3-5-08 RPC Min .
MINUTE S
CITY OF LINDSTRO M
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5TH, 200 8
7 :00 P.M.
City Hall Chambers
13292 Sylvan Ave., Lindstrom, MN
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE :
Vice Chair Gerke called the meeting to order at 7 :03 p .m.
CALL OF ROLL:
Those Present:
Vice Chair Gerke, Commissioners Metzler,
Klun, Waldoch, Erlandson
Others Present:
Administrator Olinger, Building Officia l
Colberg, Administrative Assistant Barnes ,
Mark Anderson
Those Excused :
Chair Millington, Commissioner Fuge,
Commissioner Flug
CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA:
Additions : None
Deletions : None
PUBLICHEARINGS/PRESENTATIONS :
Non e
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
1 . Minutes of February 6th, 2008 (pgs . 1-12)
Motion by Klun, second by Waldoch, to approve the Minute s
of February 6th, 2008. Motion carried 5-0 .
3-5-08 RPC Min.
PLANNINGBUSINESS :
1. Workshop Session Ordinance s
A. Ordinance 154.266 Yard, Area, and Building Size (pgs.
13-20)
Building Official Colberg referred to page 15 in the Packet ,
Ordinance 154 .266 . He added the Commission had
previously mentioned the Impervious Surface Requirements
for R-1 & R-1A . It currently states in our Ordinances tha t
this only applies to the Shoreland District within 1,000 fee t
of the Lake. The requirement is 25%. Colberg stated hi s
understanding was that the Commission wanted 25% for al l
Zoning Districts . He included 25% in all Districts of th e
Zoning Chart regarding Imperious Surface . Commercial
and Industrial Districts would have the same .
Commissioner Erlandson felt zones within the Centra l
Business District should be at zero . If there were to be a
fire, or some type of disaster, it would be very hard t o
rebuild or replace a building if you add new requirements ,
and with having zero lot lines . Commissioner Waldoch
added the CBD is zero lot line; B-1 is
Neighborhood/Service Businesses . Should Impervious be
used on Commercial? Administrator Olinger questioned
charging them a Stormwater Fee as if they do not meet th e
Impervious Surface Requirements, they will be using th e
City's Stormwater facilities . Residences have to deal with
their own rain water . Waldoch suggested a Landscapin g
Standard vs. Impervious Surface rules . . . and stated a
minimum of 25% of the area must be "landscaped" . It
would be the same principle, yet allow for a larger buildin g
to go in such as a CUB or Menards, etc . The existing
Businesses that we have in B-1 would already meet th e
landscaping guidelines . This would keep some Gree n
Space available and keep the Parking areas down .
Erlandson agreed, and stated we need to be a little flexible .
He was not sure there should be a # tied into the formula o r
rules. Waldoch stated no matter what we require, they,will
3-5-08 RPC Min.
still have to manage their stormwater . Whenever we
develop new lots, we require them to have storm water
management. Administrator Olinger stated it may be hard
to regulate what they would plant to create Landscaping .
Erlandson stated this is where they could also use th e
pavers .
*Consensus of the Commission was not to go to 25 %
Impervious Surface requirement in B-land B-2, but rathe r
to add language stating 25%+ Landscape or Green Spac e
will be required in the B-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts .
Building Official Colberg stated the Ordinance require s
15,000 square feet in R-1A as listed in the Chart D (1) .
This was previously approved by Planning and Council, bu t
it was never changed . R-1A should be removed from line 2 .
(R-1 and R-IA).
*There was Consensus by the Commission to approve .
Commissioner Waldoch stated under C3 (b) Front Yard
Setbacks, the language a minimum of 63 feet from th e
centerline of the right-of-way or, and also whichever is the
greater distance should be deleted as it comes into play in
Re-Development.
*Consensus of the Commission was to remove the languag e
a minimum of 63 feet from the centerline of the right-of-wa y
or, and also whichever is the greater distance from C3 (b)
on the Chart regarding Front Yard Setbacks.
Commissioner Waldoch suggested adding to the D 1
Minimum Area and Building Size Requirements Table, # 2
from the "Note to Table" - From the outside average
natural grade of the property as measured at a point of fiv e
feet from the building to all Building Height areas of th e
Chart D 1 .
