Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 12.10.07 PacketI "M Willd"'01 III Wguism-mumil (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Wwwlak�Elmo.Qrq WMAMM 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes M I WHOW-1 "11 4.. Introduction of Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 5. Public Hearings: a. Draft Comprehensive Park Plan b. Neighborhood Conservation District 6. Business Items: a. Signage — Off-site advertisement b. 2008 Planning Commission Calendar 7. Informational Items: a. City Council Updates i. November 27 — Council workshop 1. Village Planning Process — attachment ii. December 4 — City Council meeting 1. Legal opinion on the number of new housing units required in the comprehensive plan — attachment 2. Interims Use Ordinance — approved 3. Horses as interim use in PF zoning — tabled 4. Non -Agricultural Low Impact Uses as interim use in HD -A -BP district — approved 5. Accessory Building ordinance — approved 6. Site Plan Review for City Hall Annex — approved 7. Planning Commission terms as result of new ordinance --- approved approved DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2007 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ptacek, Armstrong, Deziel, Schneider, Pelletier, Van Zandt, and McGinnis (7:05). STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Gozola and Planner Matzek. Agenda Chairman Ptacek asked to add item 5b. "Planning Commission Procedures" Pelletier/Armstrong, move to approve the agenda as amended. Vote: 6:0. Minutes - October 10, 2007 M/S/P, Pelletier/Deziel, motion to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 3:0. Three abstentions: Armstrong, Van Zandt, and Deziel. Zoning Code Text Amendment — Non -Ag Low Impact Uses Senior Planner Gozola identified two separate ordinances being proposed based on the previous commission meeting - the first ordinance establishes an interim use ordinance tool and the second establishes Non -Agricultural Low Impact Uses as an interim use in the HD -A -BP zoning district. He expressed concern on how the site for the Non - Agricultural Low Impact Use would be calculated and that gravel was not counted toward the requirement. He said that option one provided is the text suggested by the commission at the last meeting. Commissioner McGinnis arrived at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Armstrong suggested adding the proposed language of accepting the legal description of the Non -Agricultural Low Impact Use site to the commission's proposed language. Commissioner Pelletier asked if there was a legal reason a council could deny a legal description. Senior Planner Gozola said that would be a question for the city attorney. 1'T10CWjWW1Wj11� MIS/P, Pelletier/Van Zandt, motion to move forward with the proposed ordinance with an amendment to subdivision F and directing staff to consult the city attorney. Vote: 7:0. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; I 1/14/07 NUATA MIS/P, Deziel/Schneider, motion to move forward the ordinance regarding the interim use ordinance. Vote: 7:0. Zoning Code Text Amendment — accessory building as an interim use in the PF district Senior Planner Gozola asked that the item be tabled indefinitely as it was determined after reviewing city code that the city does not need to seek this permit to replace the trailer on the city hall site. M/S/P, Armstrong/Van Zandt, move to table the item indefinitely. Vote: 7:0. City Code Recodirication Senior Planner Gozola said this item was provided at the last meeting at which time a public hearing was held. 'Fhe commission had requested further time to review the recodified code. Commissioner Armstrong said he saw some misspellings and a couple link connections. did not work. He said he would hope a review committee would catch any mistakes. M/S/P, Deziel/Schneider, move to remove the item from being tabled. Vote: 7:0. M/S/P, Armstrong, McGinnis, move to approve the recodified code and ask the council to set up a review committee of either staff or commissioners to review the document. Vote: 7:0. Planner Matzek said she believed the City Clerk and City Attorney had reviewed all the recodified sections except for the zoning chapter. Planning Commission Procedures Commissioner Deziel asked how a commissioner would add items to an agenda and asked if they need to submit reminders for items on a commission's work plan. Chairman Ptacek said he does not think it is incumbent on commissioners to direct staff's time, but that commissioners are free at any time to make motions to bring forward items they believe are not being addressed. Commissioner Deziel said that the city has not been treating applicants uniformly. He said that sometimes a person is told that a code must be changed to allow what they are requesting and the application is tabled and sometimes they are told to apply and are denied because the code does not allow what they are requesting. He said the city should have a more consistent practice. Commissioner Armstrong said residents have two routes — they can apply for a variance or they can request an ordinance amendment. He said that commissioners have the right to sponsor a code language change without an application. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes — 11/14/07 2 Senior Planner Gozola said staff will always try to work with applicants so they do not make that kind of application. He said that the list of conditionally and interm permitted uses will be constantly evolving. Commissioner Deziel said that in the case of Common Ground Church, it never came up to add horses to the ordinance. He said he thinks an ordinance change should be part of the options provided to an applicant. He said the commission needs to move forward with the neighborhood conservation area as it will decrease the overall workload of the commission. M/S/P, Deziel, Armstrong, move to direct staff to bring forward the draft text for the Neighborhood Conservation District to the next meeting. Vote: 7:0. Council Updates Planner Matzek said the septic variance at 8186 Hill Trail N was approved at the November 5th Council meeting. Also approved at that meeting was the impervious surface ordinance, the planning director position, the amended Planning Commissioner appointment and termination to be consistent with other commissions, and the direction to study options for off-site signage. The Common Ground Church CUP was denied and the four properties proposed for rezoning was tabled. Planner Matzek pointed out that the December 2007 meeting schedule identifies the potential canceling of the December 24th meeting. Adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli Matzek Planner Lake Elmo Plannino, Commission Minutes — 11/14/07 C, 3 Planning Commission Date: 12Y10/07 Public Hearing !tem: 5a [TEM: Draft Comprehensive Park Plan REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola.Senior Planner Susan Hoyt, City Administrator The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider the approval of the proposed draft Comprehensive Park Plan (please see the draft Comprehensive Park Plan that was attached to the November 26 th Planning Commission packet). This plan Would update the 1990 park plan to reflect future demographics, existing park system amenities, and projected future park needs. The park consultants from TKDA who prepared the document will be at the meeting to present the various sections of the draft document. This plan does not address how to �#a-Ln for the osed xarks and g!reenw identify apgc �ific parcels of land in the city for future park and recreation loca�iori`s'. The purpose of the document is to provide a vision for how the City would like to develop a comprehensive park and recreation system so that the City can adequately respond when opportunities arise for new parks through donated land, new developments, or potential land purchases. Both staff and the Park Commission are recommending approval of the draft Comprehensive Park Plan. Since September of 2006, the Park Commission and park consultants have worked to update the 1990Comprehensive Park Plan. The draft plan was crafted over many meetings including ajoint Park Commission and City Council meeting onApril 24'2U07. Apublic open house was held on ° The draft Comprehensive Park Plan begins with an introduction that includes alist of park system principles written and edited by the Park Commission.The—ncipleaserve as the foundation ofthe Park Plan. w The existing parks inventory was also compiled and edited bvthe Park Commisskm. This list includes the Lake Elmo Center for the Arts Park as that property was purchased with park funding and will eventually beconverted into apark use. * The demographic assessment section of the plan utilizes information from the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for population forecasts, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for recreation participation information, and the U.S. Census for city demographics. This information provided guidance in the proposed future park locations. • The Natural Resources section identifies city and state policies as well as a Minnesota DNR Conservation Corridor program for guidance. This shows the overlapping vision at various levels ofgovernment for the protection ofnatural resources. Lake Bmo`onatural resources were identified as potential future park features. * The classifications for the park system as identified inthe document are based upon characteristics and purpose ofthe park, and are helpful iuassessing the resources currently available toresidents. w The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) recommends that Cities locally eotab|iaho|evel-nf-marvicerstherthanuaoa generalized standard model. The new draft plan follows this recommendation byestablishing levels -of -service for the various park types based on discussions at the meetings held throughout the planning process, * The accepted Village Area Master Plan identifies aparea around which sports fields are located. The park plan integrated information provided from the Village Area Master Plan consultants early oninthe process. The park plan has identified aprimary community sports complex --a green area with the potential for recreational activities such aeball and soccer fields incollaboration with the village plan. Like the other proposed search areas inthe park plan, this search area ieintended 10offer guidance astowhere 1V obtain additional park land, but is flexible to allow for other opportunities aathey arise. w The two other areas identified on map 10 as community sports complex search areas are suggested locations if an additional sports complex iadetermined tobeneeded after 2020. .- m The community park search area was suggested to, be located within the village area to serve as a major central community park with a sports center and walking paths that would .bethe heart ofthe community. This was further discussed atthe March 14'2UO7 Park Comhn|8eionmeeting with the Village Area Planning consultant. * The plan recommends a greenway and trail loop that utilized existing and proposed trails identified inthe approved 2O05Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan. The greenwayalong with the trail system would provide for a highly connected park system and establish new connections among the rural and future urban areas ofthe city. * Sunfish Lake Park was singled, n t as it is the largest ofall the city parks, and ia considered the crown jewel of Lake Bmo's park system. Six policy statements were created by the park commission to provide more detailed guidance for the future use of Sunfish Lake Park. m Search Area D (as shown on map 9) identifies a search area for a local park directly adjacent toSunfish Lake Park. The park commission recommended that neighborhood park type facilities not be placed within Sunfish Lake Park as it would not conform to the policies outlined for Sunfish Lake Park in the park plan. w Arecreation preference menu was distributed inacity newsletter, was available nnthe city website, and also ekcity hall. The menu was not an official survey,but anattempt to receive information from a broad range of residents on information relevant to the existing and future park system and recreational programming. � The benchmark study insection 