Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10-01-1996 SpecialMinutes Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 7:03 p.m., in the Public Safety Training Room, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on October 1, 1996. COUNCEL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Black, Preus, and Wold. Councilmember Lymangood arrived at 7:08 p.m. ABSENT: Councilmembers Anderson and Granath. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Senness, Public Safety Director Gerdes, and City Clerk Ahrens. Planning Commission Chairperson Stulberg was also present. Community Development Director Hurlburt said the purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to receive an overview of the proposed Zoning Ordinance before the public review process begins. She explained that over the last several years, it has become clear that the existing Zoning Ordinance needs improvement. The Zoning Ordinance has not been completely revised since 1980. Since that time, policies and resolutions have been adopted relating to zoning issues, and only minor adjustments have been made to the Ordinance. A complete rewrite of the Ordinance was needed, and this was recommended by the City Attorney. She explained that because of the outdated Ordinance, almost all of the recent residential development in the City has been done through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. She believes there has been an abuse of this process. Councilmember Lymangood arrived at 7:08 p.m. Director Hurlburt reviewed the proposed process and schedule for public meetings and hearings. She noted that for city-wide rezonings, the law allows that individual notices do not have to be made to property owners. Almost every property in the City will have a new zoning classification. Because the greatest impact is on commercial and industrial properties, mailed notices of the public meeting schedule were made to commercial and industrial property owners in the City. Residential property owners will be notified of the public meeting and hearing schedule via the Plymouth News. The six public information meetings will be held in an informal, open house type of setting where owners will have the opportunity to ask questions about their specific parcels. The information meetings are being held prior to the public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance, which is scheduled for November 12 before the Planning Commission. The Ordinance adoption could be considered by the City Council on December 4 or December 18. The intent is to get the new Ordinance in place as quickly as possible, with a goal of year-end. She stated Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 2 the adopted Ordinance will not be perfect, but amendments can be made as needed in the future. In response to a question by Councilmember Preus, Director Hurlburt said the proposed Zoning Ordinance will come to the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chairperson Stulberg explained that the Commission has studied various portions of the proposed Ordinance and draft changes have been made. Planning Supervisor Senness presented the zoning text highlights. She noted that some portions of the proposed Ordinance remain unchanged from the existing versions; i.e., antenna regulations, City Center districts, and floodplain, shoreland, and wetland regulations. In addition, the sign regulations remain unchanged. Amendments are needed to the sign regulation section; however, this work is intended to begin in 1997. She said the intent of the new Ordinance is to create clarity and certainty. The current ordinance is difficult to use, and organization is not good. An electronic version of the new Ordinance will be maintained and placed on the internet. Supervisor Senness explained that the definition section has been improved and vastly expanded. A shortcoming of the current Ordinance is that actual performance standards often appear as definitions. The distance notification requirements remain unchanged in the administrative section. The new conditional use permit (CUP) section includes performance standards and criteria to clarify the CUP requirements. The section on interim uses relates to uses that are temporary in nature such as landfilling and temporary sales offices. The environmental review section is new and includes the local review process as part of the Ordinance. Supervisor Senness stated that the site plan section includes the introduction of sketch plan review. Concept plans have been problematic and would be eliminated. A sketch plan would be an optional element, and comments made on a sketch plan are advisory only and not binding. The sketch plan gives an applicant an early idea of whether what they are proposing may be accepted. This would apply to the site planning process and PUDs. A sketch plan would only be required when requesting alternate wetland buffer standards. Director Hurlburt explained that a past problem has been the question of what the City Council is approving when they approved a concept plan for a PUD, particularly in situations where the PUD was later denied. Supervisor Senness said the performance standards section is much more performance - oriented than the current Ordiriance. New portions include loading dock and sexually oriented business performance standards. Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 3 Director Hurlburt said that when the Council considers the proposed Zoning Ordinance, they will also consider findings of fact and a licensing ordinance relating to sexually oriented businesses. She explained the combination approach of zoning and licensing, along with analysis of the opportunity area for these uses. Supreme Court cases have determined that cities must have at least 5 percent of their land area zoned to allow sexually oriented uses. The proposed Ordinance would designate 6 1/2 percent of the City's land area as eligible for this use, while maintaining setbacks to mitigate secondary impacts of the use. She explained the difference between a sexually oriented principal use and secondary use. Public Safety Director Gerdes explained that a staff committee (Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Safety Director Gerdes, City Clerk Ahrens, and Public Safety Support Services Supervisor Cox) has considered the issue of sexually oriented businesses over quite a period time in order to study and document that secondary impacts can result