02-06-90 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMEs R. HILL., INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS { 9401 DAMES AVE. SO., SUITE 140, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 612/884-3029 FAx 884-9518 MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Mary KueffnerrI,-} cting t�ity Administrator FROM: Michael J. Black V� tc DATE: February 9, 1990 RE: P and PF Draft Ordinances At your request, I have reviewed the draft P and PF ordinances and here- in offer my comments. I will first g'ive.you comments to the approach of public and quasi -pubic zoning controls and then offer specific comments to each proposed zoning district regulation. The concept of separate zoning district for public facilities versus private or quasi -public facilities is not a common approach. That does not however mean it is wrong or inappropriate. Most cities do set separate zoning standards and regulations for public versus private or quasi -public facilities. Typically, land uses such as churches, schools, private commercial recreation and similar uses are allowed by conditional use permit. These uses typically involve increased traffic and parking and outdoor activities which could have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding land uses and the community. The existing Lake Elmo zoning code does have separate P and PF zoning district. However, the base zoning map dated March 15, 1983, which I acquired from the Washington County Planning Department, only has a P public zone. I assume that since the zoning text has two separate districts that the zoning map has been amended. P - PUBIIC FACILITIES In paragraph 12.a.(1) the City may wish to add the words "and governmen- tal service and administrative needs for...". The City does provide other services other than administrative. The Waste Management Act of 1980 does give the County authority to override the last sentence in paragraph (1). The Metropolitan Council is also seeking legislation for local zoning override where local regulations do not conform to Waste Management regulations. I questions why or if paragraph b.(2) pertaining to architectural compatibility is needed or necessary. The wording is subject to interpretation and may simply be too restrictive (and sometimes cost prohibitive). The minimum lot width is proposed to be increased from 100 feet to 125 feet. A minimum lot width may not even be necessary.