Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 2-24-14 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, February 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. February 10, 2014 4. Business Items a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – ACCESSORY BUILDING ORDINANCE. The Planning Commission will review an updated draft of an accessory building ordinance in advance of a future public hearing. b. OUTDOOR SOCIAL EVENT DISCUSSION. The Planning Commission has received a request to be addressed by Carol Palmquist (12202 55th Street North) to discuss an outdoor social event ordinance. c. CUL-DE-SAC DISCUSSION. The Planning Commission will continue an informal discussion about cul-de-sacs that was tabled at the last meeting. 5. Updates a. City Council Updates – February 18, 2014 meeting: i. Final Plat – Savona 1st Phase. The City Council approved the Final Plat of the 1st Phase of the Savona residential subdivision. ii. Zoning Map Amendment – Savona Subdivision. The City Council approved the Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the parcels associated with the Savona Subdivision from RT to LDR and MDR. iii. Zoning Text Amendment - Livestock Ordinance. The City Council approved the updates to the City’s animal ordinances with minor amendment. iv. AUAR Fee Ordinance. The City Council adopted an ordinance to reimburse the City for the costs of the Village AUAR Study. b. Staff Updates i. Planning Commission Discussion Series – “Ma’am, We’re Here For You” (hard copy provided in 2/10/14 agenda packet) ii. Upcoming Meetings: 2 • March 10, 2014 • March 24, 2014 c. Commission Concerns 6. Adjourn City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2014 Vice Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Yocum, Dodson, Haggard, Dorschner, Kreimer, Larson and Lundgren COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams and Morreale STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson Approve Agenda: Dodson suggested tabling Items 5D and 5E. He noted that Ms. Carol Palmquist was unable to attend, so it would make more sense to have that discussion when she would be present. Also, the cul-de-sac discussion was brought forward by Chairman Williams, and it would be beneficial to have him present for that discussion. M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundgren, move to amend the agenda by eliminating Items 5D and 5E, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Approve Minutes: January 27, 2014 Haggard requested that the minutes reflect that the Planning Commission suggested that one acre be the minimum size for both chickens and bees, not just chickens. Dodson asked that the minutes reflect that Dorschner commented on the City Council decision related to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 9434 Stillwater Blvd. N. He asked that the City Council respect the Planning Commission’s time when requesting that they review a land use item at the direction of the Council. M/S/P: Haggard/Larson, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 6-0, motion carried, with Lundgren not voting. Public Hearing: Zoning Map Amendment – Savona Subdivision. Klatt introduced the Zoning Map Amendment by providing background information about the Savona residential subdivision. He noted that the Savona site now has access to utilities as a result of substantial completion of the Section 34, 429 Utility Project. In addition, the Savona Subdivision also has an approved Preliminary Plat. Given these two Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 2 considerations of status, it makes sense to now rezone the site to the zoning districts that are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that the applicants have submitted a Final Plat for the 1st Phase of the single family area. Haggard asked if Staff did any calculations about the total number of units as guided by the Comp Plan compared with in the approved Savona Preliminary Plat. Klatt noted that he does not have the Comp Plan figures for these parcels at this time. However, it should be noted that the applicants chose to move the 5th street minor collector road to the South. Moving the road made the area guided for Urban Low Density Residential – LDR larger, thereby decreasing the total number of projected units slightly. Public Hearing opened at 7:21pm. No one spoke. Public Hearing closed at 7:21pm. M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, move to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the parcels associated with the Savona residential subdivision from Rural Transitional District to Urban Low Density Residential and Urban Medium Density Residential, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Business Item: Savona Final Plat – First Phase Klatt introduced the item by providing information about the status of the Savona Subdivision. He noted that the subdivision has an approved Preliminary Plat. The purpose of the Final Plat action is to ensure that the applicants have met the conditions of approval that are established at the Preliminary Plat approval. Klatt explained that while the City has significantly more discretion in requesting revisions to a Preliminary Plat, the Final Plat step is more of a procedural review to ensure consistency with the Preliminary Plat. Klatt noted that there are 44 single family lots in the proposed Final Plat, which likely represent a two-year build-out for Lennar Homes, the applicant. Klatt presented an aerial map of the general area of the Final Plat. He highlighted the properties that are included in the application, highlighting the new property boundaries that have resulted from the land transaction between Dale Properties and Lennar. Klatt presented the general statistics of the Final Plat, as well as the plat itself. He noted that Outlot F is the area guided for future townhome development. Outlot A is the future area of residential homes. The applicants are proposing to mass grade almost the entirety of the site included in the Final Plat. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 3 Klatt noted that Staff has found that the Final Plat application is generally consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat with several conditions. The conditions are primarily related to requested updates and changes to the Construction Plans. Klatt also noted that Staff is recommending that these changes be completed before the City releases the Final Plat. Related to additional review of the plans, Klatt noted that the Valley Branch Watershed District did provide approval with multiple conditions for the storm water permit for the site. He also noted that Washington County provided comments regarding the improvements to Keats Ave. N. Klatt noted that Staff is also recommending that a trail improvement be installed on the west side of Keats Ave. as part of this project. This trail would allow for future connection to the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. Finally, Klatt suggested that one condition be added to change the name of Jewel Ave. on the Final Plat to Juniper Ave. to avoid confusion related to address numbering. Haggard asked if the northern boundary of the final plat area should include a 100-foot buffer. Klatt noted that no buffer is programmed here due to the adjoining property being guided for low density development. The area in question is actually the location of the power-line easement. Haggard also noted that the names of the outlots are not consistent on the various plan sets. Dorschner asked why the City would hire a consultant to review the landscape plan, which relates to Condition #7. Klatt noted that the plans would be reviewed by an independent consultant to review the proposed species and location of plant materials. The City wants to ensure that these plant materials are properly located, installed and have the best chance to survive. Haggard asked about the location of the requested trail improvement on Keats Ave. Klatt noted that these improvements would occur in the County right-of-way. Dodson asked for clarification on the ownership of the various outlots. Ryan Bluhm, representing Lennar Homes, addressed some of the questions of the Planning Commission. Regarding the attempt to relocate the existing pine trees on the site, he noted that the sandy soils did not allow for transplant. Also, he noted that Lennar has agreed to install the trail along Keats Ave. within the County right-of-way. Lundgren asked about the likely number of bedrooms in each home. Ryan Bluhm estimated that the homes would include anywhere between 3-5 bedrooms. Haggard asked for more information about the mailboxes. Bluhm noted that the Post Office is now requiring that these mail boxes be clustered. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 4 Kreimer noted that Linden trees in the Stonegate neighborhood have been decimated by Asian Beetles. Dodson thanked Ryan Bluhm for addressing the Planning Commission’s questions. Dodson noted that he thinks that the City should take a larger role in maintaining common open spaces. In addition, HOAs made up of residents that are often not properly equipped to deal with the many broad issues that a neighborhood may face. Dodson suggested removing condition #5 from the recommended list of conditions. Haggard agreed that neighborhoods are sometimes not equipped to deal with some of these issues, but she does not think it’s fair that the City maintains common spaces for certain neighborhoods. Kreimer noted that neighborhoods will likely include much more robust landscaping than the City is equipped to maintain. Dorschner asked how many HOAs would likely serve the development. Bluhm noted that two HOAs are likely; one HOA for the single family area and one HOA for the townhome area. Klatt also provided comments regarding HOAs. First, he stated that the City does not have enough capacity to maintain many common open areas. Lundgren asked about condition #16. Klatt provided further explanation of the process. Haggard asked if it would be possible to beautify the mail boxes a little bit. Bluhm noted that it could be possible. Haggard also asked if the monument sign has to read “A Lennar Development”. Bluhm noted that the applicant would prefer to keep the Lennar name on the monument. M/S/P: Haggard/Dorschner, move to add a condition that the Planning Commission would encourage the applicant to incorporate the design elements of the City’s Theming Study into the proposed mailboxes within the Savona Subdivision, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Lundgren/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Savona Final Plat with the 15 conditions of approval as drafted by staff and the Planning Commission, Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Dodson voting no. Dodson wanted it known that he voted against the motion due to condition #5, related to the requirement of establishing an HOA to maintain common open areas. Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment – Livestock Ordinance Planner Johnson started discussion by stating that they are bringing back a revised version of the ordinance based on the discussion at the last meeting. The most Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 5 significant change is raising the minimum lot size for bees from ½ acre to one acre. From earlier discussion, it appears that the Planning Commission would also like to see that change for chickens as well. Johnson noted that this is a fairly conservative approach based on what other communities are doing. Based on the fact that the public notice for the Planning Commission was only intended to address moving the Livestock Ordinance out of Zoning Code, there will be another public hearing next Tuesday night at the City Council meeting. This public hearing will allow the public to give more input on the proposed amendments to the City’s Animal Ordinance, including the addition of bees and chickens on smaller lots. Kreimer said that the Planning Commission wanted a 25 foot setback from an occupied residential lot for chickens and bees. Dodson was wondering why Johnson considers the proposed ordinance conservative or cautious. Johnson stated based on the research that staff has completed of what other communities have in their code related to bees and chickens, the proposed approach is fairly conservative. Dodson wanted clarification of chart because it was a little confusing regarding chickens on less than 5 acres. Kreimer stated we would need to change the chart to one acre and there is a section that needs to be amended for the setbacks. Haggard is wondering if it should state that the coops need to be in the backyard. Johnson stated that a coop would follow the accessory structure setback. M/S/P: Kreimer/Larson, move to recommend approval of the adoption of Animal Ordinance, amending the Zoning Code concerning Livestock and Kennels and amending the Animals Chapter of the General Regulations of the City of Lake Elmo, Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Lundgren voting no. Lundgren wanted to make her position clear that she voted against the motion because she feels that the proposed ordinance does not provide enough opportunity for smaller parcels to have chickens and bees. Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Structures Nick Johnson presented a summary of proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to revise the regulations concerning accessory buildings. Staff is proposing to eliminate the existing accessory building provisions and replace these sections with new language. The City has previously adopted general accessory building requirements as part of the specific zoning district standards. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 6 Johnson noted that the City has a wide variety of land uses that add some complexity to the drafting of an accessory building ordinance. He reviewed the specific ordinance revisions that are being proposed, and stated that Staff is seeking initial feedback from the Commission before proceeding with a public hearing on the changes. The Building Official has recommended eliminating or increasing the maximum door size allowed for storage/tool sheds and maintain a minimum setback of six feet between accessory buildings and principal buildings. Haggard questioned the exceptions that will be allowed, and if these exceptions could create problems for smaller lots. Johnson noted that other ordinance provisions, including impervious coverage limits, still would apply and would limit the number of location of allowed structures and buildings. Dodson asked how often Staff receives questions related to accessory buildings. Johnson replied that a large number of permits are specific to or include accessory buildings. Dorschner suggested that the ordinance should only include a maximum size and should not necessarily need to limit the space devoted to vehicle parking. Yocum commented that the requirements for lots under 1 acre in size can be somewhat restrictive. Johnson cited examples in other communities that allow larger buildings on smaller parcels. Dodson questioned that requirement for garages to be located behind the primary façade of a building. Johnson stated that this requirement applies only to urban residential districts and not rural districts. Haggard stated her preference for fewer buildings and larger attached garages on smaller residential lots. Klatt noted that the Commission has previously discussed the size of accessory buildings and considered language that would not allow a detached garage to exceed the size of the principle structure on a lot. The Commission generally agreed to eliminate the 1,000 square foot limit for the parking of vehicles. Johnson suggested that the Planning Commission examine the maximum structure size in preparation for the next meeting. Klatt noted that he has received inquiries in the past from rural property owners that would like to see an allowance for additional structures for keeping animals. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 7 There was a general discussion concerning the number of buildings allowed, and whether or not it is more important to regulate the overall size or number of buildings allowed. Johnson stated that this matter will be brought back for further review at a future meeting. Updates and Concerns Council Updates 1. Zoning Text Amendment – Zoning District Cleanup passed at the Feb 5,2014 City Council Meeting 2. The City Council reviewed the Easton Village Sketch Plan at the Feb 5, 2014 City Council Meeting. 3. Approval of the agreement to sunset the Memorandum of Understanding with the Met Council at the Feb 5, 2014 City Council Meeting. Staff Updates 1. Planning Commission discussion series – “Ma’am, We’re here for you”, to be discussed at February 24 meeting. 2. Upcoming Meetings a. February 24, 2014 b. March 10, 2014 Commission Concerns - None Dodson asked that all the Planning Commissioners read Chairman Williams’ letter regarding cul-de-sacs. Staff will provide more input. Haggard stated it would be helpful to have some additional training or education on how to better read surveys and construction plans. Dodson noted his concern about radon. Klatt noted that the Minnesota State Building Code likely has provisions related to radon. Dorschner stated that the Building Code does address radon. In addition, State law requires notification for radon. Meeting adjourned at 10:05pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-10-14 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 2/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014 - 10 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Ordinance Updates SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review an updated draft of the City’s provisions related to accessory buildings. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at a meeting on 2/10/14. Staff would like to discuss the various provisions of the ordinance in advance of an upcoming public hearing on March 10, 2014. REQUEST DETAILS City Staff has been working on an update to the City’s accessory building provisions. This effort is two-fold: 1) the proposed update would move the general accessory building provisions into Article V – General Regulations, continuing the Zoning Code update and general house-keeping efforts, and 2) the proposed update allows the City to evaluate which aspects of the City’s accessory building provisions should be modified or updated based upon community desire and best practices. At this time, Staff is proposing to leave the residential accessory building provisions in the Urban Residential and Village Mixed-Use districts the same. Rather, Staff would like the Planning Commission to focus on the accessory building provisions in the rural districts to determine if any changes should be made. As part of the first review of the draft ordinance presented on 2/10/14, Staff presented proposed changes to the City’s accessory building provisions. Generally, these proposed changes included the following: • Either a zoning permit or building permit will be required as determined by the State Building Code. The current ordinance requires a building permit above 100 square feet, which is not consistent with the State Building Code. • Staff proposes to regulate the allowed number and size of accessory buildings based solely on parcel size, whereas the existing ordinance has different considerations for parcels zoned Agricultural (A) vs. Rural Residential (RR). • Staff proposes to list exempt structures that do not count towards a property’s accessory building allowance, such as gazebos, sport courts, swimming pools, etc. • Related to structure location in rural districts, staff would propose that the exception to allow buildings nearer the front property line in RS, A and RR districts by reolution of the City Council should apply to all rural districts. BUSINESS ITEM 5C 2 • Staff proposed to include a list of structures where the design of the structure does not have to match the principal structure due to the purpose of the building. The best example of such a structure is a greenhouse. In addition to these changes, Staff also presented two proposed changes as a result of a review of the draft ordinance by the Building Official, Rick Chase: • He recommended removing the maximum door size for tool sheds due to the fact that most of the existing structures in the community would not comply with the maximum size allowed (28 square feet). In discussion the matter with the Planning Commission, there seemed to be general agreement that regulating the maximum size of these structures (less than 160 square feet) would be sufficient. • The Building Official recommended a six-foot setback for accessory structures from the principal building. The reason for this is to avoid additional regulations required by the State Building Code for structures within 6 feet of the principal building. In addition to Staff recommendations, the Planning Commission discussed two main areas related to accessory buildings: 1) the size of attached garages allowed under the ordinance, and 2) the allowed size and number of accessory building in rural districts. • Attached Garages. The existing ordinance has a provision which limits the size of any building, attached or detached, intended for the storage of automobiles to 1000 square feet maximum. In discussing this provision with the Planning Commission, there was general consensus that this provision does not need to be carried forward, as many new homes include attached garage space that exceeds 1000 square feet. Staff would recommend limiting the size of attached garages by including a provision that an attached garage cannot exceed the size of the principal building. • Allowed Size and Number of Accessory Buildings – Rural Districts. At the meeting on 2/10/14, Staff suggested that the Planning Commission take additional time to consider what the appropriate quantities should be for allowed size and number of accessory buildings in rural zoning districts. In researching other similar communities, Staff has found that some cities that are similar in character have a larger allowance for accessory buildings than Lake Elmo. However, given the great variation of the lots in the rural areas or zoning districts in Lake Elmo, the allowed number and size of buildings has to be appropriate given the existing context of the lots in the rural areas. In addition, the allowed size and number of buildings should reflect community desire. During the Planning Commission discussion of this topic, Staff interpreted that there may be some support to slightly increasing the size and building allowance in some instances. For example, allowing 2 buildings on parcels of 10 acres or more was discussed. Staff recommends discussing the issue further to build greater consensus and direction in advance of the public hearing. RECCOMENDATION: No formal action is required at this time. Staff is looking for feedback on the accessory building ordinance in advance of a Public Hearing on 3/10/14. BUSINESS ITEM 5C 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Accessory Building Ordinance, dated 2/24/14 2. Existing Ordinances pertaining to Accessory Buildings – Hard Copies delivered in 2/10/14 Agenda Packet. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5C ARTICLE 5. GENERAL REGULATIONS §154.213 Accessory Buildings and Structures, Generally §154.213 Accessory Buildings and Structures, Generally A. Purpose. Within the city of Lake Elmo, the following provisions shall apply to accessory building and structures in all zoning districts. B. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, and all sections pertaining to accessory buildings or structures, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Agricultural Farm Building. An accessory building used or intended for use on an active commercial food-producing farm operation of more than 20 acres. A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit may be required. Detached Domesticated Farm Animal Building. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the shelter of domestic farm animals and/or related feed or other farm animal supportive materials. The building may require a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency feedlot permit in addition to site and building plan approval. Detached Residential Garage. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of motor driven passenger vehicles. No door or other access opening shall exceed 14 feet in height. Storage or Tool Shed. A 1-story accessory building of less than 160 square feet gross area with a maximum roof height of 12 feet. No door or other access opening shall exceed 28 square feet in area. C. Permit Required. All accessory building and structures require either a certificate of zoning compliance or a building permit as determined by the Minnesota State Building Code. D. Principal Structure Necessary. No accessory buildings of structures shall be constructed nor accessory use located on a lot until a building permit has been issued for the principal structure to which it is accessory. E. Proximity to Principal Structure. Accessory buildings shall maintain a six (6) foot setback from the principal structure. An accessory building or structure will be considered as an integral part of the principal building if it is located six (6) feet or less from the principal structure. F. Storage or Tool Sheds. A storage or tool shed as defined in this section may be placed on any lot in addition to the permitted number of accessory buildings. G. Exempt Structures. The following residential improvements shall be exempt from the maximum allowed structure size and number requirements in residential districts: 1. Unenclosed playhouses 2. Gazebos up to 120 square feet in size and a maximum of twelve (12) feet in overall height 3. Detached decks up to 120 square feet in size 4. Outdoor swimming pools 5. Patios 6. Tennis and sport courts 7. Structures, sheds or coops up to two hundred (200) square feet in size used to house permitted animals, such as chickens, horses, or other livestock. These structures must not exceed twelve (12) feet in height and must meet all required setbacks per MPCA guidelines and the City’s animal ordinances. DRAFT 2/24/14 1 §154.214 Pole Construction Buildings A. Pole Construction Buildings, A and RR Districts. 1. Pole construction buildings are permitted in the A and RR zoning districts subject to the setbacks and other performance standards required under the Zoning Code. 2. Pole construction buildings are prohibited on properties zoned A and RR where a conditional use permit has been issued for an open space preservation (OP) development. B. Pole Construction Buildings, RS District. Pole construction buildings are permitted in the RS zoning district only on parcels that are abutted by land zoned Rural Residential (RR) or Agricultural (A) Zoned along 75% or more of the perimeter of the subject parcel. ARTICLE 9. RURAL DISTRICTS §154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts. A. Size and Number. The maximum number and size of accessory buildings permitted in rural zoning districts are outlined in Table 9-3: Table 9-3: Accessory Buildings, Rural Zoning Districts Lot Size Maximum Structure Sizea (square feet) No. of Permitted Bldgs 5,000 sq. ft. - 1 acre 1,200b 1 1 - 2 acres 1,200 1 2 – 5 acres 1,300 1 5 – 10 acres 2,000 1 10 – 15 acres 2,500 1 15 – 20 acres 3,000 2 20 – 40 acres 4,000 2 40+ acres Unregulatedc Unregulatedc Notes to Table 9-3 a. Maximum structure size accounts for the total maximum area allowed for all permitted accessory structures combined. b. The 1,200 square foot allowance is for the combined area of the attached and detached accessory structure or residential garage. c. To be allowed additional accessory buildings beyond two total buildings, the buildings must be agricultural buildings as defined in §154.213 or clearly serve an agricultural purpose in the judgment of the City. C. Structure Height, Rural Districts. No accessory building shall exceed twenty-two (220) feet in height or the height of the principal structure, with the exception of buildings that are intended for a farming or other agricultural use in the judgment of the City. Building projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height are permitted in rural districts. D. Structure Location, Rural Districts. No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, unless, by Resolution of DRAFT 2/24/14 2 the City Council, an exception is made to permit a detached garage or accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal building. E. Exterior Design and Color. The exterior building materials, design and color of all accessory building or structures shall be similar to or compatible with the principal building, with the exception of the following accessory building or structures: 1. Detached domesticated farm animal buildings 2. Agricultural farm buildings 3. Pole buildings, as defined and regulated in §154.214. 4. Gazebos 5. Swimming pools 6. Other structures in which the required design is integral to the intended use, such as a greenhouse. F. Openings and Doors. Garage doors and other openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height for all accessory structures, with the exception of buildings that are intended for a farming or other agricultural use in the judgment of the City. G. Attached Garages. Attached garages must not exceed the size of the principal building. ARTICLE 10. URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS §154.456 Residential Accessory Structures, Urban Residential Districts. A. Attached Structures, Urban Residential Districts. An accessory structure shall be considered attached, and an integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an enclosed passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located; and 2. The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to which it is attached. B. Attached Garages, Urban Residential Districts 1. Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the primary street, garages shall be designed using one of the following techniques, unless specific physical conditions on the lot in question require a different approach: a. The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind the plane of the primary facade; or b. The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind a porch if the garage is even with the primary façade. 2. The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 60% of the width of the entire principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street. 3. Attached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area at the ground floor level except by conditional use permit. 4. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 feet in height. DRAFT 2/24/14 3 C. Detached Structures, Urban Residential Districts. Detached accessory structures shall be permitted in residential districts in accordance with the following requirements: 1. Detached accessory structures shall be located to the side or rear of the principal building, and are not permitted within the required front yard or within a side yard abutting a street. 2. Detached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet at ground floor level and shall not exceed a height of 22 feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is higher. The maximum size and height may be increased upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that lot coverage requirements are satisfied. 3. Pole barns, as defined herein, exceeding 120 square feet shall be prohibited. 4. No more than 30% of the rear yard area may be covered by accessory structures. 5. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 feet in height. D. Exterior Design and Color, All Accessory Structures. The exterior building materials, design and color of all accessory building or structures shall be similar to or compatible with the principal building, with the exception of the following accessory building or structures: 1. Gazebos 2. Swimming pools 3. Tennis and sport courts 4. Other structures in which the required design is integral to the intended use, such as a greenhouse. ARTICLE 11. VILLAGE MIXED-USE DISTRICT §154.508 Residential Accessory Structures, Village Mixed-Use District. A. Attached Structures, Village Mixed-Use District. An accessory structure shall be considered attached, and an integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an enclosed passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located. 2. The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to which it is attached. B. Attached Garages, Mixed-Use District 1. Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the primary street, garages shall be designed using one of the following techniques, unless specific physical conditions on the lot in question require a different approach: a. The front of the garage is recessed at least four (4) feet behind the plane of the primary façade; or b. The front of the garage is recessed at least four (4) feet behind a porch if the garage is even with the primary façade; 2. The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 40% of the width of the entire principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street. 3. Attached garages shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet in area at the ground floor level except by conditional use permit. 4. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height. DRAFT 2/24/14 4 C. Detached Structures, Village Mixed-Use District. Detached accessory structures for permitted residential structures in the VMX District accordance with the following requirements: 1. Detached accessory structures shall be located to the side or rear of the principal building, and are not permitted within the required front yard or within a side yard abutting a street. 2. Detached garages shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet at ground floor level and shall not exceed a height of twenty-two (22) feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is higher. The maximum size and height may be increased upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that lot coverage requirements are satisfied. 3. Pole barns, as defined herein, shall be prohibited. 4. No more than thirty (30) percent of the rear yard area may be covered by accessory structures. 5. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height. D. Exterior Design and Color, All Accessory Structures. The exterior building materials, design and color of all accessory building or structures shall be similar to or compatible with the principal building, with the exception of the following accessory building or structures: 1. Gazebos 2. Swimming pools 3. Tennis and sport courts 4. Other structures in which the required design is integral to the intended use, such as a greenhouse. DRAFT 2/24/14 5 Existing Ordinances pertaining to Accessory Structures Planning Commission, 2/10/2014 §154.902 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. (A) Types of accessory buildings include storage or tool sheds; detached residential garage; detached rural storage building; detached domesticated farm animal buildings; agricultural farm buildings. The accessory buildings are defined as follows: (1) STORAGE OR TOOL SHED. A 1-story accessory building of less than 160 square feet gross area with a maximum roof height of 12 feet and exterior colors or material matching the principal structure or utilizing earthen tones. No door or other access opening in the storage or tool shed shall exceed 28 square feet in area. (2) DETACHED RESIDENTIAL GARAGE. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of motor driven passenger vehicles regulated in § 154.093 with a maximum roof height of 20 feet. No door or other access opening shall exceed 14 feet in height. The exterior color, design, and materials shall be similar to the principal structure. (3) DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment, workshop equipment and the like. Exterior materials shall match the principal structure in exterior color or be of an earthen tone. (4) DETACHED DOMESTICATED FARM ANIMAL BUILDING. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the shelter of domestic farm animals and/or related feed or other farm animal supportive materials. The building shall require a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency feedlot permit and site and building plan approval. (Am. Ord. 97-38, passed 11-17-1998) (5) AGRICULTURAL FARM BUILDING. An accessory building used or intended for use on an active commercial food-producing farm operation of more than 20 acres, a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit may be required. (B) A tool shed as defined in this section may be placed on any lot in addition to the permitted number of accessory buildings. (C) No accessory building shall be constructed nor accessory use located on a lot until a building permit has been issued for the principal building to which it is accessory. (D) No accessory building used or intended for the storage of passenger automobiles shall exceed 1,000 square feet of gross area, nor shall any access door or other opening exceed the height of 10 feet, nor shall any structure exceed 1 story in height except when the garages are located in business, industrial or planned unit developments. On parcels of 20,000 square feet in area or less, no detached accessory building or garage shall exceed the size of the principal 2 building in gross floor area. (E) An accessory building shall be considered as an integral part of the principal building if it is located 6 feet or less from the principal building. The exterior design and color shall be the same as that of the principal building or be of an earthen tone; the height shall not exceed the height of the principal structure unless more restrictive portions of this chapter prevail. (F) No accessory building in a commercial or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building. (G) No accessory buildings in apartment developments shall exceed the height of the principal building. (H) Accessory buildings in the commercial and industrial districts may be located to the rear of the principal building, subject to the Building Code and fire zone regulations. (I) No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR, and R-1 Districts where detached garages may be permitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution of the City Council, except in planned unit developments or duster developments. (Ord. 97-107, passed 4-16-2002) (J) Accessory structures located on lake or stream frontage lots may be located between the public road and the principal structure, provided that the physical conditions of the lot require such a location and a resolution is issued. In no event shall the structure be located closer than 20 feet to the public right-of-way. (K) All accessory buildings over 35 square feet in area shall have a foundation, concrete slab or wind anchor. Buildings larger than 100 square feet shall require a building permit regardless of improvement value. Roof loads and wind loads shall conform to requirements as contained in the Building Code. (L) The required rear yard setbacks for detached residential garages, and storage, boat, and tool sheds shall be a distance equal to the required side yard setback for each zoning district, except on through lots when the required rear yard setback in each zoning district shall apply. (M) Performance standards for detached agricultural buildings and domesticated farm animal buildings on parcels of less than 20 acres shall include the following: (1) Setbacks. All animal buildings, feedlots, and manure storage sites shall be set back in accordance with the underlying zoning district regulations. (2) Slopes. The building, feedlot, or manure storage shall not be placed on slopes which exceed 13%. (3) Water level. Evidence of the seasonally high groundwater level or mottled soil (as established by 8-1/2 foot borings) shall not be closer than 6-1/2 feet to the natural surface ground grade in any area within 100 feet of the proposed building and/or feedlot. 