Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-10-05 CPC MIN Special i i1INUT�S OF THE STILLi-dAT:�R PLANNING AND ZONING CO a—TISSION SPECIAL HE STING October 5, 1970 7:30 P. M. Present: Duane Arndt, Chairman Gene Bremer Donald Carlson John Condon Harold Hohlt Fred Kalinoff Jack Shelton Sidney Wihren The meeting was called to order_ by Chairman Arndt. Mr. Carlson moved that the minutes of the previous meeting be approved; Mr. Hohlt seconded the motion. (all in favor) . ` • °r a t: "�Aie first item on t-he agenda is a petition from Leslie Lind, 270 north ii in Street, for rezoning. It is presently zoned r Light Industrial. .air. Shelton, T,ios.-ild you explain w1nere this property is located in the city on the basis of the zoning -nap. Mr. Shelton: Itis located on the, corner of north Zain and i,iulberry Streets - itis in the same building that was occupied by John Fazendin; he only keeps the radio part now. The building was originally built for a shoe factory. Mr. Arndt: ?,that '_rind of material was this building constructed from? Mr. Shelton: Brick veneer. Pair. Arndt: Have you inspected the building? 1�x. Shelton: Yes . Mr. Arndt: Is it suitable for what PfIr. Lind intends to use it for? a Mr. Shelton: Very suitable. Mr. Arndt: Is the electrical service adequate for shoe manufact-,aring? lir. Shelton: I dor 't know if he has changed it over, but I 'm positive it would be, though . Mr. 1=_--ndt: IL that is necessary, there may be some tearing up of streets to put in feed lines by NSP. Mr. Shelton: It should be sufficient. Mr. Carlson: Is there a discrepency in the zoning map? I notice th_,t the area marked IA is defned Light Industrial - Stillwater i-lanufacturing occupias IA - are they classified as Liget Industrial? Condon: I still think this is covered under Light i dus-Tial gaere it says s-oecif ied uses i°r. I don't think it does - there is no r,.anufacturing that i can see under Light Industrial. -2- ATr. Condon: Yes but under special use it 's a permitted special al use. Mr. Hohlt : If your interpretatir;n is right, we can do it either way - : by a variance or by rezoning. iIr. Condon: It makes no difference to me because I tiron't vote for Heavy Industrial. He is going to manufacture shoes this year - once it 's Heavy Industrial he may be rendering fat next year. Nr. Arnd�LL : In this case I would say it would be desirable to have a , opinion from the City Attorney as to whether Secti:-n 16 can be used . iD facilitate this type of activity. Xr. Condon: What if we do something tonight providing the City Attorney approves of it? Mr. Arndt : I believe John' s hesitation with res?-)ect to rezoning is very valid; if you are talking about attempting to revitalize the existing downtown area, commercial and heavy industrial areas are not compatible. Do you feel you have had a sufficient amount of discussion at this point to make a recommendation? Mr. Hohlt : I recommend that a special use permit be granted on the above described property with the approval of the City Attorney. Mr. Arndt : Do you wish this to be a blanket special use permit or annual? Ifir. Hohlt : I would recommend blanket. 111r. Arndt : How about a five year permit? All I an saying is that circumstances could change and that you might want it out. Mr. Hohlt : I &a putting myself in the other man's position. NIr. Kalinoff: _�,,lhy not nut in that it be there as long as he keeps his shoe business in there - as long as it 's shoe manufacturing. Mr. Arndt: Do you mean that it should not be assignable. Mr. Kalinoff: It should be assignable as a. shoe manufacturing plant he should be able to dispose of it as the same business without being penalized for it. Mr. Arndt : Any further questions or discussion? Ex. Hohlt has moved that a special use permit be o-_-ranted under Section 15 sub.2a, subject to an opinion from the City Attorney. Xr. Wihren: I will second the motion. (all in favor) Xr. Arndt: he next itorl is the revision of the zonirl`; ordi:�u�:ce. I asked all of you to review the materials forwarded to you - other ordina ces, etc . I will indicate at this time some of the considera- tions we discussed. On Section 12, sub. lc, the question was raised as to what was meant by customary home occupations. Section 20, sub. 2a-4, it was recommended that this be revised so the minimum sr._uare footage permitted on a iot in a two family district, on .