Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-04 PZMAPPROVED: 02/23/2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Johnson, Deziel, Meldahl, Sedro, Van Pelt. STAFF PRESENT: Charles Dillerud, City Planner and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance Agenda M/S/P, Deziel/Johnson, to accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 6:0. Minutes M/S/P, Sedro/Deziel, to accept the Minutes of January 26, 2004 as presented. VOTE: 4:0:2 (Abstain: Johnson, Meldahl). Minor Subdivision — Olson — 9524 Stillwater Boulevard The City Planner reviewed the plans for an RR Cluster Development/Minor Subdivision Application. The Planner reported as follows: 1. The site is south of Sunfish Park, west of Sunfish Lake. 2. The parcel is part of a faun that was a nominal forty including road right-of-way. 3. The proposal is to divide the parcel to create a 7 acre parcel, 5+ net of right-of-way. 4. The remaining parcel would be eligible to be divided into three residential lots. 5. The buildings that exist are all being placed on the new small parcel, and those buildings meet setback standards. The number and area of accessory structures in the RR Zoning District do not appear to need a variance. Findings and Recommendations: 1. The application for RR District clustering complies with the standards for such application and the applicable standards of the RR Zoning District. 2. The application for Minor Subdivision complies with the standards of Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision) only upon the concurrent approval of the RR Cluster application. Staff recommended approval subject to payment of a $1,500 Park Dedication Fee, payable before release of the deed for recording. Commissioner Deziel asked if this subdivision will now prevent the parent parcel from becoming an OP Development because the Code requires a forty -acre minimum to create an OP development. Chairman Helwig asked about the size and number of accessory buildings and whether they are allowable under the Code. The Planner said the accessory structures all go with the residence on the newly created parcel. Merle Olson said his land was originally owned by Lehart Friedrich. Their intent was to keep the original Century Farm. Commissioner Deziel asked the applicant about the sacrifice of being unable to develop into an OP Development in the future. The applicant stated that he was unaware that would be the case. Mr. Olson asked if the neighboring parcel were combined with his parent parcel, could The Olsons then develop an OP Development. The Planner explained that a minimum of forty acres are needed for an OP Development. MIS/P, Johnson/Van Pelt, To recommend approval by the City Council of the applications of Merle and Fonda Olson for an RR cluster development and Minor Subdivision of the parcel at 9524 Stillwater Boulevard, as depicted by the survey that staff dated February 4, 2004, and based on the Findings, and subject to the condition specified in the Planning Staff Report of February 4, 2004. VOTE: 5:1 (Helwig — Council should review the accessory building history). Lake Elmo Plamiing Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 1 APPROVED: 02/23/2.004 Fences The Planner reminded the Commissioners of the direction of the City Council to review and amend the city's fence ordinance. He reported that Lane Kendig has provided the City with his thoughts on a draft for a fence ordinance. The Planner distributed text that could be included into our existing Fence Ordinance as an amendment regarding fence permitting. In that permitting clause, two types of fences are exempted. 1. Exempt fences that are used to exclusively fence domestic farm animals as defined in Section 150 of the Municipal Code. 2. Exempt fences installed by government entities, for example: a. Fences that house city facilities, and b. Fences defining rights -of -way. The Planner said that as the permitting provisions are now drafted the City could issue a Correction Order and have a double permit fee for fences built without a permit. He also noted that the proposed clause regarding of non -conformity would allow the City to treat fences as a structure for the purposes of non -conformity; and allow the City to take actions regarding fences that become a hazard. Commissioner Sedro asked if the fence permitting process was meant to apply to invisible fencing, and if not, would we wish to add an exception for invisible fencing. M/S/P, Johnson/Sedro, to recommend adoption of the Code Amendments proposed by Planning Staff with a third exemption to be added for Invisible Fencing. VOTE: 6:0. Commissioner Deziel questioned whether the term "hazardous" would include height or a fence too close to right-of-way. The Planner said the hazardous law dealing with structures might not allow us to go that far. The Planner will ask the City Attorney and the City Engineer about the sight triangle. A hazardous fence might come under the nuisance section of the Code. Chairman Ilelwig asked about trees or corn in the sight triangle. The Planner said clearing those trees would be troublesome and bring much opposition. The Planner noted that at several intersections in the City, the City has had to ask the county to trim trees in the right-of-way. The Commission discussion then continued regarding draft fence standards proposed by Lane Kendig for inclusion in the new zoning ordinance. He noted that the language in Lane Kendig's proposal is very different from other city ordinances the Commission has seen. He referred Commissioners to e-mails Commissioners Pelletier and Bunn submitted regarding the Kendig fence ordinance draft. The Planner observed that Mr. Kendig is suggesting a more aggressive approach in new development design so the Commissioners will Ioolc at fence plans for an entire neighborhood when a plat is under review by the City. Commissioner Van Pelt asked about Kendig's examples of fencing for double front lots. The Planner said the city does not have many instances of double front lots, as such design is not usually found with the larger lots that are predominant in Lake Elmo. The Planner observed that Carriage Station has some unique fencing issues compared to most new Lake Elmo neighborhoods, but that there will be more developments with similar fencing issues — particularly if the Old Village areas develops as now contemplated. Commnissioner Deziel said Mr. Kendig's suggestion regarding fences along rights of way in existing neighborhoods based on percentages does not seem to direct the Planner to draft the language to a fence. The Planner suggested that Kendig is addressing consistency of neighborhood character with the percentage approach. Chairman Helwig said he likes the idea of new developments having to show their plans for fencing, and he would Like to see the purposes of fencing defined. Helwig continued that he thought that Lane Kendig's ordinance specifically points out one type of fence that would not be allowed (chain link), and that does not seem fair. The Planner agreed with Helwig that Kendig is making an aesthetic value judgment regarding chain link fences in front yards. Commissioner Johnson noted that she is concerned regarding a licensed daycare not being able to have a chain link fence in both the rear and front yards. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 2 APPROVED: 02/23/2004 Commissioner Deziel said he wants to stay away from choosing fence materials and design, and he noted that he also dislikes the elimination of slats in chain link fencing. Commissioner Van Pelt said he thought this proposal eliminates all fences in the front yard except in the VR District when approved for a subdivision within that district. The PIanner said he reads it the same way. Commissioner Deziel said that he liked the idea of ornamental fences such as wrought iron in front yards. Chairman Helwig suggested that picket fences and wrought iron in Stillwater front yards look very nice, and he suggested that maybe the Commission should not eliminate any fences except barbed wire. Commissioner Van Pelt said he would be Iess prone to shy away from exercising restraint, and we should address the materials issue because the city strictly enforces signs and other issues. The Planner asked for a consensus about allowing front yard fencing, and whether the Commission should address materials, and front yard fence height. M/S/P, Deziel/Johnson, to direct the Planner to draft the language to allow front yard fencing, allowing opaque fences up to three feet in height, but to set a standard for the fence opacity above three feet. VOTE: 6:0. Commissioner Van Pelt asked that, if the City has a new permit process for fencing, would the City be in the position of having to grant variances? The Planner said the way to deal with exceptions is to use CUP's or Special Exceptions. M/S/P, Van Pelt/Deziel, to prohibit chain link fencing except through Special Exception. VOTE: 3:1:2 (Abstain: Sedro, Deziel). Commissioner Johnson said Licensed Daycare should be one example that should qualify for a Special Exception. Commissioner Johnson stated that she is concerned with some of the subjective language in Kendig's fence standards ordinance proposal. MISIP, Johnson/Van Pelt, to direct staff to rewrite the sections of Kendig's fence ordinance proposal that address subjective decision processes, and come back to the Planning Commission with a draft VOTE: 6:0. MIS/P, DezielNan Pelt, to direct staff to remove item three from Kendig's fence ordinance proposal as unnecessary. VOTE: 6:0. MIS/P, Van Pelt/DezieI, to direct staff to eliminate item five 5 from Kendig's fence ordinance proposal. VOTE: 6:0. Commissioner Van Pelt said that design and materials will have to be addressed, especially in tighter densities where neighborhood character will be a factor. Commissioner Deziel said he would agree if there is enough variety. City Council Update The Planner reported that the Parks Commission had approved an RFP for a new Trails Plan. The Trails Plan would be more of an expansion of prior trail planning documents than a replacement of that earlier work. The Planner said the Concept Plan for Whistling Valley II was modified immediately after the PZ meeting based on the four recommendations made at the Planning Commission, and the Council has approved the Concept Plan unanimously. The Planner said he received the complete draft of the Zoning Ordinance last Friday. The Commission will meet in March to discuss the Zoning Ordinance. Adjourn 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Sch Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 3 CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 651/777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission Will hold its regular meeting on Monday, February 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. In Council Chambers, Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 AGENDA 1) Pledge of Allegiance 2) Agenda 3) Minutes of February 9, 2004 4) Fences 5) City Council Update 6) Adjourn The public is invited to attend. ejir printed on recycled paper a ti CITY OF LAKE ELMO Cite of Lake Elmo 651/77T5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission Will hold its regular meeting on Monday, February 9, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. In Council Chambers, Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 AGENDA 1) Pledge of Allegiance 2) Agenda 3) Minutes of January 26, 2004 4) Minor Subdivision — Olson — 9524 Stillwater Blv. 5) Fences 5) City Council Update 7) Adjourn The public is invited to attend. ILO printed on recycled paper APPROVED: 02/23/2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 Chairman Ilelwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Johnson, Deziel, Meldahl, Sedro, Van Pelt. STAFF PRESENT: Charles Dillerud, City Planner and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance Agenda M/S/P, Deziel/Johnson, to accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 6:0. Minutes M/S/P, Sedro/Deziel, to accept the Minutes of January 26, 2004 as presented. VOTE: 4:0:2 (Abstain: Johnson, Meldahl). Minor Subdivision — Olson — 9524 Stillwater Boulevard The City Planner reviewed the plans for an RR Cluster Development/Minor Subdivision Application. The Planner reported as follows: 1. The site is south of Sunfish Park, west of Sunfish Lake. 2. The parcel is part of a farm that was a nominal forty including road right-of-way. 3. The proposal is to divide the parcel to create a 7 acre parcel, 5+ net of right-of-way. 4. The remaining parcel would be eligible to be divided into three residential lots. 5. The buildings that exist are all being placed on the new small parcel, and those buildings meet setback standards. The number and area of accessory structures in the RR Zoning District do not appear to need a variance. Findings and Recommendations: 1. The application for RR District clustering complies with the standards for such application and the applicable standards of the RR Zoning District. 2. The application for Minor Subdivision complies with the standards of Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision) only upon the concurrent approval of the RR Cluster application. Staff recommended approval subject to payment of a $1,500 Park Dedication Fee, payable before release of the deed for recording. Commissioner Deziel asked if this subdivision will now prevent the parent parcel from becoming an OP Development because the Code requires a forty -acre minimum to create an OP development. Chainnan Helwig asked about the size and number of accessory buildings and whether they are allowable under the Code. The Planner said the accessory structures all go with the residence on the newly created parcel. Merle Olson said his land was originally owned by Lehart Friedrich. Their intent was to keep the original Century Faun. Commissioner Deziel asked the applicant about the sacrifice of being unable to develop into an OP Development in the future. The applicant stated that he was unaware that would be the case. Mr. Olson asked if the neighboring parcel were combined with his parent parcel, could The Olsons then develop an OP Development. The Planner explained that a minimum of forty acres are needed for an OP Development. M/S/P, Johnson/Van Pelt, To recommend approval by the City Council of the applications of Merle and Fonda Olson for an RR cluster development and Minor Subdivision of the parcel at 9524 Stillwater Boulevard, as depicted by the survey that staff dated February 4, 2004, and based on the Findings, and subject to the condition specified in the Planning Staff Report of February 4, 2004. VOTE: 5:1 (Helwig — Council should review the accessory building history). Lake Elmo Planning Cornmission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 1 APPROVED: 02/23/2004 Fences The Planner reminded the Commissioners of the direction of the City Council to review and amend the city's fence ordinance. He reported that Lane Kendig has provided the City with his thoughts on a draft for a fence ordinance. The Planner distributed text that could be included into our existing Fence Ordinance as an amendment regarding fence permitting. In that permitting clause, two types of fences are exempted. 1. Exempt fences that are used to exclusively fence domestic farm animals as defined in Section 150 of the Municipal Code. 2. Exempt fences installed by government entities, for example: a. Fences that house city facilities, and b. Fences defining rights -of -way. The Planner said that as the permitting provisions are now drafted the City could issue a Correction Order and have a double permit fee for fences built without a permit. He also noted that the proposed clause regarding of non -conformity would allow the City to treat fences as a structure for the purposes of non -conformity; and allow the City to take actions regarding fences that become a hazard. Commissioner Sedro asked if the fence permitting process was meant to apply to invisible fencing, and if not, would we wish to add an exception for invisible fencing. M/S/P, Johnson/Sedro, to recommend adoption of the Code Amendments proposed by Planning Staff with a third exemption to be added for Invisible Fencing. VOTE: 6:0. Commissioner Deziel questioned whether the tern "hazardous" would include height or a fence too close to right-of-way. The Planner said the hazardous law dealing with structures might not allow us to go that far. The Planner will ask the City Attorney and the City Engineer about the sight triangle. A hazardous fence might come under the nuisance section of the Code. Chairman Helwig asked about trees or corn in the sight triangle. The Plainer said clearing