Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 09-8-08 LAK E Cityf : -.=.1 Elmo JL EL M 0 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.Lake mo.0rg TI IE- OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Mon ay, September 8, 200 , at 7:00 p.m. ENS 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a.. June 9, 2008 (to be mailed out in advance of meeting) b. August 11, 2008 4. Public Hearings: a.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Consideration of an application to permit a day spa at 8925 Highway 5; LB zoning; PID 16-029-21-41-0025. b.VARiANCE: Consideration of an application to allow construction of a detached garage 5 feet from the front lot line (30 foot required setback) at 11002 Upper 33`d Street North; R-1 zoning; PID: 13-029-21-32-0054. 5. Comprehensive Plan a. Request for an extension of the deadline for completion of Comprehensive Plan Elements 6. City Council Updates a. August 19 i. Impervious Surface Ordinance in OP developments ii. Torre Pines 2nd Addition Minor Subdivision iii. Moving Permit for Accessory Building at 4150 Irish Court North b. September 2 -Grading Permits for Valley Branch.Watershed District 7. Adjourn DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:02 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Deziel (7:05), Fliflet,Pearson, Pelletier, Ptacek,Roth, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Planner Matzek OTHERS PRESENT: Angie Hong, Washington Conservation District; John Bilotta,NEMO; John Hanson, Valley Branch Watershed District Agenda Chairman Ptacek added 3B "Introduction of new commissioner" M/S/P,Roth/Van Zandt,to approve the agenda as amended. Vote: 6:0. Minutes—July 14, 2008 Commissioner Fliflet said she would like her comment on page two expanded to include why she does not agree with the proposed accessory building setbacks in the Residential Estates District. She does not believe it is consistent with the large lot development district. M/S/P, Roth/Fliflet, to approve the minutes as amended. Vote: 5:0. Abstained: Pearson Commissioner Deziel arrived at 7:05 p.m. Introduction of New Commissioner Commissioner Mike Pearson introduced himself to the commission. Public Hearing: Moving Permit for Accessory Building at 4150 Irish Court North. Planner Matzek stated that the city received an application for a moving permit to allow an accessory building on the property at 4150 Irish Court North. She explained the application,process, and recommended approval of the application with the conditions that a building permit was needed and a security was necessary before the building could be moved to the site. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:15 P.M. No one spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:15 P.M. Commissioner Deziel identified that the building should not be used for cars as they might compact the septic system. The applicant, Karen Lerol said the building would be no where near the drainfield. She also stated their intentions to remove the existing shed. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-11-08 l DRAFT M/S/P, Pelletier/Roth, move to recommend approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Vote:7:0 Public Hearing: Front Yard Variance at 11002 Upper 33rd Street Planner Matzek identified that a discrepancy was found in the submitted site plan which is being corrected. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18 P.M. No one spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18 P.M. M/S/P, Deziel/Van Zandt, move to table the variance application. Vote: 7.0. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Text Amendment Planning Director Klatt identified that the commission had previously agreed to revisit the impervious surface code requirement in the Open Space Preservation (OP) developments. He said that staff has found that most built lots in OP developments are either very close to the maximum currently allowed or over. After reviewing the impervious surface in a number of existing developments, staff is recommending an increase to allow twenty percent with an additional five percent if using engineering approved mitigation system such as pavers. Commissioner Deziel stated that there were calculations for each of the OP developments to size the storm water ponding and those numbers should be reviewed when revisiting the ordinance. Planning Director Klatt said that he spoke with the engineer who was unable to look up each one,but that maybe John Hanson with the Valley Branch Watershed District could address that comment. John Bilotta, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Of vials (NEMO)Regional Coordinator Mr. Bilotta gave a presentation on linking land use decisions to water quality and identified multiple tools that can be used such as rain gardens, infiltration and filtration processes. Chairman Ptacek asked if the proposed ordinance would allow for more advanced tools and leading edge research. Planning Director Klatt said that the ordinance requires engineering approval for the additional five percent of impervious surface,which allows some additional flexibility than what the current code allows. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:32 P.M. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-11-08 2 DRAFT David Reed, 5712 Lily Ave N Mr. Reed said he is a resident and a builder in the Sanctuary development. He believes the original ordinance was intended to be an impervious surface of ten percent over the entire development. He said that pavers are a relatively new system and are costly. He would encourage the commission to consider the entire development and raise the hardcover allowed on each lot. Steve Meads, 2928 Jonquil Trail N Mr. Meads said he is a new resident and has been living without a driveway for four weeks. He stated that all the existing homes in the Farms of Lake Elmo subdivision would not meet the existing requirement. He said allowing rain gardens would help as the sandy soils are excellent for drainage. He would encourage the city to look at a development at the front end and look at the gross overall development and not on an individual lot. Bob McAdams, 8950 Lake Jane Trail Mr. McAdams said that there was a change in the city engineer. He said the new engineer reinterpreted the code incorrectly. He said the prior interpretation was that the ten percent impervious surface allowed was for the entire development. Scott Kennedy, 10978 57`h Street N Mr. Kennedy said he is also a new homeowner in the city who was surprised to find out that his driveway and patio were over the impervious coverage requirement. He suggested the code be increased to allow twenty to twenty five percent as many developments have minimum sizes for homes. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:44 P.M. Commissioner Deziel said that in the 1980's, a watershed was developed upstream of Lake Jane which caused immense flooding. He suggested looking at what each development was designed to handle for water runoff. Planning Director Klatt said that the city is required to follow the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit requirements and more resources are available now than ten years ago. He said a stormwater ordinance will be in front of the commission later this year. Mr. John Hanson with the Valley Branch Watershed District(VBWD) said that a developer's engineer puts together calculations based on assumptions such as house size which is then reviewed by the VBWD. M/S/P, Roth/Fliflet, motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Vote: 5:1; Pearson abstained. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-11-08 3 DRAFT Commissioner Deziel stated that he voted against the ordinance because existing developments may need individual requirements. He is not against people having anything as long as it is not hurting the environment. Informational Items Planner Matzek said an executive summary was provided for a study that was conducted entitled: "A Look at Community Capacity to Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area." City Council Updates Planning Director Klatt said that the Torre Pines 2nd Addition has not yet gone to Council. Adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli Matzek Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-11-08 4 Planning Commission Date: 9/8/08 Public hearing Item: 4a ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Day Spa at 8925 Highway 5. REQUESTED BY: FLF Properties, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from FLF Properties to establish a day spa at 8925 Highway 5, which is located within the Prairie Ridge Office Park complex at the intersection of Highway 5 and Stillwater Boulevard North. The use would occupy 1,540 square feet of the 2,500 square foot building at this address and would make use of the current parking that has been provided for the office park. The remaining area of the building is vacant as is the adjacent building. Other uses in the park are offices and low-impact services businesses. The proposed site is located in a LB— Limited Business District, a district that is intended for low impact uses in areas without sanitary sewer service. Day Spas are permitted as a conditional use, and the City Council must approve such a use if the proposed activity is able to meet the criteria for conditional uses as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The use does meet the C.U.P. standards in the code and approval is therefore recommended. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • The applicant has provided architectural plans for the proposed use and a description of the services presently offered by the business at its present location. This information supports the designation of the use as a "Day Spa" and the findings documented in the attached report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 because it meets all the criteria for a conditional use permit. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: I move we recommend that the City Council approve the requested conditional use permit for a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the findings provided by staff. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction........................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff............... ............................................ ......Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission ...................................Chair & Commission Members Applicant Comments..............................................................................Chair facilitates Questions of the Applicant ............................................Chair& Commission Members Openthe Public Hearing ...................................... ....-...... ....... ......................Chair - Close the Public Hearing........................................................................................Chair Callfor a motion ................................................................................... Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission...... .................. Chair& Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map showing the location of the subject property 2. Detailed staff report on the request 3. Prairie Ridge Office Park site plan and plat 4. Architectural diagrams for building and proposed use 5. List of services provided by Belle Amie Spa 4 .Mir 41 i r. � a � OR IV FIX ti � M1 t ` t3f4 � a } fk t e _ r- s wi b. y ys, t �� a , j!a "li n�'1_�• ���AFL'_ City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Request TO: Planning Commission From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Kelli Matzek, City Planner Meeting Date: 9-8-08 Applicant: FLF Properties and Belle Arnie Spa Owner: FLF Properties Location: 8925 Highway 5 Zoning: Limited Business (LB) Introductog hn ormation Requested The applicant is seeking to allow a day spa establishment to be located at 8925 Conditional Highway 5. The business would be located within an existing building that is part of Use Permit. the Prairie Ridge Office Park on the western portion of this site. Property The Prairie Ridge Office Park is currently zoned Limited Business, where beauty In formation: salons are listed as a conditional use and day spas are an accessory use to a beauty salon. The subdivision for the office park was approved in early 2004, and subsequently, all of the buildings planned have been constructed. The site was approved as a planned unit development; however,there are no specific requirements on file pertaining to the future uses within the overall office park, which is regulated by the current LB zoning designation. Access into the office park is provided via a private road that connects between the westbound lane of State Highway 5 and Stillwater Boulevard North (County Rd. 6). Parking has been provided in accordance with the previous PUD review,therefore,no additional stalls are provided for the proposed day spa. The proposed use is consistent with the overall businesses that are presently located within the park and the LB Zoning of the property. Applicable Section 154.018 Administration. Codes' 1 Subd 4. Conditional Use Permits. Outlines the general requirements for all conditionally permitted uses in Lake Elmo. Section 11.02 Definitions DAY SPA. A safe, clean commercial establishment,which employs professional licensed therapists whose services include massage and body or facial treatments. CUP 12'eq2rt:'st: FlY�aY(Di=:7S%'71i"'F;.d Befl?Anlie?Spa Plannirk Comn,issir.}n-repart< 9:4...08 Treatments may include body packs and wraps, exfoliation, cellulite and heat treatments,electrolysis,body toning, waxing, aromatherapy, cleansing facials, medical facials, nonsurgical face lifts, electrical toning, and electrolysis. Services may also include Hydrotherapy and steam and sauna facilities,nutrition and weight management.No services or facilities may be offered or constructed that would include customer over night stay. Section 154.057 LB—Limited Business District Contains the standards and uses permitted in the LB District with the following purpose statement. "The purpose of the Limited Business District is to establish a comprehensive planned framework for development where municipal sanitary sewer does not exist. The city has determined that it is in the best interest of the city and the region to responsibly manage growth in this district. It is the intent of this district to promote a high quality of business design and development that produces a positive visual image and minimizes adverse impacts from traffic congestion,noise, odor, glare, and similar problems." Findings & General,Site Overview Site Data: Overall Business Park Size: 16.98 Acres Size of Lot 13: 3,263 square feet Buildings: Seven (7) building with a total of approximately 35,000 square feet of area Existing Use: Office/Limited ServicesNacant Existing Zoning: LB—Limited Business Property Identification Number (PID): 1.6-029-21-41-0025 A lication Review: Existing None of the conditions that were attached to the approval of the PUD for Prairie Ridge Conditions: Office park are applicable to the future tenants within the office park buildings. The site has been developed in accordance with the approved plans, including the provision of any required parking for the fixture tenants, the installation of storm water management improvements, and other site work. The City does still have an active developer's agreement in place for the Office Park development, and a few outstanding close-out items need to be completed before all of the improvements can be accepted by the City. CUP Review: The plans that have been submitted by the applicant include an overall site plan for the business park, a building schematic diagram,the Prairie Ridge Office Park Plat, and. plans for the portion of the building at 8925 Highway 5 that will be used for the day spa. The application materials also include a listing of the current services offered by i the business from its present location along Lake Elmo Avenue. Based on the C.-ZX?a:'I.flP entS a7Y.d,-5(n`'f.[.r"{::'1 qwrt?':w an Planning('C}771niissi('n Rel...wn 94.7'--08 information submitted, it appears that the proposed use is consistent with the activities defined by the City Code for a Day Spa. The City's process for the review of a Conditional Use specifies that before a C.U.P. may be issued,the City must consider certain findings as they pertain to the proposed use. For these types of applications, the burden is on the City to show why the use should not be permitted due to impacts that cannot be controlled by reasonable conditions. Impacts the City must review are as follows: 1. 4#ects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. Traffic &Parking conditions. 3. Effects on utility and school capacities. 