Loading...
12-04-00 PC"oIkT14Wt3x ASSOCIAxto ca"SukTA"M 111HIe. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 1 November 2000 RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Residential Access FILE: 176.08 - 00.14 BACKGROUND 18. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider changes to the existing regulations for driveway width for single family residential properties. At issue, is whether the maximum width of driveway should be increased to allow a straight back access to a third (or even fourth) garage stall. This question has been raised specifically in reference to LIN -BAR Estates, where there are a number of newly constructed houses with driveways that exceed the allowed maximum width. Because the driveways that were installed exceed the Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual allowances, the City is withholding a construction security until such time as the driveway is corrected. This same issue was previously discussed by the City Council in June 1999. At that time, staff explained the basis for the current regulations. The decision of the City Council at that time was not to direct the Planning Commission to consider amending the standard. The City Council did clarify the interpretation of the existing provision by adopting a standard plate as part of the Engineering Manual illustrating the maximum allowed driveway dimensions. This plate is attached to all building permits issued by the building official. Exhibits: A. Standard Plates No. 705 & 706 B. Alternative Driveway Width Sketches ANALYSIS Existing Standard. Section 20-21-4. H.7 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the size of access within the public right-of-way to not more than 24 feet. Accesses to the public right-of-way are intended to be minimized to the extent practical for traffic management, snow storage, on -street parking, increase green space and minimize construction within the right-of-way. The City Council approved standard plates illustrating the driveway allowances for residential properties for both rural and urban section streets. As shown on exhibit A, the maximum width of a driveway is 24 feet extending across the right-of-way to the curb. The plates do allow for the width of the driveway to be increased to greater than 24 feet in the area from the property line to the front building line. Flares are also allowed at the curb line, up to a maximum of 34 feet. Based upon the required front setback from a local public street and the typical width of the right-of-way between the back of the curb and property line, most houses are setback at least 48.5 feet from the street. This distance is sufficient to allow vehicles to circulate into a third garage stall. The maneuver does require turning as the driveway widens from 24 feet at the property line as opposed to a driveway that would extend the full width of the garage to the street. The Zoning Ordinance does allow exception to the 24 foot standard approved by the City Engineer. This exception is intended primarily to accommodate traffic circulation for commercial and industrial properties. Large commercial developments may need to have three or four lane access to public streets to allow for turn lanes. Industrial developments may require wider accesses to allow tractor -trailers to circulate into/out-of a site without crossing traffic lanes on streets that carry more volume than a local residential street. To date, the exception has only been allowed for industrial properties within the Otsego Industrial Park and those northeast of TH 101 and CSAH 36. Garage Size. Single family uses within all Zoning Districts are allowed the same 1,000 square feet of attached garage space. Common dimensions for various garage sizes are provided below to allow an understanding of how garage size relates to the area allowances provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. Garage Size Dimensions Area 1 Stall 12 ft. x 22 ft. 264 sq. ft. 2 Stalls 20 ft. x 22 ft. 440 sq. ft. 3 Stalls 30 ft. x 22 ft. 660 sq. ft. 4 Stalls 40 ft. x 22 ft. 880 sq. ft. 4+ Stalls 45 ft. x 22 ft 990 sq. ft. -2- The main issue with the existing driveway width restrictions for single family uses is that a garage larger than two stalls is wider than the driveway is allowed to be at the property' line. The driveway must be angled at the property line to its full width at the garage, which must be setback not less than 35 feet from the property line. This prevents a vehicle from being driven forward or backed straight into the third garage stall from the street. Based on the information provided above, the minimum width of a driveway to accommodate a three stall garage is 28 feet. This measurement is the minimum width of the door openings for a standard three car garage. It is also typical to provide additional surface to either side of the door openings. As such, the minimum standard to allowfor a straight driveway to a three car garage should likely be 30 feet. Street Sections. Otsego currently has two distinct types of local streets