Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 7-13-20 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Monday July 13, 2020 Commissioner Holtz called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Risner, Graen, Holtz, Mueller and Steil COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Cadenhead, Weeks STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Roberts, City Planner Prchal Approve Agenda: M/S/P: Graen/Mueller moved to approve the agenda, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes: M/S/P: Steil/Graen moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 13, 2020, May 11, 2020, May 27, 2020 and June 8, 2020. Vote: 5-0, motion carried. Public Hearings a. Zoning Code Text Amendment – Local Transit and School Bus Terminals in BP Zoning District Note: Staff removed this item from consideration for the Planning Commission meeting and there was no public hearing. b. Zoning Code Text Amendment – Fence Ordinance Update Planner Prchal presented the staff report outlining several proposed changes to the City’s Fence Ordinance. He noted that Planning Staff has noticed there are issues and sometimes difficulties with the existing standard of a 3.5 ft. fence height maximum for corner side yards and front yards. It has been stated that contractors or installers do not have or have not installed a 3.5 foot-tall fence. It seems to be that 3.5 feet for a fence height is a unique figure that is not readily available or used today. This issue can be further enhanced when HOA’s require a specific style of fencing. To remedy this situation, staff is proposing to change the maximum fence height for these areas from 3. 5 feet (42 inches) to 4 feet (48 inches). The proposed code Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20 change would still have the requirement that the fence be at least 50 percent open to allow air movement and visibility through the fence. Prchal presented examples of fence ordinances from Cottage Grove, Hugo, Woodbury, Forest Lake and Stillwater. All these ordinances allow for six-foot-tall fences in the back or rear yards of residences and most allow up to four foot-tall fences (with some restrictions) on corner side yards of residences. Prchal also explained that there is a provision in the existing City fence ordinance that has language about the location of fences and getting permission from the adjacent property owners. He noted that the code now states that “Fences may be installed on any portion of a lot subject to the height restrictions of §154.205.E and may be installed along or within one foot of property lines provided the adjacent property agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on or within one foot of (12 inches) of the boundary lines of the respective properties. Any portion of the fence and all footing material shall not encroach on the neighboring property.” Prchal explained that his research found that this requirement is unique to Lake Elmo and can sometimes cause difficulties for property owners wanting to install fences when adjacent property owners are not available to grant permission or willing to grant permission for the new fence. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of this standard and tried to determine the value of keeping this language in the fence code. One commissioner noted that it did require neighbors to talk to each other which is a good thing but the consensus of the Commission was that requiring written permission from the adjacent property owners to install a fence is an unnecessary burden and regulation that the City should remove from the Code. Holtz opened the public hearing at 7:23 pm. There were no public comments so he closed the public hearing at 7:24 pm. The Commission then further discussed the proposed changes to the fence ordinance. Steil moved, Risner seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of the suggested amendments to the City Code as it pertains to fences. The proposed changes include the following: E. Fence Height and Design 1. Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. Any fence within a front or side (corner) yard setback or any required setback form a public right-of-way may not exceed forty-two (42) forty- eight (48) inches (4 ft.) in height and must be at least 50% open to air and light. The fence must also be setback 20 ft. extending from the front corner lot pin or ROW. F. Temporary Fences 1. Height and Performance. Temporary fences shall comply with the fence height standards of subsection (E). Temporary fences shall be at least 40% open to air and light. If unable to be at least 40% open to air and light, temporary fences shall not exceed forty-two inches (42”) forty eight (48) inches (4 ft.) in height. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20 Removal of the Code requirement in Section 154.205D(5)(a) that for fences that will be within one foot of the property line the property owner get written permission from the adjacent property owners before installing the fence. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. c. City Code Text Amendments – PUD, OP-PUD and Subdivision Ordinances (Concept Plan Reviews) Director Roberts presented the staff report explaining the proposed changes to the OP PUD, PUD and Subdivision Ordinances. He explained that staff had been directed to prepare amendments to the City’s PUD ordinance (Article XIX) and the City’s Open Space PUD (OP- PUD) ordinance (Article XVII). The requested changes are to remove the requirement for a concept plan review for PUD’s and the sketch plan review for Open Space PUD’s. He also noted that there are some aspects of the PUD and subdivision ordinances the City could amend to clarify processes and to meet current City standards. As such, staff has included several other minor changes to the OP PUD, PUD and Subdivision Ordinances as part of this review. Roberts explained that the zoning and subdivision regulations (including PUD ordinances) allow cities to ensure that a new development or redevelopment meets the standards of the city for a safe, functional and enjoyable community. Importantly, PUD regulations can help the City preserve and enhance important natural resources and environmental features by allowing flexibility in the design standards for a specific site through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities. Director Roberts noted that the sketch plan or concept plan review gives an applicant a chance to get feedback (positive and negative) from City staff and policy makers about a proposal before spending significant time and money on the detailed plans necessary for a preliminary PUD and plat. Sketch plan and concept plan review provides the City and an applicant a chance to identify issues and provides the applicant guidance and a “road map” for moving a project forward in Lake Elmo. This is the requirement now in place for new PUD’s or OP PUD’s in Lake Elmo. To use or not use the sketch plan (or concept plan) review process is a policy decision for the City. Roberts explained that if the City did want to drop the requirement for a concept plan review or a sketch plan review of PUD’s by the Planning Commission and City Council, then at a minimum, the City should require an applicant or developer to submit to the City a concept plan or sketch plan for any new PUD for review and comment by City staff. This process also should include a requirement that an applicant for a OP PUD or a PUD meet with City staff after the applicant has submitted the proposed concept plan or sketch plan (in about 30 days) to get feedback and comments about the proposed PUD before submitting a preliminary PUD/plat application. Staff has included such language in the proposed OP PUD, PUD and Subdivision Ordinance amendments. Director Roberts noted that the Planning Commission has three options for the proposed ordinance amendments. They could recommend approval of the proposed changes to the OP PUD, PUD and subdivision ordinances, they could recommend approval of the proposed Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20 changes to the ordinances with changes to the proposed language or they could recommend denial of the proposed changes to the OP PUD, PUD and subdivision ordinances. Director Roberts then answered questions from the Commission about the proposed code changes. Holtz opened the public hearing at 8:01 pm. There were no public comments so he closed the public hearing at 8:02 pm. The Commission discussed the proposed ordinance amendments and changes that would be necessary to remove the Concept Plan and Sketch Plan reviews from the OP PUD, PUD and Subdivision review processes. Commissioner Steil expressed support for the proposed code changes and Commissioner Graen stated that he was against the proposed code changes because he likes having the public involvement with concept plan and sketch plan reviews of PUDs. M/S/P: Steil/Holtz moved to recommend approval of the Open Space PUD, PUD and subdivision ordinance amendments as proposed by City staff.” Vote: 4-1 (Graen no), motion carried. New Business None Staff and Commission Updates Roberts reported that at the June 16, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council considered the Boulder th Ponds 5 Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Plan. It had been proposed for 3 lots but the City Council approved for only 2 lots. Roberts reported that at July, 07, 2020 City Council Meeting, the Council considered the proposed Farm School Zoning Text Amendment for a second time. The Council approved the Ordinance with changes to the minimum lot size (9 acre minimum) and they added a requirement that the schools be at least one-half mile apart. The Council also reviewed and discussed the Bruggeman OP-PUD Concept Plan for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue. The Council generally appeared to support the proposed Concept Plan but directed staff to bring it back to the next Council meeting with revised conditions of approval. Roberts reminded the Commission of the upcoming PC Meetings on July 27, 2020 and on August 10, 2020. Meeting adjourned at 8:19 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts – Lake Elmo Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20