4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. Conditional 1 Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of Use Permit Criteria: surrounding lands. The proposed Day Spa is compatible with the other uses within the Prairie Ridge Office Park, which include offices and low-impact service businesses. There have been no comments received to date that indicate any concern from neighboring property owners regarding the proposed use. Given the limited types of businesses that can be conducted in the LB District, the proposed Day Sap will not create any anticipated impacts that would be detrimental to the health, safety,morals, convenience,or general welfare of surrounding lands. Therefore, staff finds this criteria is met. Traffic &Parking conditions. The City reviewed potential traffic issues as part of the PUD review for the Office Park, and determined the appropriate number of parking stalls for the entire site at this time as well. The parking needs for the Day Spa are consistent with the expected demand for parking throughout the project area. Staff finds this criteria is met. 3. Effects on utility and school capacities. A day spa use will have minimal impacts on the existing utilities at the site. The use of the utilities would be consistent with the expectations for the overall planned development area. The utilities are previously been installed on the site and would not be greatly impacted by this use. The number of school age children would not be impacted by this use. There would be no impact on the school capacities, therefore staff finds this criteria is met. L..:':l]f.)i:IJJ?f#''.f#&:�CriJte r="ait"i€r".li E=r'll.t!lttlZE'?::Vf£7<;%S(,�(.{tt i%r.�x"•lc''?iYl3i':.Yj'1711e.7'rtL r t�.'Ff'ti 1.('C?tiT#i'il�%'�,fJ i'.iZF� 1 7yr::i .J _ is CUTtte�t.re:4t.;.f%. ".�' ratan::? rryarriier'e:.rraazc x�7,r, 4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands. Given the small-scale service and the primary function of the business as a salon,the surrounding land values would not be depreciated due to this use. Therefore, staff would find this criteria is met. 5. Effect of'the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. The Prairie Ridge Office Park area is guided for limited business uses in the Comprehensive Plan and as noted above, the proposed use is listed as a Conditional Use in this district. The addition of a day spa to the business park is consistent with the future land use plan for the area. Staff finds this criteria is met. Conditional Based on the above analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff is recommending Use Permit approval of the conditional use permit request to allow a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 Conclusions; based on the following: 1. The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site for over one year and staff is not aware of any complaints. 3. The use would have no effect on utility or school capacities. 4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Resident Staff is not aware of any concerns surrounding the requested conditional use permit. Concerns: The other property owners within Prairie Ridge Office Park were provided with notice of the public hearing in accordance with City Code. Additional i Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the Information: I proposed conditional use permit. Conclusion: The applicants are seeking approval of the following conditional use permit application: To allow a day spa at 8925 Highway 5. Conzinlssion ' The Planning Commission has the following options: Options: A) Recommend approval of the conditional use permit request; B) Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request. ow.l,.'E1Y1'%?Sr�S''��rc'{'{7.Itf('!f2f.'.f:"4:'..:iie.i't�.{icT'..lTi;.;:`.f r.'.tYF]3f.,'€`f.%t)'l�7Y�r:7'ft , ''._. ." e': tI's'l .t+iYd'.ftt.rreslr.',car:11?Iz'1:=.+.?I.r '..lic,L--C3'ilt:' u r; Ur! l':......y-:_(ln.i:#t.'�,'.` CG.%F'R aj m,st; J''1I''t rrr:•.,?'ic:: ci=rrll?c:Jtc:lsari: >rt M",'n ling CoP737't1.issi n Reporr. 9-8...08 The 60-day review period for this application expires on 10-12-08,but can be extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed. Stuff Rec. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit request to allow a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the following: 1. The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site for one year and no complaints were received. 3. The use would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities. 4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion . Template: I move we recommend that Council deny the requested conditional use permit for a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the following findings...(please site reasons for the recommendation) Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move we recommend that the City Council approve the requested conditional use permit for a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the following findings...(use staffs f ndings provided above or cite your own) cc: FLF Properties, 8921 Highway 5 ..,,,.,,t(ti;tiil4C'I'i i:t'C*lYfJ;�fr;;ii7 rl`i.i�i.r,,..:'Zr:l;-.LOG(lif:�e'.C�tR+':i,(f'Y.°il'jps•C'Y_"'af#£c'%ile, :"si'.Cf" r..,..; �3, '.: '!T';'-..r7't.::{; ..,..-_ r . ....... ....... 4. ..,� o,` 444 ......... -fo9p, gg pip Y, i` NOTPS ar- ----------------------------------- s [�. B E ) t! r vyr ! s 0 e rf �.r 4 e we w."-=L.M.a bal.asnws •' � —se5.es — 4 acS JAdLUCa AVENUE ST7ZLNdTER BLYD NbfaTS—COUNTY R {�It [fill taS"e$ £ i-Ft� e 6cE� :.% zE tf 6fII 'gi g` Elk k f 4 I A W..w•.e•wW.rt..,�1r.....w..w.wuvns.W M.. n.a n 10, I At � F5 g� g a 1 k 10.44 MINCLIiAR . IIf o�oE � a�oE 11 IlISHI-'LVINCS/fA El f''� x z ��- R--•71 t O c A I � 3 y=� z e . . �.:.. 