HomeMy WebLinkAbout012604
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. Case #04-04 An amendment to Section 1109.500 requiring new single family
residential structures to include the location of future decks.
B. Case #04-05 An amendment to Section 1101.800 designating the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) Use District as the Zoning District for newly annexed land.
C. Case #04-06 An amendment to Section 1101.504 clarifying the listed fence
regulations pertain to fences within Residential Use Districts.
D. Case #04-07 An amendment to Section 1108.200 changing the procedure for
approval of conditional use permits to allow the Planning Commission to make
the final decision.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Discuss Vice-Chair position.
9. Adjournment:
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pcAgenda\AGOI2604.DOC .ty f . I k
WWW.CIOpnOrae.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004
1. Call to Order:
Acting Chairman Atwood called the January 26, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad
and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent*
*Stamson arrived at 6:38 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the January 12, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Atwood read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #04-04 An amendment to Section 1109.500 requiring new single family
residential structures to include the location of future decks.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated January 26, 2004, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
On December 15,2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
workshop where they discussed nine potential ordinance amendments. One of which
addressed amending the ordinance to require a future deck to be shown on a survey for a
new dwelling. The Council and Commission supported the amendment and directed staff
to prepare language.
Section 1109.500 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a building permit be issued prior to
the construction, alteration, or expansion of a structure. An application for a building
permit shall include a survey showing existing and proposed structures, unless exempted
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNO 12604.doc 1
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26,2004
under Section 1109.600. The current ordinance does not require that future additions or
structures be noted on the survey.
The proposed amendment promotes efficacy in the City's judicial and legislative bodies.
It attempts to eliminate or reduce the need for rear yard setback variance applications.
The language is consistent with the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes.
Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. This proposal will eliminate some of the confusion we saw with the three
variance/appeals in 2003.
. Cynthia laid this proposal out very well.
. Support.
Lemke:
. Clarified the proposed ordinance - is there any assurance that a second buyer
would be aware of this recorded document? Kansier and Kirchoff responded by
explaining the recording and building permit process.
. Kansier said one safeguard has to do with the fact they will not be able to put up a
patio or ledger board so it will not appear as if a deck is allowed. A second or
third home buyer will not have the expectation a deck can go there.
. Support. Agree with staff s Findings, there is a public need for the amendment.
. This will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the ordinances.
Perez:
. Agreed the loopholes will be covered.
. The fact there will be no doors or ledger boards will eliminate the impression of a
future deck.
. Support.
Atwood:
. Supported staff's Findings.
. Felt if the document is recorded it will be disclosed at the time of closing.
. Ringstad gave a brief background on the closing process. Hopefully realtors will
encourage prospective buyers to do some of the research at City Hall to check on
the history of the property.
. There is a sense of clarity for future builders and homeowners.
Stamson:
. Does not have a problem with this. This came out of deck situations from 2003.
The applicants were well aware of the deck requirements. The builders did not
allow space for a deck.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 2
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26,2004
· Another situation was a professional builder where we can assume he knew what
he was doing not allowing a space for a deck. The deck was added illegally
without a permit.
· This amendment does not solve the cases referred to. The amendment might be
clearer in some situations but this did not make any steps in solving the problem.
· The real issue is to maintain the ordinance as written. Writing more is not going
to make it simpler if we don't follow them anyway. The existing ordinance was
clear before. In all cases the applicants were aware of the situations.
· Atwood pointed out decks at Sand Pointe Development.
. Stamson said that was fine, the decks probably were not illegal. People put up
ledger boards and don't get around to building decks for a while.
. Kansier explained assumptions are made that applicants can just get deck
variances. This amendment should eliminate the assumption by not allowing the
ledger and patio boards. Residents won't assume they will have a deck.
. It would help with fraudulent behavior, but the 2003 variance cases, the applicants
were well aware there was no space for decks. It was a conscience decisions to
ignore the ordinance.
. This amendment does not address those variance cases.
Lemke:
. This will avoid the patio doors with no place to build a deck.
Stamson:
. It doesn't stop people from putting in patio doors after the City inspects it. It
won't solve the problem. It might make it clear for people who follow the rules
and are clear on what should happen anyway.
. The 2003 deck variances were situations where people did not follow the rules.
· Don't know if you can write rules - we just need to hold them accountable. That
was the failure.
· Support the ordinance. It moves us a little forward but will address the issues that
it grew out of.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on February 17,2004.
B. Case #04-05 An amendment to Section 1101.800 designating the R-l (Low
Density Residential) Use District as the Zoning District for newly annexed land.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 26,
2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 3
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26,2004
The purpose of this amendment is to apply a zoning designation to property upon
annexation.
In October, 2003, the State of Minnesota approved an orderly annexation agreement
between the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township. This agreement established a
schedule for annexation of approximately 3,000 total acres of land located in Sections 4,
10, 11 and 12, Spring Lake Township. The first phase of this agreement will occur in
2004, with the annexation of approximately 380 acres of land. The City also continues to
receive inquiries and requests to annex land with the Orderly Annexation Area.
In December, 2003, the City Council approved an amendment to the City of Prior Lake
2020 Comprehensive Plan Map, adding the 380 acres and designating the majority of this
area as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential). The City is also in the process of
amending and updating the Comprehensive Plan to include all of the area within the
Orderly Annexation Agreement.
Currently, when property is annexed into the City there is no automatic zoning
designation applied to the property. It is up to the property owner to petition for a
rezoning or the City Council must initiate the procedure.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota statutes. Based upon the
findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 6:50.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Concurred with staff's recommendation and supports the ordinance as it is
consistent with Federal and State Laws.
