08-05-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 2014 Page 3 of 4 City Planner Johnson provided overview of the comp plan amendment and the background of the request. Mr. Johnson also explained the RAD–ALT category. It was noted that the removal of this land use category will have no impact on meeting density targets. Mr. Johnson explained that the Planning Commission recommended one additional finding regarding the 2040 Thrive projections being met with the elimination of this land use category. Council Member Smith asked for clarification on parcel sizes. She asked if the city has received any proposals. Staff responded that they are aware of proposals being discussed, but planning staff has not received any submissions to date. The issue of other parcels that do not meet the minimum development standards was discussed. City Administrator Zuleger noted that the City has received several inquiries from property owners who would like to subdivide their land, but do not have the minimum acreage under current ordinance. Council Member Reeves asked about the future development potential of the subject parcels. Mr. Johnson explained that the current OP category is being reviewed for revision. The supermajority exception for the OP developments was explained. Mayor Pearson asked about staff recommendation in 2010 when the last parcel was changed. Mr. Johnson said staff’s recommendation was to oppose it at the time. Ms. Smith asked when the 50% open space rule apply to RAD-ALT. Mr. Johnson explained the OP Rules applied to RAD-ALT. Ms. Smith claimed that the current RAD-ALT intent was to allow half-acre lots. She did not recall when that changed that it was explained to Council. The application of the RAD rules to the subject properties was discussed. The comp plan language was provided, which confirmed the OP rules application to RAD-ALT. Mick Lynskey spoke on behalf of the Green family who could not attend. The Green’s hired him after the senior housing and farm school failed to develop. He suggested that changing the zoning would be considered a taking. He asked that the previous allegation of spot-zoning not impact the current zoning. Larry Weiss, 9302 Stillwater Blvd., asserted that most of the surrounding neighbors do not want the classification. He asked Council to change the zoning back to RAD. Terry Emerson, 2204 Lincoln Lane N., wants two building spots on the 9 acre portion of his property. He explained the nature of his property. The drainage issues were discussed. Mr. Johnson clarified the OP standards. Mr. Emerson said that he had met with staff to discuss developing his land. Ed Neilson, 9498 Stillwater Blvd., supports changing the parcels back to RAD. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO DENY RESOLUTION NO. 2014-64, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE RAD-ALT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND AS REFERENCED IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PLAN AND TO CHANGE ALL PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY GUIDED AS RAD-ALT TO RAD. There was no second. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-64 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE RAD-ALT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND AS REFERENCED IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PLAN AND TO CHANGE ALL PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY GUIDED AS RAD-ALT TO RAD. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. Council Member Bloyer struggles with this decision. While he respects property rights, he is concerned about the proper zoning. Council Member Smith stated that councils are allowed to amend comp plans. This was done by the previous Council. She asserted that the City gave the owners property rights and changing it would be a taking. She also explained why she did not believe the previous rezoning was not a case of “spot-zoning.” City Attorney Snyder explained the legal description of spot-zoning and down-zoning or taking. Because no action by the owners has been taken, such as a preliminary plat approval, there are no vested property rights; therefore this would not constitute a legal taking. Changing the zoning is a policy decision that the Council must consider.