Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting February 17, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Members present: Dave Pankow, Rolly Ackerman, Jason Sanders, Tyler Neether, Richard Galster Others present: Robert Davis, Planning Director; Lance Lang, Principal Planner; Reed Elmquist, Assistant Planner; Dwight Thompson, Code Enforcement Officer; Jon Hanson, Planning Commission. Pankow called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. CHAPTER 1: TITLE AND APPLICATION 6) Upon adoption of the zoning ordinance (adopted July 1, 2013) zoning district names changed. The following zoning districts are abolished and therefore considered non-conforming: R-2B, R-3, R-3B, R-4, C-4, and O. Below is a table with the previous zoning district and corresponding new zoning district. Davis began by stating that in discussions among the Planning staff, no one saw any reason to treat the abolished R-2B, R-3, and R-3B zoning districts different from the districts that were not abolished but whose setback requirements had changed. Taking a consistent approach was problematic in any case. Lang pointed out that two-family residences are required to be two feet narrower, while properties zoned R-3B are required to be ten feet narrower under the new regulations compared to the old regulations. The year after the 2011 flood, the City Council passed an ordinance allowing affected dwellings to be granted variances from current setbacks for the next two years without a public hearing. Numerous lot sizes remain unable to conform to the present regulations without being replatted. Neether asked Lang for further clarification as to whether a mass rezone was intended for all properties in the abolished districts. Davis explained that it would not be practical to do such a thing, and that a variance is the simplest answer. Pankow stressed the importance of consistency in granting variances. Lang pointed out that most nonconforming structures have been out of conformance for many years and expressed confusion as to why this was just now becoming an issue. Ackerman estimated that the Council had overridden 90% of the Planning Commission’s recommendations on variances. He could not recall Section 25-1b having been approved by the Steering Committee, nor did his personal copy of the ordinance contain this section: “Nonconforming Lots of Record: Where a lot has less land area than required for the zoning district in which it is located, and the lot was a recorded as of February 28, 1963, the lot may be used for any purpose permitted in that zoning district. In no case shall the height, area, and yard setback requirements be deviated from except by written approval of the Planning Director. Any proposed changes in subdivision plats that result in a request for a change in zoning, lot size, or lot shape shall be subject to lot, height, area, and yard setback requirements herein.” Lang stated that it seemed unfair to create loopholes for the abolished districts when the same concern was not raised with regard to R1. He suggested that merely reducing the buildable area of a lot should not constitute a taking as the lot would still be buildable. Davis agreed while Ackerman disagreed. Davis stated that residents do not want to be packed in tight. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting February 17, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Ackerman then acknowledged that developers had a much greater issue with the increased front setback for residential properties fronting arterial and collector streets. A loss of 15 feet of buildable area amounted to a significant loss of units for a multi-family lot, the taller the building and the longer the frontage along an arterial. He contended that the premise for a taking having occurred would hold much more water under such a scenario. Lang questioned why the setback had been expanded in the first place. Pankow stated that it had been expanded to facilitate acquisition of right-of-way. Neether stated that no bank would approve a loan for a lot containing a structure with nonconforming setbacks. Sanders questioned why the maximum damage threshold for restoring a nonconforming structure was 60% of its value. Lang answered that it had been that way for many years, and many other cities had only a 50% threshold. He then raised the scenario of a lot with a nonconforming use, and questioned whether the ordinance would allow an addition meeting current setbacks on a nonconforming structure. Pankow stated that as no clear consensus could be made with regard to striking a healthy balance between doing away with nonconforming structures and making it possible for homebuyers to obtain financing, he would move to consult a third-party expert for legal advice on how to address the problem. Seconded by Neether, motion carried. As the matter of nonconforming districts and uses had been debated for well over an hour, Pankow proceeded ahead to Chapter 13, leaving the proposed changes to Chapter 14 for a later meeting. Before proceeding, Ackerman offered two more comments. First, that the intent of Section 7-7d.3 was to allow 16 units per acre in RM District as opposed to 3,000 square feet for each additional unit. Second, that the existing verbiage of “track vehicles and/or heavy equipment” was adequate to include the proposed addition of “Contractors’ equipment storage yards” under the open storage lots portion of conditional uses listed in Section 14-4f. CHAPTER 13 – “PUD” PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 13.9. Review and Amendments: a) Minor changes in the location, placement, and heights of the buildings or structures that do not alter the overall concept, density, intensity, traffic impact, or environmental impact may be authorized by the Planning Director if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final site plan was approved. Minor changes shall be defined as: 1) A building addition of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing floor area, 2) An increase of up to fifty percent (50%) of the impervious coverage of the property, 3) A change in the landscaping, exterior color, or materials, or 4) A change in the location, placement, and/or height of an approved building or structure. b) Major changes that alter the overall concept, density, intensity, traffic impact, or environmental impact shall require Aapproval of the Planning Commission and City Council shall be required for other changes such as rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts. These changes shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved final development plan. Major changes shall be defined as: Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting February 17, 2017 Page 3 of 6 1) A building addition of twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the existing floor area, 2) An increase of more than one (1) story or ten (10) feet to the height of an existing building, 3) An increase of more than fifty percent (50%) of the impervious coverage of the property, 4) A change which would result in the development no longer meeting the standards of this Section under which the project was approved, 5) An increase or change to the traffic access, circulation, or impact, 6) A decrease of more than ten percent (10%) of the amount of common open space, 7) An additional building, or 8) Rearrangement of building tracts, lots, blocks, and public right-of-way, plus any other change that requires a re-plat. Lang commented that he had been in the process of formulating new regulations on impervious coverage (with regard to a-2 and b-2). Neether proposed an additional criterion for Section 13.9b, “An encroachment into a required setback”. CHAPTER 13 – “PUD” PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 13.9. Review and Amendments: a) Minor changes in the location, placement, and heights of the buildings or structures that do not alter the overall concept, density, intensity, traffic impact, or environmental impact may be authorized by the Planning Director if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final site plan was approved. Minor changes shall be defined as: 1) A building addition of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing floor area, 2) An increase of up to fifty percent (50%) of the impervious coverage of the property, 3) A change in the landscaping, exterior color, or materials, or 4) A change in the location, placement, and/or height of an approved building or structure. b) Major changes that alter the overall concept, density, intensity, traffic impact, or environmental impact shall require Aapproval of the Planning Commission and City Council shall be required for other changes such as rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts. These changes shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved final development plan. Major changes shall be defined as: 1) A building addition of twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the existing floor area, 2) An increase of more than one (1) story or ten (10) feet to the height of an existing building, Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting February 17, 2017 Page 4 of 6 3) An increase of more than fifty percent (50%) of the impervious coverage of the property, 4) A change which would result in the development no longer meeting the standards of this Section under which the project was approved, 5) An increase or change to the traffic access, circulation, or impact, 6) A decrease of more than ten percent (10%) of the amount of common open space, 7) An encroachment into a required setback, 8) An additional building, or 9) Rearrangement of building tracts, lots, blocks, and public right-of-way, plus any other change that requires a re-plat. Motion to approve changes seconded by Sanders. Motion carried. Discussion of the proposed agri-business park followed. Pankow skipped ahead to Chapter 22. CHAPTER 22 – SIGNAGE REGULATIONS Section 22-6. Temporary Signs: (only for grand openings, special events, and holidays) a) Permitted in C1, C2, C-4, GMU, M1 and M2 districts based on the following regulations. b) No more than two (2) temporary signs (banner or portable sign) not exceeding, 2) One hundred and fifty (150) total square feet allowed in the C2, C-4, and M2 districts placed on an outside building wall (or tenant space in the case of multiple occupancy). h) Temporary signs for non-profit civic campaigns or events, political campaigns, or other noncommercial events are permitted in any zoning district and are exempt from other provisions of this Article, subject to the following