Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 21 2015 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 21, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Larson called the Monday, September 21, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness and Community Development Specialist Casey McCabe. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, September 8, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSON, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO TABLE THE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. Amendments to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to Fences – Consideration of amendments regarding Section 1101, General Provision, related to Fences. Community Development Specialist McCabe introduced a consideration recommending certain amendments to Section 1101 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to fences. He explained the history, current circumstances, zoning ordinance amendment findings, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance Subsection 1101.504 (current) and Amendments to Subsection 1101.504 (proposed). Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen questioned the section regarding maintenance of fencing and asked if there a restriction on color of fences. Development Specialist McCabe replied per the Code Enforcer comments is would include chipping and peeling paint; as far as staining a fence that would not be enforced. He read Letter J in section 2 in the proposed amendments. He stated there are no restriction on colored fences. Peterson asked is four feet the maximum a fence can be. Development Specialist McCabe replied the maximum height is based on an average of the fence or wall. 2 Blahnik asked is an animal kennel/run considered livestock fence and does all the fencing requirements apply to livestock fence. Development Specialist McCabe explained the differences between a kennel and livestock fence as well as the material used for each and stated the Agricultural District fencing meets the general fences and wall restrictions for all districts. Blahnik stated there is requirements on fencing that applies to agricultural districts but no reference to live stock fencing, leaving it potentially construed. Development Specialist McCabe said he would note to add with recommendation from the Commissioners to have information on livestock fencing added. Larson asked to review the building permits versus the zoning permits and if one has more detail to it. Development Specialist McCabe explained a 7 foot fence and higher would require a building permit. All fences under 7 feet in height need a zoning permit. The building permit is a little more detail to it. Fleming asked why wouldn’t we require the same specifications for chain link fences in the Industrial District that we do in the Commercial District. Development Specialist McCabe replied this could be changed; staff felt that chain link coating would look better in the general business, however was not require for the Industrial District. Fleming would like to propose this be added for all districts to keep it uniform and looking nice throughout. Larson asked if we knew the price on the vinyl coated versus uncoated. Development Specialist McCabe responded he did not know the price differences. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:20 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Public Comment: John Trulson, 14296 Rutgers Street. He stated he has lived her since 1955. He owned many properties over the years but his current home of 46 years had been red tagged for fencing. He explained his efforts of working with the Bruce Huemoeller to change ordinances. He shared concerns of fighting neigbors, privacy fences blocking views, home improvements, variances, covering the lake and common sense on setbacks. Blahnik asked if Mr. Trulson if his is looking for a certain restrictions or guidance against fencing on the lake. 3 Fleming stated he understands the common sense and confirmed with Mr. Trulson if he is looking for setbacks or fence restrictions. Trulson said he doesn’t want a big fence down the yard covering his view from the lake. Fleming looked to Development Specialist McCabe for assistance in opacity requirement for fences on the side lot line. Development Specialist McCabe explained where fences are allowed stating this ordinance is not changing from the current ordinance. He explained the 904 fence requirements and said they are also not changing from the current ordinance. Fleming would like additional information regarding how many homes there are that have recently requested fences and what they are asking for. Trulson asked if Green Heights are building fences between their property and residential property. He shared his concerns on the view of a bay area. Fleming said he does not have clarity on that Green Heights. He stated that every resident has a different common sense view on privacy and their property. He said that we as Commissioners need to protect common sense but also neighbor’s property rights. Larson asked if this is a common complaint regarding blocking views with fences. Development Specialist McCabe replied there are a few fences that go down to the 904. He stated we don’t receive many requests for fences on the lake; nor complaints regarding fences on the lake. Larson asked Mr. Trulson for clarification on his request regarding site view. Ms. Trulson, talking in Mr. Trulson absence, explained her property is inside a bay. She explained a neighbor having issues with another neighbor plan to build a fence that would their house with a closed view from our patio. Larson asked if this was a patio away from a house. Ms. Trulson said correct. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:36 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming stated he would like to have the same requirements or coding on the chain link fence in the Industrial Use District aligning with the use in the Commercial Use District. Blahnik stated he would be in support of these proposed amendments to the fencing ordinance with the one modification as well as the clarification on the Agricultural District fencing for livestock. He said this 4 is a public need for these Amendments and does opens up option for the individuals. He likes the two front yards to be eliminated for corner lots to open up fencing options. He said the Amendments accomplish the purposes of the Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan and is consistence with other State and Federal Requirements, therefore is in support of these Amendments with the two conditions as stated. Fleming added the proposed Amendments begin to help us establish a set of criteria that can be followed by future businesses and individuals. Petersen stated he supports these amendments and agrees with the vinyl fence and livestock clarification. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO RECCOMEMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1101 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO FENCING AS PROPOSED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CONTINUTY BETWEEN THE INDUSTR IAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND THE CLARIFICATION ON THE AGRCULTURAL PORTION. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Review Access Easement for Conformance to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – 3995 Pershing Avenue – Director Rogness introduced this item stating a property owner at 3995 Pershing Street has a driveway that crosses City property which include a City owned Outlot and the other is park property. He mentioned a proposed easement agreement between the City and this property owner is needed for this to remain. He explained the reasoning why this is being brought to the Planning Commission stating it is a step we must go through to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Petersen asked if the neighbors are being informed on this and if there was a cost to inquire this land by the homeowner. Director Rogness replied notification would be done by the engineering department, but felt it wasn’t a requirement to do so. He stated if they would like to purchase the easement, yes there would be a cost. Larson asked if there were other lots outside of Lot 7. Director Rogness responded that it doesn’t seem to be as it is a dead end. Petersen asked seeing there is park land, there would never be houses there, correct. Director Rogness replied yes, correct. Fleming asked if the look of this is relative to the rest of the park. Director Rogness replied that it was an unpaved driveway and unsure if it still is. The agreement would attempt to handle any criteria that is not in compliance with the code to be required. 5 Petersen asked if the homeowner is aware that there could be fee’s and etc. for the updated of criteria. He questioned if the driveway could be moved over. Director Rogness replies yes to both questions. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES BECAUSE IT COMPLIES WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carries. Business days. 6. New Business: No New Business. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates:  September 14 Meeting o Carriage Hills 5th Addition Final Plat  Approved  Controlled Access Lots o Tabled do to only three of five members. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite and Larson. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant