HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 9-12-16 for CCLake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 12, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fields, Dodson, Dunn, Williams, Larson, Griffin, Kreimer,
and Lundquist
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & City Planner Becker
Approve Agenda:
Amendements suggested are to add discussion of the Tartan Park Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and to request an opinion from the City Attorney regarding .
M/S/P: Dunn/Fields, move to approve the Agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried Unanimously.
Approve Minutes: August 22, 2016
M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to approve the August 22, 2016 minutes as amended,
Vote: 6-0, motion carried with Dunn not voting.
Public Hearing – Variance Suzanne Horning
Becker started her presentation regarding the variance request from Suzanne Horning
for Lot 9 of Krause’s addition. This property is located at the intersection of Jamaca Ave
N and Jane Road N. This application is for a variance from the 12 month time limit for
the commencement of work associated with a lot size variance. A variance was granted
on April 2014 for a variance from minimum lot size requirements. At that time, the
applicant had requested that it be in perpetuity, but it was approved for a period of five
years.
This lot is located in the RS zone, is located in the shoreland district, but is not a riparian
lot. The applicant has owned the property since the mid 1980’s and would like to
convey the lot within the family as a buildable lot. The variance expires in April of 2019
and the owner will need to make a decision to build on or sell it now.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
The applicant provided a survey showing existing conditions and that the site can
support a home and septic system. The surrounding properties are of similar size, some
being even smaller. The applicants have noted that without the variance, the property
cannot be put to a reasonable use. The property has been taxed over time as a
buildable lot and the applicant does not want to sell, but would like to convey the land
to her children. Staff consulted with the City Attorney and found that it is possible to
grant this as variances by nature run with the land. The applicant is requesting this so
that they do not have to go through this process again. They have now been granted
two variances, one in 1985 and one in 2014.
Staff went through the findings and how they relate to the four variance criteria of
Practical difficulties, Unique circumstances, Character locality and Adjacent properties
and traffic. There was one call received with the caller concerned that allowing this lot
to be built upon will set a precedent. Staff is recommending approval of this variance
application with a number of conditions, most of which were conditions of the previous
variance. A condition was added that states that the variance will be valid until any
one of the conditions occurs: The properties planned use changes in the Comp Plan, the
property is rezoned, zoning regulations in RS change that would make the lot more non-
conforming, included but not limited to an increase in minimum lot size requirements;
or an increase in minimum lot width requirements.
Dodson is wondering why this is an issue when this was originally platted as a buildable
lot. Becker stated that it is because it does not have a home on it and would not be
considered a legal non-conforming lot.
Bridget Eubank, 9960 57th Street, and Brent Weyer, Suzanne Hornings children, spoke
on behalf of Suzanne who was unable to attend. They would like to maintain the
flexibility to ensure that this lot is buildable in the future.
Public Hearing opened at 7:29 pm
There were no other written or electronic comments received
Public hearing closed at 7:30 pm.
Dunn supports the motion as this is a developed area and this lot is consistent with the
other lots.
Williams would like to propose an additional condition that all other City, Zoning and
development regulations must be satisfied before a building permit is issued.
M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to recommend approval of the request for a variance
from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential
zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid,
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the additional
condition recommended by the Planning Commission, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Solid Wall Fences
Becker started her presentation by explaining the current fence code regulations as it
relates to solid wall fencing on lots under ½ acre and what the exceptions are. Becker
went through some of the history on the fence code. Anticipated higher density
residential development was cited as the reason for the recommendation for allowing
privacy fencing. After discussion over the course of five meetings, the current ordinance
amendment was adopted.
Section 154.081 requires that fences in side and rear yards need to be at least 30% open
ot air and light. Even if the prohibition of solid wall fences over four feet on lots under ½
acre is removed, fences would still need to adhere to this requirement unless this
requirement is removed. Staff researched other Cities that allow solid wall fences over
4’ and there were quite a few. Staff presented two different options to the Planning
Commission for discussion. Option #1 eliminates the prohibition of solid wall fences on
lots under ½ acre altogether and also eliminates requirement of permitted
encroachments on required yards. Option #2 eliminates the requirement for adjacent
property owner to give permission. It also exempts fences that do not exceed one-
fourth of the linear distance of the permimeter of a lot from the 30% openness
requirement. It also eliminates the exception which allows fences that are erected
under other circumstances when a solid wall fence is warranted due to safety, etc.
which could be considered subjective and discriminatory. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt option #2.
Fields asked if this allows privacy from one neighbor, but not three. Williams is
wondering why we would not want to allow it on 3 sides of the lot, but not in the front
yard. Becker stated that there is already a provision on front and side on corner lots.
Option #2 is much more restrictive and there is only exceptions for when solid wall
fences can be erected.
Public Hearing opened at 7:51 pm
Denise Thompson, 9077 Jane Road N, tried to get a fence permit for their dog and they
were not able to get the neighbor signature. They feel that they are not able to have
enough privacy. She also did some research and she was not able to find another City in
Minnesota that does not allow the 6 foot high privacy fence.
There were no other written or electronic comments received
Public Hearing closed at 7:57 pm