HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Work Session
MEMORANDUM
TO: Daryl Morey
FROM: D. Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 24 February 2016
RE: Lakeville – Zoning Ordinance
TPC FILE: 135.01
BACKGROUND
The Planning Department initiates an annual review of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance and/or City Code to address issues identified in the course of ongoing administration
of the City’s development regulations and review of development applications. The Planning
Commission held a work session on 5 January 2017 to discuss these items and held a public
hearing on 16 February 2017 to formally recommend City Council approval. A second work
session has been scheduled for 2 March 2017 to further discuss several of these items originally
reviewed on 5 January 2017, as well as additional topics that have arisen since the work session
and that required additional research.
Exhibits:
A. Industrial building rendering with smooth as cast finish
B. Survey of parking requirements for coffee/bagel store
C. 5 January 2017 Planning Commission work session minutes
ANALYSIS
Industrial Buildings. City staff met with representatives of Appro Development Inc. and
FABCON on 11 January 2017 to discuss the exterior finish material requirements established by
Section 11-17-9.B of the Zoning Ordinance. Industrial developers are working with companies
like FABCON to utilize engineered precast panels with a smooth face texture to develop more
contemporary buildings. The stain applied to the exterior of the concrete panels have
advanced in terms of durability and life expectancy allowing greater use of color to provide
2
differentiation in the exterior appearance of the building along with formed design and off-set
building elements. Current exterior stain products will provide more consistent color and
similar fade resistance to integral color, which can have a muddled appearance due to the
aggregate mix. City staff recommends the following text amendment to allow for use of
smooth faced cast panels that are either integral color or exterior stained for buildings within
the O-P, I-1, and I-2 Districts:
B.2. Grade B:
a. Integral color sSpecialty concrete block such as textured, burnished
block or rock faced block with integral color or stain exceeding
ASTM G154.
b. Integral color aArchitecturally precast concrete panels having an
exposed aggregate, light sandblast, acid etch, form liner, smooth as
cast, tooled, natural stone veneer, brick face and/or cast stone type
finish.
c. Masonry stucco.
d. Ceramic.
B.4. Grade D:
a. Integral color sSmooth as cast concrete block.
b. Integral color sSmooth scored concrete block.
c. Integral color sSmooth as cast concrete panels.
d. Integral color aArchitecturally precast concrete panels having a
smooth as cast finish.
e. Glass block.
f. Wood provided that the surfaces are finished for exterior use or the
wood is of proven durability for exterior use, such as cedar,
redwood or cypress.
D.2. a. The exterior building finish shall be composed of at least sixty five
percent (65%) grade A materials and/or integral color architecturally
precast concrete panels with a form liner, smooth as cast, tooled,
natural stone veneer, brick face and/or cast stone type finish, not
more than thirty five percent (35%) other grade B and grade C
materials and not more than ten percent (10%) grade D materials.
3
Accessory Buildings - Number. Section 11-18-7.A of the Zoning Ordinance limits the number
of detached accessory buildings for single family uses to one plus an attached or detached
garage. Exceptions to this limit are allowed by conditional use permit. In that many single
family lots will include a play structure, gazebo or similar open structure, the limit on the
number of accessory buildings would require a property owner to undertake the time and
expense of a conditional use permit process to be able to have a storage shed. The Planning
Commission discussion on 5 January 2017 involved further clarifying proposed language to
allow that a gazebo could be enclosed but only with screens or clear windows that would not
obscure the interior of the building making effectively another potential storage shed. City staff
recommends amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a play structure or gazebo enclosed
only by screens or clear windows as a second accessory structure less than 200 square feet in
area on a lot without approval of a CUP:
A. Conditional Use Permit Required: No building permit shall be
issued for the construction of more than one detached accessory
building on a single parcel in addition to one private garage
(attached or detached), except by conditional use permit. Number
Allowed:
1. There shall not be more than one (1) detached accessory
building larger than two hundred (200) square feet on a lot in
addition to one (1) attached or detached garage.
