HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 11 - Pages from PZ Minutes 1-27-14Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-27-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of January 27, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Yocum, Dodson, Haggard, Dorschner, Kreimer
and Larson;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lundgren and Morreale; and
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt
Approve Agenda:
Agenda accepted as published.
Approve Minutes: December 13, 2013
M/S/P:Kreimer/Dorschner, move to accept the minutes as presented, Vote: 6-0.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Livestock Ordinance.
Klatt began his presentation by explaining that they are proposing to move the Livestock
Ordinance to a comprehensive animal chapter in the code. This change will redefine
commercial and private kennels, amend the table and provide for private and
commercial kennels through permitted or conditional uses, and allow the keeping of
chickens and bees on parcels greater than half an acre with a permit review. The biggest
change would allow domestic farm animals on 5 acres vs. the previous 10 acres and will
slightly increase the animal equivalent units.
Dodson asked if the chart would be included and if it is cumulative and can interchange
animals. Klatt explained that yes it is cumulative. The Planning Commission thought the
point system seemed a little confusing and it should be made a little clearer by getting
away from the decimal system. Klatt stated that the chart would not be included in the
code, but was being use for illustrative purposes.
Larson asked what someone’s recourse would be if there was negative impact from the
smell of turkeys or chickens on smaller acreage. Klatt stated that we have nuisance and
PCA standards to fall back on. Also, on smaller acreage if someone isn’t taking good
care of the area, the permit could be revoked or not renewed.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-27-14
Haggard asked about the setbacks for bee hives. Klatt stated that this should probably
be looked at.
Dorschner asked if there would be a site visit along with the permit. Klatt stated that if
the Planning Commission felt that was important, it could be made part of the
standards.
Dodson was wondering if there were any animals that we specifically want to exclude.
He also felt that llama should be part of the goat category.
Public hearing opened at 7:48pm.
Written comment was received from Mr. Bob Engstrom in favor of the keeping of bees.
Public hearing closed at 7:49pm.
Larson asked about sounds created by animals, for instance, peacocks can be very noisy.
Dodson stated that we need to somewhat tolerant of smell and sounds if we want to
live in a rural area.
The Planning Commission thought the definition of chicken was too loose and should be
re-worded. Klatt agreed and would check with the clerk to see if it can just be taken
out.
Williams asked why the first permit was good for 2 years and only 1 year thereafter. It
seems backwards. Kreimer stated that it is probably because the year you apply in
would not be a stub year and it would be good the full year after that. Dodson thought
the permit should go for 3 years as one year is a lot for staff to administer. Dorschner
thought one year is reasonable as that way everyone is on the same schedule. Klatt
stated that it would be administratively easier to have a set schedule for them. The
Planning Commission agreed that it should stay at every year.
Kreimer & Dorschner thought there should be setbacks from the property line for
chickens and bees. The Planning Commission would like to see the smallest acreage for
bees be 1 acre.
Haggard was wondering why bee keeping education was only for small acreage and
thinks that it should be all or nothing. Klatt stated that the way it is written it would
apply to everyone, but believes the intent was for 5 acres or less.
Kreimer suggested that a bee colony be located at least 25 feet from a property line of
an adjacent occupied residential lot. The Planning Commission agreed with that
wording.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-27-14
Williams was wondering about the selling of eggs on site as selling honey is specifically
talked about. Klatt stated that state law allows people to sell agricultural products
produced on site.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Larson, move to postpone consideration of the Livestock Ordinance
until further information is obtained from staff Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Zoning District Cleanup.
Klatt began his presentation by stating that these amendments are intended to remove
outdated zoning districts that are no longer utilized under the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and official Zoning Map. This cleanup will improve the organization of the
document. The cleanup will remove 26 zoning districts, 19 of which are holding
districts.
Public hearing opened at 8:40pm.
No written comment was received.
Public hearing closed at 8:41pm.
M/S/P: Larson/Kreimer, move to amend the zoning code to remove outdated zoning
districts as presented, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously
Business Item: Sketch Plan Review – Easton Village
Klatt presented a proposed Sketch Plan that includes 224 single family homes and is
located in the southeastern portion of the Village. Is located in the MUSA area and will
have City water and sewer services. This project is 98 acres in size and comprised of 4
parcels. The gross density is 2.29 units per acre. This is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The zoning is LDR for this property. Part of the property includes
green belt buffering and part of the larger planned park. The airport safety zones will
come into play to some extent on this property. This property would include the village
parkway which would be a minor collector street for the village. There is an existing
home to the south of the railroad tracks that has a private crossing of the railroad
tracks. This property will need to access one of the internal streets servicing this
development. Major things that staff would like to see addressed before preliminary
plat are the design of the subdivision and complying with the overall intent and purpose
of the Village master plan. There needs to be more connectivity and integrate more
traditional neighborhood elements. Want to ensure that there are sidewalks and trails
that connect back to the Village and to Reid Park. The AUAR had some mitigation