* Consensus of the Commission was to approve this change .
3-5-08 RPC Min.
Building Official Colberg recommended under D1 (b )
Minimum Ground Floor area of the Dwelling Unit Chart ,
under Single Family in R-1A, it should be changed t o
reflect 1200 vs. 1040 under One Bedroom, Two Bedrooms,
and Three Bedrooms .
*It was the Consensus of the Commission to approve the
change from 1040 to 1200 on the Minimum Ground Floor
area of the Dwelling Unit Chart under Single Family in R1A under One Bedroom, Two Bedrooms, and Thre e
Bedrooms.
Colberg recommended changing the verbiage of # 3 Note to
Table, Living Livable floor finishable living area to floor
area, livable as it is already under Definitions ; and also a
minimum of 1440 to 1600 square feet. He added under
Note to Table #4, the wordfinished should be changed to
finishable.
* No language alternatives were determined to replace thes e
words by the Commission.
Colberg stated under D 2 (b) (2) (a), the words split-entry
house should be removed, and changed in the Definitions ;
and the minimum square footage should be changed from
940 to 900 square feet.
Commissioner Waldoch questioned the use of the word
Finishable, adding one could issue a Certificate o f
Occupancy due to the word Finishable.
*He recommended using a required minimum standard fo r
finished square footage on a Certificate of Occupancy o f
960 square feet.
Colberg recommended under D 1 (5) (a) to remove th e
words prior to as it does not make sense.
Colberg recommended under D 1 (6) under One Story
Single Family residences, to strike the words with only a
4
3-5-08 RPC Min .
single story above ground. Under Two Story, h e
recommended changing under (2) (b) the minimum of a two
story may be no less than 800 to 840 square feet .
The discussion continued regarding minimum squar e
footage requirements for each of the different styles o f
homes today . Erlandson questioned those homes with a
tuck-under garage . Colberg questioned using the word s
livable area . Colberg stated when researching, there were
no hard #'s to use in comparison ; he had just used the new
figures in the chart based on what he felt was average .
Waldoch stated in the older parts of town, many home s
were built 24x24 as a standard size many years back . It had
to do with how the building materials were made at tha t
time . We need to look at what today's standards an d
construction techniques are for today's styles, and what is a
good shape for a home today . Stairways need a difference
clearance, etc . He felt that a 24x40 home was prett y
standard in today's building world . Klun suggested looking
at the new developments, and the lot sizes, etc . Should they
determine what size homes should be on them such as th e
requirements of R-1 vs . R-1A? We need to look at what
type of residents we want to attract - families, the elderly ,
younger persons, etc . Administrator Olinger added we als o
need to look at the infrastructure required for thes e
developments, and the number of persons it takes to pay fo r
this infrastructure required . How many lots, the size of th e
lots, etc . The suggestion was to use more common ope n
space, or increase the depth of the yards . Waldoch stated
he would support more required space on the side yar d
setbacks so that people can get by to care for their rea r
yards, etc .
Building Official Colberg referred to D (5) (a) "A lot o f
record existing July 1" and suggested adding the verbiag e
prior to.
Under D (6), the existing language "Single Family
residences with only a single story above ground shall have
r
3-5-08 RPC Min .
a basement. The basement may be a walkout basement and
may be finished or unfinished ." should be revised to read
"One story Single-family residences that are less than 144 0
sq. ft. in floor area, shall have a basement. A basement is
that portion of the residence that is partly or completely
below grade. The basement may be a walkout basemen t
and may be finished or unfinished. Properties located in a
Flood Plain and required to meet the standard in sectio n
152.036 (A) (1) are exempt from this requirement.
Under (E) (4) (a) (2), Colberg was recommended changin g
the verbiage "five" feet to ten feet. Waldoch mentioned in
the past it was ten feet, there were several Variances issued
over side and rear lot lines for Accessory buildings . The
Planning Commission changed the Ordinance requirements
to five feet due to these issues .
The consensus of the Commission was to leave the side o r
rear lot lines for accessory structures at "five" feet.
Under (E) (5) (a) 2, Colberg recommended correcting th e
language to read lots vs. lost.
