Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0212962. 3. 4. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, February 12, 1996 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding driveway width. Consider an Ordinance amending Title 5, Sections 5-5-10, of the City Code and Sections 6.11 (E) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6. Old Business: New Business: The Wilds Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: 16200 F_~gia~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota F~172-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 The February 12, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kuykendall at 7:01 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Loftus, Wuellner and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Criego Present Wuellner Present Vonhof Present Loftus Absent Kuykendall Present REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 22, 1996 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Loftus arrived at 7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING DRIVEWAY WIDTH. The public hearing was opened and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Assistant Planner Deb Garross presented the information in the Planning Report dated February 12, 1996. Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a motion to City Council to adopt the proposed amendment as written or with changes. Comments by Commissioners: Criego: Question: What do other communities have for widths for commerical driveways? Garross replied this standard is typical and has been used by the City of Prior Lake, especially out in the Office Park. Staff felt this issue had to be clarified in the MN021296.DOC PAGE 1 Ordinance. It is a width that is workable as far as fire and safety access as well being able to maneuver large trucks. Question: In a residential area where you may have a commerical conditional use permit, how does that apply? Garross explained this amendment is written for the specific uses and not tied to the zoning district itself. Wuellner: Question: Is there a limit to the number of driveways commercial or residential property can have? Garross explained it was not. Vonhof: Question: All the other provisions that provide for driveways, like setbacks would still apply? Garross replied "Yes". Loftus: Garross explained this issue has been around for the year or two and should have been addressed earlier in the Zoning Ordinance. It came about recently because of the commerical development and new buildings and will be used quite often. Kuykendall: · Comment on minimum slope of one half percent. · Traffic concern especially County Road 42 - Scott County standards would apply? · Rye said Scott County will not allow direct commerical/industrial traffic on to County Road 42 at all. · Concern for a far wide right turn - if they have to swing out to make the comer. The alternative is to have a one-way directional slope (one-way in, one-way out). · Possibly at another time the City should research one way entrances. · Supports staff's recommendation and act positively. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN TO AMEND SECTION 6.5D OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. Votes taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Criego,' Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Kuykendall closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. The public heating was opened and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. MN021296.DOC PAGE 2 Associated Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated February 12, 1996. Staff recommends the Planning Commission to direct a motion to City Council to adopt the proposed amendment as written or with changes. Leek read a letter from Jeanne Robbins and Eric Davis who are in opposition of the proposed changes to the Ordin~ce. Comments from the audience: Tom Foster, 5795 Shannon Trail, commented on the proposal indicating the see-through visibility should be equal to a chain link fence. Mr. Foster said he has seen chain link fences that have inserts in them and maybe there should be additional definition. Question of whether the existing fences would be grandfather in. Leek answered "Yes". Linda Wiecher, 5455 Shore Trail, stated she fully supports the draft. Peter Brodin, 5425 Shore Trail, supports the spirit of the amendment. Question on the enforcement and is a permit required? Rye stated there is not a permit required for a fence and would be enforced on a complaint basis. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: · Leek explained the purpose of the Ordinance. Felt the comments were good by Jeanne Robbins and Eric Davis' letter. · Enforcement question is good. Someone in the middle of construction would have to remove or stop construction of the fence. It would be more rational to have this go through the permit process. Otherwise without some mechanism to discover before the fence is built it is just inviting trouble. Leek explained the problems with the permit process and the volume of permits. If the City requires a fence in the lakeshore setback area, the City will have to require a permit for any fence built in the City. It is a lot of volume on top of a large volume of permits already. Rye commented the City has a number of ordinances that are primarily enforced through a complaint basis. Simply, there is not enough time available to the staffthat is here, it is impossible to go out and keep on top of everything that goes on in this community. And it is getting to be more so than less. Vonhof: · It seems the City has taken a middle road stand. In looking over the survey of the other cities, they generally prohibit any fencing within the 75' lakeshore setback MN021296. DOC PAGE area. Prior Lake is going half way, while