Ringstad:
. Agreed there is a public need.
. It will avoid potential confusion with the scheduled annexations. It is important;
it treats all the properties fairly with the same designation.
. Support.
Lemke:
. Agreed there is a public need for this amendment.
· It will streamline the annexation process and everyone will know the designation.
. Support.
Perez:
· Is there a reason we went to this option (Rl)? Kansier responded this was the
favored option and the most simple to work with. It makes sense in terms of
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 4
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26, 2004
additional hearings, added expense for property owners and more confusion. This
is the most consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· Agreed - this will make sense and the annexed property needs to be zoned.
Stamson:
· Had a few reservations at the workshop however, after reading this, it makes more
sense. Likes the approach Jordan took with the special district. This annexation
area is really Rl. This is easier for people who own property and will now clearly
know the designation.
. This is the fairest.
. Support.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on February 17,2004.
C. Case #04-06 An amendment to Section 1101.504 clarifying the listed fence
regulations pertain to fences within Residential Use Districts.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated January 26, 2004, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment is to clarify the fence ordinance
applies only to residential properties. Section 1101.504 of the Zoning Ordinance
regulates the location and height of fences, but does not distinguish between residential
and commercial/industrial fences.
The fence ordinance was adopted in May 1999. On February 3,2003, the City Council
approved an amendment to the fence ordinance regulating the height and location of
fences in front yards on comer lots along collector streets.
The only purpose of this amendment is to clarify the existing ordinance pertains only to
residential use districts. Currently, Section 1101.504 allows fences six to eight feet in
height. While not specifically stated, it is inferred this provision is meant for Residential
Use Districts, because required fences in Commercial and Industrial Use Districts may be
greater than the height limitation. This amendment adds "Residential Use Districts" to the
existing language in order to clarify this intent. Commercial and industrial fences will
not be regulated by the existing fence ordinance.
Staff recommended approval based on the Findings.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 5
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26, 2004
Perez asked if there were recent issues to bring this amendment up. Kansier said not
specifically, staffmade the interpretation regarding outdoor storage about whether a
fence could be higher than 6 feet. The portion of the ordinance was specific to residential
zones based on where it was in the ordinance. Staff is trying to clear up the
interpretation.
There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Questioned the last two buildings constructed off Commerce Avenue. It seems
the developer had to berm and fence the area. Kansier responded that was under
the pre-1999 ordinance. The intention was to have a combination and not just a
tall blockade fence.
. The concern is a fence between a commercial and residential property. Although
it is legal it will be unsightly on the residential side. That is my sole concern.
. Kansier responded reading the new ordinance and explained potential situations.
. Will support.
Lemke:
. Agreed - the Commission looked at other ordinances and this will clarify the
matter.
. There is a public need. Support
Perez:
. Agreed.
Ringstad:
. This as more of a housekeeping issue. Support.
Atwood:
. Support for the reasons already stated.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on February 17,2004.
D. Case #04-07 An amendment to Section 1108.200 changing the procedure for
approval of conditional use permits to allow the Planning Commission to make the
final decision.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 6
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26,2004
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 26,
2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On December 15,2003, the Planning Commission and the City Council conducted a
workshop directing staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing the
Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permits.
Section 1108.200 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose and intent, standards, and
procedure for a conditional use permit. The changes to this language are relatively
simple. The references to the City Council have generally been replaced by a reference
to the Planning Commission. In Section 1108.206, which specifically discusses the
approval process, it is noted the Planning Commission can approve or deny the CUP.
The paragraphs referring to the City Council's approval process have been deleted.
Finally, a new Section 1108.219 has been added. This section notes the decision of the
Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
The purpose of this amendment is to simplify the existing procedure for a CUP. The
amendment will eliminate a step to the process and save an applicant anywhere from 2 to
3 weeks in the approval process. The amendment still provides an applicant the
opportunity to appeal any decision on a CUP to the City Council.
Staff recommended approval.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed at 7:06 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. As a resident of the City I am very happy this is streamlined and there are
safeguards.
. Like a variance this can be appealed at the City Council level.
. From a City Council standpoint it takes something off their table that can be fairly
routine.
. Support.
Ringstad:
. Agreed and support. It is a win-win for the community and City Council. The
affected parties can still appeal.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Commissioners' comments.
Perez:
. Agreed as it is consistent with the 2020 Vision as far as streamlining processes.
. Support.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 7
Planning Commission Meetings
January 26, 2004
Lemke:
. Agreed with Stamson - any time we can save 2 to 3 weeks on the approval
process with time and money we are serving our citizens well.
. There are safeguards.
. Is a time limit specified in the amendment? Kansier responded it was. The
maximum time is 120 days required by State Law. The time will be cut down
from 60 days to around 45 days.
. Is there a time for appeal? Kansier responded the appeal process does not specify
5 days, however staff can be directed to do so.
. Support with the additional condition.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED DIRECTING STAFF TO
CLARIFY SECTION TO INCLUDE THE 5 DAY APPEAL PROCESS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will go before the City Council on February 17,2004.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Discuss Vice-Chair position.
After a brief discussion, Commissioner Lemke nominated Commissioner Atwood as Vice
Chair, Commissioner Perez seconded the nomination. Commissioner Atwood consented.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER
MARGI ATWOOD AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Atwood is Vice Chair.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04pc Minutes\MN012604.doc 8
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
~;;)(,. ocf
The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to
all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to
speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new
information.
Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter.
Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible
except under rare occasions.
The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter.
Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
N.1ME ADDRESS
0L~~ &-w...l~ '''3').7 I/'- c P-r;-(j ~ (1lh,_ fE f?(
cr r
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP .doc