within the community. Rural section streets are those that include ditches outside of the street surface to accommodate storm water drainage. Individual accesses to a rural section street must provide a culvert and fill across this ditch. The City Engineer recommends that the maximum length of these culverts be 30 feet to allow for adequate drainage and maintenance of the culvert. Using a base 30 foot culvert, the maximum driveway design that can be accommodated is 24 feet. Urban section streets carry storm water drainage either by bituminous or concrete and storm water pipes. Without the limitation of the culvert within the right-of-way, the City Engineer believes that the driveway width within the right-of-way may be increased without impacting storm water drainage. As such, it is suggested that changes to the access standard be contemplated only for urban section streets and that access from a rural section street be maintained as provided for by standard plate #706. Lot Width. The City Council specifically directed that the Planning Commission consider whether lot width should be an issue with determining appropriate driveway width for single family uses. Single family lots within the A-1, A-2, R-1, R-2, or R-3 Zoning District must have a minimum width of 150 feet, which is the standard for all unsewered single family lots. Single family lots that are served by sanitary sewer service within the R-4 or R-5 District must have a minimum width of 75 feet. As such, driveway width will represent a smaller percentage of the lot frontage for a 150 foot wide unsewered parcel than a 75 foot wide parcel on City sanitary sewer service, as shown below. -3- 24 ft. Driveway 30 ft. Driveway 75 ft. Lot Width 32% 40% 150 ft. Lot Width 16% 20% -3- More recent unsewered single family subdivisions are subject to a resubdivision plan that anticipates division of the existing acre lots with the future availability of sanitary sewer. As such, it may be anticipated that lots within these developments may have a future width of 75 feet. If the standard were increased only for 150 foot lots, the existing driveways would be non -conforming upon subdivision. To address this issue, the City could either apply a uniform standard to all single family driveways on an urban section street or allow a greater lot width for a 150 foot wide lot until such time as the lot may be subdivided. At that time, the City may require that the driveway width be reduced to the standard for the narrower 75 foot wide lot. From a practical standpoint, we think that it would be problematic to require a property owner to remove a portion of their driveway at a future date. It would be preferable to establish a uniform standard for single family uses on an urban section street, which would eliminate this potential future source of disagreement. Altemative Regulation. Based upon the issues outlined above, we have prepared the following alternative access width requirement. The proposed amendment would address single family, two family, townhouse, quadraminium and manor home dwellings separately from other uses. The reason for the distinction is that these uses are those that are likely to have the need for a three car garage and they are the only uses specifically allowed to use head -in parking off of a public street per Section 20-22-4.H.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. We have still allowed the standard 24 foot access width to be increased by the City Engineer for uses other than these specific residential uses in cases where the need is created by traffic circulation or access lane issues, which has been the City's current policy to date. 20-22-4.H.7 Ourb Cut Size: No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in wi unless approved by the City Engineer. Street Access a. Single Family, Two -Family, Townhouse, Quadraminim and Manor Home Units (1) Urban Section Streets. The maximum width of an access to an urban section street, as defined by the Engineering Manual, shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (2) Rural Section Streets. The maximum width of an access to an rural section street, as defined in the Engineering Manual, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. b. Other Uses. Except as provided for by Section 20-22-4.H.7.a above, the maximum width of an access onto any public street shall not exceed twenty four (24) feet except as may be approved by the City Engineer in the case of traffic circulation needs. -4- Engineering Manual. It is recommended that any change to the Ordinance text be accompanied by standardized plates included within the Engineering Manual. These plates are helpful as they graphically communicate the intent of the Ordinance to builders. The Building Official can include the plates along with the building permit so that the information has been clearly communicated and there should not be any further issues with driveways that are constructed legally. CONCLUSION In response to a number of requests from residents of LIN -BAR