Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 12-11-1996 Special 2Minutes Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on December 11, 1996. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Wold, Preus, Black, and Granath. ABSENT: Councilmembers Anderson and Lymangood. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant Manager Lueckert, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Senness, Public Works Director Moore, Public Safety Director Gerdes, City Attorney Knutson, and City Clerk Ahrens. Community Development Director Hurlburt reviewed the agenda for the meeting. This is the first comprehensive update of the zoning ordinance since 1980. It was done at the recommendation of the City Attorney and due to inadequacies of the existing zoning ordinance. She said that benefits of a new ordinance will be more legally defensible regulations and procedures; up-to-date definitions and standards for newly emerging market trends; increased performance standards to supplement the strict "black -and - white" regulations; regulation of sexually oriented businesses; more zoning districts, especially for commercial and industrial uses, to improve compatibility with nearby residential neighborhoods; and reduced reliance on planned unit developments and conditional use permits, reducing red tape for businesses and residents. She reviewed the process that was used to develop the new zoning ordinance. Director Hurlburt said the following items have not changed from the existing zoning ordinance: sign regulations, antenna regulations, City Center zoning districts, and environmental districts: Shoreland, Floodplain and Wetland Protection. The zoning map development was not a planning process, but one of applying regulations to the existing zoning of land as close as possible to what it is today. The FRD district has been retained and most planned unit developments have been eliminated. She described the changes made to the draft ordinance since September 20. Zoning text changes were made to the draft ordinance based on City Council directives at the October 29 special meeting, comments received at the Planning Commission public meetings, and technical corrections identified by staff and the consultant. The remaining issues include: 1) Design of residential accessory structures -- a provision that residential accessory structures over 120 square feet must be designed consistent with the principal structure. The Planning Commission retained this provision in the draft ordinance. 2) Off-street parking -- The current standard prohibits parking of vehicles over 4 '/2 tons. The draft ordinance would allow limits up to 6 tons, but restricts vehicles over 30 feet in Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 2 length. The Planning Commission also retained this provision in the draft ordinance. 3) Minimum front lot width in the RSF-1 District -- The existing ordinance has a 110 minimum lot width; the proposed ordinance would change the minimum to 100 feet. The Planning Commission recommended that the draft ordinance include the 100 foot minimum lot width. Director Hurlburt said there are many existing lots in the R-lA district that do not meet the 100 foot minimum width standard. The change to 100 feet would be more reasonable, consistent with other cities, and would avoid creating nonconformities. Director Hurlburt said that 18 sites on the proposed zoning map were evaluated during the public process. The draft map incorporates the recommendations of the Planning Commission. She noted one additional technical correction for the Louismet property. The existing guiding of this property is CR -2 and it is zoned B-2. In 1987, the zoning was conditionally changed and subsequently rezoned, but the zoning maps were never amended. She recommended changing the Louismet property to C guiding and C-2 zoning to most closely reflect what currently exists. Director Hurlburt recommended summary publication of the adopted zoning ordinance. This will save approximately $7,000 in publication costs, and would require a 6/7 vote of the City Council. She said that 19 policy resolutions are recommended for repeal. These resolutions are either obsolete or included in the new ordinance. This action would require a majority vote. Community Development Director Hurlburt described the recommended actions relating to regulation of sexually oriented businesses. The actions are designed to work with the zoning regulations in order to control the secondary effects in neighborhoods caused by sexually oriented businesses. She said that a committee comprised of Public Safety Director Gerdes, Support Services Supervisor Cox, City Clerk Ahrens, and herself reviewed materials from other jurisdictions, court materials, and studied the need for regulation. The zoning ordinance would establish location restrictions and licensing provisions protect health and safety of residents by requiring inspection and ensuring legal operation of the businesses. She recommended that the Council first adopt a resolution establishing findings of fact on the need for regulation of sexually oriented businesses, followed by ordinances defining and licensing sexually oriented businesses, amending provisions regarding saunas, and establishing license fees. Community Development Director Hurlburt suggested that the Council first decide on whether additional changes are desired to the draft zoning ordinance, map or comprehensive plan text (majority vote). Then the Council could take action on the comprehensive plan amendments (5/7 vote) and zoning ordinance (5/7 vote). The resolution approving summary publication could be deferred to the next meeting because a 6/7 vote is required. The repeal of policy resolutions and actions on sexually oriented businesses require simple majority votes. Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 3 Mayor Tierney asked staff to comment on the proposed zoning of a site on Highway 55 because it appears to be selective zoning. Director Hurlburt explained that all properties along Highway 55 in this area are currently guided and zoned commercial. Initially everything on the south side of Highway 55 was C-2, with C-3 on the north side. The Planning Commission recommended either a C-2 or C-3 classification consistent with the current zoning and the comprehensive plan. She said a C-2 classification is recommended for the Louismet property because it is consistent with the existing zoning. A C-3 classification is not recommended for this parcel. She added that the Louismet property is mostly wetlands and has very little development potential. Staff expects to receive a request for a change to residential guiding and zoning in the future. Councilmember Preus asked staff to comment on the recommended process for adopting the regulations for sexually oriented businesses. Community Development Director Hurlburt said the Council can adopt the actions relating to regulation of sexually oriented businesses this evening, even if action is not taken on the zoning ordinance. There would not be limitations in which zoning districts sexually oriented businesses could be located or on setback requirements. Councilmember Preus concluded that the sexually oriented business regulations could stand on their own, but would not be as effective until the zoning ordinance restrictions are also adopted. Mayor Tierney questioned whether the maximum living area densities in the draft ordinance are adequate. She asked if there are any apartments currently over the 20 units per acre maximum. Director Hurlburt responded there are no existing apartments with densities over 20 units per acre. Many of the apartment complexes are less than 12 units per acre. Richard Martens, 2955 Regent Avenue North, represented United Properties Corporation and the Lakepointe Distribution Center. He supported the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Pat Hallisey, 4065 Quantico Lane, asked staff to explain the difference between the land use guide plan and zoning. He has a purchase agreement for a property that is part of a planned unit development on Vicksburg Lane. The overall area is guided for residential development, but he has been instructed by staff to plan his development around a B-2 zoning classification. He is concerned with what may occur to this property if the planned unit development status is eliminated. Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 4 Director Hurlburt explained that every city in the metropolitan area is required to have a comprehensive plan which is a long-term guide for land use, sewers, etc. The land use guide plan may classify a particular property as commercial. The City's zoning ordinance would be more specific and contain guidelines about how the property can be developed. She also addressed the property referenced by Mr. Hallisey on the east side of Vicksburg Lane on 22"d Avenue. This site is part of the Parkers Lake planned unit development. It was approved for commercial use as part of the PUD, although it has never been zoned for commercial use. The recommendation is to retain the existing designation for the Parkers Lake planned unit development. The status of the property would be unchanged by the new ordinance. In response to a question by Councilmember Black, Director Hurlburt said that any property remaining with a planned unit development status under the new ordinance would be governed by the original approvals of the development. Some properties are recommended to remain as planned unit developments because of recent approvals or specific requirements. Very few developments are recommended for planned unit development status. She cited the Northwest Business Campus, a portion of the Parkers Lake planned unit development, a small residential development in the southeast area of the City, and several recent approvals such as Nanterre, Soo Line East, and Rockford Glen. The intent is to avoid drastic changes and legal concerns that could occur if requirements are changed from what was originally approved. She showed a map of all existing planned unit developments in the City, as well as those that would remain under the new ordinance. LeRoy Reinke, 14411 County Road 6, asked that the Council consider amending the size and location restrictions on residential accessory buildings. He believes the proposed language is too restrictive, particularly when applied in the older parts of the City. Mayor Tierney noted that exceptions to the requirements are provided by conditional use permit. Mr. Reinke said he doesn't like the concept of conditional use permits because there is not a consistent application of regulations or approvals. A homeowner does not know whether their application for a conditional use permit will be approved and the process is costly. Director Hurlburt said it is important to put the accessory building issue in context with the City's existing regulations. Currently a homeowner is limited to 1,000 feet of garage space, which includes attached garages. There is currently no way for a property owner to get more garage space, other than proving hardship under a variance process. The new ordinance would provide that in single family districts, owners could have up to 1,250 square feet of attached garage space and an additional 1,000 feet of detached garage. Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 5 Owners could also request additional space under a conditional use permit process, in which the burden of proof is on the City to prove that the criteria are not met. She said that a garage is accessory to the main use of a property. If a house of 2,000 square feet is constructed, with a garage of 3,000 square feet, the garage is no longer subordinate or accessory to the main structure or use on the property. The purpose of this requirement is to keep the size of accessory structures in proportion to the home for reasons of public safety, aesthetics, and property values. In addition, more zoning violations are likely when larger accessory buildings are inappropriately used in residential areas. She said that if Mr. Reinke's suggestion were implemented, it would result in some areas of allowing a garage that could be two times the size of the home on the lot. There has not been a large demand for these types of variances in the past, and she would not recommend changing the draft language. City Manager Johnson said that there is a 500 foot notice requirement for a conditional use permit. This provides for notice and comment by neighbors. Councilmember Preus asked for a further explanation of Mr. Reinke's proposal. Community Development Director Hurlburt showed an example of how the allowable maximum size of an accessory structure would be calculated. An owner would have the additional option of adding on to the principal structure or applying for a conditional use permit. In general, the wider the lot or the setbacks, the larger the size of an allowable detached accessory structure. Councilmember Preus said there may be situations where a conditional use permit process is an inconvenience to the owner. He asked if there is some other procedure that could apply to the few situations that may exist where an owner would like to construct an accessory structure larger than allowed by the proposed ordinance. Director Hurlburt said an administrative procedure could be used, but she did not recommend it since it would not give the neighborhood an opportunity for input. She suggested that the formula could be slightly amended, from 30 to 40 percent, to allow larger accessory structures. She would not recommend allowing a size of up to 30 percent of the entire rear yard because this could result in huge accessory structures. She said that currently a variance is required for a request to exceed the maximum size allowed in the zoning ordinance, and very few requests are received. This would change the process for requesting larger accessory structures than allowed by the ordinance from a variance to a conditional use permit. Councilmember Wold noted that an accessory structure of up to 1,300 square feet would be allowed on Mr. Reinke's property under the draft ordinance provisions. This compares to a maximum size of 1,000 square feet under the existing zoning ordinance. The new ordinance would increase the allowable size of accessory structures. Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 6 Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to table all actions on the agenda to December 18. Councilmember Preus said that two councilmembers are absent; therefore, several items would require a unanimous vote for adoption this evening. He also believes it would be useful to have the full Council address the proposed minimum residential lot width issue. City Manager Johnson advised that whether or not action is taken tonight, the Council should consider direction to staff on amendments that should be included in the draft ordinance for consideration. After additional discussion, Councilmember Preus withdrew his motion. Community Development Director Hurlburt advised that the recommended change for the Louismet property is a technical correction recommended by staff for inclusion in the draft documents and no separate motion is needed. Councilmember Preus advised that he may make a motion on December 18 relating to residential accessory structure restrictions and minimum residential lot widths. He does not intend to amend the proposed off-street parking restrictions. Mayor Tierney asked about the impact of the proposed off-street parking restrictions. Councilmember Black said this provision will prevent parking of semi trucks/trailers in residential areas. Councilmember, Wold expressed concern about residents needing to park rental moving trucks or similar vehicles on a temporary basis. Director Hurlburt responded that these would be exempt as a "temporary service benefiting the property." These would not be restricted by the ordinance unless the vehicles were parked on a permanent basis. Councilmember Preus asked why there is not a specified period like there is for junk or inoperable vehicles. Public Safety Director Gerdes said that a separate City ordinance prevents parking on City streets from 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Granath, to adopt the following: Special Council Meeting December 11, 1996 Page 7 RESOLUTION 96-681 ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT REGULATIONS OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES ARE NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE THE SECONDARY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF SUCH BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA; ORDINANCE 96-29 AMENDING CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER XI OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE DEFINING AND LICENSING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES; ORDINANCE 96-30 AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE REGARDING SAUNAS; and ORDINANCE 96-31 AMENDING CHAPTER X OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE REGARDING LICENSE FEES. Community Development Director Hurlburt said it is appropriate to adopt these items separate from the Zoning Ordinance, but the location restrictions will not apply until the zoning ordinance is adopted. Attorney Knutson advised that even without the zoning location and setback restrictions, the City would be better adopting the licensing restrictions than to continue with no restnctions. Motion carried, five ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Wold, to table all remaining items on the agenda to December 18. Councilmember Granath said he will support the motion in order to give absent councilmembers the opportunity to have input. However, he is prepared to support the actions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission this evening. Councilmember Black concurred, stating that she supports the draft ordinance as recommended. Motion carried, five ayes. Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Granath, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried, five ayes. City Clerk