3 (4) Wetlands. No marsh or wetland (as established by the predominant wetland vegetation and/or soils) shall be utilized for placement of the proposed structure, feedlot, or grazing area. (1997 Code, § 300.13 Subd. 3) § 154.903 NUMBER/SIZE OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. The maximum number and size of accessory buildings permitted in each zoning district shall be as follows. No accessory building shall be constructed unless there is adequate room for the required secondary drainfield site. Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Buildings Agricultural There shall be no limit on the size or number of accessory buildings so long as the parcel is a nominal 40 acres or more, and buildings are agricultural buildings as defined in § 154.092(A)(5). Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Buildings Agricultural (Non-conforming) Up to 10 acres Two buildings with a combined area not to exceed 2,000 square feet Over 10 acres but less than 40 acres Two buildings and the area of each building not to exceed 2,000 square feet Rural Residential Up to 10 acres One 2,000-square foot detached building, in addition to an attached garage Over 10 acres 15 Acres One 2,500-square foot detached building in addition to an attached garage Over 15 acres One 3,000-square foot detached building, in addition to an attached garage Residential - R-1, RED, and OP Over 5,000 square feet but less than 1 acre A combined 1,200 square feet total for both attached and detached accessory structures or residential garage; the size of the footprint of the detached structure shall not exceed the size 4 of the footprint of the primary structure From 1 acre to 2 acres One 1,200-square foot detached residential, garage or building, in addition to an attached garage Over 2 acres One 1,300-square foot detached residential garage or building in addition to an attached garage (1997 Code, § 300.13 Subd. 4) (Am. Ord. 97-38, passed 11-17-1998; Am. Ord. 97-206, passed 12-11-2007) § 151.024 POLE CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS. Pole construction buildings shall be permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential Zoning Districts only, except they are permitted in the R1 Zoning District where a parcel Zoned R-1 is abutted in a measured amount of 75% or more its perimeter by lands zoned Agricultural; and except they shall be prohibited where a conditional use permit has been issued for an open space preservation development. (1997 Code, § 505.10) (Am. Ord. 97-91, passed 10-16-2001; Am. Ord. 97-100, passed 2- 5-2002) § 154.406 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES – RURAL DISTRICTS. In all rural districts, the design and construction of any garage, carport, or storage building shall be similar to or compatible with the design and construction of the principal building. The exterior building materials, roof style, and colors shall be similar to or compatible with the principal building. A. Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Structures in Rural Districts. The maximum number and size of accessory buildings permitted in the rural districts are outlined in Table 9-3. No accessory building shall be constructed unless there is adequate room for the required secondary drainfield site. 5 Table 9-3 Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Structures – Rural Districts Zoning District + Parcel Size Standard A (Conforming) There shall be no limit on the size or number of accessory buildings so long as the parcel is a nominal 40 acres or more, and buildings are agricultural buildings as defined in § 154.092(A)(5) A (Non-conforming) Up to 10 acres Two buildings with a combined area not to exceed 2,000 square feet. Over 10 acres but less than 40 acres Two buildings and the area of each building not to exceed 2,000 square feet RR Up to 10 acres One 2,000-square foot detached building. 10-15 acres One 2,500-square foot detached building. Over 15 acres One 3,000-square foot detached building. RS and RE Over 5,000 square feet but less than one acre A combined 1,200 square feet total for both attached and detached accessory structures or residential garage; the size of the footprint of the detached structure shall not exceed the size of the footprint of the primary structure 6 1-2 acres One 1,200-square foot detached residential garage or building. Over 2 acres One 1,300-square foot detached residential garage or building. B. Attached Structures. An accessory structure shall be considered attached, and an integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an enclosed passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located. 2. The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to which it is attached. C. Detached Structures. Detached accessory structures shall be permitted in rural districts in accordance with the following requirements: 1. Detached structures shall comply with the provisions of Section 154.092. 2. No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR and RS Districts where detached garages may be permitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution by the City Council. 3. Pole barns, as defined herein, exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be prohibited in the RS and RE Districts. 4. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height. 5. Detached structures shall not exceed a height of twenty-two (22) feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is higher unless otherwise specified in Section 154.092. (Ord. 2012-073, passed 3-19-2013) § 154.457 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. In all residential districts, the design and construction of any garage, carport, or storage building shall be similar to or compatible with the design and construction of the main building. The exterior building materials, roof style, and colors shall be similar to or compatible with the main building or shall be commonly associated with residential construction. 7 (A) Attached structures. An accessory structure shall be considered attached, and an integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an enclosed passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to the following requirements: (1) The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located; and (2) The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to which it is attached. (B) Attached garages. (1) Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the primary street, garages shall be designed using one of the following techniques, unless specific physical conditions on the lot in question require a different approach: (a) The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind the plane of the primary facade; (b) The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind a porch if the garage is even with the primary façade; or (2) The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 60% of the width of the entire principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street. (3) Attached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area at the ground floor level except by conditional use permit. (4) Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 feet in height. (C) Detached structures. Detached accessory structures shall be permitted in residential districts in accordance with the following requirements: (1) Detached accessory structures shall be located to the side or rear of the principal building, and are not permitted within the required front yard or within a side yard abutting a street. (2) Detached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet at ground floor level and shall not exceed a height of 22 feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is higher. The maximum size and height may be increased upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that lot coverage requirements are satisfied. (3) Pole barns, as defined herein, exceeding 120 square feet shall be prohibited. (4) No more than 30% of the rear yard area may be covered by accessory structures. (5) Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 feet in height. (Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012) Penalty, see § 154.999 § 154.508 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 8 On parcels used for residential structures within the VMX District, the design and construction of any garage, carport, or storage building shall be similar to or compatible with the design and construction of the main building. The exterior building materials, roof style, and colors shall be similar to or compatible with the main building or shall be commonly associated with residential construction. A. Attached structures. An accessory structure shall be considered attached, and an integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an enclosed passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located. 