from this use. The entire issue balances First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights with the issue of controlling sexually oriented uses because of their secondary effects on others. He recommended that the approach of allowing a sexually oriented business to apply for a license, with established licensing and zoning standards in place, is much better than not to regulate the use at all. Director Gerdes reviewed the Public Safety Department's history with a recent Plymouth business. Because there were no regulations in place, it was very difficult to investigate and adequately respond to complaints about the business. Councilmember Wold asked how the 5 percent of allowable opportunity area is calculated, and how any expansion of the MUSA would impact the 5 percent. Director Hurlburt said that 5 percent relates to all land area in the City. Rights -of -ways have been deducted from the land area calculation because there is no way that a business could be constructed in the right-of-way. Wetlands were not deleted, because there are provisions for building on or filling wetlands in some situations. Councilmember Black asked if the City would be more restrictive than under the existing Ordinance if a section on sexually oriented uses is added to the Zoning Ordinance. Director Hurlburt responded yes. Councilmember Lymangood suggested that a different term be used for "opportunity area." He asked Public Safety Director Gerdes to explain how the previous business situation could have been handled differently were the new Ordinance in effect. Director Gerdes said that the business was labeled an escort service, which is often a front for prostitution. The business opened, and the City had no regulatory authority because of the lack of zoning or licensing standards or regulations. He said it took over eight months for law enforcement to investigate the business. Ultimately the business was found to be illegal, and it would be illegal under the new Ordinance as well. However, if zoning and Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 4 licensing regulations had been in place, the City could have investigated the business prior to opening and considered whether to initially allow the business.. If the decision was then made to issue a license to the business, the City would have had authority to inspect the premises and investigate under the licensing provisions. Community Development Director Hurlburt said that a recent court case in Crystal found that sexually oriented novelty stores have not been documented to cause the same secondary effects as primary or secondary sexually oriented uses. Therefore, novelty stores are proposed to be exempt from the licensing provisions. Councilmember Lymangood noted that there are setback requirements for sexually oriented uses from residential property and schools. He asked whether a setback from daycare centers was considered. Director Hurlburt said it was considered. A sexually oriented business cannot locate on the same property as a daycare operation, but there is no setback requirement. She said that staff modeled the setback regulations tightly and tested setbacks from 500' to 50' to determine the available opportunity area. It was determined that daycare centers would not experience the same secondary effects from a sexually oriented use as a school or residential area. Children would not be unattended in a daycare situation, as they would in a school or residential area. Councilmember Lymangood asked whether the setbacks had been applied to the new Lutheran High School currently under construction. Director Hurlburt said that it would not have a big impact on the available opportunity area, but staff will check. Councilmember Lymangood asked whether setbacks from churches should be considered. Director Hurlburt responded that it would be difficult to demonstrate an impact on minors in that situation, and the attorney does not advise including setbacks from churches. Public Safety Director Gerdes said that the new sexually oriented business section of the proposed Zoning Ordinance is important, but it is only a small part of the overall Ordinance. It should not become the focus of the upcoming meetings, or important discussion on the remainder of the Zoning Ordinance will be lessened. The location of sexually oriented businesses in a City also largely relates to the market. He will share at the public meetings the business event that recently occurred in Plymouth, as well as the advantages of having some regulations in place through zoning and licensing. Councilmember Preus asked if there are other City ordinances that may make it legally impossible for sexually oriented uses to locate in the proposed available opportunity area. As an example, he noted the restriction on retail sales in the industrial areas. Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 5 Director Hurlburt said that retail sales by sexually oriented businesses would be permitted in the opportunity area, unlike some other retail products. Public Safety Director Gerdes reported that questions arose at the Planning Commission meeting regarding regulation of computer-based and telephone -based sexually oriented businesses. The City Attorney has advised that the City has no ability to regulate those businesses through local ordinance because the activity is usually taking place off-site. However, if a problem arose, it could be investigated as a criminal act. Mayor Tierney asked about the recent sexually oriented business in Hopkins. Director Gerdes said that Hopkins did not have an ordinance in effect when a sexually oriented business located in their City. They subsequently adopted an ordinance. Plymouth staff has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the issue of sexually oriented businesses, including the planning and public safety aspects, in order to recommend the proposed zoning and licensing ordinances. Director Hurlburt said that staff will report back on the issue of calculating the available opportunity area with respect to the new Lutheran High School and the area outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Councilmember Wold said that it would be good for the Council to have information on the impact of any MUSA expansion on the opportunity area. Councilmember Preus requested those staff checks that the sexually oriented business portion of the Zoning Ordinance contains a severability provision. Planning Supervisor Senness explained that the zoning district section of the Zoning Ordinance is expanded, and there is more certainty of how each parcel in the City can develop. An attempt has been made to fit the existing development into the new districts so as not to create excessive nonconforming uses. Most of the existing PUD's should be eliminated under the new Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Ordinance would move from four to eight residential districts, with added flexibility for density. Councilmember Preus asked if more residential density is expected. Supervisor Senness responded that there is not much land remaining in the urban area, and the effect on residential density would be limited. Planning Commission Chairperson Stulberg estimated that the new Ordinance will create the same or less density because the PUD provisions will not automatically be used to develop property. Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 6 Supervisor Senness agreed that the overall density will not change in the new PUD district and said there are also fairness issues involved with the PUD process. An individual who purchases a parcel should be able to check the area zoning to determine what type of development will occur around them. Under the PUD process, the density of development around them could be much greater than what they expected. Secondly, an individual requesting a variance in an existing PUD has a right to it, while a person living outside a PUD making an identical request must prove hardship. Director Hurlburt said that the new ordinance would provide that a PUD is a separate zoning district -- not a conditional use permit. She explained that moving some PVDs to other zoning classifications under the new Ordinance will result in the loss of conditions and restrictions that were approved under the PUD. Therefore, each PUD will need to be carefully evaluated. The Council will need to weigh the advantages of the new district restrictions with the conditions placed on the original PUD approval. Director Hurlburt showed a map indicating vacant land in the City. She said that about 75 percent of the vacant land will be FRD (Future Restricted Development) under the new Ordinance. There are approximately 600 acres of residentially zoned vacant land in the MUSA, but most of that property has received development approvals. Councilmember Black asked how the new Ordinance will impact density and housing affordability. Director Hurlburt responded that the new Ordinance will allow the City an opportunity to meet more of the goals of the Livable Communities Act. Smaller lot sizes would be allowed under the new Zoning Ordinance, and this could result in more affordability housing. Councilmember Lymangood questioned the proposed residential lot widths and lot areas. Director Hurlburt said the existing development patterns were carefully considered. In some areas that are currently zoned R-1, there are no lots that are the required 18,500 square feet. This lot area remains in the Ordinance for consistency of character in developed neighborhoods. She said that the 18,500 square feet requirement could be eliminated from the ordinance, but much of the City has developed by that standard and the character of existing neighborhoods could be changed. The same setbacks will be retained in the proposed RSF-1 district for consistency with existing development. Narrower setbacks are proposed for the RSF-2 and RSF-3 districts. This more closely matches the existing setbacks so there will not be a big impact on what homeowners can do with their property. She noted that most of the residential PUDs are in the RSF-2 district, with a few in the RSF-3 district. She said that setbacks must be kept in proportion to the smaller lot sizes. Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 7 Councilmember Preus asked if there will be many situations where a resident could have added a deck or an addition to their home under the current Ordinance, but would be unable to do so under the new Ordinance. Director Hurlburt said it is doubtful that this would occur. The new Ordinance attempts to place properties into districts with regulations under which they were developed. She said that this is not a planning study, but rather a zoning review. Therefore, the regulations under the new Ordinance should be similar to the existing Ordinance. Councilmember Black asked about the involvement of the Metropolitan Council in the process. Director Hurlburt said that Comprehensive Plan revisions will be needed prior to adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. Staff is working on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to make the proposed Zoning Ordinance fit. The Council will consider Comprehensive Plan amendments at the same time as the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Lymangood requested that materials outlining the methods for public involvement in the process indicate that commercial and industrial properties will receive mailed notice of the information meetings and hearings, and that residential owners will be notified via the Plymouth News. Director Hurlburt added that copies of the proposed Zoning Ordinance are available for viewing at the Plymouth Library and copies are available for viewing or purchase at City Hall. Planning Commission Chairperson Stulberg asked that Councilmembers forward to the Planning Commission any areas of the Zoning Ordinance on which there should be focus during the public hearing. Councilmember Preus requested that the issue of required parking spaces be reviewed. Councilmember Wold concurred. Supervisor Senness said that for some uses the number of required spaces would be increased (i.e., elementary schools), while other uses have been decreased (shopping centers). Staff has suggested the parking space requirement changes after studying the issue and considering industry standards. Planning Commission Chairperson Stulberg asked that the City Council consider initiating the process to make appointments to the Planning Commission in 1996, rather than waiting until early 1997. He noted that four members may be leaving the Planning Commission. Special Council Meeting October 1, 1996 Page 8 Councilmember Wold thanked Chairperson Stulberg for his comments. He noted that this is not a topic for this special meeting, and the issue can be discussed at a future regular Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Lti City Clerk