The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-25-06 Council Workshop MinutesMINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA APRIL 25, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a workshop meeting of the City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 25`h day of April, 2006 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Mayor Bill Blesener called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and the following members of the City Council were present at roll call: CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Mr. Bill Blesener Council Member Mr. Jim LaValle Council Member Mr. Rick Montour Council Member Ms. Barb Allan Council Member Mr. John Keis ALSO PRESENT: City Administrator Mr. Joel R. Hanson City Planner Mr. Steve Grittman Planning Comm. Mr. Tom Duray Planning Comm. Mr. Scott Barraclough Planning Comm, Mr. Jon Hall Planning Comm. Ms. Katie Socha City Clerk Ms. Kathy Glanzer ZONING The purpose of this workshop is to begin review of the City's Zoning ORDINANCE Code and Subdivision Code for the purposes of updating these documents REVIEW as well as review model environmental ordinances as sponsored by the NEMO program. This first workshop will focus on the Zoning Code. The City Planner explained Chat the Zoning Code review document being used Chis evening is formatted into three sections. The first section is the "Existing Ordinance Language". The Planner noted that not all of the existing language is included, but he will be expanding this section of the review document for later meetings. The second section includes "Staff Comments" made during their review of the ordinance, and the third includes "Additional/Alternative Ordinance Language". The Planner indicated that the intent of this review is to identify existing language which has resulting in questions or issues in the past when the ordinance has been applied, as well as to come up with a more user-friendly Zoning Ordinance. The Planner began a review of the Definition Section of the Zoning Code. There was discussion on the type and amount of accessory structures allowed on a property. The City Planner explained that each residential property is allowed one shed that is 120 square feet or less in size, one recreational accessory building no more that 160 square feet in size, and MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 25, 2006 one garage whether attached or detached. The Planner explained Che Conditional Use Permit requirement for second garages and/or garage space between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet in size. The Planner indicated in the Toning Code will be expanded to include illustrations, and the permitted accessory structures for residential properties will include the appropriate illustration. ICeis asked if it made a difference in whether a shed is counted as a shed based on whether it had a floor. The City Planner indicated that an accessory structure is counted as such if it has a roof. The existence of a floor is not a determining factor. There was discussion on the definition of "Dog Kennel" and the suggested revision to change the reference to "four dogs or more" given that City Code disallows kennels, buC allows property owner to have up to three dogs. It was also suggested that the Code may need a definition of "animal". The Planner noted that there may be some confusion of the front-yard definition for corner lots and indicated that Chis is another instance where illustrations will be helpful. There may also be issues with how properties are assessed relative Co the determination of the front yard for a corner lot. In discussing the definition of "Parking Space", it was concluded that the definition should reference the Code Section Chat addresses parking space sizes. 1n discussing the definition of "Staff -City", it was determined that the staff list should be made as generic as possible. The reviewed moved on to "903. General Provisions". Keis suggested that the wording of 903.O10.C. be made easier to read. The Planner indicated that he would update the sections relative to non- confa~ming uses to ensure that they are in compliance with recently updated State Statutes. There was discussion about the length of time that property owners should be allowed to have a dumpster in a yard. It was recommended that a maximum timeframe be added Co the ordinance. Discussion focused on the location of sheds and air conditioning equipment in side yards and whether the setback should be increased to six feet from three. It was noted that the side yard setback in R-1 has been decreased to 7~/z feet, therefore, increasing the setback for sheds and air conditioning units might be problematic. It was further noted, however, MINUTIJS CITY COUNCIL APRIL 25, 2006 the, if possible, iC would be preferable to have these units in rear yards which may decrease the potential for disturbing neighbors. It was the consensus of those present that the side yard setback for sheds and air conditioning equipment should be increased to 6 feet. The issue of size of accessory buildings to the size of a house was discussed with the City Planner noting the recent code amendment which says Chat detached accessory buildings cannot be more than 10% of the rear yard area It was further noted that the CUP process for second garages provides the City with additional controls over this issue. There was discussion about whether or not to allow the use of corrugated siding and roofing on accessory buildings. There appeared to belittle supporC for the use of corrugated siding, while some support for metal roofing. The averaging of front yard setback was discussed, with supporC for requiring a new home built in an established neighborhood to maintain an average front yard setback consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood. The next issues reviewed pertained to fencing requirements. There was support for requiring the use of maintena~rce-free materials for fences constructed within two feet of the property line. The issue of what materials constituted maintenance-free would be decided at a later date. Other staff recommendations were acceptable. Montour suggested that "generators" be added to the list of equipments that generates noise in item #8 on page 12. On page I5, the suggested language for G.2.b. "may be provided" should be changed to "may be required". There was discussion about the ability of the City to require and regulate the maintenance of existing tree cover on developed lots. Given the concerns raised, the consensus was to focus preserving existing tree cover to the extent possible on new development. There was extensive discussion about outdoor storage issues for residential properties. There was consensus to add RV's and boats and any other motorized vehicle that requires a license to paragraph N. on page 19. The Planner suggested that once the decision is made on the allowable location of residential outdoor storage, a diagram will be included iu the code. There was discussion of whether or not to allow RV's, boats, etc. to be stored on driveways in front yards versus limiting this storage to rear yards, There was also discussion of whether or not to MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 25, 2006 allow passenger vehicles and trucks to be stored in rear yards. The Planner noted that currently the first 15 feet of driveway area adjacent to the sU~eet cannoC be used for storage. LaValle expressed concern about the storage of RV's, boats, etc. in required parking areas for town home, apartment, and condominium comp]exes. It was noted that the code prohibits the parking of recreational vehicles in required parking areas. With regard to single-family residential properties, the Planner indicated that most cities are not banning outdoor storage entirely. Those present directed the Planner to come up with a recommendation relative to outdoor storage for residential properties, noting the need for property owners to store recreational vehicles and equipment on a seasonal basis. Those present agreed with the suggested prohibition on metal storage bui]dings ] 20 square feet in size or less. It was noted most sheds sold today are not metal, but vinyl or wood. Review of the Zoning Code ended with page 28 of the City Planner's draft. At this point iu the workshop meeting, 6:55 p.m., the workshop was continued Co Monday, May I5, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. It was the consensus of those present to limit the workshop to 2 hours in duration. `j j , ~ , ~ ! 9~~ 1. ~ tJ 7 -/~...._ Wrlham Blesener; Mayor Attest: ~_ Joel Ianson, City Administrator 4