Estates, the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider modification to the City's existing street access standards. In summary of the issues herein, the City limits the width of street accesses for the purposes of traffic management, snow storage, minimizing right-of-way construction and increasing green space. The analysis included herein suggests that increasing the minimum driveway width for specific residential uses by six feet would make backing into a third garage stall more convenient. Staff's perspective of this increase is that it would not likely have a significant impact on an urban section street. The width of accesses to rural section streets is physically limited by the necessary design of the ditch culverts. From an administrative standpoint in considering allowing wider accesses for residential uses to urban section streets, we would suggest not differentiating between urban and rural lots. The Planning Commission should review and discuss the alternatives outlined herein. If there is interest in pursuing an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in driveway width, a public hearing should be called for. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may determine that no change to the existing standard is appropriate and forward that recommendation to the City Council, without the need for a public hearing. pc. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Jerry Olson Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur -5- HALF PLAN PERSPECTIVE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS ALONG URBAN STREET SECTION NO SCALE GT STANDARD PLATE No. 705 EXHIBIT A-1 RESIDENCE • i z . w W o ! z _, a f o D DRIVEWAY TRANSITION TO 3 R.O.W. LINE GARAGE APRON AT PROPERTY LINE IS )Z--IOWNERS OPTION. 24' MAX. 5' RADIUS OR 45° TAPER (TYPICAL) URB LINE 40' MIN. FROM LOCAL STREET 34' MAX. 50' MIN. FROM COLLECTOR/ x ARTERIAL STREET - I t F i F i t CENTERLINE ENTRANCE i BUMPOUT RECOMMENDED E -P FOR CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS 45° i CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 700 TO 900. 2' TAPER FOR OPE' R VERTICAL FACE VARIABLE CURB AND GUTTER AND BIT. CURB HALF PLAN PERSPECTIVE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS ALONG URBAN STREET SECTION NO SCALE GT STANDARD PLATE No. 705 EXHIBIT A-1 i I w Z RESIDENCE w w J IQo � r o ►- o C= �0N CL lo 0 Io Wuj 0 MINIMUM 15" DIAMETER ui I CMP OR RCP CULVERT— DRIVEWAY MINIMUM LENGTH IS 30' OR DRIVEWAY WIDTH PLUS 6' NTH APRON ENDS. /� i R.O.W. LINE /'1 � MMA 5' RADIUS OR \ DITCH ---------- 45° TAPER EDGE OF SHOULDER(TYPICAL) - -------------- EDGE OF PAVEMENT 40' MIN. FROM LOCAL STREET 34' MAX. 5' MIN. 50' MIN. FROM COLLECTOR/ ARTERIAL STREET A .-11111111111J BITUMINOUS STREET SHOULDER BOULEVARD PAVEMENT AREA AREA 4" MIN. DRIVEWAY GRADE SAME A� CROSS SLOPE p�TC' MIN. MINIMUM 15" DIAMETER 0-10% DESIRABLE, CMP OR RCP CULVERT 15% MAX. DIFFERENCE WITH APRON ENDS SECTION A—A NO SCALE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ALONG RURAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE or [TOMTUG 1n EXHIBIT A-2 I F -- 12,0005Q. FT. LOT 1 I I Z z < � LU { ~ o Ui �n � r MIN. 40 FT. TO ' 25 FT. tINTEP,.5ECTION MIN. 5 FT. TO 75 FT. PROPERTY LINE EXHIBIT B CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2000 - SPM **AGENDA** 1. Chair Swenson will call the Planning Commission Meeting to order. ROLL CALL 2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of A. Monday, December 4, 2000 - 8PM 3. Lida Construction, Inc. and Wally Kluse - Sketch Plan Review of PUD of "Riverboat Landing" - For Mary Dare's land East of #39 and #101 - South of the proposed "Waterfront" Development. 4. Hearing to Consider Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of Otsego to provide for Amendments and General Re -Codification of Existing Sections. 5. Any other P.C. Business A. Update on Council Actions by CM Heidner B. Discussion of Planning Commission Schedule for January 6. Adjourn b ly 0PM **PLEASE NOTE: THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED JANUARY 1 2001 P. C. MEETING (MONDAY) AT 8PM HAS BEEN CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY R GULARLY SCHEDULED FOR JANTUARY 15, 2001 (WHICH IS A HOLIDAY1 WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY JANLTARY 16 2001 T 8PM. T 1111,46IRTH IST ASSOCIATto 111II14c, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 13 December 2000 RE: Otsego - Riverboat Landing; Concept Plan FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.36 Background Lida Construction, Inc. has submitted a concept plan for development of a mixed use development east of T. H. 101 on property owned by Ms. Mary Dare. The project consists of two commercial sites (29,300 sq. ft.), 40 townhouse units within 10 buildings and 276 apartment units within five buildings. A 5,100 sq. ft. private community center is also shown on the concept plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped and used for agricultural fields. The subject site is within the sanitary sewer service district and is planned for future commercial use. The subject site is currently zoned A-1 District in accordance with the City's interim land use plan. The subject parcels are also within the WS Overlay District. The concept plan is being presented for review and comment of City officials in advance of necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment, Zoning and preliminary plat applications. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Concept Plan Analysis Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject parcel for future commercial use, taking advantage of the potential market capture from T.H. 101. The submitted concept plan does include opportunities for a 24,000 square foot commercial center and a 5,300 square foot restaurant use in the area adjacent to 90' Street and Quantralle Avenue. The location of these uses creates a commercial corridor along Quantralle Avenue from 90' Street to the Waterfront Concept to the north of the subject site. The majority of the site is proposed to be developed with at total of 316 residential units consisting of 40 townhouse units and 276 apartment units. In order to proceed with this project, the City would have to consider amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to change the guided land use from commercial to medium-high density residential. In considering changes to the Comprehensive Plan, it is best to refer to the more broad goal and policy statements as a guide. One of the Comprehensive Plan's primary objectives is to encourage development of commercial (and industrial) uses that take advantage of the market potential provided by T. H. 101 in order to support the City's tax base and increase service opportunities. On this basis alone, the necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment should be viewed skeptically. However, the Comprehensive Plan also encourages development of a range of housing types, including townhomes and multiple family units, development that takes advantage of the amenities offered by the Mississippi River, and residential development to support desired commercial uses. The developer's concept plan may, in fact, complement the planned commercial Waterfront project by providing market support in the form of nearby residences. The proposed development would also introduce higher density apartments to the City, which is a dwelling type that the City currently lacks. Ultimately, this is a policy issue that the Planning Commission and City Council must decide. There is a high burden of proof to be met in making such a change. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states that changes in land use designations will only be made when it can be demonstrated that the modification is in the best interests of the community's established long term goals and will serve to promote land use compatibility. PUD District. The subject parcel is currently zoned A-1 District. The project involves integration of some commercial uses with a mix of residential dwelling types. Given that the project would involve mixed uses, multiple principal buildings, common open space and unique environmental protection issues, our office would recommend that the City should consider application of a PUD District to the subject site if the project is to proceed. Application of a PUD District will allow the City to fully address the issues noted above. The use of a PUD District will also allow the City the opportunity to see that development of this project is consistent with the design and character of the Waterfront PUD concept Page 2 proposed to be developed on the abutting property to the north. Given that the small, defined geographic area east of T.H. 101 consists mainly of these two parcels, consistency between these developments is critical. The criteria for considering the rezoning will be more fully evaluated as part of a future development stage application, should the project WS District. The subject parcel is within Subdistrict C of the Wild and Scenic Overlay District. Subdistrict C does not allowfor commercial uses and only allows for single family residential uses at rural densities. As discussed previously, the City's position is that the area should be allowed to develop with urban uses based upon existing development and traffic volumes on T.H. 101 that is evident from the River. This is not to suggest that the City believes that development may occur in this area without due regard for River impacts. As part of the Waterfront concept review, it has been suggested that the City might amend the WS District to designate the area east of T.H. 101 as being within Subdistrict B, which would allow for a range of urban uses. The Zoning Ordinance provisions require DNR approval of any plats or PUD approved within the WS District. DNR approval would also likely be required for any amendment of the District. The possible changes to the WS District have not been specifically discussed with DNR Staff. The developer may have had preliminary discussions with DNR staff regarding their development proposal. Access. The project is