boEh in respect to form and
content. Council shauld bear in mind that Che oppartunity alw�ys exists to
further amend the Praposed Zoning Ordinance once it is adopted to address any
errors, shortcomings or inconsi ' .
..
� .-`�'"�
..-- __ �_..
� .�-__.----�"- �
! ��
..,
�-`- � �
d� -�" t
1�°" f
r�r v , °
d
� � � . � ��� ff� . .� . �:� � � j. � � . . . .
. . . � {� �� . . . � � � � .
j�
'i
. . .j � .. , . . . . . � . � .
E
. . � . . 11 . . ' If � . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . :1 . � . . .. . . f . . . . . . .
. �:��� . � . . . . . � . � . .
� . . :`.t ,_, . . � . �. .. . . . . ,�.�._+..,..�._a.�4 . .. .
,,� �:� � � .�,�_..._ �
� � S`4j� �� � � � . . ..... . �
,
`4,•�,,� �. .,�-
° `„�
`' ` 's
,.,�--._.� / ;.
� �" `" _. -
�� ,. ,
� _� _.�.:,:.;- ''
"`^�-,-___...., ., _.. ,,�
--•--_�___.._�.:.......�.._.------ �,; �
�� . `
.., .. l,,
ry ..�.., .,
w.� . ..,._,. ..,./
_.. ,
., __. . y.
..-"
e
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, CITY PLANNER, AICP
DATE: APRIL 7, 19$9
SUB;;. APRIL 11, 1989 - SPECIAL CU�JNCtL MEETING REVIEW
PROPUSED ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW ANU DISCUSSION
The City Council held its first Special Council Meeting to initiate formai review of
the Proposed Zoning Ordinance on February 14, 1989. At [hat meeting there was no
consensus of Council Members present as to what wauld be a logicat time period (i.e.
number of ineetings} to adequately review the ordinance and reach a consensus.
SeveraI of the items outlined in the Planner's Review for that meeting were
discussed at the meeting in general with no fina! conclusions being drawn. At the
meeting Staff recommended that �he City Counci! submit in writing for the next
review session, questions and comments regaraing any specific sections of the
ardinance where it is perceived there may be a problem. 1 I have received lis[s of
questic�ns, comments, and recommendetions from severai Council Members and have
decided that it wnuld he most appropriate to spend this work session discussing
guestions and comments which were submitted hy Council Members.
The remainder of this review in�ludes a listing of questions regarding the Proposed
Zoning Ordinance which were genera[ed by Council Members followed by answers or
recommendations from City Staff.
Also beiug copied to Council is a review entitled P�tOPOSEll ZONING ORD-INANCE- '
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 reiniEiated by Staff.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS & COMMENTS:
Page 1. Section 2.1: Why are we pramoting transition from ruraT to urban?
��� � ��1 � Staff eammentc To accommadate logieal expansion of the original vil7age
PNr''Po3G OF at comparable density; to accommociate residential development comparable
Pro+11�#��� Sq�G �o other third ring metro communities. To accammodate population growth
�r while maintaining an adequate level of publie services inciuding provision
� @.T'1r'�Gltr�t
� � , of public water and sewer. For example: restricting development to only
pCd�i��� � Rural Residential development- is not environmentally sound (promates
1�G�i�C�a� Crreu�A�1o+� of i it�i lacapik 1 i p oveim n s�expenditures and long-term aintena ece�of
Sys�'4rV1 public improv�menls.
.✓
Page 12. Section 4.2 A.2: Old language required combination if land is under same
ownership adjacent to lot in question - why not keeg that language?
N� Staff comment: If lot was legally divided a court would likely decide that
��a� v unless there was environmenlal concerns which would preclude develapment
� without endangering thc �ubtic hcalth safety and welfare that demanding
lol con�t�ivati�n woulcl be a taking af the �r�p�:rty.
