Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-04 & 02-23-04 PZMArrROVED: MARCH 29, 2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sessing, Sedro, Deziel, Johnson, Bunn, Pelletier. COUNCILMEMBER PRESENT: Dean Johnston. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Dillerud and Recording Secretary Schaffel. Agenda M/S/P, Johnson/Sessing, To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 7:0. Minutes of February 23, 2004 Commissioner Deziel said that in Diagram One, the solid fencing diagram, left out the corner sight triangle. M/S/P, Deziel/Helwig, Change the final motion to read, "Eliminate the sight triangle only if the fence is 75% open to air and light from the ground up." VOTE: 5:0:2 (Abstain: Sessing/Sedro). M/S/P, Deziel/Johnson, To approve the Minutes of February 23, 2004 as amended. VOTE: 5:0:2 (Abstain: Sessing/Sedro). The Planner provided a new version of Lane Kendig's Fence Ordinance in the packet with the amendments he said he believed the Commission requested. The City Council discussed fencing at the March 2 meeting with direction to the Planning Commission to consider another perspective of fence heights in relationship to lot size. In other words, higher fences allowed in larger lots and lower height allowed in smaller lots. The question the Planner posed was: What if an owner wants more privacy on a smaller lot? He asked the Commissioners what they think of those issues. The Planner also asked the Commission to consider several items: • What is meant by fences only being constructed of "fence materials"? • Which direction should the finished side of a fence face? He reported that most ordinances say it has to face out. • With regard to grade, there might be yards where one is much higher than a neighbor's. That may not be an issue very often in Lake Elmo. • The Planner said the City Attorney recommended a fence setback from property lines for maintenance. Councilmember Johnston said the Commission should be talking about three to four foot fences on smaller lots, and higher fences on larger lots, but the Council never discussed any fence taller than six feet. Large and small lots were not defined, but left to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bunn said she thinks a six foot fence might be necessary in those areas where lots are or 1/3 acre to contain and shield animals and children. Commissioner Pelletier said six feet is excessive, and she likes this plan. Commissioner Deziel said that a swimming pool may require a privacy fence of six feet in height. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004 1 Arr'ROVED: MARCH 29, 2004 Commissioner Helwig asked if the Commission wanted to differentiate between small and large lots. He said it might be a good compromise. He said that six foot fences in front yards would be excessive. M/S/P, Deziel/ Sedro, In the new Fence Code, heights will apply evenly across all lot sizes except for patio and atrium dwellings. VOTE: 7:0. Fence materials were reviewed. Commissioner Deziel said we should not eliminate any materials. Commissioner Sessing said there are many materials that could be used. He said he does not believe the Commission wants to get into personal taste. Commissioner Bunn said the Code could say, "Materials expressly designed for walls." The Planner suggested a list of exclusions instead. Commissioner Deziel suggested excluding unfinished (cinder) block walls. Sedro suggested fence material qualities that will not hold up during the freeze thaw cycle. M/S/P, Sedro/Deziel, To accept the ordinance as written except remove the first sentence of number C I. "Designed or intended for" VOTE: 5:2 Bunn/Pelletier. M/S/P, Sessing/Johnson, Fences must be constructed with the Finish Side out, on the neighbor's side, and the structural portion on the owner's side. VOTE: 7: ®. The Commission decided that grade is not an issue. Commissioner Deziel suggested that if the city requires a survey with the fence permit application, that the Code should not require a fence setback. He observed that, with a 2 foot fence set back required multiple facing fences will have channels four feet wide between them. M/S/P, Sessing/Deziel, No setbacks from property lines will be required for fences. VOTE: 7:0. Commissioner said property line fences, road fences, and screening fences should require a survey. To avoid major disputes between property owners over fence locations, the City should require surveys with fence permit applications. M/S/F, Sedro/Deziel, No surveys will be recommended to build a fence. VOTE: 2:5. Commissioner Bunn said the word, "Opacity," in the ordinance should be replaced with, "Open to air and light." She suggested that at the beginning of the first paragraph, first and second Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004 2 ArrROVED: MARCH 29, 