to be accessed primarily off of Quantralle Avenue. An extension of 90th Street from the Quantralle Avenue intersection is proposed that would provide a secondary access to the Waterfront development. Section 20-74-14 of the Zoning Ordinance requires consideration of a CUP for public streets constructed within the WS District. This application will need to be considered as part of any development stage application. The two commercial sites access from Quantralle Avenue and the 901' Street extension. The spacing of the access points to the public streets is the maximum that can be achieved based upon the current site design. The City Engineer should reviewthe proposed access locations to determine if there is adequate spacing from the Quantralle Avenue/90th Street intersection. The proposed apartments are to be accessed off of Quantralle Avenue. The underground garages and surface parking lots each have a direct access to the public street. Although the street serves minimal traffic, the City Engineer should comment on the spacing and number of access points onto Quantralle. It may be preferred that the garage entrances be served from within the parking lots, thereby reducing the number of accesses to Quantralle Avenue. The townhouse element of the project is proposed to have one intersection with Quantralle Avenue. Individual units are to be served by an internal private street. This street would need to be designed to City specifications and likely include curb. The only concern with the private street is the lack of a second access point onto a public street, which should be provided to ensure emergency vehicle access. Page 3 Site Design. The developer intends that the residential elements of this project are to take advantage of the amenities provided by the Mississippi River. The majority of the Townhouse units are oriented so as to have river view sheds. The 16 townhouse units located behind the first tier of dwellings are oriented towards a ponding area that separates the residential and commercial elements of the project. The developer also intends that the apartment buildings are to be oriented to take advantage of the river views. However, the size of the larger buildings and their layout generally perpendicular to the Mississippi River means that views of the River will likely be limited. Also, the location of the proposed private community center is poor in that it is set far back from the River and it's view overlooks large surface parking areas. Of particular concern for the apartment buildings is the potential impact of T. H. 101 which is just over 200 feet from the closest building. The two commercial sites have been located to take advantage of access and visibility from T.H. 101. City Officials should give specific consideration to the amount of land allocated for commercial uses in relation to any potential land use change. A secondary consideration must be how the proposed commercial uses will related to the Waterfront project to the north. One potential issue is the appearance of the rear of the commercial strip center, which backs up to a drainage pond that is a central feature of the Waterfront project. With the proposed mix of uses, provision of adequate transitions and buffering are important. The concept plan includes general landscaping and berm details intended to separate the commercial, townhouse and apartment uses. Again, greater emphasis needs to be given to buffering the apartment uses from T. H. 101. More specific landscaping plans would be required as part of a development stage application. Building Design. No details have been provided regarding building design, materials or specific building height. Again, it is important that development of this project be sensitive to potential shoreland impacts in the use of building scale, materials, colors and height. It is also important that the project be consistent with the Waterfront project to the north. As such, it would be suggested that the City consider application of the same or very similar development standards used in the Waterfront project for development of this parcel. Setbacks. Within a PUD District, the City has flexibility in defining applicable setbacks requirements. The City would require a 65 foot setback of all of the structures from public streets as well as a minimum 100 foot setback from the Mississippi River. The proposed apartment buildings do not meet the proposed setback requirements and several townhouse units are within 100 feet of the Mississippi River ordinary highwater mark illustrated on the Concept Plan. Interior setbacks are typically based upon building height, which is not sufficiently defined at this point. Page 4 Parking. Townhouse residential uses require two stalls per unit, which is typically satisfied by an attached garage. Additional parking spaces are considered to exist in front of each unit's garage. The City has been requiring specific guest parking areas to be provided at a ratio of one-half stall per unit. The concept plan provides 12 guest parking stalls, whereas 