HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 05-23-11APPROVED AS AMENDED; 6-13-11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-23-11 1
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of May 23, 2011
Chairman Van Zandt called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bidon, Fliflet (7:02), Hall, Haggard,
Obermueller, Van Zandt, Williams, and Ziertman. Absent: Pelletier. STAFF
PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt, Planner Matzek and Planning Intern Johnson.
Agenda
M/S/P, Williams/Hall, move to approve as presented. Vote: 7:0.
Minutes – None.
Public Hearing – Bremer Bank PUD Amendment
Planning Director Klatt introduced a PUD Amendment application to allow a parking lot
expansion of 155 parking stalls. He asked the Commission to discuss the item, to open
the public hearing and to continue it to the next meeting. He said the City Engineer has
requested revisions to the Storm Water Management Plan, therefore Staff is
recommending tabling the application pending submission and review of the revised
documents.
Fliflet arrived 7:02 p.m.
Commissioner Hall asked what the expected future land use of the property to the north
was.
Planning Director Klatt said north of this site is part of the planned future sewered
development. The current Future Land Use Plan designates this land as future residential
development at an average of 3 and a half units per acre.
Commissioner Williams asked if the slopes would require a retaining wall for the
expansion to the north.
Planning Director Klatt said the City Engineer will review that.
Chairman Van Zandt asked if runoff caused by the additional impervious area would be
handled by the existing ponding.
Planning Director Klatt said the City Engineer will be reviewing that as well. He said the
original ponding design encompassed this future expansion, but the City’s ordinance has
changed since then.
Commissioner Williams asked if the City’s regulations address a two level parking
structure as opposed to a ground level expansion.
Planning Director Klatt said it did not, to his knowledge.
APPROVED AS AMENDED; 6-13-11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-23-11 2
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:31 P.M.
M/S/P, Williams/Ziertman, move to table the public hearing to the June 13, 2011
meeting. Vote: 8:0.
Public Hearing – Amendment to Fence Ordinance
Planner Matzek introduced amendments to the fence ordinance to allow solid fences to be
constructed on the rear or side of a through lot that abuts a road with a classification of
principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial. She said the solid fence, as
written, would not be allowed in the side yard when it does not abut a street or is the side
yard of a corner lot – only a through lot. She said additional amendments put into place
the need for an Easement Encroachment Agreement when a fence is proposed within an
easement and a screening fence no longer needed to be enclosed. Staff is recommending
the approval of the amendments to the ordinance, but to remove the language regarding
the side yard and only allowing solid fences in yards designated as rear yards.
Commissioner Fliflet said a variance is an option for residents interested in adding a solid
fence in a location not outright allowed.
Commissioner Hall asked if the City has requirements to keep obstructions from the view
of traffic at street intersections.
Planner Matzek said there are not specific distances listed, but it is a nuisance to obstruct
those views and she would rely on the City Engineer to determine that distance based on
the speed of traffic.
Commissioner Haggard expressed concern regarding the view of traffic also leaving
private driveways when they are not adjacent or a part of a street intersection.
Commissioner Williams said variances are expensive and to ask residents to pay for that
without knowing if they will be able to put in their fence is asking too much. He
suggested adding an exception for special cases involving side yards. He suggested
changing the definition of double front lot to include front and side.
Commissioner Ziertman asked if a solid fence were allowed if it would meet the setback
requirement for a structure.
Planning Director Klatt said screening fences are required when there is something being
stored outside that is not allowed to be stored outside. He said there is also a provision in
the code that allows a solid fence, if it is entirely enclosed at the same size as an
accessory building allowed on the property. He said staff is suggesting a change to that
portion of the ordinance as well.
Planner Matzek said she received an email from a resident interested in the fence
ordinance. Her concern was that the ordinance does not allow fences to be within the
Ordinary High Waterline setback and she thought it should be allowed.
APPROVED AS AMENDED; 6-13-11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-23-11 3
Chairman Van Zandt said lakeside property owners’ property rights are frequently
violated.
Commissioner Haggard asked if variance fees can be waived or reduced for fence
applications.
Planner Matzek said that would be a legal question and she would ask the City Attorney.
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M.
Rob Konop, 12418 Marquess Way N
Mr. Konop said his neighbors have a solid fence adjacent to Highway 5. He said that
variances are expensive and the fence ordinance is currently more restrictive then any
other city. He said he needs a solid six foot fence in the side yards as well because
neighbors can look into his back yard and could take his kids.
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09 P.M.
Commissioner Fliflet said she supports a strict fence ordinance, but does not like the idea
of having mismatching fences in the back yard and side yards. She said to fix the
problem for that person who spoke, it still wouldn’t accomplish what is being sought
because you could see in the side yard from Highway 5.
Commissioner Bidon asked if there were regulations for landscaping or berms.
Planner Matzek said there are not regulations for landscaping, but berms may be
regulated if they affect drainage.
Chairman Van Zandt said it amazes him that people buy homes in the airport approach
path and then complain about the noise from the airplanes. He said the homes were
cheaper to start with because of the airport and noise.
Commissioner Ziertman noted that when commercial uses abut residential property that
the commercial property is required to screen that area by either a fence or landscaping.
Commissioner Fliflet asked why the city would care if the person’s yard was a side yard
instead of a rear yard if they felt the need to have a screening fence on a busy roadway.
Commissioner Obermueller suggested certain architecturally appealing fences could be
allowed to be up to 72 inches.
M/S/P, Williams/Hall, moved to amend 154.120 C 1 to say “lots with frontage along
improved public streets at both the rear yard and front yard or at both the front yard and a
side yard may apply the standards of subdivision B above for fences paralleling rear or
side yards” and to change “fences on double front lots” to “fences on through lots.”
APPROVED AS AMENDED; 6-13-11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-23-11 4
Commissioner Williams said the definition for “through lot” says all roads abutting a
street should be considered the front yard, but that is not what is wanted in this case.
Planning Director Klatt said the fence ordinance makes that as an exception where it is
considered differently.
Vote: 8:0.
M/S, Williams/Ziertman, move to recommend approval of revised fence ordinance as
amended.
Commissioner Fliflet said she is not in favor of it as it does not seem to solve the
problem.
Planning Director Klatt said it could be allowed as a conditional use permit which would
require an individual review.
Commission Haggard suggested having a lower variance fee for fences.
M/S, Williams/Hall, move to postpone consideration of the previous motion and direct
staff to return at a future date with proposed language which will satisfy the
commission’s concern.
M/S, Hall/Williams, to amend the motion to include the reasons for postponing are to
ensure staff has clearly understood the commission’s intent and motions and can come
back with alternate language and additional information for the commission.
Vote on amendment failed 2:6. Against: Ziertman, Fliflet, Van Zandt, Obermueller,
Bidon and Haggard.
Vote on motion to postpone consideration failed 3:5. Against: Ziertman, Fliflet, Van
Zandt, Bidon and Haggard.
M/S/F, Obermueller/Ziertman, move to amend the original motion to not allow fences in
a side yard on a corner lot, but instead to ask the City Council to consider a sliding fee for
a fence variance. Vote: 3:5. Against: Williams, Hall, Van Zandt, Bidon and Haggard.
Original motion made by Commissioner Williams on ordinance: Vote: 4:3.
Obermueller abstained as she was unclear with what was being voted on. Against:
Fliflet, Ziertman and Bidon.
The Commission tabled the next two items: Vision Statement and Goals for the South of
10th Street Area; Form Based Code Discussion
City Council Items
Planning Director Klatt said the septic variance at 8242 Hidden Bay Trail was approved,
but the City Council had a question about the removal of a second driveway, which was a
APPROVED AS AMENDED; 6-13-11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-23-11 5
condition of a variance from years ago. He said the variance legislation has changed,
making it easier for cities to grant variances again as it is now worded as “practical
difficulties.” He said Washington County will be holding an open house on June 8th to
receive input on potential trails along Inwood Avenue North and 10th Street as well as a
western entrance to the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve.
Chairman Van Zandt said this Commission has, in the past, agreed to use a loose version
of Robert’s Rules.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned 9:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli Matzek
Planner