4>compares Lake Elmo with three other metro area cities. The three cities were chosen by the Park Commission, and were used only for identifying at what point did these communities establish city recreation programs and how dothose programs function. In summary, the draft plan finds that within the next twenty years, the City will develop needs for thirteen neighborhood parks, one community park, one or two community sports complexes, two special use parks, and a greenway to provide connectivity throughout the city. The specific locations for these recreation amenities would be guided by the search areas established in the plan, but the final locations would bedictated byopportunity (primarily through development projects), Essential to the plan's success is the City's ability to be flexible with final park locations and proactive oeopportunities arise. ` ` RECOMMENDATION: - Move to recommend approval of ECOK8MEND/(TION:- Mmmtorecommendappmv|of the Comprehensive Park Plan ORDER OFBUSINESS: - Introduction ... .............. —...... ................... ---_.................... KeUiK8atzmk, Planner Report bvpark consultants. —'------...RichE)reyandBern/Farhngton`TKDA - Questions from the Planning Commission to the park consultants and Park Commission ............. Chair & Commission Members Open the Public Hearing ----................. —......... ................... .............. ....... Chair Close the Public Hearing ........ .—........................... ...... —........ --................... Chair Call for amotion ............. ............. '........... ................... —................. Chair Facilitates Discussion ofCommission unthe motion ....... ..... —......... --...... ...... Chair Facilitates City Council Date: 12/10/07 REQUESTED BY: City Council & the Planning Commission SUBMITTED BY: Ben Gozola.Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator ' KeUiMa1zek.Assistant City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: What does current code allow? Temporary signs are currently allowed by code for special business events such as openings and closings. Such signs are allowed for a maximum of 15 days, and are not subject to size or design standards. According to code, the main purpose of sign regulations is to minimize the overall impact signs have on the community's rural character. That purpose will need to be kept in mind with any proposed changes to code. Different been directed to review. The City Council has directed staff to examine three distinct types of off-site temporary signage: 11 Realtor directional signage (i.e. open houses and "parade of homes" event signs); Questions that must be addressed. This type nfsignage katenlporar bvnature, and the right conditions/restrictions on such signs could ensure they adhere to the purpose for signs outlined Lake Elmo City code. When investigating this topic, staff will strive to answer the following: What impacts may arise if temporary holiday/agricultural related off-site business signs are allowed via permit? * What impacts could arise from temporary real estate directional signs? T How do you define temporary real estate signs? & How might changes to code impact administrative or enforcement staff time? ^ * How far could usign belocated fromthe business/home being advertised? m Under what conditions can apermit berequested? * How long can the sign bmup? * Where could these types of signs be located (i.e. out of the ROW on private property)? * What assurances must beprovided to the city for the sign permit? MINIMUM ED IN M 1011 Unfortunately, due to limited staff time and deadlines for both a planning commission and city council packet, further information was unavailable at the time of packet delivery. Information instead be handed out at the meeting, and staff will lead a discussion on the topic in order to gel feedback on concerns to keep in mind when preparing a draft ordinance. E Introduction ... ...... ......... ....... ................. ...... .......... —..SuoanHoyt, City Administrator Report by staff ... .—................ .................... .................. Ben Gozola.Senior Planner ' Questions from the Commission .................. ................ Chair & Commission Members Questions/Comments from the public ..... ..... ..... .............. --........ Chair facilitates ' Direction to staff from the Commission ......... ..................... ...... ......... Chair facilitates CITY LAKE ELMO 2008 MEETING SCHEDULE January 14 Monday Annual .Meeting Election of Officers January 28 Monday February 11 Monday February 25 Monday March 10 Monday March 24 Monday April 14 Monday April 28 Monday May 12 Monday M4yA W6dnes a r- Due:td n a :Jr lIj y"", June 9 Monday ,Tune 23 Monday July 14 Monday July 28 Monday August 11 Monday August 25 Monday September 8 Monday September 22 Monday bet 1 15 tay, due to, crlrz October 27 Monday November 10 Monday November 24 Monday December 8 Monday VII(aae'l-76 Planning Commission Date: 12/10/07 INFORMATION ITEM, Process chart for the Village plan SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator The attached process chart gives a simple process outline for steps to implementation of the Village plan. The first two steps, the comprehensive plan and the masterplan, were major steps in moving along this path. The AUAR environmental process is the next major and time-consuming step in the process. I I J ROAD MAP FOR DECISION MAKING ENGINEERING AND FINANCIAL LAND USE Study Preliminary Financial Feasibility of Sanitary Sewer Provide Feedback on Assumptions Conceptual Understanding 7,1 Obtain Firm Financial Commitments from Developers for Sanitary Sewer and Other Development Fees Award Bids for Sewer Trunk 1-94 to 30th Issue Bonds for Sewer Trunk 1-94 to 30th Award Contract for Sewer Trunk 1-94 to 30th --------------- I Sewer Installed to Now Development I Sewer Installed In existing Village by 2030 on project -by -project basis, as approved by Council AUAR Environmental Review Determine Land Use Options to Study ✓ Comp Plan ✓ Other Estimated Completion Fall, 2008 Includes public participation process Accept Development Applications Timing depends on housing market