2. One (1) play equipment structure, open-sided structure, or
gazebo enclosed only by screening or clear windows having
a footprint less than two hundred (200) square feet shall be
allowed in addition to the number of accessory buildings
allowed by Section 11-18-7.A.1 of this Chapter.
3. Accessory buildings greater than allowed by this Section
may be allowed by approval of a conditional use permit.
Off-Street Parking. City staff has reviewed standards for off-street parking requirements for
convenience food restaurants based on recent development proposals. One proposal is for a
2,800 square foot traditional fast-foot restaurant with a drive through window. The other use
involves a coffee and bagel shop with limited food offerings. Under Section 11-19-13 of the
Zoning Ordinance, convenience food uses are required to provide one off-street parking stall
per 40 square feet of seating area plus one off-street parking stall per 80 square feet of kitchen
area plus 1 off-street parking stall for each 15 square feet of queuing area (but not less than 15
spaces). City staff’s concern is that the current parking requirement is overestimating demand
for off-street parking stalls for traditional convenience food uses and also not directly
applicable to a coffee/bagel shop type restaurant. The Institute of Transportation Engineers
Parking Generation 4th Edition manual has the following relevant studies for parking demand:
4
Use Parking Demand per 1,000sf. (Gross)
Average
Peak
85th
Percentile
Range
Fast Food Restaurant 12.40 14.50 7.14-14.60
Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive Through 9.98 15.13 1.45-23.26
Coffee/Doughnut Shop 13.56 17.33 3.49-19.31
Coffee/Doughnut Shop w/ Drive Through 10.40 18.97 2.96-37.50
ITE notes that “hamburger” fast food restaurants generally have higher parking demand than
does a specialty fast food restaurant such as tacos or chicken. The higher parking demand for
the Coffee/Doughnut Shop category may be attributed to higher turnover in parking stalls. A
combination coffee shop/sandwich shop with preparation of more than prepared food may
need to be considered as a fast food restaurant because of the expanded menu. The ITE
parking demand manual provides the 85th percentile and range information to be able to better
understand the average peak data and evaluate appropriate parking standards. Based on the
above parking studies, the following revised parking standards for convenience food uses may
be considered:
Use Parking Stalls Required / GSF
Average
Peak
85th
Percentile
Fast Food Restaurant 1/80sf. 1/70sf.
Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive Through 1/100sf. 1/70sf.
Coffee/Doughnut Shop 1/75sf. 1/60sf.
Coffee/Doughnut Shop w/ Drive Through 1/95sf. 1/50sf.
Parking standards are intended to accommodate the average peak demand for parking generation for
a given use to minimize potential site congestion or cause congestion within the public street.
Implementation of these standards for either average peak demand or 85th Percentile would require
less parking for a convenience food use than the current Zoning Ordinance standards:
Taco Bell / SPBF 2nd Addition
Requirement Area Required
Stalls
Current
Requirement
Queuing Not less than 15 or 1/15sf. 200sf. 15
Dining 1/40sf. 713sf. 18
Patio 1/40sf. 267sf. 7
Kitchen 1/80sf. 738sf. 10
Total 50
Proposed
Requirement
Average 1/100sf. 2,806sf. 28
85th % 1/70sf. 40
5
The number of required stalls for the proposed Taco Bell in Spirit Place at Brandtjen Farm 2nd Addition
would be between 10 and 22 less under the proposed standards than currently required. The site plan
for Taco Bell provided 42 parking stalls. The developer had provided information based on ITE studies
that the proposed parking provided within their site is approximately equal to their estimated demand.
