1h2 Code Amendments CITYOF
690 Cio, Ce.to' Drive
PO Box 147
%a,hasse,, Mi, nesota 55317
Phone
952.937.1900
Ge, era/Fax
952.937.5739
£~gineeri,g Deparo,e,t Fax
952.937.9152
&d/ding Departme,t Fax
952.934.2524
Web Site
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott A. Botcher, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Commuaity Deyelopment Director
DATE:
February 28, 2001
SUBJ:
Code Amendments
Typographical Errors
Sec. 20-109 Applications
...shall be made to the city plarmer 04' on./brms. .....
Sec. 20-505(f) Require General Standards
... 50./bet fi'om Railroad lines fi~.' or collecto~.' or-arterial streets...
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On March 6, 2001, the.Planning-Commission held a public hearing and
unanimously recommended approval of the revised language. -
._
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the following code amendment:
Sec. 20-109 Applications
...shall be made to the city planner of on forms ......
Sec. 20-505(f) Require General Standards
...50 feet fi'om Railroad lines for or collector or arterial streets...
Sec. 20-732 Permitted Uses
(19) Personal Services Duplication of No. 14, Personal Service Establishments
ATTACHMENT
1. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 6, 2001.
g:\user\vicki\code amend 2001-2.doc
e Cita, o£Cha,hasse,. A ~;'ou,i,~ comm,,in, with c/e,,/ake, c ,,a/in, schodc a rhm>,i,v do,.,,to,m, thrivi,c~/m6,e,e,, a,d hea,tiE,/aa','/,c ,4 a'reat ii, ice to l/ye. win'lc. ,,d ~/tllt
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs.
(2) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground loxv profile business sign shall be permitted per
site for each street frontage. Such sign shall not exceed...
(3) Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business
occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall
not exceed the square footage established in the following table...
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: Kate. do you want to go to the next one?
Aanenson: Sure. The next one is typo's. Tile first one, 20-109 would be on instead of of. And Section
20-505, require general standards. Or instead off or. They're pretty self explanatory regarding
applications of general standards so.
Burton: Are there questions?
Kind: I do have a question. Last time we saw the visitor packet, there was also a duplicate in Section 20-
732 where it talked about business, central business district. Businesses that were allowed and I was
wondering why that was.
Aanenson: As a typo?
Kind: Yeah, as a typo. They were listed re, ice. I'm sorry Kate, do you have your ordinance book?
Aanenson: Yeah, it probably didn't get noticed so.
Kind: So it wasn't deliberately left off. We'll catch it next time?
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: Have you got the nulnber?
Aanenson: 20-732, right?
Kind: Yeah. And xvhat it was, just so you'll know. I'll just quick whip it out. It was page 1225 of the
code book, and as my commissioners know I carry this everywhere I go.
Aanenson: It was a use that was duplicated. Correct?
Kind: Yeah.
Aanenson: I know xvhich one.
Kind: You know what it is? Okay. We'll catch that next time.
Burton: May I have a motion to open it up for a public hearing on this?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
Sacchet moved, Blackosviak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody want to address the Planning Commission on this matter?
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Any additional discussion? Can I have a motion please?
Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as
follows: Section 20-109 and Section 20-505(f) as stated in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment as follows:
Sec. 20-109 Applications.
... shall be made to the city planner on forms...
Sec. 20-505(0 Require General Standards
... 50 feet from Railroad lines or collector or arterial streets...
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Aanenson: Okay the next one is regarding Section 20-508, minimum lot size ina PUD. Here again it's
an instance where the two sentences clearly contradict each other and the one is that the minimum lot
size should not be less than 5,000 'square feet. The next sentence says there is no minimum lot size. We
have not been requiring a minimum lot size but if you go into the R districts, there are districts that, uses
that allow you to go smaller so you're being punitive in the PUD and it wasn't the intent so the staff's
recommendation is that the minimum lot size be taken out.
Burton: Any questions for staff'?.
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. So I just want to be really clear and understand this completely. You're saying
that instead of specifying the minimum size, the minimum size is implied by the density specification?
Aanenson: Correct. That's how it's been.
Sacchet: And in addition, what I'm reading here, excuse me, is that this actually has been approved at
some point but for some reason wasn't anchored into the zoning ordinance.
Aanenson: The way it's been used, if you look at the R-12 district, it allows lots smaller than that. It's
never been used that way. It wasn't used this way on Walnut Grove, North Bay. It's never been used as
a minimum lot size of 5,000. The way it's been used is that there is no minimum lot size as long as you
don't exceed the density standards. That's how it's been used.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my question.
10