Development Approval Process Each development request goes through City approval process Planning Commission Date: 12/10/07 INFORMATION JEW Legal Opinion on the required number of new housing units in thc-1 Comprehensive Plan The city council received a legal opinion on the number of required new housing units in the Comprehensive plan. (Attachment 1). This legal opinion was requested because the language in The comprehensive plan is always clear. The legal number in the city's legal land use document must be one of the development scenarios evaluated in the AUAR process. (The AUAR does not choose between development scenarios; it evaluates the mitigation required as a result of the development scenarios environmental impacts). The city is a long way away from making a decision on the housing units in the new Village. Dec -03-2001 09:46 From -PETERSON PRAM BERGMAN 6512261153 T-551 P.002/008 P-877 Warren & pcverwrl ERSON, Jerome R Filla Daniel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman BERGMAN John Michael Miller miebat-d T Oberle qt&Ven H, BuAnS' Paul W, Fahning' Sonja R. Ortiz Amy K. L Schmidt Berl 1. Rugt Jared M. Govdizz December 3, 2007 Mayor Dean Johnston and Lake Elmo City Councilmembers City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Sewered Housing Units Old Village Area Dear Mayor Johnston and Members of the City Council: Suite 800 55 Ease Fifth Street St. PaUt, MN 55101-17128 (65 1) 291-8955 t6511 226-1751 facsimile wwwpffi-pa.com (651)290.6907 NII&Pf t�-JM, -C-0 rn In 2004, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the Metropolitan Council had the statutory authority to require the City to modify its proposed Comprehensive Plan in the manner provided by Metropolitan Council Resolution No. 2003-10, This particular Metropolitan Council Resolution effectively incorporated a list of nine (9) required modifications, including a requirement that there would be development to accommodate 7,850 Residential Equivalent Units (REC's) of regional sewer capacityAll City Cooncilmembers opposed this level of development and asked the Metropolitan Council rf 'it would be willing to negotiate some other solution. The negotiation, resulted in the Memorandum of Understanding. The Memorandum of Understanding was intended to provide guidance to the City as it began the task of revising the Comprehensive Plan draft that had been rejected by the Metropolitan Council, The Memorandum of Understanding mandate$ that the City achieve certain development goals by 2030 (Population -24,000; residential REC's- 5,200; and employment REC's-1,400), but it permits the City to use its discretion in determining how to achieve the 2030 development goals, The specific manner in which the City chose to exercise its discretion is reflected in the Comprehensive Plan that was approved by the City <and by the Metropolitan Council, and in the official control which the City has and will adopt to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, In regard to the Old Village (both existing and new), the Comprehensive Plan identifies the number of sewered housing units in two (2) ways, First, it specifically stMtes that there will be 1,100 sewered housing units in the Old Village by 2030 (Comprehensive Plan 111-17). The City Engineer advises me there are 194 current 'ALSO ADMITTED IN W4SCONSN 09:46 From -PETERSON PRAM BERGMAN 6512281r6s T-551 P. OP81008 P-877 December 3, 2007 Page 2 housing units in the Old Village. By subtracting current housing units from the projected housing units, the result is 906 new housing units. OW WIN 111-3 through 111-5); by specifying permissible densities within zoning categories for the Old Village (Comprehensive Plan 111-3 through 111-5); and by identifying the number of acres available for development within various zoning categories (Comprehensive Plan 111-7), Zone Units/Acre Acres Max. Units 1. VR/HD 14,5 7 101,5 2. VR/LD 0.45 77 34.65 3, VR MU/MD 5-6 86 430-516 4. VR P/S O.45 43 19,5 5. VR/Q13 0.45 717 322.65 The above calculations indicate that there could be 909-995 new housing units to the Village area in addition to the existing 194. If you have any questions please contact me, N= Cr-1Idoc Very truly yours, /51 Jerome P, Filla X ,A,AA Metropolitan Council,7 AAA Office of the Chair November 19, 2007 The Honorable Dean Jolmston City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 M 'Cet;,84 Re: City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan; Sewered Development and Densities Dear Mayor Jolu-iston: I am writing in response to recent inquiries about sewered development in the City of Lake Elmo, the City's comprehensive plan, and the January 2005 Memorandum of Understanding that outlines criteria that were to be considered when the City prepared its comprehensive plan. Some have rioted minor discrepancies between certain numbers in the Memorandum of Understanding and the comprehensive plan submitted to the Metropolitan Council and have asked whether existing housing in the Old Village that may be connected to the regional wastewater treatment system must have a density of at least 3.0 units per acre, Discrepancies I it is my understanding that the City's comprehensive plan indicates 1,100 Residential Equivalent Units (RECs) will be available for existing and new housing in the Old Village area of Lake Elmo, while the Memorandum of Understanding indicates 1,000 RECs will be available for the Old Village area (up to 500 RECs for existing Old Village housing; up to 500 RECs for ' new Old Village housing). The discrepancy is minor and inconsequential, and poses no problems for the Metropolitan Council, The City may implement the comprehensive plan presented to and acted on by the Metropolitan Council. Paragraph 7 of the 2005 Memorandum of Understanding was included as an accommodation to the City with the understanding that the City may need to remediate -failing on-site sewer systems in the existing Old Village. The 3.0 units -per -acre average density standard does not apply to the pre-existing units in the Old Village; only to new development. With regard to future development, the Metropolitan Council has the following expectations