•fnich a two far:ily dwelling is to be constructed, should be raised to 10, 000 square feet. -3- Mr. Condon: I would think that in a two family district where a person wants to put up a one family home, he might be allowed to put it on a 7,500 foot lot. Mr. Arndt : 1'dell, let me finish these first. Section 20, sub. B2 - the discussion was to require the same side yard in a two family district as in a one family district. Mr. Hohlt: We the still got our fifteen feet. Mr. Arndt : Itts not enough. Mr. Carlson: The top of page 32 is different from this requirement. Delete Section 2a-2 and put in a new one that the side yard in a two family district shall be the same as the side yard required in a one family district. Mr. Arndt : It was also recommended that the minimum width for a lot be increased to eig'ity feet in a two family district. Dir. Condon: Is that possible? Mr. Arndt : Not in the old city - we are talking about new developments. It ...,as also recommended that Section 18, lb be revised to require a minimum of two parking units per dwelling unit with appropriate street access. Another recommendation was that a provision be added to the subdivision ordinance that on lots where there is reversed frontage, the lot size should be increased to take care of possibilities of both front and side yard, Corner lots will be increased so there will be an adequate amount of back yard - double setback lines. Mr. Condon: I don 't see that it ' s necessary. Mr. Hohlt : A man who has regular frontage can be within fifteen feet, right? Mr. Carlson: Thirty feet. Mr. Condon: That 's not what it says. Mir. Carlson: Thatts That we want it to say. Mr. Arndt: They need that much setback both ways for visibility purposes. Mr. Bremer : On corner lots, as long as we have a side yard regulation I don't see how they can get around it without coming in for a variance. Mr. Arndt : if you increase the lot size you T-.ouldn't have these problems so often. Have all of ,.ou had a chance to review the Fridley ordinance? Let 's start T:ith pave 20, R2 and R2a. In their classification, they set up principal uses and accessory uses. In particular I call your attention to accessory use 2b. 1ould you deem it advisable to revise our ordinance to include that? (Privately oTrned recreation,_l facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, w'r_ich are for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests. ) 1�1r. Hohlt: Wiat do we have in our ordinance about pools? -4- Mr. Shelton: Not a thing on pools or fences. 141r. Arnd'L-,,: The only t'.".inU�,r,- 1 kcno-,,%T of is found in Section 18 it speaks of -rublic pools. Tao a ridley ordinance -provides for the same thing in single f,°-Mily distric-s , Do 70U Wish a, perr U LO - U 1.1 to include this in our ordinance as aitteA use or by special use permit? I Mr. Hohlt: I think we should have some restrictions - a special permit for pools, and they should require fencing too. 1,1r. Arndt : Amend the ordinance so that no swimming pool or recreational type structure should be constructed in the City of:D Stillwater without the appropriate building permit. Mr. Hohlt: We should have some control to see that they keep a fence up* Mr. Kalinoff : Does the Fridley ordinance say anything about the protection of pools? Mr. Arndt: Not that I know of, M?. Kalinoff: I would say that we should word it like the Fridley ordinance and let the city safety ordinances take over from there. Mr.- Wihren: I move we allow swimming- pools under special use permits. CD I-Ir.. Kalinoff: For every swimming pool in town there would be another hearing. Mr. Shelton: I think it should be accessory use. Mr. Arndt: you would like to include that both Sections 11 and 12 and Section 13 be amended to permit swimmingTpools which are privately o-vinad, or other -.-)riva-U----'Ly owned recrea- onal facilities, be permitted as an accessory use in these zoning districts and be ax,,onded in appropriate places to require a building permit prior to construction of any recreational facility. W e may have some problems in regard to i%lhat rinds of recreational - indoors, outdoors etc.Y but we Ill let t City ,%tt iney worry about that. Now, back to the problem we had with the nursing homes. . . Mr. Hohlt : -VTEiat is the matter with it? .":r. Arndt I -didn't say *"here iias ,anythin,- wrong with it, it 's just very broad - ao you -,-iant 11t, to be that broad? (Section 11, 2a) . Mere is a thing in the Fridley' ordinance on Page 21, it 's much 17101-e specific. Mir. Condon: Charitable institutions is pretty broad. Mr. Arndt: From the opinion we 've had from the City Attorney, special use permits are pretty narrow - if it 's listed you can issue it. 1dr. Hohlt : There are so many things that could come up that we aren't thiniXing of now, maybe we should keep it the way we have it. CD 1-1r. Kalinoff: I don't think we should - I think ours is too broad. -e Va nad t',-Lase --I- .1-ings 00me u'� twice - on Owens Street and tare old no�crla. (requests for 611aritable institutions, etc. ) If e could see in tlle future and something came up thatuwe wanted,. thor- e is no wget it into the city accordunLrpto the Fridley ordinance. -5- Mr. Condon: Spot zone. Mr. Hohlt : Have to make another zone. In. Kalinoff : Everything is getting larger and larger. Mr. Arndt : :everything depen6s on your conception of where Stillwater is going to be in the next five or ten years - and what you want Stillwater to be. Mr. Kalinoff : I will move that we go to more restricted provis ,ona with rospoet to hospitals, clinics, nurain; homes, etc. bastion 110 2a. ) Mx. Wihren: Second. The vote was as follows : In favor : Mr. Carlson Mr. Shelton Mr. Wihren Mr. Kalinoff Opposed: hr. Bremer Mr. Condon Pix°. Hohlt Mr. Arndt Mr. Condon: Before you get