20 should be provided using the City's ratio. Apartment buildings are required to provide 2.5 stalls per unit, plus an additional stall for each unit with three or more bedrooms. Based upon the number of units and City standard, a total of 690 parking stalls are required. The concept plan provides 316 surface parking stalls and 316 underground stalls. An additional 58 stalls should be provided based upon the City's parking requirements. Separate off-street parking is proposed for the commercial elements of the project. Based upon the Zoning Ordinance standards for the respective uses,t he commercial center would need to provide 87 stalls and the restaurant would need to provide approximately 111 stalls. The commercial center provides 141 stalls and the restaurant site provides 52 stalls for a total of 193 stalls. The City may consider a shared parking arrangements for the two uses under the PUD District, although six additional stalls need to be provided. Signage. Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a comprehensive sign plan for PUD projects, which will be required as part of the development stage application. Again, signage allowances for this project should be similar to the standards allowed for highway oriented buildings/uses within the Waterfront project. Lighting. The concept plan does not illustrate the type or location of site lighting at this time, which will be required as part of a development stage application. A specific issue is that all lighting should be provided with a 90 degree horizontal cutoff to minimize glare. Park Dedication. The concept plan includes at trail corridor along the River that is intended to connect to the trail corridor provided within the Waterfront project. We would also encourage provision of a sidewalk along the public streets to encourage pedestrian access to the Waterfront commercial area. What is not clear is the extent to which the developer intends to dedicate land to the City. In that the area along the River is primarily flood plain, its value to the City in terms of park dedication is minimal. Engineering. The applicant has utility or grading plans at this time. Detailed engineering plans as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual will be required as part of a development stage application. As with the Waterfront project, a significant issue will be the amount of impervious surface. All engineering issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Phasing. If the project is to be developed in stages, the developer should provide a preliminary schedule for construction. Such a schedule would, in part, aid the City in its utility planning. It should be noted that each phase of the project would be subject to a separate development stage PUD application review. Page 5 Conclusion and Recommendations The concept plan for development of a mixed use development east of T. H. 101 is being presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to provide direction to the developer on the policy issue of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow introduction of residential uses in this area. While there is no application to take formal action regarding this issue, City Officials may provide general indications as to whether they view such an amendment positively. The concept plan itself is fairly generalized at this point, which is acceptable. Sufficient detail has been provided to obtain an understanding of the development proposal to evaluate if further plan preparation is warranted. If the Planning Commission and City Council consider the concept plan favorable, we would recommend any approval be subject to the following conditions. 1. Approval of the concept plan is subject to submission and approval of applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning amendment, development stage PUD and preliminary plat, and submission of all required information for said applications. 2. All accesses and street designs are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer, Wright County or MNDoT as appropriate. 3. All construction plans and grading/drainage, utility and easement issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. Comments of other City Staff. pc. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Lida Construction, Inc. Page 6 #1 ■ \�. C ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD MORTOWRST AS$OCIATRO CONSULTANx$h INC, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 13 December 2000 RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Update/Recodification FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.01 This memorandum forwards the recodified edition of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance. The recodification of the document involved incorporation of amendments made since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in September 1998 as well as a general reorganization. Generally, the recodification is intended to allow for relocation of various sections within the Ordinance to more logical locations, as well as correction of omissions or typos. The Ordinance has been reformatted to be numbered based on each section. This change makes it easier to insert amended sections without renumbering the entire document. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing accepting the revised Ordinance on December 18, 2000. Copies of the revised document have been provided for distribution that anticipates City Council approval on January 8, 2001. A summary of the significant Ordinance changes by section is outlined below. Section 1: No changes. Section 2: Modifications to definitions of farm, R -C Developments. Section 3: No changes. Section 4: No changes. Section 5: Interim uses administration relocated from Section 35. Section 6: Variances moved from Section 5. Section 7: Board of adjustment retitled as Appeals and moved from Section 6. Section 8: Administrative permits relocated from Section 9. Section 9: Site plan review administration relocated from Section 21. Section 10: Certificate of Compliance relocated from Section 7. Section 11: Enforcement and Penalties relocated from Section 8. Sections 12-14: Reserved for future use. Section 15: No changes. Section 16: Amendments regarding accessory buildings, tree preservation. Section 17: Amendments regarding building material requirements, district references for height standards. Section 18: No changes. Section 19: No changes. Section 20: No changes. Section 21: Off-street parking relocated from Section 22. Section 22: Off-street loading relocated from Section 23. Section 23: Land filling operations relocated from Section 24. Section 24: Land excavation/grading relocated from Section 25. Section 25: Farms relocated from Section 26. Section 26: Animals relocated from Section 27. Section 27: Feedlots relocated from Section 38 and includes all amendments. Section 28: No changes. Section 29: No changes. Section 30: No changes. Section 31: No changes. Section 32: No changes. Section 33: No changes. Section 34: No changes. Section 35: Reserved. Section 36: No changes. Section 37: No changes. Section 38: New section on environmental review. Section 39-49: Reserved. Section 50: Include R -C and 1-3 Districts, retitle R-1 to R-3 Districts. Section 51: Amendment allowing seasonal produce as an interim use. Section 52: No changes. Section 53-59: Reserved. Section 60: Relocate R -C District from Section 77 and reduce side yard setback to 15'. Section 61: R-1 District renamed and relocated from Section 53. Section 62: R-2 District renamed and relocated from Section 54. Section 63: R-3 District renamed and relocated from Section 55. Section 64: R-4 District relocated from Section 56. Section 65: R-5 District relocated from Section 57. Section 66: R-6 District relocated from Section 58. Section 67: R-7 District relocated from Section 59. Section 68: R -MH District relocated from Section 60. Section 69: R -B District relocated from Section 61. Section 70-74: Reserved. Section 75: B-1 District relocated from Section 62. Section 76: B-2 District relocated from Section 63. Section 77: B-3 District relocated from Section 64. Section 78: B—W District relocated from Section 65. -2- Section 79: B -C District relocated from Section 66. Section 80-84: Reserved. Section 85: 1-1 District relocated from Section 67 and revised purpose statement. Section 86: 1-2 District relocated from Section 68, includes amendment for temporary structures as an interim use. Section 87: 1-3 District relocated from Section 77. Section 88-89: Reserved. Section 90: INS District relocated from Section 69. Section 91: PUD District relocated from Section 70, incorporates reference of new districts. Section 92: S District relocated from Section 71, incorporates reference of new districts. Section 93: W District relocated from Section 72, incorporates reference of new districts. Section 94: FP District relocated from Section 73, incorporates reference of new districts. Section 95: WS District relocated from Section 74, incorporates reference of new districts. Section 96: Historic Preservation Sites relocated from Section 75. Appendix A: Index of numbered amendment footnotes in place of an asterisk and footnote on each page that had been amended. pc. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak -3- PLANNING COMMISSION PAY - FIGURED JULY - DECEMBER 2000 (FIGURED AT $20.00 PER REG. MEET- $10.00 PER SITE INSPECTION) P.C. MEMBER NO. OF MEET REG PAY SITE I. TOTAL CARL SWENSON TEN 10x$20=$200 0 $200.00 RICHARD NICHOLS ONE 1x$20=$20 0 $ 20.00 JIM KOLLES EIGHT 8x$20=$160 0 $160.00 ARLEEN NAGEL TEN 10x$20=$200 0 $200.00 PATRICK MOONEN EIGHT 8x$20=$160 0 $160.00 STEVE SCHUCK ELEVEN 11x$20=$220 0 $220.00 KEN FRY TEN 10x$20=$200 0 $200.00 CHRISTIAN MBANEFO SIX 6x$20=$120 0 $120.00 EUGENE GOENNER FIVE 5x$20=$100 10 $100.00 P.C. TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $1,380.00 Prepared by: Elaine Beatty 12/19/2000 Note: The following Planning Commission Meetings were canceled: 11- Meetings total 1 - Meeting was canceled due to lack of Agenda Items (July 17, 2000) FII E: PC-PAY.wPS rj