based on the approved comprehensive plan. All development permitted after the comprehensive plan went into I o effect in April 2006 will'be- consistent with the City's adopted plan. The existing Old Village will remain pretty much as is --a mix of commercial and neighborhood construction (conventionally platted subdivisions prior to 2005). In response to a request from Metropolitan www.nictrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North o St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 e (651) 602-1000 ® Fax (651) 602-1550 , 'M (651) 291-0904 Art EquaQ opportunit.y Employer lJonorable Dean Johnston November 19,2007 Page 2 Council staff, City staff estimated the overall density of existing units in the Old Village is 1.5 units per acre. Until regional sewer service is available, areas outside the existing/already developed portion of the Old Village area are in a 1 -unit -per -20 -acre holding zone. Once regional sewer service is available, development will occur as shown in the City's plan, which has three designated village residential (VR) areas: mid- to high-density (VR --HD); mixed- use/medium density (VR-MU/MD) and low-density (VR -LD). The average density of all new develOpMeDt within and around the Old Village will occur at an overall average density of at least 3.0 units per acre. In the area south of 10th Street, the average residential density will be at least 3.0 units per acre, while the density of non-residential development will be at. least 40 employees per acre in sewered areas. I hope these responses and clarifications are helpful as the City moves forward with its planning efforts and the implementation of its comprehensive plan. As always, Metropolitan Council staff are available to assist the City of Lake Elmo as it addresses -these important planning issues. cc: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Sherry Broeker, Metropolitan Council Member, District 12 Tom Weaver, Regional Administrator Guy Peterson, Director, Community Development Division Bill Moore, General Manager, Environmental Services Division Bob Mazanee, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative B B RA1.1 Ri..Al",*�':,.�,,101",E1i!' rP� Planning Commission Bate: 12/10107 Item: SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is seeking a way to amend R-1 zoning standards to minimize the number of variance requests on properties guided as Neighborhood Conservation (NC) in the comprehensive plan. To that end, staff was asked to look into or address the following issues: ® Examine whether adjacency averaged will address the main concerns; Provide a good definition of adjacency averaged; Look at past variances to see what ones could have been avoided with the adjacency averaged concept; 0 Examine how other cities use an average; Look at septic requirements Determine if recent statutory change that allows for reconstruction addresses most of the problems: Attached to this executive summary is an in-depth report outlining staff's analysis of the existing ordinance and how it relates to the issues the City is seeking to address. In summary, staff did not identify any major code deficiencies based on NC variance requests over the past five years that would lead us to recommend adoption of a new zoning district for NC guided properties. Second, the "adjacency averaging" concept previously considered by the commission appears to be unnecessary as code already contains language allowing for setback averaging in front yards and in lakeshore setback situations (whether this language has been used in the past was not determined). Third, there does not appear to be a need to amend local septic regulations as the requests over the past five years demanded to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis given the proposed locations for the sites. The only change to code recommended by staff at this time would be a clarification of the front yard setbacks averaging rules outlined in section 300.11. Amending the existing language to cover all lots rather than just vacant lots could help to address some of the situations that may arise on NC guided property. Because staff did not notice a public hearing to amend the section of code now recommended for change, a separate public hearing will need to be noticed and held at a future point in time if the commission agrees with staff's recommended course of action. a None Staff is recommending the planning commission review the provided analysis, and determine if the proposed ordinance resolves existing NC concerns. Keep in mind ...^~~`~ statute.h_ changed to allow reconstruction of nonconforming structures without a variance (provided no expansion is requested). As such, residents cannot be denied the ability to fix structures they currently have on their properties. ORDER OFBUSINESS: Introduction ................. ..... ... ...... ............. '...................... Ben Gozola,Senior Planner ' Report by staff ............................................... ...... .—..... Ben Gozola.Senior Planner - Questions from the Commission ......... ............ ............ Chair & Commission Members Facilitates C�|�xan�ot�n--_--.-----------_..—.---.---..Chair Faoao - Discussion'nfCommission cmthe motion ...... ................................. ... Chair Facilitates - Action by the Planning Commission.. ... ...................... .. Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS (xxx): 1. Detailed staff report analyzing NCguided properties and related city requirements; 2. Proposed ordinance toamend existing general front yard setback ` ngukationa. 3. Former proposedordinance (2006)incorporating "adjacency averaging." 