2. The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to which it is attached. B. Attached Garages. 1. Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the primary street, garages shall be designed using one of the following techniques, unless specific physical conditions on the lot in question require a different approach: a. The front of the garage is recessed at least four (4) feet behind the plane of the primary façade; or b. The front of the garage is recessed at least four (4) feet behind a porch if the garage is even with the primary façade; or c. The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 40% of the width of the entire principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street. 2. Attached garages shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet in area at the ground floor level except by conditional use permit. 3. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height. C. Detached structures. Detached accessory structures for permitted residential structures in the VMX District accordance with the following requirements: 1. Detached accessory structures shall be located to the side or rear of the principal building, and are not permitted within the required front yard or within a side yard abutting a street. 2. Detached garages shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet at ground floor level and shall not exceed a height of twenty-two (22) feet or the height of the principal structure, whichever is higher. The maximum size and height may be increased upon approval of a conditional use permit, provided that lot coverage requirements are satisfied. 9 3. Pole barns, as defined herein, shall be prohibited. 4. No more than thirty (30) percent of the rear yard area may be covered by accessory structures. 5. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height. (Ord 08-091, passed 11-13-2013) Planning Commission Date: 2/24/14 Discussion – Outdoor Social Events Item: 4b ITEM: Request for Discussion – Outdoor Social Events (Carol Palmquist) SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Carol Palmquist, 12202 55th Street North, has asked to address the Planning Commission to discuss a proposal to allow wedding receptions on her property. She has not applied for a formal ordinance amendment, and would like some feedback from the Commission before submitting a zoning text amendment. Approximately eight years ago, the City adopted and then shortly thereafter rescinded a similar ordinance. Some of the documentation and information from the City’s previous ordinance discussion is attached for review. Please note that Staff has attached the following information to assist the Planning Commission’s discussion on this matter: • Letter from Carol Palmquist describing the proposed activity • Previous City documentation concerning “Outdoor Social Events” o Timeline o Ordinance 97-167 o Meeting Minutes o Ordinance 97-191 o General Information • Recent Afton, MN ordinance allowing “Commercial Wedding Venues” RECOMMENDATION: There is no action required on this item; however, Carol Palmquist is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission concerning her proposal. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ............................................. Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director - Report by staff ......................................... Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director - Questions/Comments from the Planning Commission ................ Planning Commission ATTACHMENTS: • See above for list of attachments TO: Lake Elmo Community Development Department FROM: Todd Williams, Planning Commission Chair RE: Culdesac Discussion DATE: Feb 4, 2014 There is an apparent divergence of opinion regarding the desirability of culdesacs in new residential developments in the Old Village. This issue has been brought to the forefront by the Easton Village development, whose initial concept plan was presented at the last Planning Commission meeting. It occurs to me that our current zoning code and design standards do not address this issue, but they should. Accordingly, I request that this issue be part of the next Planning Commission meeting agenda as a discussion item. Specifically, the Commission should discuss whether or not the Lake Elmo development regulations and standards should contain language either favoring or discouraging culdesacs in new residential developments in the Old Village. I understand that development in the Mixed Use area of the Old Village will be regulated by some kind of form based code, yet to be developed. But the significant areas of residential development outside the MX area do not have any regulations about culdesacs, except a general limit of 600 feet in length. These are the areas the Commission should discuss. Because I will not be attending the next Commission meeting, I wish to present my own comments here, for the benefit of the overall discussion. I am highlighting only the most important considerations, in my current understanding. 1. Former Planning Commissioner Nadine Obermuller sent an email to the Council, Community Development Department, and myself regarding this topic. She included a selection of text from a Wikipedia discussion of culdesacs. I found the Wikipedia discussion very balanced and informative. All Commissioners are encouraged to read the text at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdesac. Note that the text included by Obermuller is down several screens from the start. 2. Culdesacs certainly have an advantage in reducing overall traffic in local neighborhoods. They also improve opportunities for children to play in the street more safely than in through streets. 3. As the Old Village sewered development was discussed over years, the concept of walkability was frequently mentioned as being desirable for all areas, not just the Mixed Use area. Traditional culdesacs do not encourage walkability, because they are not connected except by convoluted roadways. Some kind of trail or pathway system connecting culdesacs would go a long way to improving the traditional model. In the Wikipedia entry is a diagram of such a “connected” culdesac system. I have copied it here: Certainly, this is only one concept, but it does give us an idea of how the traditional, “disconnected” culdesac development might be made more walkable. I think it is obvious that this concept could easily apply to the Easton Village development, and by inference to all future Old Village residential developments. 4. As sewered development in Lake Elmo proceeds, unanticipated issues will continue to arise. As long as Lake Elmo’s leaders maintain a healthy attitude of continuous learning, we will successfully deal with such issues as they arise and make the best decisions based on knowledge available. When such issues arise, we must address them forthrightly and honestly. This culdesac consideration is one of those issues. 