2004 sentences, where it reads, "...the specific design standards found below," the Commission should include that fences may be solid to three feet but cannot exceed six feet in height. The Planner said in paragraph CI for street yards, we could add, "But not in excess of six feet." M/S/P, Bunn/Sedro, Correct the language in the second line of the first paragraph to set a limit of six feet in height. VOTE: 7: The Planner said if we send the code to the City Council as it is drafted, when we don't have Special Exceptions/Special Use Permits in our ordinance yet, it may have to be changed temporarily to Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit Applications come to the Planning Commission. Special Use Permit Applications are administrative in the draft zoning ordinance. M/S/P, Sedro/Sessing, Send the draft Fence Code to the City Council as amended, with language to include "Walls as fences". VOTE: 7:0. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE The Planner reported that the Supreme Court accepted the City's appeal regarding the Metropolitan Council for review. He also reported that the bill for Lake Elmo authored by Rep. Lipman passed the House by sizable majority. The city is now waiting to get a hearing in the Senate. The Planner said the Commission may discuss the Zoning Ordinance on March 29, if he is comfortable with the complete draft by that time. ADJOURN 8:25 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004 3 AMENDED AND APPLVED: MARCH 29, 2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Van Pelt, Ptacek, Meldahl, Deziel, Helwig, Berg, Johnson, Bunn, Pelletier. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Dillerud and Recording Secretary Schaffel. Commissioner Ptacek suggested we add Representative Lipman's Bill as item 5a on the Agenda. M/S/P, Ptacek, Johnson, To accept the Agenda as amended. VOTE: 9:0. Commissioner Johnson pointed out a typographical error in the minutes on page two, third paragraph from the bottom. M/S/P, Johnson, Deziel, Approve Minutes of February 9, 2004 as amended. VOTE: 6:0:3 (Abstain: Bunn Pelletier, Ptacek). The Planner provided a new version of Lane Kendig's Fence Ordinance in the packet with the amendments he said he believed the Commission requested. The Planner suggested that "Open to air and light," is a better term used in place of the word opacity. If you insert open to air and light into number 5 of the draft language, for fences over three feet in height, it sounds much better. Graphics were difficult to find but hopefully this language describes what the Planning Commission means. Commissioner Van Pelt thought chain link on a street facing yard should only be through a permit for Special Exception. The Planner said that in street yards that are also side yards, there would be no fence allowed. If you allow chain link in side yards, that might not work. Commissioner Van Pelt said he did not intend for all chain link fences to have to have Special Exceptions. Commissioner Johnson thought we included chain link in back yards. She suggested we remove the second sentence in item one of the draft language and incorporate it in number five where we are dealing with Special Exceptions in front yards. We may not have to address it in the second sentence of number one. The Planner said that front yards, by common definition, would extend from the house to the street in front. Commissioner Deziel suggested we make a distinction for street facing rather than just front yards. The Planner said solid fencing would only be allowed in rear yards. All street yards would be treated the same whether front, side, or rear. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2004 1 AMENDED AND APPR'uJED: MARCH 29, 2004 Commissioner Bunn thought street and side yards were treated the same if facing a street. She recommended that no chain link should be allowed at all in those situations except with Special Exceptions for security purposes. Traditional back yards could have chain link fencing. Commissioner Van Pelt said that points five and six as written are okay because they are treating both in a common fashion. Commissioner Bunn likes what number five says about front and street yards. The Planner said the diagram in the draft ordinance, number 3, allows any kind of fence on an inside lot line. He asked if the commission wants that for all four sides of a lot with the sight triangle as our current ordinance allows now. He asked if fences should be no taller than three feet in front yards. M/S/P, Bunn/Johnson, To allow solid fences up to the heights indicated on Diagram One, as drawn by the Planner. VOTE: 9:0. The Planner reported that according to our current code, solid fences cannot be more than four feet except from the rear of the house back. The Planner asked if the commission would