` �Proposed Zoning Ordinance - R�VIEW & DISCUSStON
Special Council Meeting Review
April i l, 29$9
Page i3. Section 4.4; Item C from an earlier draft had been eliminated • "A11
Single-family Attached Deveiapments which have condomiuium ownership
A rb �����G shal! be permitted only by PUD. Why noc keep that language?
N
Staff comment; City Attorney advised this as being unnecessary and
defeating the purpose of having a distinct zoning district for attached
housing {R-2 Single Family Attached Residence District).
Page 13. Section 4.9 C: Old language Iimited outdoor storage to 2 Recreational
�dd�d p,,od�s��,,� Vehieles - why was this changed`? Could we restrict outdoor scorage to
O��� Agricu(ture District? �
� Q 1/�win�
,�V j'tp�,pC ��„ Staff Comment: The Planning Commission concluded that many
d � homeowners have several RVs (snowmobile, boat, camper) and that it may
��SC r'�$IC�t�1+� not be acceptable to the public to limit outdoor starage of RVs. There is
pn D�►q��S�� logic to limiting outdoor storage of RVs to r�duce the appearance of
� ' clutter in the resiciential ciistricts. This malter warraats discussian by
City Councii.
Page 14. Section 5.1: Should we use a different name or number for RE District?
�i�lQ�jtd �0 R�,
�COw �(��5� si�? /� Staff Comment: Staff recommends that tbe RE Residential Executive
��,! ��� ,� District be renamed to the R-1 Low Density Single Family Residential
� S ��t9g� DistricL
Pa�e 16. Section 4.14: Should any provisions be made for campers of short stay?
�Q C.�jG �, Staff Comment: Staff is in agreement that it is not approgriate to allow
� tents, RVs or any other type of temporary dwelling to be used in any
district unless olher than in a developed campground.
Page 19. Section 6.1 B: Kennels and keeping of furbearing animals should require
more acreage (i.e., 2Q acres).
CAnsc�s�z
�a� Staff Commentc As City Planner, I would tend to agree that keeping of
r19� furbearing animals should require more than five acres af land; however,
�'��,{tt� because kennels are much more preval�nt and since there is a greater
N� ����G demand for them, it may be unreasonable to require a minimum of 20 acres
for kennels. Council should discuss this issue and reach a consensus.
yct
Page 20. Section b.3 B.3. Should veterinary clinics, kennels and keeping of
furbearing animals be allowed in the Rural Residettce District?
Staff Camment: As cited in eariier question --- this shauld be discussed
by CounciL
Page 24. Sectioa 6.7 A: Delete tast three words in paragraph [end paragraph with
,��PPortunities"].
bro a�� �
F � Staff Comment: Good ideaf We should not assume what the needs of a
C�A��� �ta j contemporary family are.
�tQ i"+ +"r'i od 6,
2
�Proposed Zaning Ordinance - REVIEW & DISCUSSIUN '
Special Council Meeting Review
April 11, 19$9
� Page 25. Sectian 6.$ B: Language frarn an eariier draft made reference to same
����'�t� uses as R-3 Districc. Why was that language dropped? Should there be
by �Iuqf.f� • ,�►��r+ 9 Ianguage placing conditions on RV starage similar to R-3 District?
�ttG f�1dC�et�
�'r�qr� ��7 8� Staff Camment: Include 4, b, 7, 9 and 10 from Sec4ion 6.� 8.
Page 3�i. Sectlon 7.1: Lot sizes for RE Dis[rict shaulci be larger •-- 22,000 square
� f�al minimum. L�t sizes f�r R-1 Dislrict sh�ulci also be larger -- Y2,U(l0-
�%,s Q�lljfj�sy 15,U00 square foot minimum.
i
hA� ��f' �rt� Staff Com�nent; Bas�d u�c�n prc�hil�itive construction costs for
�/ improvements, it wauld not be practical to require larger than 22,000
�'�.rp�V�Q.,. square fc�ot minimum IUl sixe in �he RE C3istrict. It is at the discretion of
� Council to raise the minimum lot size from 18,000 to 22,OOQ square feet in
�d ���� the RE DistricC. It would reduce maximum den�ity and probably help to
better meet the intent of the District. The propased 1Q,000 square foot
lot size minimum for the R-1 District matches our current standard and is
� comparabie to requirements faund in mosE other metro suburbs similar in
character to Rosemount. Raising minimum lot size in the R-1 District to
12,Q00 ar 15,000 square feet could make it difficulx for developers in
Rosemount to compete with developers in other commanities and wouid
raise the cost of housing in that District. It is up to City Council ,to
evaluate these imptications.
Page 39. Section 7.2: The ordinance needs extra grovisions for "Centra! Business
�'�Ij���y��/t� District" (i.e., plain rock faced btock is no[ accep[able).
+f'�� �..n47��,, scaee co�,�e,�c: Council should discuss this issue and give staff an
indication of what is acceptable so that new provisions could be drafted.
Page 39: Sectioa 7.2: Standards for accessory buildings should be less .stringent
��n��� ���` east of Akron Avenue for �uildings not for agricultural use. M�ximum
square footage east of Akron Avenue - 2,400. Maximum square footage
1 S��„ /�t� west of Akron Avenue - 1,200.
l��` ��"�l� Staif Comment: This standard is reasonablc and could be set up w�eh a
special ovcrlay district.
Page 40, SectIon 7.2 A.S: Should first sentence regarding pxefabricated metal
��Q�� stora�e buildings also include RR District?
mAl�(,. Staff Comment: Yes.
Page 4L Section 7.2 5.b: Remove b. -- use as bargaining chip as we currently da
Remove d. -- does "clasely matches" mean same color?
C�a�►�c. ���t�-
�,�� �f, Staff Comment: Council should discuss whether or not metal roofs present
a problem on accessory buildings. The term "closely matches" refers to
^�"��G�"'!G style, not color.
C.���'"��t tala �o#-
GPP� ea,ct �rL ,A�k�.,, �t,,
3
'Proposed Zoniag Ordipance - REVIEW & UlSCUSSION
Special Gouncil Meeting Review
Apri1 i 1, 1989
Page a2. Section ?.2 A.S. {footnote #1): Dc�es this mean the total floot area of all
the accessory buildings cornbined? Is the comparison to the main floor
����G area of the principal building only?
��dL, � Staff Comment: This footnote is no longer needed because af language in
Section 7.2 A.S. (page 40) which places restrictians on square foocage of
��"r� 2 S — accessory buildings.
strpraed '-'.r.' """' `.-_. .._._. ..�.�... ._._. ._.r. .r.._. .....�.. ._..,. .._... _.._. —
�r„� Page 43. Seetion 7.2 C.1.d: Does this allow decks to encroach inta yard setbacks7
Why?
r�o crt����
5tuff {:omweut: 1 am un�4rtain h�w ihese provisit�ns originated, but wilt
havc an answer ai thc ntectin�. i
Page �1�l. Sectlon 7.2 C.1.C: How J�es a Ualcc�ny differ from a deck? `
t
�p CHA�G� Staff Corament: A balcony is generaily cantilevered from the wall of a
structure without supporl underneath and is usu�lly smaller than a deck.
�.Page 47. Section 8.1 H: Is the minimum parking required for a_senior high school
,°.
adequate? ,
N� C���� Staff Comment; It is the intention of staff ta consult with Independent
School District 196 in order to better determine what the parking needs
for a high school are.
Page 52. Section 8.1 L,6: Should the minimum of 3-1/2 feet be higher?
� Staff Comment: The standard of 3-1/2 feet is based upon the height
�8 C���� needed to screen headli�;hts from vehicles. Unless Council is interested in
tatally screening the view of vehicles it is not necessary to go higher.
For safety reasons it may be unwlse to totally screcn parking areas.
Page 53. Section 8.3 B: Are minimum plan[ings adequate?
Staff Comments Proposed standards are comparable to those used in many
�0 C��.j�1 G� other communities. However, some coramunities have sophisEicated
standards for type {species), size and placemeni of landscape materials. If
it is the desire of Council, staff could draft a more detaiied section -
regarding landscaping requireraents.
Page S7. Sectlon 9.1 C: For Natural �nvironment VWaters, why did lot area
requirements go from 40,000120,000 to 18,000/18,0007
IIP�
r y�,,���ii�l" Staff Comment: The standard far minimum lot siae (sewered) in the
v J �1� Shoreland Overlay Regulations for Natural Development Waters was
,AUS�'' �' changed to 18,000 to conform to caur Standard for the RE District. The
�"` ,� 1$,000 square foot minimum was used for both waCer front lots and other
nf.1�' ��,,1� lots. If Council sees the need, this minimum can be raised.
L� 3�
��a
4
�Proposed Zoniag Ordinance - REVIEW & UISGUSSION '
'` Speci�i Councit Mreting Review
Apri1 11, 19$9
Page 59. Section 9.1 �'.5: Language frcrm previous draft required thaE all
app}ications be submitted to DNR --- new language only talks about '
hearings. Why?
!v�
��� Staff Comment: This language conforms with DNR - Shoreland
�E'�' Regulations. The City has enforcement responsibility for state ctesignaxed
,�Public Waters."
Page 6�. Sertion 10.3 B.3: Add ". . . . . at the discretion af City Council. ,
Staff Comment: Enforcemer�t responsihilities generally rest wixh City
�d ��(.i Staff, however Couttcii may certainly remove this authority from staff, if
�yka desired.
Page 7'I. Section 14.5 B: Should we require permits to pump a septic tank?
�
�O Staff Comment: 1 will discuss this question at the meeting.
���� '
Page 85. Section 1S: Does this section allow for the C�ty Council ta have final say
in all matters?
��
�.IHNG� Staff Comment: Yes.
Page 85. Section 15.2 C: For Public Hearing notification, distance should be ,
increased from 350 feet to 1/4 mile in AG and RR Districts.
�..!~tPr�G�'
��� Staff Comment: This idea makes sense and should be considered by
� CounciL
Page 87. Section 16.2 C: Is this in our old ordinance? ,
Nb
�,grrJ6�i Staff Camment: Yes.
Page 87. Section 16.2 E: Why not a simple majority to approve aoni,ng change?
` t�y Staff Comment: Because of tke potentiai significance of a zoning
�..,
N(�� amendment, requiring a 2/3 vote to approve is a safeguard to ensure that
CNA a clear consensus has been reached.
Could there be a time limit on new rezoning? If a developer has zoning
changed and then the projeci dies, cauld the land then revert back Co the
zoning that it had before the developer asked for the change? A time ,
limit might be se[ aG two or lhree years. If no action oa a project has '
occurred, then Ehe land would be rezoned back ta it's original �oning.
�" � .,_ Staff Commeats Zoning changes cannot be conditional; however, Council
��}�G� may elect to approve projects by PUD which would include a deadline for
coastruclion start after which �he approval would no longer be binding.
5
''Proposed Zoning Ordinance - REVIEW & DISCUSSION
�' Specia! Councit Meettng Review
April 11, 19$9
Conld there be an automatic waiting period on the rezoning of land tfiat
would end when the devetaper actually comes in with grading ptans and
request permits ta start a project?
�� ��.Up� Staff ComraenC: Yes. Council could withhold rezoning until construction �
t��`' is ready to begin. This is a very good idea, especially for commerciat I
projects or large residential projects. '
Could there be signs posted on the land that was to be rezoned, notifying
anyone that saw them chat the land was to be rezoned, and then listed
about when the rezoning hearing would be heid? This would also mean
..I� that a waiting period of up to thirty, sixly or rnore days before rezaning.
tv
,r ',��" Staff Commento Rezonings could be handled in xhis manner as is donz in
�i other communities. This would slow the process �nd be more costly to the
developer. Council should discuss this option and reach a consensus.
6