9 City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Addressing Neighborhood Conservation (NQ zoning issues To: Planning Commission From: Ben Gozola, City Planner Meeting Date: 12-10-07 Objective: The intent of an "NC Ordinance" is to minimize variance requests in the 12-1 zoning district for things that make sense and fit with the neighborhood. The ordinance has come forward at the request of the planning commission in response to the number of R-1 variances reviewed over the past five (5) years, and out of concern that residents are being forced to request variances for projects that ultimately will not or cannot be denied. Previous work on a new NC zoning district was considered in the preparation of this report. Variance After discussing this issue with the planning commission on 11-26-07, we felt it was Review: important to put down in writing staff findings -for variances on NC guided properties over the last five years, and our analysis of these requests. Such an examination is critical for determining what changes (if any) are needed at this time. Here is what we found: All seven of the variances requested so far in 2007 have been on NC guided properties. 2007 Variance Address Res. 07-060 (9/4) OHW, side yd 8838 Lake Jane Trl Res. 07-047 (6/19) OHW, front 8186 Hill Trl N Res. 07-046 (6/19) min lot size, septic 8961 37th St. N Res. 07-033 (4/17) lot width 3200 Lake Elmo Ave Res. 07-032 (4/17) off-site septic xxxx Klondike Ave. Res. 07-018 (2/20) Septic 11225 31st St. N Res. 07-#-## (#/#) septic 8186 Hill Trl N (continued on next page) 4 a'd 1 a P , , '(" - I Planning Conmi[vsion Reporf,- 12-10-07 (co! I t. ) Six (6) of the ten (10) variances requested in 2006 were on NC guided properties. 2006 Variance Address Res. 06-082 Septic Drainfield 8320 Hidden Bay Trl Res, 06-058 (6/20) Res. 06-041 (5/16) Res. 06-028 (3/21) D Res. 06-024 (3/6) D Res. 06-017 (2/7) Street, side yd Front yd/min lot size Septic - OHW, min lot area OHW 9429 Jane Rd N 8009 Hill Trl N 7949 Hill Trl N 8160 Hill Trl N 4773 Olson Lk Trl IIIIII III!III!I !I III II IIII: I I ! ! I ! III 'I xl� �' 71101. 11, fto TV 2005 —Variance Variance Address — Res, 05-144 (12/20) D OHW, side yd, min lot 10941 32nd St. Res. 05-110 (10/18) OHW 8148 Hill Trl N Res. 05-087 (8/16) min lot area 31st St N Res, 05-020 (3/1) Septic, OHW 8784 Lake Jane Trl Nine (9) of the ten (10) variances requested in 2004 were on NC guided properties. 2004 Variance Address Res. 04-091 (10/19) min lot area 34th St. Res. 04-088 (1015) D Side Yd 3385 Lake Elmo Ave Res. 04-081 (9/21) side yd 8384 Stillwater Blvd. Res. 04-059 (7/20) OHW 2225 Legion Ln Res. 04-054 (7/06) shed size 8061 Hill Trl N Res. 04-046 (6/18) side, front yd 8017 50th Res. 04-043 (5/18) D Septic 3604 Layton Ave N Res. 04-027 (4/20) side, front yd 11094 35th St. N Res. 04-009 (1/20) ORW 8056 Hill Trl N (continued on neat page) Page 2 4 "1 , � ddrcssing N(.'zonin.- is,s ite,S Pul-inning, ""'Otninission. Report: 12-10-0'1i" ( coria. ) A = Approved D = Denied III I 1 1111111111 11111111111aill g JIM 11 11 2003 Variance Address Res. 03-094 (11/18) OHW 8048 Hill TrI Res. 03-039 (5/6) OHW 8120 Hill Trl N Res. 03-030 (4/1) OHW 8098 Hill TrI N Res. 03-005 (in) front yd 10920 32nd St. Based purely on numbers, examination of RI zoning is a prudent idea to ensure the zoning district requirements are functioning as intended and are regulating these areas of the community appropriately. That said, it is also important to examine the specific nature of these variances to see what may be causing the problems. That breakdown is as follows: EM Yard Setbacks Lot Req Variances Shaded parcels indicate that a variance was denied, or was for replacement of an existing structure which would no longer require an application due to a change to state statutes. * Twenty-five (25) of the thirty (30) Ti -1 variance requests in the past five years were approved. Staff is assuming the denied variances were for justified reasons given that the commission is seeking to change code to avoid having to approve requests that arguably have no hardship. * Of the 25 approved variances, four requested the ability to reconstruct of repair an existing structure. Due to a recent change to state statues, these requests would no longer require a variance so they can be taken out of consideration when determining the nature of the existing problem. This would leave a total of 21 variances over the past five years to examine when assessing if a code problem exists. * Of the 21 identified variances, the following can be deduced: o Eight (8) required variances from the setbacks requirement from the OHW of a protected waterbody (38%); o Six (6) required variances from yard setback requirements (29%); Pt�qe 3 Addv cssinl- N(--'zrming Planrdnl, Commission Reporr: 12-10-07 (cont) �WWZFFI o Six (6) required variances from septic regulations (29%); o Five (5) required variances from a lot requirement ostensibly to make it buildable (24%); Setbacks from lakes and other water bodies are found in the shoreland district section of City Code (section 325). Currently the required setback from Natural Environment lakes is 150 feet, and the setback from Recreational Development lakes is 100 feet. However, section 325.06 subd. 4 also states that "...structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone." In effect, the existing shoreland standards already provides the zoning administrator latitude to use an average setback based on adjoining properties. Because the standard setbacks apply to all shoreland district lots in Lake Elmo regardless of zoning district, the only way to minimize OF IW variances in the R -I zoning district would be to change the standards that are applicable to the entire City. Shoreland district codes are intended to achieve two main goals: 1) protection of water quality through septic & structure setbacks and minimization of hardcover / disturbance of shoreland vegetation; and 2) preservation of the natural view of land from the lake. Lessening the required setback tends to work contrary to both of these goals, so a change is not advisable unless there is an overwhelming number of lakeshore variances before the City. As that does not seem to be the case, staff would not recommend any changes to lakeshore setbacks. Regulations governing septic sites are found in different sections of code. Essentially for r-1 properties, code has three requirements: 1) All lots must have a minimum of one (1) acre of land suitable for septic drainfields; 2) Locations for a primary and secondary site must be identified; and 3) The septic sites must meet minimum setbacks. Note that qualifying lots -of -record' do