change anything for cyclone/chain link fencing. Commissioner Bunn said that no fence facing a street can be chain link without a Special Exception permit, but allow six feet of any allowable fencing in a rear yard as in diagram 1, as drawn by the Planner. She said that chain link is inconsistent with other materials requirements. It looks commercial. We regulate all kinds of materials. Commissioner Ptacek said that where six foot fences are allowed, they can be chain link Three foot fences must be decorative/open air fencing. Commissioner Meldahl said new chain link is not like the old style that turns rusty. Commissioner Van Pelt said diagram two, as drawn by the Planner, is a compromise allowing adequate fencing to meet the needs of the residents and meet the spirit of the city. IIe said the commission regularly deals with aesthetics in materials. M/S/P, Ptacek, Van Pelt , To adopt the changes made by the Planner to the fence ordinance with the diagram, and to allow chain link fencing by Special Exception only as shown in diagram two, as drawn by the Planner. VOTE: 8:0:1 (Abstain: Deziel). M/S/P, Deziel/Johnson, To adopt diagram three, as drawn by the Planner, for fences over three feet in front yards. Those fences may be as tall as six feet as long as all that portion above three feet is at least 75% open to air and light. VOTE 9:0. Commissioner Deziel suggested that if fencing above three feet at a sight corner is 75% or more open to air and light we don't have to worry about those triangles. M/S/P, Ptacek /Van Pelt, To recommend that if a fence is 75% open to air and light from the Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2004 2 AMENDED AND APPkv'ED: MARCH 29, 2004 ground up at a street corner, then the sight triangle provision may be eliminated. VOTE 9:0. M/S/P, Johnson/Berg, To eliminate the second sentence in number one of the draft ordinance that says, "Chain link fences may be allowed only by Special Use Permit," and add it to number five of the draft ordinance. VOTE: 9:0 The Planner said he will eliminate the old graphics and add the new ones created tonight in the next draft. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES The Planner reported that the City Council received first of four studies for Old Village Plan — wastewater treatment. The study was received and the item was tabled until the others are completed. He reported that the water supply draft came today from TKDA. The Planner reported that the Minor subdivision and clustering for the The Olsons was approved without changes by the City Council. ADJOURN 8:03 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2004 3 cirr 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 a meeting on Monday, March 29, 2004 at 7:00 n.m. In Council Chambers, Lake Elmo City Hall 3 800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 AGENDA 1) Pledge of Allegiance 2) Agenda 3) Minutes of March 15, 2004 and February 23, 2004 4) Public Hearing: Variance From Front and Side Setbacks — Eisele 5) Amended Site Plan — Hiner Development 6) Zoning Ordinance 7) City Council Update 8) Adjourn The public is invited to attend. two, printed on recycled paper DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sessing, Sedro, Deziel, Johnson, Bunn, Pelletier. COUNCILMEMBER PRESENT: Dean Johnston. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Dillerud and Recording Secretary Schaffel. Agenda M/S/P, Johnson/Sessing, To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 7:0. Minutes of February 23, 2004 Commissioner Deziel said that in Diagram One, the solid fencing diagram, left out the corner sight triangle. M/S/P, Deziel/Helwig, Change the final motion to read, "Eliminate the sight triangle only if the fence is 75% open to air and light from the ground up." VOTE: 5:0:2 (Abstain: Sessing/Sedro). (NOTE. THE MAKERS OF THIS MOTION ARE NOT THE MAKERS OF THE REFERENCED MOTION, RESULTING IN A CONFLICT IN THE RECORD. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT AND CLEAR THE RECORD. THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23 HAVE NOT YET BEEN AMENDED.) M/S/P, Deziel/Johnson, To approve the Minutes of February 23, 2004 as amended. VOTE: 5:0:2 (Abstain: Sessing/Sedro). The Plamier provided a new version of Lane Kendig's Fence Ordinance in the packet with the amendments he said he believed the Commission requested. The City Council discussed fencing at the March 2 meeting with direction to the Planning Commission to consider another perspective of fence heights in relationship to lot size. In other words, higher fences allowed in larger lots and lower height allowed in smaller lots. The question the Planner posed was: What if an owner wants more privacy on a smaller lot? He asked the Commissioners what they think of those issues. The Planner also asked the Commission to consider