02-09-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES APPROVED: February 22, 1999 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 9, 1999 Mayor Hunt called the Workshop on the Public Facility Ordinance to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers. PRESENT: City Council: Armstrong, DeLapp, Hunt, Dunn, City Planner Dillerud. Planning Commission: Helwig, Herber, Mandel, Sedro, Sessing. Notices of the meeting were sent to all of the Churches. The Council and Commission received a copy of the DRAFT 8-24-98 PF Ordinance; Council and Planning Commission Minutes; Councilor DeLapp's Public Facility Ordinance Review and Alternatives dated February 6, 1999; and letters from the River Valley Christian Church, MFRA, Parkview Community Church, St, Croix Valley Christians in Action, clarifying their opposition to the proposed PF Zoning Ordinance. Council member DeLapp gave a review of his proposal for PF performance based standards; with the PF uses allowed in all zones by Conditional Use Permit subject to the performance standards. The question raised "Does the City want a specific PF Zone OR should PF uses be allowed in all zones by a CUP?" The PF Zoning requires 4 votes and a CUP requires 3 votes. Mayor Hunt favored Councilor DeLapp's submittal, where Council members Armstrong and Dunn were comfortable with a PF Zone. In response to a question regarding PF uses on very small parcels in the Old Village Area, Planner Dillerud reported it has been the Village Commission's assumption, once they have adopted the Old Village policies and the land use plan, their next task is to have a separate zoning district for the Old Village. What Council member DeLapp has suggested to the Council, is something called performance zoning. It is done elsewhere in the country and is really the essence of zoning... relative performance. It doesn't make any difference what the use is; it's the output of the use that we are concerned with. The following were suggested changes made to the DRAFT 8-24-98 PF Ordinance:. (a) Cemeteries provided that: 2. No mausoleum, crematorium, or other structure is permitted. ("other structure" will be defined by Planner Dillerud. It could be a maintenance shed, which maybe required. The maximum size needs to be stated. Subd. 4 Accessory Uses and Strictures could solve this problem) (b) Churches and Places of Worship provided that" 3. No single on -site sewer system shall be designed to handle more than 5,000 gallons per day. (Delete "single".) (c) Compost Facilities provided that: (When studying a site for the Maintenance Facility, the City Administrator submitted a list of conditions for approval of a compost site. The Planner will ask the City Administrator to resurrect the list of conditions needed for approval of a compost site.) Subd. 6 Performance Standards vii. Delete: "The City may allow architecturally enhanced and integrally colored block," Delete: "Non-structural metal standing seam roofing is permitted. Add: "Metal roofs are permitted only if they are non- structural standing seam roofs." b. Parking. 2. Facilities for Local, County and State Government. Council member DeLapp explained occupant is based on direct proportion to floor area, 1 person per 100 sq.ft. of office building. Parking could also be proportionate. Planner Dillerud will check into the parking standards based on bathrooms.