The proposed Taco Bell complied with the current Zoning Ordinance requirements based on the shared
parking arrangement existing with the SPBF development. Also, using the proposed parking standard
of 1 stall per 75 square feet for a coffee/doughnut shop, the 2,699 square foot Caribou Coffee/Einstein
Bagels use would be required to provide 36 parking stalls. This is in line with the majority of the
communities surveyed by City staff, which is attached for reference. City staff is seeking direction
from the Planning Commission to what extent, if any, the existing parking requirements for
convenience food uses should be modified.
Animals. The Planning Commission previously recommended removing Section 11-35-3.D of
the Zoning Ordinance allowing for the keeping of animals other than those defined as house
pets or farm animals within the City by approval of an interim use permit. The City Council
referred this issue back to the Planning Commission for further consideration as to whether
maintaining the exception provision is appropriate if specific performance standards were
adopted. The Planning Commission did indicate support for allowing keeping of raptors in rural
areas of the City and provisions are outlined in subsequent paragraphs to provide for this. City
staff researched other cities with characteristics similar to Lakeville including Apple Valley,
Bloomington, Burnsville, Eden Prairie, and Woodbury. These Cities include in their City Code
prohibitions on the keeping of the following animals, which City staff recommends adding as a
listing of prohibited animals within Section 11-35-3 of the Zoning Ordinance:
H. Prohibited Animals. The following animals shall not be kept within
the City, except as associated with a zoo program licensed by the
State for a period of not longer than thirty (30) days:
1. Any member of the cat family (felidae) including, but not
limited to, lions, tigers, cougars, bobcats, leopards and
jaguars, but excluding those recognized as domesticated
house cats.
2. Any naturally wild member of the canine family (canidae)
including, but not limited to, wolves, foxes, coyotes,
dingoes, and jackals, but excluding those recognized as
domesticated dogs.
3. Any hybrid or crossbreeds between an animal defined in
Subsections H.1 or H.2 and a domestic animal and
offspring from all subsequent generations of those hybrids
or crosses, such as the crossbreed between a wolf and a
dog.
6
4. Any member or relative of the rodent family including any
skunk (whether or not descented), raccoon, or squirrel, but
excluding those members otherwise defined or commonly
accepted as domesticated pets.
5. Any poisonous, venomous, constricting, or inherently
dangerous member of the reptile or amphibian families
including, but not limited to, rattlesnakes, boa constrictors,
pit vipers, crocodiles and alligators.
6. Any other animal that is not explicitly listed above but which
can be reasonably defined by the terms of this section
including, but not limited to, bear, deer, non-human
primates, and game fish.
Related to keeping animals, representatives of the sixth-grade Lego League Team made a
presentation at the November 21, 2016 City Council meeting encouraging the City to support
pollinator gardens and the keeping of bees within residential neighborhoods. Bees are defined
as a farm animal by Section 11-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance and would be allowed to be kept on
any farms within the City. Consideration of allowing the keeping of bees within residential
neighborhoods would require amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and establishment of
performance standards.
Following the 5 January 2017 Planning Commission work session, our office researched bee
keeping ordinances for Eagan, Edina, and Minneapolis. The Eagan ordinance allows keeping of
bees only within agricultural zoning districts on parcels larger than five acres in area. Edina and
Minneapolis allow keeping of bees in all residential areas and regulate the density of the bee
colony and location of the bee hives through setbacks and performance standards. Edina and
Minneapolis use a permitting process to administer bee keeping, including notification
requirements to surrounding property owners within 200 feet. As the bee keeping would be
regulated as an accessory land use in Lakeville, an interim use permit approach is appropriate
and provides opportunity to establish necessary performance standards, notification
requirements for surrounding properties and administrative processes. Draft language allowing
the keeping of bees accessory to a single family dwelling are outlined below based on the Edina
and Minneapolis bee ordinances. One concern of City staff is making allowance for beekeeping
on a wide scale is the ability of City staff to administer the performance standards, which would
seem to involve some level of experience or knowledge of beekeeping.
