Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 <br />Page 6 <br />Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) <br />249 <br />Mr. Lloyd reviewed the intent of this section, its standards and criteria, to address <br />250 <br />housing for parents or dependents as an accessory use than the primary use, <br />251 <br />and not included in current code, but proposed by staff in Medium and High <br />252 <br />Density Districts, not Low Density Residential Districts; and described as similar <br />253 <br />to an apartment or condominium above retail, indicative of mixed use buildings. <br />254 <br />Drive-Through Facilities <br />255 <br />Member Boerigter noted proposed new standards and limitations for drive- <br />256 <br />through facilities. <br />257 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that, in context, the Performance Standards section was <br />258 <br />parallel to Zoning District Use Tables across all Districts. <br />259 <br />Discussion included carrying forward standards for speaker boxes and decibel <br />260 <br />levels in PERFORMANCE STANDARDS for drive through facilities in relationship <br />261 <br />to State Statute in determining nuisance threshold levels for noise, light, or odor, <br />262 <br />rather than meeting specific business applications and situations; with staff <br />263 <br />suggesting language in PERFORMANCE STANDARDS that addressed those <br />264 <br />standards across all Districts. <br />265 <br />Member Boerigter expressed his desire for additional discussion of drive-through <br />266 <br />facilities during PERFORMANCE STANDARD discussions. <br />267 <br />Live/Work Units <br />268 <br />Member Gottfried expressed his concern that fire codes be met for these units, <br />269 <br />not just related to the building’s functionality but to ensure fire regulations are <br />270 <br />addressed for safety. <br />271 <br />Bed and Breakfast Establishments <br />272 <br />Discussion included clarification of licensing of such establishments by the <br />273 <br />Minnesota Department of Health and/or Ramsey County; location of specific <br />274 <br />standards in the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS section or the Conditional Use <br />275 <br />section; broadening of language and context to include licensing of various <br />276 <br />establishments with “valid county, state, and/or federal licensing processes as <br />277 <br />applicable;” recognizing that an application for such an establishment would be <br />278 <br />conditioned upon other licensing requirements, usually that licensing requiring <br />279 <br />that zoning requirements are approved prior to licensure, and language allowing <br />280 <br />Conditional Use approval to be nullified if the use goes away ensuring that the <br />281 <br />use does not run in perpetuity with the property. <br />282 <br />Interim Uses <br />283 <br />Further discussion included the need to provide instruction for future staff and the <br />284 <br />general public of land use applications and the length of time for various <br />285 <br />approvals; building permit provisions in address initiation of construction under <br />286 <br />Interim Use permits. <br />287 <br />Purpose (A) <br />288 <br />Member Wozniak requested that staff review the PURPOSE to make it more <br />289 <br />consistent with Purpose statements for other sections so it flows better. <br />290 <br />Renewals (G) <br />291 <br />Member Wozniak suggested language revisions to read “Applicants who would <br />292 <br />[wish to] continue…” an Interim Use or at the suggestion of Mr. Paschke, read: <br />293 <br />“Applicants who [choose to] continue…” <br />294 <br />Discussion included extensions of Interim Uses and City Council approval if <br />295 <br />applicable rather than requiring applicants to go through the entire application <br />296 <br />and public hearing process again. <br />297 <br />Changes to Approved Plans <br />298 <br /> <br />