not need to meet the one acre requirement, and must only show that safe and adequate sewage treatment systems can be installed. C� To analyze the one acre requirement, staff conducted a LoMh analysis of existing r-1 lots which resulted in the following figures: Of the 1358 lots zoned R-1, approximately 130 (10%) appear unsuitable for construction and likely have no current improvements on the land (typically these parcels are too small or are oddly shaped); By code, a lot of record is a property platted before roughly 1980 that meet at least 60% of the area and width requirements of the underlying zoning district. S:Wrffinance,AActive Page 4 d'kmnirt,,� C'omrnd,s4sio Rcpor t; 12-10-07 Of the 1355 lots zoned R4, approximately 393 (29%) would not qualify as lots of record, but likely have improvements or could support improvements; The remaining lots are all conforming to minimum lot size or would qualify as lots -of -record. Writing an exception to the one -acre septic requirement for the 29% of lots that may request a variance could be considered, but is likely not be necessary given that, only six such variances have been granted in the past five years. Additionally, while some of the six septic variances may have included a problem with the one -acre minimum, all required setback variances. 'Therefore, any exce tion written into code would not have alleviated the need for a variance Rrocess. Septic setbacks are needed to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of neighborhoods. Properly located systems protect water bodies and adjacent properties from potentially failing systems. Variances to these existing regulations should really be granted on a case-by-case basis when no alternative sites are available. Staff would not recommend any changes to these codes. Setbacks It is not uncommon for codes to provide allowances for lesser yard setbacks based on Analysis. ' existing structures on adjacent properties. Typically such allowances are only applicable to front or rear yard setbacks. Side yard setbacks are generally not varied as it is important to maintain adequate separation of structures (and to not compound the problems created by existing nonconformities). Some examples of such codes in other communities are as follows: IET ISTA 505®09. Setbacks. Subdivision 1. Front yard setbacks. (a) When more than 25 percent of the frontage on the side of the street between intersections is occupied by structures having setbacks from street rights-of-way of a greater or lesser amount than hereinafter required, the average setback of all existing structures between the intersections will be maintained by all new or relocated structures. (b) In the event a structure is to be built where there is such an established setback different from that required hereinafter and there are existing structures on both sides of the said new structure, the front setback will not be required to be greater than that which would be established by connecting a straight line between the forward most portions of the first adjacent structure on each side. (continued on next page) .4':�F)r•Eaiercrrt�c�,sti'ii:tit-c� (1r•rlira rrt<e:sG�r`C'Cortins;Vi'cp.....;'�C,'�r3rairt, I'�...1w7..Tf1-(17:rani: a, e 53 4 ( 11 'lr�rrPa r2g COmmission Report; 1240-07 ( ( "o I I t 1) GREENFIELD (2) Setbacks. All buildings and structures shall meet or exceed the following setbacks: Front yard setback 30 feet from the right-of-way or the average distance of the existing single-family dwellings on the same block Subd. 3. Yard requirements. d. Where adjacent residential structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the required front yard setback exceed that required minimum established within the districts of this chapter. (b) The exception to these setback requirements is in a block where two or more residences have already been constructed facing the same street, the setbacks for the remaining lots in that block fronting on the same street shall be determined by the average setback of the existing buildings. (1) (a) The minimum front yard setback shall be 50 feet from the road right-of- way; or the average distance of existing setbacks of all buildings on the same block facing the same street. ;' - M In any district where front yards are required and where 40% or more of the frontage on one side of a street between two intersecting streets or around the circumference of a cul-de-sac is' developed with buildings that have a front yard that is greater or less than the required front yard in the district, no building shall project beyond the average yard so established. Orylij, - 'Ai("' 'g'V`ep--NC1oning�PZ 12-10-017.doc ,(III( ,,�Sv VZ , OMI? (cominued on nevt page) "Olung 1,;�:�ucs Plannin,s, Commission Rel,,wri,, 12-1`e-0," (cont.) 1 154.056... (c) Front street setback. The above listed setback and yard requirements are subject to the following additional requirement: When more than 40% of the frontage of the side of a street between intersections is occupied by structures having setbacks from street rights-of-way of greater or lesser amounts than hereinafter required, the average setback of all existing buildings between the intersections shall be maintained by all new or relocated structures. In the event a building is to be built where there is such an established average setback different from that required hereinafter and there are existing buildings on one side only, the front setback of the new building shall match that of the next adjoining building. In case the building is to be built where there is such an established average setback and there are existing buildings on both sides of the now building, the front setback shall match that which would be established by connecting a straight line between the forward most portion of the first adjacent building on each side. Using similar language as one of the cities noted above to address front and rear yard setbacks in the R- I district would seem to be a reasonable way to allow residents to build in concert with existing neighborhood improvements while still promoting the minimum standards established for the R- I district, Lot Size Lot area