too far away from my suggestion about square footage - a two family home in a two family district should require 10,000 square feet, but a one family home in a t:ro family district should be only 7,500. !,''V not encourage single family in two family districts? If a house comos dov�m a man is almost forced to build a duplex again. Mr. Arndt: John is right - in a two family district if an old barn is torn down and someone wishes to build a now house and he has 7,500 feet - if we revise the ordinance to require 10, 000 the building inspector would not be able to issue a building permit for a single far-lily dwelling; He would have to request a special use permit. hr. Kal inoff : We 're speaking about the old platted district. Mr. Condon: In the new platted districts you are actually getting some lessening of density. NO. Hohlt: Then we 'll have to start giving variances for back yard garages, etc. Mr. Condon: I was thinking primarily of the older part of the City which is nog: zoned for two family - you are going to cut them out or they are - oing to come for a variance of some sort, -.aren't they? Arndt: ,rndtri ��'1e Fridley "& '7^' k - o=! ^� �na��r�ce ck�n r_ approach exactly ply opposite of our buildin j ordinance;nanceP i t requires a minimum amount a square foot- age on a single fa"r1i y jot in a s ,n7le family district and requires moro 2q uaro footage on a lot in a two family district. You have ex amount of square footage required in a single family district and ex-plus amount of square footage where you have two family districts. 1&. KA- inoff : What is the reason for that? Hr. Arndt : If you permit two dwelling units to go in on less than .10, 000 square feet it would be self defeating. We agreed to raise the minimum footage in two family districts to conform with one family districts. -6— Mr. Hohlt: If you want to have low density, 10, 000 feet for a family to live on is not too much. P'Ir. Arndt: If you are going to have two dwelling units our present ordinance requires 7,500 feet Mr. Hohlt : I can't see that. Mr. Shelton: If you bring in a plat now it 's all one family. Mr. Arndt: If it ' s platted it comes in under the classification it 's platted at. Do you wish to add anything to the provisions of two family districts as to how much of a lot area a building can cover? Mr. Carlson: ?:ie should talk about how many buildings - one garage or two garages. I"ir. Arndt : I call your attention to Section 21 (page 31) . In respect to one family districts - secticn 1 of Section 20 - there is a reauirern�ent that all buildings or structures shall not cover more than 30�o of the area of the lot. Mr. Carlson: I realize that, but how 'many buildings are we going to allow on a lot? 'T�-ro .garages, or one accessory building. I think that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Arndt : We could recommend that we add an additional paragraph that accessory use be permitted, but that the provision read that only one accessory building per lot be allowed. Mr. Condon: In a two family district they can use 40 j of the land. Mr. Carlson: I i-.ould like to see some consideration as far as accessory buildings and some control on special use permits for additional accessory buildings. Mr. Arndt : Is it the concensus that the ordinance be amended to limit accessory buildings to one? I1r. Hohlt : If you have an attached garage and want an accessory building, what then? Mir. Carlson: We should have control under special use permits. Mr. Arndt : It could be amended so that a ,::� :iva te garage, which is considered an accessory unit, if detaclied, be per-L i ti ad on a building lot. Any structure in excess of one •z�rivata garage would require issuance of a special use permit. If' attached, any accessory building must require a special use permit Mr. Carlson: I will make that motion. Mr. Hohlt : Second. (I11r. Condon was opposed to the motion; all others in favor) Mr. Arndt: Do you wish to revise the land area which structures can occupy? Pr. Hohlt : Let it stand. j'1r. Arndt : You want to retain the present area requirements at 30% and 4059 Yr. talinoff: 10, 000 feet in both districts? 1"l-r• Arndt : Correct a -7- Mr. Condon: 7,500 feet for a single family unit in a two family district, is that dead? If so, you are saying you want 102000 square feet. Mr. Arndt: We would revise the non conforming use section of the present ordinance. Xr. Condon: lvle 're talking about the city as it is now.. Mr. Hohlt: If there was a duplex on a 7,500 foot lot and it burned do,.