05-02-00 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp — with the applicant's agreement for an extension, the Council postpone consideration for up to thirty days, but not later than the June 6`" Council meeting, and the applicant could come back earlier if details are worked out. (Motion passed 5-0). B. Open Space Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Continued) Planner Dillerud offered a memo reflecting his suggestions on the topic based on viewing the tape of the April 18°i meeting. He asked for Council direction regarding the topic of open space parcel size approach and buffers. The Council agreed with the direction the City Planner was taking as far as 40 acre minimum site area, with a density of 6 to 8 units with a raised bar for minimum site characteristics. An idea for bonuses may be given for neighbors to join in with adjacent neighbors' OP development. The Council asked not to break full units per 20 (12 per 40). Council member Armstrong objected to the small size lots and would favor bringing the lot sizes up to a .75 acre, as a minimum. Buffer Issue: Tim Freeman asked what are you buffering from and to: Do you need a buffer between two OP developments. You want to listen to the land. Are you requiring bituminous trails? The Council asked staff to schedule a workshop with PZ, VC to view the tape of the MN Design Team meeting at Oakland Jr. H.S. The Council decided not to settle on a numerical definition of "large open space" and asked the City Planner and Attorney look into the possibility of a description of what the City is trying to accomplish with a non -numerical list of Findings to be made with each application, and provide guidance to applicants, without being arbitrary and capricious. C. Referral from Planning Commission —Non Commercial Communication Towers Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Commission, on its own initiative, drafted a proposed ordinance permitting and regulating non-commercial communication towers in all zones. The intent of the draft ordinance is to allow towers for private citizen use (amateur radio) as well as Satellite Television and solar panels. The Planning Commission required comments of the Council whether such an ordinance is desired before it schedules a hearing on the ordinance. The Council indicated the ordinance needed something more substantial. A 120' tower is way excessive and should not be permitted in the RI zoning district. At the time of drafting a Communications Tower Ordinance, the Council did an extensive review on height and location of towers. They had a concern on how towers of this height would affect the airport zone, fire tower and would a squelcher be needed for signal interference with TV's radio, garage doors, in the neighborhood. The Council favored a CUP for each tower. Solar panels were not appropriate in the ordinance. The City Plainer will advise the Planning Commission on the "sense of the Council" regarding the non-commercial tower ordinance draft. D. Appeal to Administrative Decision — Siegfried/Prokosch, 11223 & 11225 32"1 St. Administrator Kueffner received a letter from Attorney Tracy Galowitz, on behalf of John Siegfried and Fred Prokosch appealing the decision made by her pursuant to her April 3, 2000 letter where she determined that she could not administratively change the RI zoning district for the duplex which was constructed in approximately 1950. The use as a duplex should be grandfathered in and not subject to the current zoning restrictions. Attorney Filla stated the City considers this property a legal non -conforming use that can continue as such, but if it ever burnt down, it would have to use the regulations under the RI zoning district. The property owner cannot expand the structure externally, just internally. If the quonset but were torn down, to be LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 2, 2000