requirements will only come into play on undeveloped parcels that do not nalysis® qualify as lots -of -record. Typically, there is little to no reason to grant variances in these cases, and there are generally other impediments to building other than lot size (which is why the lot is still vacant). Because of the nature of these requests, and because the city has only received a handful of such requests in the past five years, staff would suggest continuing to review these requests on a case-by-case basis. After fully examining the issues outlined by the planning commission on 11/26/07, staff does not believe the "adjacency averaging" concept is needed to address the commission's concerns. If any changes are to be made, we would suggest amending the regulations in section 300.11 Setbacks as follows (underlined language is new; strikeouts indicate language to be eliminated): Subd 1. Front setbacks. Where adjacent residential structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from these required the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the -,)dincent Ptrnr.hir(-.r, is only one adiacent structure, the front vard mini be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In n case shall the re aired front and setback exceed that required minimum established within the districts of this chapterWEh c" Ordinances\,,VC i Zonin,,gV?ep- -N(I'Zoning JV-1240-07.doc Page 7 Planning (.7ommission Report; 12-10-02' rntlr rtln7l �At � ""Gill :&'SG9:d'"A Ad v�:7T lll n 1'sllYlla9Y9!'r &'ern �]�Y_ � t Y9n!*lY ay.11.i-G ��3V '�t"l�' � flrvs 9. S , l Amaro VA `-, � ixa"iicxi 4&e � f L, � 1 ' c r p���1r-aYr°iitiw—aa� prvrr'-Yad Y t1,; Subd 2. Side and rear setbacks. Subject to regulations contained in the Building Code and other applicable regulations, side and rear setback requirements may be waived, provided party walls are used and the adjacent buildings are constructed as an integral unit and are part of an approved shopping center, townhouse development, or other similar development. The waiver shall only be by issuance of a variance. Subd 3. Setbacks from private roads. All setback requirements of this chapter shall also be applicable to private roads and easement access rights-of- way. The proposed change to the front yard setback language would apply to both, vacant and currently built lots, and would provide a little more flexibility for built out areas of the City that may contain a number of nonconformities. Side yard setbacks are not proposed to change as it is important to encourage and maintain a minimum separation between structures. Providing leeway on side yard setbacks would only tend to worsen existing nonconformities by bringing neighboring structures closer together. Additionally, Lakeshore and septic regulations are also not proposed to change for the reasons outlined in this report. Commission The Planning Commission has the following options: Options: A) recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to amend the front yard setback averaging requirements in all zoning districts; B) recommend staff make changes to the proposed ordinance, or add additional changes; C) Table the itemm for further study. As this is a city driven process, there is no 60 -day deadline. ,SAOrdi.rnan esVicthveOrdirnrncesl,�r( Zonin Vl ep--<�;`C' ��rai1,"; P-7 T2 07.c,rc° Page? 8 CITY OF LAKE SMO ORDINANCE NO. -- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND GENERAL FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS I 111111111111 � � I I I I I I I I ccti® 300.11 SETBACKS. Subd 1. Front setbacks. Where adiacent residential structures within the same block have front vard setbacks different from those rMuired he frogLyard ,t minimum setback shall be the aveja��� ..���� setback shall be the he adiacent structure. In no case shall the required front yard setback exceed that established within the districts of 1his cha ter. 2_ T- a -Ibuildf.n.g Fner-e thaft 1. 801 l'--1 fcfeffl the 4M-4 yar-d shall eenfoma es:taWi.;;1he4-,-da -21 1 as .'.'ffliftistr-at,er- &-terfnines4hat anotheF setbaek is fnefe a"FOPF-k"V� Subd 2. Side and rear setbacks. Subject to regulations contained in the Building Code and other applicable regulations, side and rear setback requirements may be waived, provided party walls are used and the adjacent buildings are constructed as an integral unit and are part of an approved shopping center, townhouse development, or other similar development. The waiver shall only be by issuance of a variance. Subd 3. Setbacks frown private roads. All setback requirements of this chapter shall also be applicable to private roads and easement access rights-of-way. Section 2. Adoption Date tely upon adoption and publication in the This ordinance shall become effective immedia official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. was adopted on this --- day of ___, 20.—, by a vote of -- Ayes and — Nays. ATTEST: Susan Hoyt Administrator This Ordinance No. _— was published on the -- day of ---, 2007. IQ hgklp�LIL (to I.C"onservation) LgiAgg, �Lu, r Le, I_ fir TLe r (2�i oLdn district -is thc­pLe, _p" _q of the NC Zz c!'_ -L —a114 enhancement qf neij�hborhoods within the Cjty_th4LhAye been developed over Lime L _Et�!ndqrds of the City or East _.es, o115,ive to earlier or nonexistent zongiqg — — - — - — - pq Oakdale Township. The goal of Czoniii�isthe retention cif the existing Dhv,sical environment oftiriesej?re --existin �ngrb igbb000ds with a minimum of zoninc, non -conformities created by NC district standards, as well as to regulate "in -fill" devel.ppment/redevelopment in thosc_p)L.e- It is not the intent or purpose to apply the NC district standards to lattin of undeveloped lands or the division of existi a ar els to create additional. buildable tax parcels. a, One family detached daellings,j 3. Accessory Asses a. Uses which are customarily accqssory and cicarly incidental 19 pegrnitted uses .borne oe occu _—L—pgkons. 3. Minimum District Rf-apirements. Minimum Lot Size Front: Side d e flnteriol—. _ . Side (Corner)— Aiterial Street: Maximum Impervious Surface Maximum Floor Area Ratio -feet whichever is less VAN 2 Feet, or �d��cency averaged, whichever is U