-m, you could build a single family house on that. Mr. Arndt : If we change the ordinance to require 10, 000 feet in a two family district - in the old areas that are platted a person who would want to build a one family or two family dwelling could not do so without a request for a variance. Mr. Bremer : We 're talking- about someone with a 7, 5100 foot lot. Mr. Kalinoff: Let' s put it under two headings - old area and new area. Mr. Arndt : You could adopt a provision that an increase of land area of 10, 000 feet shall not apply to any land platted before so and so date, it would only be applicable to new plats. Mr. Condon: I was thinking that if a duplex is torn dorm we should allow them to build a single family house. Mr. Arndt : Is there a motion as to Ir. Condon's position? Mr. Condon: I will make the motion. Mr. Carlson: Second. I=Tr. Arndt : Your motion is that t a ,conjnn� ordinance should be revised to require a minimum of 10, 000 square feet, except that lots platted and: presently coned two family district should permit the construction of a single family d e„lli.ng in, i:; at is now a two family district on a lot of 7,500 square ,feet. You do intend to specifically lil"lit this exception to a single family dwelling. (The vote was as follows : All in favor) . Plr. Arndt : The setback requirements should be continued at the present limit of 30 feet. Mr. Hohlt A minimum of 30 feet, but suppose we accept a plat - say a guy sets back- 50 or 60 feet - it makesit rough on the others. I think we L ould have a maximum setback. Hr. Kalinoff : We should -make it a minimum of- 30 feet, a maximum of 40 feet. Mr. Cordon: ',,'hat do we care how far back he sits? Mr. Arndt : You are talking about something' that has basic inconsistency. Mr. Hohlt : The existing setback can be established by he and I; I am talking about extremes. I would like to have it so you can't force someone to go back. 1,1r. Arndt: Jere talking about something that ' s difficult to resolve through a general ordinance. A person who doesn 't requirements. brant a uniform setback - pormit him to come in and apply for relief from the strict Mr. Carlson: Is there any way we can control developers who come in? -8- I'Ir. Hohlt: You could require that on the plat. Mr. Bremer : `There are lots of reasons for varying setbacks - trees are one. Mr. Hohlt: On accepting plats - the setback restrictions should be established before the plat is established. 1'1r. Arndt: Are you recommending that we leave the present ordinance as it is and let the subdivision ordinance be amended? Xr, Condgn= DQQs -it havo tQ bo tho same? Mr. Hohlt: It doesn't have to be the same, but it has to be established. Mr. Bremer: !,That makes 30 feet a magic number? I can see two - the visibility and perhaps noise control. Mr. Hohlt : As this city was planned - we have a lot of 150 foot lots. Mr. Bremer: Some people want big back yards. Mr. Arndt: Do you wish to have the subdivision ordinance amended so that a setback is established and the present setback lines in our ordinance be maintained? I.-Ir. Hohlt : So move. Mr. Carlson: Second. Mr. Shelton : The subdivision ordinance should be amended to require 75 feet of frontage at the setback line. Mr. Arndt: In addition to your motion' in terms of the subdivision ordinance being wended to show setback lines, the subdivision ordinance shall be amended to -require a ni'nimum of 75 feet of _frontage at the setback line on, any newly platted property. Tfir. Condon: On cul-de-sacs you don't need 75 feet of frontage. Mr. Arndt: The reason for using cul-de-sacs is cutting down on utility costs. hr. Condon: The ordinance says no house should be constructed on a lot less than 75 feet wide. I,ir. Carlson: I would say we should get a recommendation from Jack - what do you think is practical in designing ccul-de-sacs? Mr. Hohlt: All cul-de-sacs should be 50 foot radius. You would have to make the radius larger if they make .it 80 feet at the setback line. Shelton: There is a lot of advantages. Mr. Arndt : °+' e 're talking about whether you want minimum width of the lot to be from the setback line or if you want it to be dimension. Mr. Carlson: Get a desi-n standard from Jack Mr. Arndt: le ' ll reconsider this matter at the next Faceting where we discuss she ordinance and will try to get a recommendation. Mr. Carlson: I move we adjourn. U U. �' � 1P.� to��i"� «'�� �-1� 11 di s us a 0"od'J.nac" 1'C uirm+ Get` s 'Uerz"Is r i;eu d1 'ate'" .7ht f 100!- area, living space, eta.� and^� " n r:,t t •t,O One CMd two family d ellinz ; , also apartment ccs99:yic rwr:yaz kinds, of s,cre°e^^n^n-�n * are we going to re-quire for p rk ung 1 aWn..Ai.1.l.Y.Vice's, .1Ao.G..+.e s t!nu,k dards,, etc.y„�',. -9- Mr. Condon: I don't think we have the instruments to measure. Mr.Arndt: But we can build in certain construction standards. There is one additional tAing we may wish to consider - if we are going to eliminate mini ti family districts we have to come up with a set of criteria which will be put into the ordinance with respect to special use permits - the kinds of criteria we want to require the petitioner to show us. The Fridley ordinance talks about sodding, landscaping, preserva ,ion of property, etc. Thu City Attorney has submitted to us an amendment to Ord nano NO, 383 regardinS fences. After briefly discussing the fence ordinance, the Commission members felt there were several portions of it which tley-wish to review further, therefore, the matter was carried ovor to a future meeting. ADJOURNHANT It. Shaltaiseconded Mr. Carlson's previous motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P. M.