Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 02 2014 PC meeting minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 2, 2014 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, June 2, 2014 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Perri Hite, Adam Blahnik, Eric Spieler and Wade Larson, City Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO MODIFY THE AGENDA DUE TO ITEM 4A BEING DROPPED FROM THE AGENDA AND ITEM 4B RENAMED TO ITEM 4A; THEREFORE, THE AGENDA FOR THE MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION IS APROVED AS AMENDED. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, May 19, 2014 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE,SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A.Sign Ordinance Amendments City Staff is requesting potential amendments to Section 1107 of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to signage. The primary purpose of the amendments include eliminating the sunset provision on sandwich board and banners signs, allowing more features in electronic message or dynamic display signs, and updating other sign provision in the City. Planner Matzke introduced the amendments to Sections 1107.500 1107.1100 of the zoning ordinance related to signage and explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and alternatives. He provided exhibits for the proposed amendments to Section 1107 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commission Comments/Questions: Spieler asked does a business home owner need to get a permit through the City to put up a sign? Planner Matzke require a permit. Spieler asked if there is already a process in place at the City for issuing permits? Planner Matzke replied yes, and stated it is through the Community Development Department. Hite asked what is the maximum height for a sign in the City? 1 Planner Matzke explained the maximum height of a free standing sign as being 20 feet above grade. Blahnik clarified that a homeowner in the HOA cannot display a home occupation sign? Planner Matzke replied that is correct; each association regulates their own covenants and explained it Blahnik asked prior to this, was this action not allowed or not regulated? Planner Matzke replied a little bit of both. He stated at first home occupations or businesses that were run out of the home was not allowed to have a sign; however, some uses may want a small 2-foot square sign to indicate to their client the correct location. Larson asked is there a detail of fees for signage? Planner Matzke replied the fee structure is not included in the sign ordinance. He stated the fees for signs are calculated per size. The fees are regulated yearly and they are adopted in the fee schedule every January. There are different fees for different signs and explained some of those variations. Larson referred to 1107.1100 (prohibited signs) regarding balloon and tethered signs; asking if these are in reference to the rope ones with the balloon at the end of it? Planner Matzke replied yes, that is correct. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:15 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. Public Comment : None. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLANHIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:16 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite stated the changes that are being proposed add additional signage options for local business, provides some consistency for enforcement staff, provides for clarity and understanding in interpreting the sign ordinance yet maintain some aesthetic qualities appropriate for the City. Blahnik supports this proposed amendments. Larson echos comments from fellow Commissioners. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 1107.500 THROUGH 1107.1100 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: None. 2 6. New Business: A.DEV-2014-0011 5953 Cedarwood Street Drainage & Utility Easement Vacation Request. Planner Matzke introduced the drainage and utility easement located and explained the history, current circumstances, issues and alternatives. He provided exhibits showing a general location map and survey. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite asked does the adjacent lots have the same drainage and utility easements? Planner Matzke stated yes, a couple of the lots to the east do; however, it does not extend to the end of the block. He explained this area was platted over thirty years ago so there is limited detail as to why the 25 feet width was done. Hite questioned the 25 foot wide easement being reduced and the northern 15 feet of the current easement, and asked is this the southern 15 feet? Planner Matzke replied the easement lies on the southern area of the property; however, if it is the 25 foot easement; the southernmost area of the easement is the 10 foot easement that would remain. He stated if a full legal description is available, the northern 15 feet of the 25 feet would be vacated. Spieler asked what is stopping the home owner from planting trees or putting up fences in this easement and how would the homeowner know of this easement before review? Planner Matzke replied this generally comes to our attention when a resident inquires about structures or fencing in the easement area. Research is done by staff at that time and generally that is when a large easement area is identified as more than just a side yard drainage. Many times, these homeowners are not aware and are somewhat surprised when they find out they have a large easement area where they planned to put a structure or fence. Spieler asked if it will change the property lines, and do they pay different amount of taxes? Planner Matzke replied no it is basically the City releasing easement rights that is currently for drainage and utility purposes that is no longer needed by the City, leaving the property owner to have maximum rights over that area. Hite stated she supports the recommendation to City Council. She believes it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and there is no public need for the land for public purposes. Spieler supports this. Blahnik supports this. Larson supports this as well. 3 MOTION BY BLANHIK, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 15 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT VACATION AS PROPOSED BY APPLICANT. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. 7. Announcements: A.Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions. Upcoming Next City Council Meeting, Monday, June 9, 2014 Marina Task Force Marina Ordinances o Markley Lake Woods Final Plat o SMSC Registered Land Survey o Upcoming Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, June 16, 2014 Variance Request o Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposed o 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Blahnik, Spieler, and Larson The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 4