HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-08 work session . Meeting Notes
Planning Commission Work Session.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Marion Conference Room
The Planning: Commission work session commenced at 7:10 p.m. in the Marion Conference
Room at City Hall.
Commissioners Present: Chair Drotning, Davis, Glad, Grenz, Lillehei, Pattee.
Staff Present: Planning Director Daryl Morey and Assistant City Engineer Jay Rubash.
.Also Present: Ron Gerk, 10466 - 175t" Street.
Unsewered Lot Area Exceptions
Mr. Morey introduced the discussion of unsewered lot area exceptions for wetlands, steep
slopes, etc. by explaining the definition of lot area and stating that the minimum gross lot area of
any lot does not have to exceed 100% due to the exclusions listed in the definition. He stated
that this definition of lot area, which took effect on January 1, 1994, has worked well for lots with
City sanitary sewer. However, City staff was recently approached by the owner of an
• unsewered, 23 acre parcel. wishing to administratively subdivide. his property. Because the
property includes a large wetland, the two proposed parcels would not meet the minimum 10
acre lot area required for unsewered parcels given the definition of lot area. requiring that the
wetland be excluded.
The Planning Commission agreed to consider exceptions to the. lot area definition for
unsewered lots incorporating the following possible provisions:
• Each parcel must be at Jeast 10 acres in area with a minimum contiguous buildable lot
area of at least 2.5 acres excluding wetlands, steep slopes, etc.
• The properties must meet the plumbing code requirements for private sewer systems.
• A ghost plat must be provided by the property owner taking into consideration the future
wetland and buffer area that would be deeded to the City if/when the property is platted.
The Planning Commission directed. staff to prepare a more detailed analysis of the proposed lot
area exceptions for unsewered parcels incorporating their recommended provisions for
discussion at a future work session.
Fence Setback Requirements
Mr. Morey introduced the discussion of fence setback requirements by explaining the history of
what has been an age old issue -the potential of a neighbor feud and how that relates to the.
- location and maintenance of boundary fences. He s#ated that Chapter 11-21-5 of the Zoning
• Ordinance currently requires a wood or similar type fence that needs periodic maintenance to
be set back at least two feet from a side or rear property line unless a fence agreement for right
Planning Commission Work Session
May 1, 2008
of entry and maintenance is signed by the adjoining property owners and an administrative
permit is approved by the City. The potential four foot wide "alley" that is created when wood
privacy fences are set back two feet from the property line on adjoining properties creates a
potential maintenance problem as well Building Inspections staff .recommends that this setback
requirement be eliminated and all #enees be allowed up to the side and rear property lines.
The Planning Commission made the following comments:
• The fence must be installed entirely upon the property for which the fence permit is
being requested.
• If the property owner constructing the fence cannot locate their property irons, a
boundary survey will be required.
• The property irons must be inspected by City staff after the fence is installed to verify the
fence was constructed as permitted.
The Planning Commission directed staff to set a public hearing for an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance incorporating the comments made at this work session.
Freeway Corridor Commercial Sign Regulations
Mr. Morey provided the Planning Commission with an update on the City Council's review of the
Comfort Inn sign variance request. He stated that at their April 21St meeting the City Council
tabled action on the Comfort Inn sign variance and directed staff to .prepare findings of fact for
approval of the variance request. The City Council further directed staff and the Planning
Commission to review the Zoning Ordinance with respect to freeway corridor commercial sign
regulations as soon as possible. As such, staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide
staff with direction for a detailed study of freeway corridor commercial sign regulations for
discussion at a future work session.
The .Planning Commission made the following comments:
• How many existing and potential future businesses are/will be located within the freeway
corridor area as currently defined?
• Review and possibly narrow the definition of freeway corridor area, which is currently
defined as follows:. "A special signing area encompassing land located within 1,500 feet
either side (east/west) of the centerline of Interstate 35."
• City staff to obtain freeway commercial sign ordinance requirements from similarly sized
outer ring Twin Cities suburbs for comparison purposes.
• .City staff to obtain clarification from MNDOT regarding the specific reasons why the blue
freeway informational signs were removed following the interim 1-35/SCAR 50
interchange improvements. In addition, City staff to ask MNDOT if the ability to turn left
from the middle lane of the southbound off ramp was taken into consideration_in their
decision to remove the signs.
• .City staff to obtain information regarding the minimum safe distances to make lane
changes at certain speeds.
• Businesses that draw transient travelers should be taken into consideration for possible
increased sign height in the freeway corridor area.
2
Planning Commission Work Session
May 1, 2008
• Take the elevation of the freeway in relation to the elevation of the business into
consideration in determining appropriate sign height requirements in the freeway corridor
area.
• Explore the possibility of utilizing an interim use permit for increased sign height for a
specific business in .the freeway corridor area. Possible triggering mechanisms for
removal of the taller sign through the interim use permit are:
• Change in the use of the property.
• Change in the ownership of the property.
• Following the completion of the ultimate I-35/CSAH 50 interchange improvements.
• Solicit input from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Lakeville Area
.Chamber of Commerce.
Staff stated that they will follow upon the Planning Commission's direction and schedule
additional discussion at a future work session.
.The work session. was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
R pectfully submitted,
U~
-Daryl M ey, Pla ni Director
3