D. With the exception of In addition to the keeping of animals allowed by
subsections A, B, and C of this section, no other animals are allowed
except keeping of the following animals shall be allowed by interim use
permit as regulated under the provisions of chapter 5 of this title:
1. Raptors within the A-P and RA Districts, provided that:
7
a. The property owner shall reside upon the property as their
primary residence.
b. The property owner shall provide and maintain with the City
documentation that they process a valid permit issued by the
Department of Natural Resources for keeping of the raptor.
c. There shall not be more than two (2) raptors kept upon the
property at any time.
d. Habitat for the raptor shall be subject to the provisions for
accessory buildings established by Section 18 of this Title
and shall comply with applicable requirements of the
Department of Natural Resources.
e. The interim use permit shall terminate in accordance with
Section 11-5-7 of this Title or upon any of the following
events, whichever occurs first:
(1) The property owner ceases to possess a valid permit
from the Department of Natural Resources for
keeping raptors.
(2) The property owner ceases to occupy the property as
their primary residence or transfers ownership of the
property to another party.
2. Honey bees and apiaries accessory to a single family dwelling
within agriculture/rural or residential districts, provided that:
a. Colony density. The number of colonies allowed upon a lot
shall be subject to the following limits:
Lot Area Maximum
Number
of
Colonies
<25,000sf. 2
25,000sf. < 40,000sf. 4
40,000sf. < 5ac. 6
5ac. or greater 8
b. Colony location:
(1) No hive shall be located within a front yard.
8
(2) A hive shall be setback a minimum of twenty
(20) feet from any lot line.
(3) A hive shall not encroach upon any wetland
buffer or drainage and utility easement.
c. Performance standards:
(1) Honeybee colonies shall be kept in hives with
removable frames, which frames shall be kept
in sound and usable condition.
(2) Each colony on the apiary site shall be
provided with a convenient source of water
located on the apiary site so long as colonies
remain active outside the hive.
(3) Materials from a hive or colony which might
encourage the presence of honeybees, such
as wax comb, shall be promptly disposed of in
a sealed container or placed within a building
or other bee-proof enclosure.
(4) For each colony permitted to be maintained
under this section, there may also be
maintained upon the same apiary site, one
nucleus colony in a hive structure not to
exceed one standard 9 5/8 inch depth ten-
frame hive body, with no supers.
(5) Beekeeping equipment shall be maintained in
good condition. Unused beekeeping
equipment must be protected to prevent
occupancy by swarming honeybees.
(6) Hives shall be continuously managed to
provide adequate living space for their
resident honeybees in order to control
swarming.
(7) In any instance in which a colony exhibits
unusual aggressive behavior, it shall be the
duty of the beekeeper to promptly implement
appropriate actions to address the behavior. If
9
requeening is required, queens shall be
selected from European stock bred for
gentleness and non-swarming characteristics.
(8) Fruit trees and other flowering trees, which
are located on an apiary site, shall not be
sprayed, while in full bloom, with any
substance which is injurious to honeybees.
d. Inspection. The premises for which an interim permit
is issued in accordance with this Section shall at all
reasonable times be open to inspection by
Community Service Officers, the Zoning Administrator
or other City official to determine compliance with the
requirements of the permit, this Section or other
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and City Code
relating to public health, safety and welfare.
e. Termination. The interim use permit shall terminate in
accordance with Section 11-5-7 of this Title or the
transfer of ownership of the property to another party.
The allowance of bee keeping would also require the following definitions be included in
Section 11-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance:
• APIARY: The assembly of one or more colonies of honeybees on a single lot.
• APIARY SITE: The lot upon which an apiary is located.
• BEEKEEPER: A person who: (i) is a resident of the City who owns or has
charge of one or more apiaries of honeybees; and (ii) any person who owns or
controls a lot on which a colony is located.
• BEEKEEPING EQUIPMENT: Anything used in the operation of an Apiary, such
as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractor.
• COLONY: An aggregate of honeybees consisting principally of workers, but
having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and
honey.