those trees would be troublesome and bring much opposition. The Planner noted that at several intersections in the City, the City has had to ask the county to trim trees in the right-of-way. The Commission discussion then continued regarding draft fence standards proposed by Lane Kendig for inclusion in the new zoning ordinance. He noted that the language in Lane Kendig's proposal is very different from other city ordinances the Commission has seen. He referred Commissioners to e-mails Commissioners Pelletier and Bunn submitted regarding the Kendig fence ordinance draft. The Planner observed that Mr. Kendig is suggesting a more aggressive approach in new development design so the Commissioners will look at fence plans for an entire neighborhood when a plat is under review by the City. Commissioner Van Pelt asked about Kendig's examples of fencing for double front lots. The Planner said the city does not have many instances of double front lots, as such design is not usually found with the larger lots that are predominant in Lake Elmo. The Planner observed that Carriage Station has some unique fencing issues compared to most new Lake Elmo neighborhoods, but that there will be more developments with similar fencing issues — particularly if the Old Village areas develops as now contemplated. Commissioner Deziel said Mr. Kendig's suggestion regarding fences along rights of way in existing neighborhoods based on percentages does not seem to direct the Planner to draft the language to a fence. The Planner suggested that Kendig is addressing consistency of neighborhood character with the percentage approach. Chairman Helwig said he likes the idea of new developments having to show their plans for fencing, and he would like to see the purposes of fencing defined. Helwig continued that he thought that Lane Kendig's ordinance specifically points out one type of fence that would not be allowed (chain link), and that does not seem fair. The Planner agreed with Helwig that Kendig is making an aesthetic value judgment regarding chain link fences in front yards. Commissioner Johnson noted that she is concerned regarding a licensed daycare not being able to have a chain link fence in both the rear and front yards. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 2 APPROVED: 02/23/2004 Commissioner Deziel said he wants to stay away from choosing fence materials and design, and he noted that he also dislikes the elimination of slats in chain link fencing. Commissioner Van Pell said he thought this proposal eliminates all fences in the front yard except in the VR District when approved for a subdivision within that district. The Planner said he reads it the same way. Commissioner Deziel said that he liked the idea of ornamental fences such as wrought iron in front yards. Chairman Helwig suggested that picket fences and wrought iron in Stillwater front yards look very nice, and he suggested that maybe the Commission should not eliminate any fences except barbed wire. Commissioner Van Pelt said he would be less prone to shy away from exercising restraint, and we should address the materials issue because the city strictly enforces signs and other issues. The PIanner asked for a consensus about allowing front yard fencing, and whether the Commission should address materials, and front yard fence height. M/SIP, Deziel/Johnson, to direct the Planner to draft the language to allow front yard fencing, allowing opaque fences up to three feet in height, but to set a standard for the fence opacity above three feet. VOTE: 6:0. Commissioner Van Pelt asked that, if the City has a new permit process for fencing, would the City be in the position of having to grant variances? The Planner said the way to deal with exceptions is to use CUP's or Special Exceptions. M/SIP, Van Pelt/Deziel, to prohibit chain link fencing except through Special Exception. VOTE: 3:1:2 (Abstain: Sedro, Deziel). Commissioner Johnson said Licensed Daycare should be one example that should qualify for a Special Exception. Commissioner Johnson stated that she is concerned with some of the subjective language in Kendig's fence standards ordinance proposal. M/SIP, Johnson/Van Pelt, to direct staff to rewrite the sections of Kendig's fence ordinance proposal that address subjective decision processes, and come back to the Planning Commission with a draft VOTE: 6:0. MIS/P, Deziel/Van Pelt, to direct staff to remove item three from Kendig's fence ordinance proposal as unnecessary. VOTE: 6:0. M/SIP, Van Pelt/Deziel, to direct staff to eliminate item five 5 from Kendig's fence ordinance proposal. VOTE: 6:0. Commissioner Van Pelt said that design and materials will have to be addressed, especially in tighter densities where neighborhood character will be a factor. Commissioner Deziel said he would agree if there is enough variety. City Council Update The Planner reported that the Parks Commission had approved an RFP for a new Trails Plan. The Trails Plan would be more of an expansion of prior trail planning documents than a replacement of that earlier work. The Planner said the Concept Plan for Whistling Valley II was modified immediately after the PZ meeting based on the four recommendations made at the Planning Commission, and the Council has approved the Concept Plan unanimously. The Planner said he received the complete draft of the Zoning Ordinance last Friday. The Commission will meet in March to discuss the Zoning Ordinance. Adjourn 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iif i Kimberly Schaff Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004 3