several items: • What is meant by fences only being constructed of "fence materials"? • Which direction should the finished side of a fence face? He reported that most ordinances say it has to face out. • With regard to grade, there might be yards where one is much higher than a neighbor's. That may not be an issue very often in Lake Elmo. • The Planner said the City Attorney recommended a fence setback from property lines for maintenance. Lake Elmo Planning Cotmnission Minutes of March 15, 2004 DRAFT Councilmember Johnston said the Commission should be talking about three to four foot fences on smaller lots, and higher fences on larger lots, but the Council never discussed any fence taller than six feet. Large and small lots were not defined, but left to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bunn said she thinks a six foot fence might be necessary in those areas where lots are'/a or 1/3 acre to contain and shield animals and children. Commissioner Pelletier said six feet is excessive, and she likes this plan. Commissioner Deziel said that a swimming pool may require a privacy fence of six feet in height. Commissioner Helwig asked if the Commission wanted to differentiate between small and large lots. He said it might be a good compromise. He said that six foot fences in front yards would be excessive. M/S/P, Deziel/ Sedro, In the new Fence Code, heights will apply evenly across all lot sizes except for patio and atrium dwellings. VOTE: 7:0. Fence materials were reviewed. Commissioner Deziel said we should not eliminate any materials. Commissioner Sessing said there are many materials that could be used. He said he does not believe the Commission wants to get into personal taste. Commissioner Bunn said the Code could say, "Materials expressly designed for walls." The Planner suggested a list of exclusions instead. Commissioner Deziel suggested excluding unfinished (cinder) block walls. Sedro suggested fence material qualities that will not hold up during the freeze thaw cycle. M/S/P, Sedro/Deziel, To accept the ordinance as written except remove the first sentence of number Cl. "Designed or intended for" VOTE: 5:2 Bum]/Pelletier. M/S/P, Sessing/Johnson, Fences must be constructed with the Finish Side out, on the neighbor's side, and the structural portion on the owner's side. VOTE: 7: ®. The Commission decided that grade is not an issue. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004 2 DRAFT Commissioner Deziel suggested that if the city requires a survey with the fence permit application, that the Code should not require a fence setback. He observed that, with a 2 foot fence set back required multiple facing fences will have channels four feet wide between them. M/S/P, Sessing/Deziel, No setbacks from property lines will be required for fences. VOTE: 7: Commissioner said property line fences, road fences, and screening fences should require a survey. To avoid major disputes between property owners over fence locations, the City should require surveys with fence permit applications. M/S/F, Sedro/Deziel, No surveys will be recommended to build a fence. VOTE: 2:5. Commissioner Bunn said the word, "Opacity," in the ordinance should be replaced with, "Open to air and light." She suggested that at the beginning of the first paragraph, first and second sentences, where it reads, "...the specific design standards found below," the Commission should include that fences may be solid to three feet but cannot exceed six feet in height. The Planner said in paragraph Cl for street yards, we could add, "But not in excess of six feet." M/S/P, Bunn/Sedro, Correct the language in the second line of the first paragraph to set a limit of six feet in height. VOTE: 7: The Planner said if we send the code to the City Council as it is drafted, when we don't have Special Exceptions/Special Use Permits in our ordinance yet, it may have to be changed temporarily to Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit Applications come to the Planning Commission. Special Use Permit Applications are administrative in the draft zoning ordinance. M/S/P, Sedro/Sessing, Send the draft Fence Code to the City Council as amended, with language to include "Walls as fences". VOTE: 7: CITY COUNCIL UPDATE The Planner reported that the Supreme Court accepted the City's appeal regarding the Metropolitan Council for review. He also reported that the bill for Lake Elmo authored by Rep. Lipman passed the House by sizable majority. The city is now waiting to get a hearing in the Senate. The Plainer said the Commission may discuss the Zoning Ordinance on March 29, if he is comfortable with the complete draft by that time. Lalce Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004 3 DRAFT ADJOURN 8:25 PM. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of March E 5, 2004 4