Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/2003 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 14, 2003 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS • A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review, Jeff Smyser (Public Hearing must be closed - this application has been withdrawn by the applicant and will be resubmitted as a new application to include the entire property) B. PUBLIC HEARING, Discount Tire, 633 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and CUP, Mike Grochala (Public Hearing will be continued to July — no staff report) VI. DICUSSION ITEMS A. Banners, as they relate to the City Sign Ordinance, Jeff Smyser B. Fabric accessory structures, used as carports, Jeff Smyser VII. ADJOURN • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : May 14, 2003 . 6:36 P.M. . 9:14 P.M. : Corson, Hyden, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps and Tralle. : Lane. : Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; Tanda Gretz, James Studenski I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:36 p.m., May 14, 2003. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 9, 2003 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the April 9, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 2 Staff recommended this be continued to the June meeting. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review to the June, 2003 meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. A. REBECCA KELLER, 6206 RED MAPLE LANE, VARIANCE Staff stated Ms. Keller would like to enlarge her existing garage on the south side, as well as add a home addition above the garage and a mud room on the east side. Applicant had stated that it was necessary to encroach into the setback area in order to make the proposed addition of a size large enough to make the project worthwhile. It was staff's contention that the desire to expand simply in order to have more storage space does not constitute a demonstration of hardship. Further, by making some design changes and expanding to the east, rather than the south, the applicant has the ability to fulfill their desire for expansion while working within the requirements of the ordinance. Staff presented its analysis and reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance in order to preserve full right -of -way for 62 "d Street. Mr. Tralle asked when the street was proposed to go in. Mr. Grochala replied there is no proposed date for the extension East of Red Maple Lane, but that improvements to 62' Street West of Red Maple Lane are anticipated this year. Mr. Lyden asked if the proposed road went through a green space. Ms. Gretz replied she did not know about the green space, but there was a lot of wetland in the area. Mr. Lyden asked if this was in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grochala replied it was in the transportation plan, which was an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyden asked what the plausibility of extending the road to Holly Drive. Mr. Grochala replied there were challenges to constructing the road. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Rebecca Keller, 6206 Red Maple Lane, stated she has been in her home since 1986 and when they purchased their property, the setback requirement was 30 feet at that time, as 62' Street was not defined as a collector street, and if it were defined as a collector street at that time, it would have had a 40 foot setback. She estimated it was changed to a collector street five or six years ago. She stated the reasonable use of her property was a very subjective thing. Usable use for her was a three -car garage. She stated her circumstances were unique in that they lived on a corner lot and they did not have access to 62 "d Street. She noted if they were to build a garage farther to the east, they would not have very good accessibility to the garage. She indicated they would have to go all of the way through their property to get to the garage. She stated other design choices would be more costly and would not provide them the economic and aesthetic value they wanted. She stated they would not be getting special privileges by asking for this because if they built five or six years ago, they would have requested a smaller variance. She stated the DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 3 • intent of the ordinance should not prevent the owners from making practical design • • choices. Chair Schaps asked if the existing garage was 26 feet deep. Ms. Keller replied it was 20 feet, with six feet of entryway. Chair Schaps asked how many feet wide the garage would be if they stayed within the ordinance. Ms. Keller replied the original plan they had was a three -car garage with three stalls out in front, but now they decided to do a double -deep garage in back, which would add six additional feet. Chair Schaps asked if they had considered any other way to do this. Ms. Keller replied they were making the decision knowing what the possibility of the road was in the future. She stated they would be responsible for making this choice. She pointed out there were many homes in the City with a 30 -foot setback. She noted there were no plans at this time to even expand the road. She indicated if they had the entrance to the garage in the back of their property, they would have to remove trees and the driveway would cut right through their yard. She noted they also had to upgrade their septic system, which would also limit their garage expansion. Mr. Rafferty asked if they were only going to have two doors facing the front. Ms. Keller replied that was correct. Mr. Rafferty stated he believed they could make their plan work without having to need this variance. Ms. Keller stated 20 feet for a garage was not workable and they were banging their doors on the side of the garage when they opened them. Mr. Lyden stated he did not believe the road would ever go through and the reason the Zoning Ordinance existed was to protect the public, and in this case the only one affected was the homeowner. He stated he saw no reason how expanding the garage six feet to the south would impact the public good. Mr. Tralle asked if the road was proposed when they bought the home. Ms. Keller replied she was informed the road might be expanded when they bought the home in 1986 and it was on a ten -year plan. Mr. Tralle stated he agreed with Mr. Lyden and he could not see the road going through any time soon. He noted they could plan things and say they were going to do them, but if it was obvious it was not going to happen, they had to realize that. Mr. Hyden asked if this was at one time a 30 -foot setback. Ms. Gretz replied she was able to determine that back to 1992, collector streets required a 40 -foot setback and before that the Ordinance quoted a 30 -foot setback from the street, not differentiating if it was a collector street. Mr. Hyden asked what were they suppose to go by. Ms. Gretz replied they dealt with what they had now and hoped it was the best way to go. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Rafferty stated the most positive thing was that the people who built the home knew the street might go through and everyone was made aware of the fact that the street might go through. He knew the rules were what they were, but that things had changed with the existing homeowner since they purchased the home, it was now a different setback. Chair Schaps stated every lot had potential and every lot would have some type of a restriction. Unfortunately, Ordinances changed but they needed to follow today's Ordinances. He stated he believed they had other options including reducing their square footage. Mr. Corson stated they had the Ordinances for a reason and if they granted this variance for 31/2 -feet, the next person who came before the Board requesting a 31/2-foot variance, they would have a difficult time denying it. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow an addition (home and garage) for property located at 6206 Red Maple Lane, Rebecca Keller for the reason that the lot had unique characteristics and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -2 (Tralle, Lyden, and Rafferty — Aye. Corson and Hyden — Nay). B. Thomas Laumeyer, 6174 Centerville Road, Variance Staff stated applicant's home was non - conforming in that it was located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Lake Amelia, but did not meet the required 150 -foot setback requirement from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). Applicant would now like to add an addition onto his home, however the proposed addition would likewise not meet the required setback from the OHWL. As a result, the applicant was requesting a variance from the 150 -foot setback from the OHWL. Staff presented its analysis and reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the variance because it did not demonstrate a hardship. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Thomas Laumeyer, 6174 Centerville Road, stated he believed his unique circumstances were tied to the physical property. He presented his Certificate of Survey and noted he had 174 feet to the easement: the lot is so narrow that it cannot accommodate both the required 150' setback from the OHWL of Lake Amelia to the East and the required 40' setback from Centerville Road to the West, so it was impossible to place these structures anywhere within the Code. He stated the home was built in 1959 by his parents. He noted the home was very small. He stated he had lived there for 8 years. He stated the home was 800 square feet, noting it was smaller than a 14x80 mobile home. He noted he believed he had a hardship. He stated he did not believe there was an absence of hardship. He indicated his situation was unique to the area because he was the only existing home on the lake that was this close and he did not believe anyone would ask for a variance because there were no other homes that close. He stated the DNR had been notified and they did not have a problem as long as he did not go closer to the lake. He stated his proposed addition would not bring it closer to the lake. He indicated he had spoken with his neighbors and they did not have any problem with this proposal. He indicated it would not hurt anybody to add onto his home. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Hyden asked what state was his septic system in. Mr. Laumeyer stated he had it pumped yesterday and he received an inspection report from the City noting it had passed the inspection. Mr. Hyden asked if the septic system would accommodate the new addition. Mr. Laumeyer replied he would need to investigate this further, but he was not opposed to putting in another septic system if necessary, but he did not want to put a septic system in if the City came through with City water in the near future. Chair Schaps stated he would have the option of hooking up to the City water when it becomes available. Mr. Rafferty asked if he was doubling the size of he home. Mr. Laumeyer replied it would be a 24x30 addition. Mr. Rafferty stated based on the guidelines, it appeared the home should never have been placed where it was. Ms. Gretz replied those guidelines did not exist when the home was built. She noted the Ordinance allowed what existed to continue, but once something was changed or added onto, the current Ordinance existed. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was another option for applicant to expand. Ms. Gretz replied it was not possible for applicant to expand his home and stay within the setback. Mr. Rafferty asked how old was the garage. Mr. Laumeyer replied the garage was built in approximately 1968. He noted the DNR flooded the lake and at the time the garage and home were built, Lake Amelia was considerably smaller. Mr. Corson asked if applicant had spoken with the DNR and asked if the DNR had any concern with the septic system. Mr. Laumeyer stated he had not spoken directly to the DNR, but City staff had. He noted the septic system should not be considered non- conforming according to the Ordinance. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be any additional bathrooms, or water usages with this addition. Mr. Laumeyer replied there was not. He was proposing to add a family room and storage space only. Mr. Hyden asked at what point were they to deem this a hardship. He noted applicant had no other options. He stated it looked as if applicant had a hardship. Ms. Gretz replied in her interpretation, she was looking at past use and that this property had been put to reasonable use in the past. She agreed expansion would be better, but that did not get away from the fact that this property had been put to reasonable use in the past. She stated while applicant could not improve his property, he still had a reasonable use of this property. Mr. Lyden stated the home was built in 1959 and many years had passed and he believed applicant had the right to upgrade his home to bring it up to par with other homes in the City. He noted this was in the best interest of Lino Lakes to allow him to improve his DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 6 property. He indicated it was a reasonable, fair use of this property to expand the home. He stated structure did define function and the hardship was the property, not that the home was not put in the right place. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to allow variance to allow the construction of a home addition within the required shoreland (OHWL) setback for property located at 6174 Centerville Road, Thomas Laumeyer, for the following reasons: The Board did not believe the landowner was being allowed to put the property to a reasonable use; there were unique characteristics to this property; the State had mandated the 150 foot setback as a part of the Shoreland Overlay District and the applicant had a special situation that would be denied by this Ordinance; applicant's home was the closest to the lake in the area and there would be no other variance requests from neighbors; they were staying within the spirit of the Ordinance; and the applicant is to maintain the septic system, have it inspected and obtain a Certificate of Compliance. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac Street, Site Plan Review and CUP Amendment Staff stated applicant was proposing to construct two building additions. One was a 950 square -foot locker room. The other was a 3100 square -foot expansion of a maintenance garage. Staff presented its analysis and recommended approving the CUP amendment with the conditions as noted in their May 14, 2003 report. Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Randy Molin, 415 Lilac Street, stated they had lost about %2 of the pine trees over the winter and those trees would be replaced after June 1. He noted they were meeting all of the required specifications regarding the seeding around the ponds also. Chair Schaps asked if everything worked out, when would all of the landscaping be done. Mr. Molin replied they would have everything done my July 1, depending upon the weather. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Motion carried 5- 0. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Molin Concrete, Randy Molin with the conditions as noted in staff's May 14, 2003 report. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. D. REMOVED FROM AGENDA 410 E. PUBLIC HEARING, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Elm Street Area Staff stated the City was preparing to move forward with the reconstruction of Elm Street from Grey Heron Drive to its intersection with Sunset Avenue. As part of the project, the DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 7 City was proposing to expand sanitary sewer and water main to currently unserviced portions of the project and to provide services to properties were utility mains were currently located. Staff noted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was required to allow services to be provided to several of the properties located adjacent to the improvements. Staff presented its analysis and recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow changing the Land Use designation of 26 properties from Low Density, Unsewered Residential to Low Density, Sewered Residential and change the growth area designation of five properties to a Stage 1 growth area and expansion of the MUSA by 7.04 acres. Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. Mr. Lyden asked if Elm Street was a State Aid Road. Mr. Grochala replied it was. He noted it had been turned back to the City approximately in 1996. He indicated it was on the state aid system. John Landers, 7181 Sunrise Drive, asked the Board to vote this proposal down. He stated he had originally been informed by staff that this would be a temporary easement on his property. He found out a couple of weeks ago from the City Attorney, that this would instead be a permanent easement on his property. He indicated a trail system on the south side of Elm Street would be a "big waste of money ". He noted people did not use the north trail, so why put in a south trail. He indicated he would have a difficult time plowing his snow in the winter because he had nowhere to put the snow. He stated he had no objection to the street, but he did not want to have the trail. He expressed concern that they were being double assessed on their property. He stated there were many unanswered questions with this project and no straight answers pertaining to it. He stated this proposal would create a hardship on a number of these properties. Mr. Grochala stated they had been working on this for the past year and four neighborhood meetings had been held. He stated Elm Street was in need of reconstruction regardless of the sewer and water. He indicated this was a Municipal State Aid street and a majority of the funding was coming out of the State Aid account and as a part of that, the street needed to meet minimum design standards. He noted 32 feet was the minimum they could do for a State Aid Street. With respect to the trail issues, there had been a discussion about extending the trail along the south side of Elm Street. He noted the trail plan was to complete the trail segment to complete the trail. He stated they had received concerns from the residents regarding the trail. He stated they were still evaluating this trail system. With respect to the special assessments, that was something that they continued to evaluate. He stated he believed some of the confusion was regarding the sewer and water service and the Board was not considering that tonight. Mr. Corson asked if they would have a future problem with access in this area. Mr. Grochala replied they would not. He noted there was some intent originally that some properties could split. Mr. Tralle inquired about the assessments on the corner lots. Mr. Grochala replied they were not assessing on a lineal foot charge. They were doing a unit assessment across the board. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Rafferty asked if the fund for the trail would be coming from the Park Fund. Mr. Grochala replied he believed that would be coming from the State Aid Fund. Mr. Lyden asked if there was already a sidewalk on the north side of the street. Mr. Grochala replied there was. Mr. Lyden asked if they needed a trail on the south side of the street also. Mr. Grochala replied they were still assessing this at this time. However he noted by continuing the trail on the south side, they would avoid residents from having to cross the street a couple of times to continue on the trail. John Johnson, 261 Elm Street, stated he disagreed with Mr. Landers and there was a lot of people who used the trail and he indicated he would like to see the trail go through. He stated children should not cross the street to continue on the trails. He supported the sewer and well proposal. He stated his well did not have drinkable water and his septic system was failing and he was ready to hook up and was in full support of this project. Bonnie Lewandowski, 7180 Sunset, stated they were on the corner and they had on the side of their yard large pine trees, which would need to be removed to put the sidewalk and drainage field in. She stated there was a sidewalk across from them and there was no offer of compensation for the trees being taken down. Mr. Grochala replied the trees were in the existing City right -of -way. Ms. Lewandowski pointed out the trees had been there for 31 years and they had taken care of them. She stated the City had sewer and water ran the sewer down their front yard, which killed two large elm trees in their yard, instead of running the sewer on the side yard as they wanted. Now if the City also took the pine trees, they would have no privacy on their lot. She indicated the pine trees were full - grown, beautiful trees and she did not want to see them removed. Sharon Krantz, 7132 Lakeview, stated they did not have City sewer and water and expressed concern and asked if would have sewer and water come down Lakeview. Mr. Grochala replied this was outside the project, but in the future it could be extended at the request of property owners. He noted it would be stubbed off of Elm Street to go down Lakeview. She expressed concern that by fixing Elm Street, this would that cause more water to come down Lakeview. Mr. Studenski replied they had addressed this concern and they were expanding the pond behind Willow, as well as adding additional ponding. He stated nothing from Elm Street would be dumped onto Lakeview. Maris Dupris, 331 Elm Street, asked if the sewer could be piped across the road. Mr. Studenski responded they had put this forth to the residents saying they were reconstructing the street and it was the most economical way to put in the sewer and water and the feedback they received was very favorable. He stated it would be a possibility for residents to subdivide their lots now and it made the most economical sense to go down Elm Street. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Dupris pointed out that there were no lots along Elm that could be subdivided. Mr. Grochala replied there could be 5-7 lots that could be split in half. He noted it was limited and they would see lot splits, not a large development. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow changing the Land Use designation of 2d 6 properties from Low Density, Unsewered Residential to Low Density, Sewered Residential; change the growth area designation of 5 properties to a State 1 growth area; and expansion of the MUSA by 7.04 acres. The motion was supported by Mr. Tralle. Mr. Lyden asked about the trail on the south side. He noted with the school and church on the north side, there was a need to cross the street. Mr. Grochala stated there was a lighted caution light on the eastern end of the trail. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ravens Hollow, K -G Development/Rockey Goertz, East of Hodgson Road & west of Ware Road, South of the Fox Trace Subdivision Staff reviewed Mr. Goertz' proposed development and asked for the Board's suggestions and comments. Mr. Goertz stated there had been another neighborhood meeting and there was no longer an opposition to this development from the residents of Fox Trace. He stated he would have a follow -up neighborhood meeting once he received the Board and Council's comments. Mr. Corson inquired about the maintenance. Mr. Goertz replied the maintenance would be done by the townhome association. He noted the single- family townhomes would be charged a lesser amount and the townhome association would take care of mowing, trimming trees, etc. Mr. Rafferty asked when the association would be turned over to the residents. Mr. Goertz replied at 70 percent. He stated the by -laws would be very strict and they were limiting this development to two builders. He noted one developer would do all of the townhomes and one would do the single - family homes. He stated all of the homes would be landscaped and they would have a choice of colors. He indicated not all of the homes would look the same and they would have maintenance -free exteriors. He stated the footprint for the townhomes were 1800 square feet with 25 -foot setbacks. The driveways would be 36 -37 feet wide. He stated there would be full basements in all of the homes. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 10 • Mr. Lyden stated he would support a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for R -1X. Mr. Goertz replied it made no difference to him, but the Council was not receptive to this. Mr. Lyden asked what were they getting if they granted the PUD. Mr. Smyser replied they was no other way to do this and comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Goertz noted the only way they could do this was to put in 6 -8 unit buildings, which he did not think looked good. He stated he had already received a few interest calls regarding this development. The Board's general consensus was that this was a good proposal. Mr. Lyden emphasized quality was a very important factor in this development. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, • Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • DRAFT MINUTES • AGENDA ITEM VI A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: June 11, 2003 TOPIC: Banners and Temporary Signs BACKGROUND Many businesses use banners and other types of temporary signs. We have seen an increase in these signs of late in Lino Lakes. Periodically, the building official will send out a number of letters to business owners informing them of violations of the sign ordinance and instructing them on the requirements for the use of temporary signs such as banners. Recently, the mailings prompted several business owners to protest to the city council at a work session. They stated that the banners, which are free to the businesses, provide them with free advertising. The city council directed staff to look into the situation. The attached photos show several instances of banners and other temporary signage currently found in Lino Lakes. Staff is seeking direction from the P & Z on how to address the issue. ANALYSIS Lino Lakes: The current Lino Lakes sign ordinance (Ord. 12 -97) states that "banners, balloons and stringers are prohibited unless approved in conjunction with a portable sign permit." (Section IV. E.) The ordinance also requires that Portable signs shall be used a maximum of four (4) times a year for a total of fifteen (15) days per time. Portable signs shall be limited to special events or promotion. (Section IV. X) Other Municipalities: The City of Blaine requires a temporary sign permit for banners. Each building (not each tenant) is allowed a banner for a total of eight weeks per year, two weeks at a time. • The City of Woodbury allows a building to have one banner, 32 sf maximum or 5% of the wall, whichever is greater. The banner must be firmly secured to the building wall. • • The City of White Bear Lake allows up to four banners per property per year, maximum 60 consecutive days per banner, 120 days max per year for all banners. A sign permit is required, but the banners do no count toward the maximum signage area. A banner can be up to 32 sf and must be attached to the building. These are only brief summaries of those cities' requirements. The point is to show that there are varying degrees of regulation being used. Signage is always an extremely difficult, thorny issue. As with any regulation, there will be those who will not agree with a signage requirement. The goal of signage regulation, like any government regulation, is to balance the private interest and the larger public interest. Signage advertises a business, which is good for the business. Successful business is good for the greater public. However, unregulated signage can become an eyesore and a nuisance, which detracts from the good of the community. We offer the following questions to guide the discussion. This list is not intended to cover all questions or options. • Should banners and other temporary signage be exempt from regulation? This would allow any banners, any size, any number. • Should temporary signs be included in the maximum sizes for signage? • If not included in the overall signage area, should there be a limit on the square footage of temporary signage? • Should there be a time limit for temporary signs? • Should banners be treated differently from other temporary signs? (If so, why ?) • • • AGENDA ITEM VI B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: June 11, 2003 TOPIC: Temporary Fabric Structures BACKGROUND A number of residents are constructing temporary fabric structures, primarily for storage of vehicles. This is a relatively new product that typically consists of aluminum poles with plastic fabric stretched over the poles. Staff is bringing the issue to the P & Z for discussion to see if the P & Z wants to pursue adding language to the zoning ordinance to address this type of structure. City building inspections and other community development staff have received inquiries, including complaints, about fabric structures. These structures are not addressed in the building code nor are they specifically considered in the zoning ordinance. They require no building permit. Our approach to date has been that these structures must not encroach on setbacks and that they must be included in the accessory building square footage on a lot. Other municipalities have specifically addressed these fabric structures in their zoning ordinances. For example, the City of Blaine requires a building permit for them and requires that they match the color of the principle structure on the property. The City of Woodbury recently adopted an ordinance that states: "Cloth, canvas, plastic sheets and tarps and similar materials, corrugated roofing or siding are not allowed as primary materials on accessory structures." This prohibition does not apply to greenhouses or to structures in agricultural zones. To guide the discussion, here are some alternatives: • Place no regulatory limits or requirements on fabric structures: people can use them anywhere, to any extent. • Prohibit fabric structures in residential, business, and industrial zones but allow them in rural zones. • Allow them, but define them as accessory structures and state that they must meet setbacks and be included in accessory square footage on a lot. • Require a building permit for fabric structures in addition to the previous option. Staff is seeking direction from the P & Z on how to address the issues.