Under (E) (5) (b) 3 ., Colberg stated the language is very
confusing. He questioned the need for this entire statement.
One could read it to mean, if fmishable living area is no t
50% above grade, it cannot be considered to be living area .
He felt it should be struck out of the Ordinance .
Commissioner Waldoch stated there would need to be some
type of definition of "finishable living area" .. Erlandson
stated you have to have the minimum floor area requirement
stated so no one could cut the house size in half, finish th e
basement, and consider it total finished area . Erlandson
added we need to keep the definition of "finishable livin g
area" included in this statement . Administrator Olinge r
stated there is no definition for "finishable living area",
there is for "floor area livable" . We are concerned with th e
minimum required standard fmishable area to issue th e
Certificate of Occupancy.
6
)
3-5-08 RPC Min.
Commissioner Erlandson suggested if #3 is removed, #4
would have to be removed also, as they have different term s
listed . Commissioner Waldoch felt these may be just notes
for the various housing styles .
Olinger recommended a sub-section that refers everythin g
to relating sections, or keep all of the information in on e
area. Commissioner Erlandson stated all sections should b e
gone through, and put into one place within the Ordinance .
It is too difficult to keep going back and forth betwee n
Ordinances and try to figure out what the requirements an d
standards are . The way some of these are written, you
could make all of them apply or not apply . There are
garage sizes included under the footprints of homes . There
is accessory information mixed in with garages . Each
category should have its own section and be kept together .
The Shoreland District is much duplication . Commissioner
Erlandson stated we should just pick out a section at a tim e
and revise it.
Administrator Olinger stated most Cities have a Planner that
does this . Commissioner Waldoch stated the City o f
Lindstrom has never had someone work on thei r
Ordinances . Commissioner Metzler questioned using an
Intern. Olinger stated Chisago City has a permanent parttime person to do this, which is funded through the Greater
Minnesota Housing Fund . Olinger stated it is a good idea;
however the Planning Commission does not have funds i n
their Budget to hire someone . Commissioners Erlandson
and Metzler agreed someone should check out the costs, etc .
and look further into hiring someone to take on this job .
lvleetzler 1eculi.Ul1e11Ued advertising for a Student Intern wh o
needs the experience and would do the work for free maybe throughout the summer months, etc .
Administrator Olinger stated that Mark Anderson, who wa s
in attendance, has volunteered for some of these services ,
and his skills do fall into these details and work . Mark
Anderson addressed Commissioners stating he did not hav e
a problem taking a shot at this . He added you get what you
v
3-5-08 RPC Min.
pay for, so his standard would not necessarily be high . H e
added he. would not be billing the City for anything . It
would be far easier for him to look at it as far as reorganizing . Someone else would then have to look at what
we are trying to accomplish, what are the design criteria w e
need for a project for the City, the way new constructio n
looks, etc . One would have to look at this in two tiers .
Anderson would be looking at take all of the verbiage an d
try to reorganize it in a logical way . Once that is done,
Commissioners would continue to plan and move on t o
what they want to do in the next 10 to 20 years from now .
Erlandson stated he thought Mark Anderson should work o n
this since he has graciously volunteered . Mark Anderson
stated he would address this at the next Plannin g
Commission meeting . Waldoch questioned if Administrator
Olinger could offer this to a volunteer without City Council
approval . Olinger stated yes, as the City Administrator .
B . Ordinance 154 .219 Requirements for Sewered an d
Unsewered Areas (pgs. 21-25)
Building Official Colberg stated our Ordinance has nothin g
addressing or recognizing Natural Environmental Lak e
development . Colberg added the State's requirements t o
the Ordinance Charts for Sewered and Unsewered areas .
He also added the State's Standards for Natura l
Environmental Lakes which was recommended by th e
DNR.
Commissioner Waldoch commented he was aware of the lo t
sizes on a riparian lot ; however he was not aware of the lot
sizes required in the Shoreland District . He used the
example of the City lot on Terryll Street, stating if fall s
under the Shoreland requirements which are different than a
normal lot . He added the required style of building (Duplex
vs . Tri-Plex) changes also . Waldoch added back in aroun d
1990, the whole idea in the Shoreland District was not to
impact the areas close to the Lake, and to create standard s
due to the impairment on the Lakes . Administrator Olinger
8
3-5-08 RPC Min.
stated the DNR is currently working on new standards ,
which may be available sometime in May .