• HIVE: The receptacle inhabited by a colony.
• HONEYBEE: All life stages of the common domestic honeybee, Apis mellifera
species.
10
• NUCLEUS COLONY: A small quantity of honeybees with a queen housed in a
smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose, and containing
no supers.
• SUPER: That part of a honeybee hive used to collect honey.
• SWARMING: The natural process where a queen bee leaves a colony with a
large group of worker bees.
• UNUSUAL AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: Any instance in which unusual
aggressive characteristics such as stinging without provocation or attacking
without provocation occurs.
CONCLUSION
City staff is seeking input and direction regarding the additional Zoning Ordinance update topics
outlined herein prior to drafting of a formal amendment for consideration at a public hearing to
be scheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting date.
c. David Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Frank Dempsey, Associate Planner
Kris Jenson, Associate Planner
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
A
Proposed Lakeville
Caribou/Einstein
2,699 s.f./ 41 seats
Apple Valley:1 per 3 seats 14
6 stacking spaces for window 6
Blaine:1 per 100 s.f.27
Burnsville:1 per 50 s.f.54
1 per employee on largest shift
6 offstreet stacking spaces 6
Eagan:1 per 60 s. f. of g.f.a.45
Maple Grove:1 per 150 s.f of g.f.a. but no less than 15 18
Minnetonka:1 per 60 s.f. of g.f.a.45
Plymouth:1 per 2.5 seats 16
1 per 15 s.f. of public service/counter area
Rochester:1 per 3 seats 14
1 per employee on largest shift
Shakopee:1 per 3 seats 14
White Bear Lake:1 per 2.5 seats 16
3 spaces per window or menu per lane 6
Woodbury:1 per 2 seats 21
employee parking
10 stacking spaces 10
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
January 5, 2017
Chair Swenson called the work session to order at 6:35 p.m.
Members Present: Chair Jason Swenson, Vice Chair Brooks Lillehei, Karl Drotning, Scott
Einck, Jason Kelvie, Paul Reuvers, Elizabeth Bakewicz
Members Absent: Pat Kaluza
Staff Present: Planning Director Daryl Morey, Associate Planners Frank Dempsey and Kris
Jenson, and Daniel Licht, TPC
Others Present: Mike Stahnke, 6407 Lower 161st Street; Jay Wilson, 20272 Hampton Circle;
and Amy Willingham, Michael Launsbach and the 6th grade Lego League team
2017 Zoning Ordinance Update Discussion
Daniel Licht presented possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, as compiled by Planning
Department staff in 2016 and listed in his December 29, 2016 memorandum. He stated that
City staff compiles a list of possible ordinance amendments throughout the year for discussion
with the Planning Commission at a work session during the winter to receive direction from the
Planning Commission regarding proposed language.
Planning Commission discussion points:
Dynamic Display Signs
The Planning Commission expressed continued concern about the potential negative impacts of
dynamic display signs and the cumulative effect of multiple dynamic display signs for adjacent
businesses located a short distance apart along streets in commercial corridors.
Based upon the FHWA report attached to the December 29th TPC memorandum, the Planning
Commission recommended a 15 second rate of change for the sign display and no changes to
the restrictions on animation, scrolling, flashing, etc., so as to be in keeping with desired
community aesthetics and traffic safety concerns.
Deck Setbacks
The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilson’s deck setback request and staff’s
recommendation on this item.
Unsewered Lots
The Planning Commission concurred with staff’s recommendation, subject to requiring approval
of a conditional use permit to construct a new single family home on a vacant non-conforming
lot. This would also require an amendment to the wording in Section 11-15-9.C of the Zoning
Ordinance.
EXHIBIT C
Planning Commission Work Session Minutes – January 5, 2017 Page 2
Accessory Buildings
The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Stahnke’s request that a second detached
accessory building be allowed, but felt the term “unenclosed structure” should be better defined.
Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission at a future work session.
The majority of Planning Commission members supported the proposed language prohibiting
connection of detached accessory buildings to public sanitary sewer or private on-site septic
systems in order to strengthen Zoning Ordinance regulations prohibiting these structures from
becoming a dwelling unit. This change will aid City staff in administration of the Zoning
Ordinance and reduce the potential for code enforcement actions.
Buffer Yard Setbacks
The Planning Commission supported the proposed clarification that buffer yard setbacks apply
only to the principal building.
Residential Subdivision Signs
The Planning Commission supported the proposal to allow residential subdivision identification
signs at an entrance from a minor collector street, as well as major collector and arterial streets
as currently allowed.
Day Care Signs
The Planning Commission supported allowing day cares as a principal use to have wall and
freestanding signs consistent with other non-residential uses within residential zoning districts,
subject to the performance standards as outlined in the TPC memorandum.
Multiple Family Apartment Signs
The Planning Commission supported allowing apartment developments to have wall and
freestanding signs subject to the performance standards outlined in the TPC memorandum.
Commercial Wall Signs
Staff informed the Planning Commission that a PUD amendment application has been
submitted to allow an additional wall sign and increased size of all wall signs for the PetSmart
retail building in Spirit Place at Brandtjen Farm. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission’s
direction on an amendment to the C-3 District wall sign requirements that would mirror the
request from PetSmart, which would apply to all commercial uses within the C-2, C-3 and
C-CBD Districts. The Planning Commission stated that they do not support changes to the
current C-3 District wall sign requirements.
Model Homes
Staff pointed out that many homebuilders are using the existing model home allowances to
obtain approval of a building permit prior to the completion of infrastructure, never intending to
use the building as a model home. The Planning Commission supported the proposed
modification to the number of model home permits issued prior to completion of infrastructure
improvements in order to address public safety concerns raised by staff.
Temporary Dwellings
The Planning Commission does not support the allowance of temporary dwelling units, such as
drop homes, due to neighborhood compatibility, provision of utilities, and administration or
enforcement concerns. They noted that the Zoning Ordinance currently allows separate living
quarters that include kitchen facilities for housing multiple generations as an accessory use
within a single family dwelling by administrative permit and felt this was a viable option.
Planning Commission Work Session Minutes – January 5, 2017 Page 3
Day Care Loading
The Planning Commission supported this modification to address an outdated requirement
pertaining to off-street loading for commercial day care uses.
Animals
The Planning Commission reiterated their support for eliminating the interim use permit
allowance of animals not considered house pets or farm animals, i.e. exotic animals, other than
allowing raptors in RA and AP districts. It was pointed out that the falcon approved in the RST-2
District by interim use permit in 2015 would become legal, non-conforming if this amendment is
approved.
Regarding the keeping of bees on a single family residential lot, the Planning Commission
generally supports this proposal, provided appropriate standards are put in place. The Planning
Commission expressed concern that if the beekeeper does not properly take care of their bees,
there could be unintended negative impacts on neighboring property owners. The Planning
Commission recommended that staff research the bee ordinances of Edina, Eagan, and
Minneapolis (based on information provided by the Lego League Team and the U of M’s bee
ordinance research that was attached to the December 29th TPC memorandum) and bring it
back for Planning Commission discussion at a future work session. The Planning Commission
also recommended inviting a bee expert to the work session.
RST-2 District Name
The Planning Commission supported changing the title of the RST-2 District to be consistent
with the title of all other residential districts.
Waste and Recycling Transfer Stations
The Planning Commission supported the allowance of waste and recycling transfer stations in
the I-1 and I-2 districts by conditional use permit, as requested by Dick’s Sanitation and subject
to the performance standards outlined in the TPC memorandum.
The Planning Commission directed staff to set a public hearing for formal consideration of the
proposed amendments that were recommended at tonight’s work session.
The work session was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Daryl Morey, Planning Director