requirements: 3) Portable signs: a. In the C2, C-4, GMU, M1 and M2 districts, portable signs shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet nor exceed eight (8) feet in height. Portable signs shall not be placed in the right-of-way. Portable signs are consider a temporary sign and required to follow the all regulations in this section governing the use of temporary signage. d. Are prohibited in all zoning districts not specifically listed above. A high impact sign may not be displayed at a location at which a portable sign is displayed; neither shall a portable sign be displayed at a location at which a high impact sign is displayed. i. With respect to multi-tenant properties in C2, C-4, GMU, M1 and M2 districts consisting of three (3) or more businesses under six (6) or more separate leases, a maximum of either: (a) two (2) portable signs or (b) one (1) portable sign and one (1) high impact sign may be displayed during any given period on such Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting February 17, 2017 Page 5 of 6 multi-tenant property. For every four (4) businesses in addition to the initial three (3) businesses, one (1) additional portable sign is allowed. i) High Impact Signs: A high impact sign may be displayed for a period no longer than the following: 1) In C2, C-4, GMU, M1 and M2 districts, high impact signs may be displayed at a location for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) days in any twelve (12) month period, but in no event may a high impact sign be displayed within three hundred (300) feet of any residential zoning district, as measured in all directions. High impact signs are prohibited in all other zoning districts. Section 22-8. Commercial Districts Allowable Signage (C1, C2, C-4, and GMU): a) Projecting signs/Flag mount: 1) Projecting signs may be erected with a sign face of not more than fifty (50) square feet. The sign shall not extend above the top of the wall or façade to which it is attached. The sign shall be located a minimum of eight (8) feet above ground level. Projecting signs shall be permitted in a C1, C2, C3, C-4, or GMU district. Davis stated that reinstating C-4 in this section was necessary as a stopgap measure until such time as the Council passes a signage ordinance void of any content-based restrictions. Motion to approve changes by Ackerman, seconded by Sanders. Motion carried. CHAPTER 22.1 - OFF-PREMISE SIGNAGE (BILLBOARD) REGULATIONS Section 22.1-5. Size and Location: a) Billboards are permitted only upon properties zoned C2 (General Commercial), M1 (Light Industrial), M2 (Heavy Industrial), and M3 (Office Park), and properties formerly zoned C-4 (Planned Commercial) and along the following roadways and : Highway 83; Highway 2/ 52 Bypass; Highway 2 E & Highway 2 W; Burdick Expressway; Highway 83 Bypass; 55th Street NE; and Highway 52. Motion to approve changes by Galster, seconded by Neether. Motion carried. CHAPTER 29: MISCELLANEOUS Section 29-2. Enforcement; Procedure: It shall be the duty of the City Engineer Planning Director or his/her authorized representative to enforce this ordinance. In case any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted or maintained or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this ordinance, the city, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent such unlawful erection, maintenance, or use, to restrain, correct, or abate such violation, to prevent the occupancy of said building, structure or land or to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or about such premises. CHAPTER 30: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Section 30-3. Conditional Use Permits: Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting February 17, 2017 Page 6 of 6 e) City Council Action: When it has been determined by the City Council (with approval by majority vote, 8 affirmative votes) that such conditional use will promote the public health, safety, and welfare, and that such proposal is, in general, compatible with adjacent or nearby land uses, the zoning code, and the City's comprehensive plan, the City Council may approve the conditional use permit. In authorizing this permit, the City Council may impose such conditions it deems necessary, i.e. landscaping, architectural design, type of construction, construction commencement and completion dates, sureties, lighting, fencing, signage, planting screens, operational control, hours of operation, compatibility of appearance, improved traffic circulation, deed restrictions, highway access restrictions, increased yards, or parking requirements, to fulfill the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. Any conditions imposed by the City Council shall be attached to the conditional use permit and failure to comply with any condition in a conditional use permit shall be a violation of this Ordinance. Motion to approve changes by Neether, seconded by Ackerman. Motion carried. Davis then stated that at future meetings, parking and design requirements would be addressed along with allowing interim use permits for urban farming in R1 and other districts. He then asked when the next meeting should be held. The Committee came to a consensus of March 17 at 8:00 A.M. Meeting adjourned at 10:12 A.M. Minutes completed by Reed Elmquist, Assistant Planner