C. Ordinance 154 .217 Boundaries (pgs . 26-27)
Building Official Colberg stated the figures stated in th e
Boundaries Ordinance under 100 Year Flood were not
correct. He had spoken with Mike Mueller of the MnDN R
to research the changes . Also, Linn Lake was not include d
in the listed Lakes on our Surface Water Identification,
DNR Lakes . Colberg added it to the chart in our Ordinanc e
154 .217 .
OTHER DISCUSSION/MISC :
*Commissioner Waldoch stated there were a couple of additiona l
areas in which he had concerns . Under (D) (1) (a) Minimum lot area
per unit, it allows three to four units on a 3,500 square foot lot are a
per unit. He was questioning the practicality of a lower requiremen t
for the density standards . If R-2 is only 12,000 sq . ft. for Single
Family, should a Tri-Plex in R-2 be 12,000 Sq . Ft. with a CUP? A
Duplex in R-2 requires 16,000 sq . ft. Erlandson agreed, and stated th e
Duplex and Townhome requirements should be swapped . He added i f
a Duplex is sold separately, wouldn't you want it to be more Sq . Ft. ?
Commissioner Waldoch suggested this area should be cleaned up also .
*The Bluhm property was briefly discussed as the property adjoin s
property with a different zoning classification . They are considering
looking at building Apartments in this area . Commissioner Waldoch
stated if they proceed, the Planning Commission may have to amen d
the Comprehensive Plan in order to allow this . Currently, the status i s
there are WAC & S
Issues they are trying to worst out .
Discussion led to comparing what neighboring Cities are doing with
WAC & SAC Fees . Building Official Colberg stated no one has
recently done a multi-unit building . Administrator Olinger suggeste d
looking to LMNC for some direction. The way it is currently set up ,
the Permit Fees are extremely high and hard for the Contractor to dea l
with. Administrator Olinger stated the use of WAC fees is to expand
3-5-08 RPC Min.
the current system . The number of connections and meters were
discussed also . Staff is to look further into this issue .
*Commissioner Waldoch stated he had a second issue which wa s
regarding the Square Footage Chart . He questioned when one shoul d
allow or include wetlands into the area square footage calculations ,
and when not to . It is different for townhomes vs. single family
homes . If you have wetlands on a single family lot, you still hav e
plenty of space and may not need to require 12,000 sq . ft. But on
townhomes, you need to have more dry square footage . He believe d
the standard should be tightened to state this . Administrator Olinger
said usually when you require square footage ; you require it to b e
buildable area . He could not find that standard in the Ordinances, bu t
did find in Definitions, Buildable Area, which said the portion of a lot
remaining after the required yards have been provided . You then hav e
to go to the Yard Definition, where it states open space on the lo t
which is unoccupied and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky.
His interpretation of meaning is if it drops down, and there is water
standing here, that is obstructed . That means you cannot have wate r
on a lot or it becomes obstructed . The problem is you have to go into
the Definitions section in order to clarify what the requirements are .
It is very confusing. There are also different definitions and types o f
wetlands.
Commissioner Waldoch stated the Ordinance should state in th e
standards Ordinary High Water (OHW) vs. Riparian. One can
increase the square footage figures if "Riparian" is used . '
Commissioner Waldoch stated he really liked the work that had bee n
done on this, and questioned if the Ordinance amendments would be
ready for Public Hearing next month . Administrator Olinger stated h e
would like to speak to Mark Anderson on some of his. Other areas
are just grammar, or are pretty clear . He wanted to give Anderson a
chance to review and make changes . He also wanted to review th e
LMNC examples, etc . He added City Council is for business/policy
making. Planning Commission is the body for recommending
changes, etc .
10
3-5-08 RPC Min .
ADJOURNMENT :
Motion by Klun, second by Metzler, to adjourn . Motion carried
unanimously, the meeting adjourned . at 9 :15 p.m.
Respectfully,
Barb Barne s
Administrative Assistant