5. It is very important that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission and Council address this culdesac issue at the earliest opportunity. While this is only one issue in the complex development planning process for the Old Village, it will likely have a very large effect on the overall feeling and environment of the final, developed area. Our current regulations do not really address the issue, so concept plans and preliminary plats have no guidance one way or the other. We need to make a conscious decision how we want to direct residential developments: either leave it up to the inconsistencies of different developers or have a unifying standard for the Old Village area. 6. Walkability is a goal in the sewered residential developments south of 10th Street. Some attention should be given to whether traditional, disconnected culdesacs are desirable for that area as well. Respectfully submitted, Todd Willams Ethics & the Planning Commission “Ma’am, We’re Here for You.” by Ben Frost, AICP, Esq. December 11th, 2013 We’re pleased to welcome Ben Frost to the PlannersWeb. In this column, he addresses a question every planning commissioner faces, but one that’s not often discussed: who does the planning commission serve? We invite you to join a discussion of this article — adding your own thoughts — on our PlannersWeb Linkedin group page. As I sat through a public hearing for another minor site plan revision, what I wanted to say was “Ma’am, we’re here for you.” I serve on my town’s planning commission. We’re a group of volunteers appointed by our board of selectmen; our appointments are based partly on our qualifications, but mainly they’re based on the fact that we show an interest in our community and its future. I suspect that this is the primary factor that motivates the interest of most planning commissioners – wanting to give something back. But to give back to whom? Who do we serve as we fulfill this motivation? This was the situation at that recent public hearing: the owner of a small light manufacturing plant wanted to modestly expand his building to accommodate new equipment, and this required a modification to the approved site plan. The facility is in a commercial zone, but surrounded by residential uses. Abutters were notified, the hearing was scheduled, and there we sat listening to the presentation by the applicant. The commissioners all seemed amenable to the proposal and asked few questions. The public hearing was opened, and an elderly woman — the only person there other than us and the applicant — introduced herself as a direct abutter. She spoke glowingly of the applicant, saying that he was a good neighbor, and then she started to gently interrogate him — would the hours of operation change? would the traffic pattern change? would there be added noise from the new HVAC unit? and so on. All her questions were good and expressed the valid concerns of an abutter, but at one point she turned to the commissioners and said “I’m sorry, I don’t want to waste your time.” It was then that I wanted to say “Ma’am, we’re here for you.” But I didn’t say it, because as the words sat inside my head I thought, I’m also here for the applicant. While I know that we commissioners sat there also to represent the interests of the public generally, our decisions often are reduced to a struggle between an applicant and those who would be directly impacted by the proposal under consideration. Page 1of 3“Ma’am, We’re Here for You.” 12/18/2013http://plannersweb.com/2013/12/maam/?print=true When there is such conflict, the commission can’t please both the applicant and the abutters, and it may feel easier to yield to abutter-raised concerns and either deny the application or impose unreasonable conditions. Otherwise, the commission risks being seen as a “rubber stamp” body that is in the pocket of developers. The abutters are the people whom commissioners are more likely to run into in the grocery store. They’re more often our neighbors than are the applicants. But commissioners generally are compelled by law to make the harder decision and say “yes” to the applicant. As a young town planner twenty-five years ago, I remember reading a local newspaper article about my counterpart in an adjacent town who had been fired because of allegations that he was too “friendly” with developers. Chances are he was just doing his job. Planning commissioners are in the same boat. My state’s constitution has been interpreted to mean that as governmental bodies, planning commissions are required to assist the applicants appearing before them; 1 your state likely has a similar requirement, whether it is in your constitution, statutes, or court decisions. You don’t need to engineer the applicant’s plans, but you do need to provide the applicant with guidance through the process. For example, a commission should tell an applicant early on what the major concerns are that will pose a barrier to approval. Failure to give this guidance doesn’t protect the public interest by validating abutters’ issues. Rather, it ignores the purpose of government and the planning commission’s ethical obligations to serve all of the people, not just those you pass regularly on the sidewalk. By the same token, you’re there to serve your friends and neighbors too — so the abutters deserve your best advice as well. At the end of our recent hearing for the minor site plan amendment, the elderly abutter expressed her gratitude to us for listening to her concerns and the commission approved the application with a short list of conditions. The abutter and the applicant both left with the satisfaction that we had done our job. We had balanced the interests of the property owner against those of the people living in the neighborhood — that is, the private property rights weighed against the interests of the larger community. Striking that balance and serving the interests of all is the essential legal and ethical obligation of the planning commission. Page 2of 3“Ma’am, We’re Here for You.” 12/18/2013http://plannersweb.com/2013/12/maam/?print=true Ben Frost is the Director of Public Affairs at New Hampshire Housing, where he coordinates federal and state legislative initiatives and provides direct technical assistance to municipalities to help them develop regulations promoting affordable housing and sustainable development. He frequently lectures on issues of affordable and workforce housing, planning and zoning law, and ethics. Ben has over 25 years of experience as a land use planner, and over 15 years as an attorney. Previously, he was a Senior Planner with the NH Office of Energy and Planning, he was the executive director of the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission, and he was also a planner and administrator in local and regional government in New Hampshire and elsewhere. Ben is also past chairman of the Municipal Section of the New Hampshire Bar Association and is a founding director of the NH Municipal Lawyers Association. He serves as the Treasurer of the NH Planners Association and as the Professional Development Officer of the Northern New England Chapter of the American Planning Association. Ben holds B.A. and M.A. degrees in Geography from Colgate University and Syracuse University, respectively and a law degree from Cornell Law School. He lives in Warner, NH, where he serves on the planning board. Notes: 1.“…in furtherance of Part I, Article 1 of our State Constitution, municipalities have an obligation ‘to provide assistance to all their citizens’ seeking approval under zoning ordinances.” Richmond Company, Inc. v. City of Concord, 149 N.H. 312, 315, 821 A.2d 1059 (2003) (quoting Savage v. Town of Rye, 120 N.H. 409, 411, 415 A.2d 873 (1980) and Carbonneau v. Town of Rye, 120 N.H. 96, 99, 411 A.2d 1110 (1980) ). ↩ Tags:Citizens, Ethical Issues, Making Meetings Work Printed From: http://plannersweb.com/2013/12/maam/ Page 3of 3“Ma’am, We’re Here for You.” 12/18/2013http://plannersweb.com/2013/12/maam/?print=true