not prohibiting fences, the City is limiting them. Leek explained City Council did not want to come down so hard that fences were not permitted at all but they did want to protect sight line issues for lakeshore properties. Note they were also sensitive to fences for pools which are required. · Supports this Ordinance and would go further to support an amendment prohibiting them. The letter by Jeanne Robbins and Eric Davis brought up good points. · If the variance criteria were met fences could be allowed. · Personally feel the chain link fences along the lake are unattractive. Wuellner: · Leek explained the lakeshore accessory structures. · Limited visibility. · A natural vegetation fence could be put in for privacy. · The hardship criteria would be the same as the variance criteria. · Safety issues for fencing along lake. · People who live on the lake have more property regulations compared to the people who do not live on the lake. This just another one of the those rules that do not have any substance to it that are going to be restrictive to the people who pay a great amount of taxes who live on the lake. · A privacy fence in my opinion is not unreasonable. It can be enhancing to the lifestyle not only within the confines of the privacy fence but on either side of it as well. · Does not support this. Criego: · Initial response was negative. · Prior Lake is unique with homes close to the lake, others far. Some of the ones close to the lake are old cabins and someone might want to put up a hedge. A hedge is prettier than a fence and could solve the problem. · There are many lake entrances by snowmobiles. If you are a neighbor living next to a snowmobile trail you might elect to put up a fence. · Would prefer to see no fences than go half way. But there are going to be situations where fences are appropriate. · Rye explained there are a number of reasons a person needs a fence. Criteria do not work well with ancillary things like fences and accessory structures. They work well with a principal structure. Kuykendall: · Generally feels opposed to any fence in that area. · Most of the cities in the survey generally favor no fence. · "Fence" should be defined as opposed to any other kind of barrier. · Aesthetically, fences are not attractive. MN021296. DOC PAGE 4 · Understands the neighbor's perspective to keep the view open. · If the problem is keeping children or animals confined, that can be accomplished within the 75' setback. · If a person wants privacy there is a certain area within the property which can be achieved with a solid fence or chain link fence. · Creative landscape can accomplish both privacy and safety. Sees the practical issue of e_nforcement. · If the Ordinance is in place it should require a survey and a permit. The burden ends up being a costly process for the homeowner. · Does not like self-enforcing. · Does not meet the intent of the whole setback area of the lakeshore. · Opposed. Open discussion: Loftus: · This is a freedom vs. regulation issue. Lean toward the freedom side. Because this covers the entire shoreland district I am not comfortable without having first hand knowledge of what the uses are. If it is an abuse situation the City should address the problem. If it is a single issue, it should not be made into an enforcement issue. Vonhof: · The reason we have a special shoreland district is because the City is deemed a significant area that needs special protections and has different regulations .entirely than any other residential district in the city. We have accepted the fact on many occasions that the lakeshore has special restrictions. Nobody has purchased a home on the lake that is not aware to some degree that there are some restrictions. It is a unique area and needs special protection. This is a situation that applies to everything in the city. As it is written, it will effect all existing fence today which would automatically become a non-conforming use. This is all future based. We are getting a little tied up on what is existing and what is the future. I agree with the setback averaging and would go further and make it illegal to have fences at all within the area because there are altematives. The objective is to deal with the fact of sight lines on the property. Criego: · The ordinance is too restrictive. The variance process could solve the problem. Wuellner: · Disagree the variance process would solve anything. When there is no problem why set up a more restrictive ordinance. Kuykendalh · Recommend no fences. MN021296. DOC PAGE 5 - · Need definition of"fence". No one has provided a hardship. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO NOT RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES 1N THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. Leek pointed out staff had no re_commendation for support. The reason is the December report to City Council concluded and recommended that staff did not see rationale at this point in time for adopting an amendment. It is before the Commission because the Council disagreed with staff. Rationale: Lack of enforcement is not supportive to this ordinance. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall. Nays by Vonhof. MOTION PASSED. Commissioner Kuykendall closed the public heating. New Business: The Wilds There was a brief discussion on The Wilds issues and its financial affects on the City. Rye explained the worst case would be if they were in a condition where nothing happened for an extended period of time. The City will not be out. The golf course is successful. Commissioner Kuykendall will not be at the next meeting. The workshop is scheduled for March 23, 1995. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Criego, Vonhof and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN021296.DOC PAGE 6