1..--•�—._.{ems--, Tom'--,�--. : J7 belle a m i e spa belle amie spa ............. .................... .................... .............. ....... All facials include the finest natural marine and botanical ingredients combined with the latest Manicure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27-00 technology. We will customize your facial to belle amle spa manicure your specific skin type. manicure plus hand and Orin exfoliation&mas5age .35.00 belle amie,. . . . . . . . . .6o min. , $70.00 rreeze-dried collagen . . .75 min. . . 6.5-00 belle arnie spa pedicure OXY-Vital. . . . . . . . . . .75 min, 100-00 pedicure plus foot and lower leg Vitamin C . . . . . . . . . .7-5 min. . ioo.00 exfoliatiorr&massage, . . . . . . . . 6o.00 Sea and"C.. . . . . . . . .7s min. 125.00 Polish changes Pion tomer(olgae) , , , , ,75 min. . . 85.00 all polish changes include clipping, Rosacea . . . . . . . . . . .6o min. . . 85.00 filing and polish application Lightening. . , . . . . . . .75 min. loo.00 Hands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 Allyoxy-Cavaij.. . . . . . . .75 min, 1.2.5.00 Feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 Acne or problematic . . . .6o min. . . 70-00 Essential. . . . . . . . . . .4..5 M117, 60.00 Gel nails Classic . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.00 and up French . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 and up Initial gel overlay e 1' ,ZMrZS All gel peel treatments are customized to your Classic . . . . . . . . 55-00 skin type. French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6o.00 Peel . . . . . . 45 min. 85-00-100-00 Nail repair . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 and up Nall art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 and up Booster frealmen . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.00 ✓ Eye,renewal treatment. . . . . . . . . . 20.00 Eye stress relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.o0 7-4-1-S—3 777 Caviar hand or foot. . . . . . . . . . . . 25-00 Lymphatic massage . . . . . . . . . . . 35-00 Stress-relieving foot treatment. . . . . 20.00 3515 Lake Elmo Ave.N.,Upper Suite I Lake Elmo,MN 55042 h o v rs.* Tue:u-9 I Wed:11-8 1 Fri;'io [Sat:by appt. ........... , belle amie spa ,. belle amie spa ClIL- lL Fyebrowshaping . . . . . . . . . . . $27.00 pension-releasing massage fbr people on the Lip go.Also a great introduction to massage- Chin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.00 Underarms . . . , 20.00 25 Min. . . . . . . . . . . . $20.00 Arras. . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . 0.ao !!!/ 20 Min. : : . . . . . . . . . .25.00 Bikini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 / LLGS,S el F011eg. . . . . . . . . . . . ' 30.00 Full leg. , 55.00 Full l eg/bikini. . . . . . . . . 75.00 ✓ �� Back 45.00 Soothes sore muscles while relaxing the whole body. Each rnassage is ctistornized to ,C i meet individual needs. L-,/ Et 30 . . . : . .4,.0n Brows . : . . : . . . : . . . . . : . , 20.00 bo min. . . . . . . . . . . . .7.5.00 Eyelashes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 go trlin. . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 .^ Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.00 Erase tension and relieve stress with this Bridal soothing rnassage cornbined with deep heat iadudes compfirrientarylipstick. . . . SO.Oa therapy. 75 mirt. . . . . . . 205.00 With deep tL;stie. . . . . . 230.00 � _ oo-3777 ::.,...: ............................... .... . 35a5 Lake Elmo Ave.N.,Upper Suite j ulke Limo,MN 155042 Ma&sage Price in::;udeslax h u u rs r Tue:11-5 f Wed:13•81 Fri:to•5I Sat:by appt. Planning Commission Date: 918/08 Public hearing Item: 4b ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider a 25 foot front yard setback variance to allow the construction of a detached garage five feet from the front property line where 30 feet is required at 11002 Upper 33`d Street North. REQUESTED BY: Jill Martin, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kelii Matzek, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and consider a request from resident Jill Martin to allow construction of a one car, detached garage on her property at 11002 Upper 33`d Street North to serve the existing residential home. The proposed garage would be located five feet from the front property line where thirty feet is required and would therefore need a twenty-five foot variance. The small residential lot(0.14 acres) currently does not have any covered parking and a conforming location does not exist for a detached garage. The addition of a garage to the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing residential home. The addition of the proposed garage and driveway would exceed the maximum impervious surface allowed on the site, which is 25 percent of the lot size. Therefore, staff is recommending as a condition of approval that a portion of the existing hardcover be removed to retain compliance with this requirement while maintaining the required three off-street parking spaces required by code. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • The property is located in the downtown of the Village Area and is adjacent to a property guided for the development of residential homes when sewer becomes available. At the time that property develops, there is the potential that Upper 33`d Street(currently a dead end road)may be extended and expanded, thereby decreasing the distance between the edge of the roadway in front of Ms. Martin's property and the proposed garage. This would result in the inability for a vehicle pulling into the garage to be entirely off the street and out of traffic while waiting for a garage door to be opened. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as it meets the variance criteria with the following findings: 1) The addition of a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing home. 2) The size and shape of the property as well as the location of the existing home, septic system, and setback requirements prevent a conforming location for a detached garage on the lot. 3) The property was platted in its current configuration in 1848, pre-dating the existing city code requirements. And with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the city issuing a building permit, a portion of the existing hardcover must be removed to retain the property's conformance with the impervious surface requirement of twenty-five percent of the lot. 2) Three off-street parking spaces must be accommodated on the lot. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: I move we recommend that the City Council approve the requested 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback for a detached garage at 11002 Upper 33`d Street based on the findings provided by staff and with the conditions identified in the staff report. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction...... ............ ............. ...................................__...Kelli Matzek, City Planner Report by staff.......................................................................Kelli Matzek, City Planner - Questions from the Commission ...................................Chair& Commission Members Applicant Comments ..............................................................................Chair facilitates - Questions of the Applicant ............................................Chair&Commission Members Open the Public Hearing ............... ............................................-........ .................Chair Close the Public Hearing............................................... ...Chair Call for a motion ................................................................................... Chair Facilitates Discussion of Commission on the motion ............................................Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission..............................Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area map showing the location of the subject property 2. Detailed staff report on the request 3. Site Plan 4. Aerial image of site. r , 1 1 al"? I . c All X Kr M: g a Iv 46 mo— E up Elk low T. g6g w r E ' ' mad r � ■Erl�/11�t-� i1 yy - E h ! I. e„ �FEI IE�f •erg £ Mom__... 1�r.�.■ /u�Nu City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Review To: Planning Commission from: Kelli Matzek,Planner Meeting Date: 9/08/08 Applicant: Jill Martin Owner: Jill Martin Location: 11002 Upper 33rd St N Zoning: R1 —Single Family Residential Introductory In fo►-mation _ Request Jill Martin, 11002 Upper 33rd Street north, is requesting that the City consider a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage on the property. The proposed single car garage would be located five feet from the front property line. Site Data: Property Identification No. Area Use 13-029-21-32-0054 6,137 square feet Residential Dwelling (0.14 Acres) The applicant's property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. There is an existing single family home located in the center of the property. The septic tanks are located in the rear yard of the lot. Applicable Section 154.041 R-1 One-Family Residential Zoning District Codes: Subd. C. Minimum District Requirements The R-1 Zoning District has a building setback of 30 feet from the front property line, 10 feet from the side (interior) property lines, and 40 feet from the rear property line. The maximum impervious surface coverage is 25 percent of the property. Section 154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures (1) No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall rr T Y(j e`'lE'.jii4':c`.'; �:�is'`s IT7: i If�F)L IJs��;7C'^'f,7.1• iyt'.� be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR, and R-1 Districts where detached garages may be permitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution of the City Council, except in planned unit developments or duster[sic] developments. Applicable ACCESSORY BUILDING. A subordinate building, or a portion of the main building, Code which is located on the same lot as the main building and the purpose of which is Definitions: clearly incidental to that of the principal building. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. BUILDING LINE. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. BUILDING SETBACKLINE. Aline within a lot parallel to a public right-of-way line, a side or rear lot line, a bluff line, or a high water mark or line,behind which buildings or structures must be placed. BUILDING SETBACK The minimum horizontal distance between 1 building and the lot line. BUILDING. Any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof and used or built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of any kind. When any portion of a building is completely separated from every other part of a building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a separate building. CARPORT. An automobile shelter having 1 or more sides open. DWELLING UNIT. A residential accommodation including complete kitchen and bathroom facilities, permanently installed, which is arranged, designed, used, or intended for use exclusively as living quarters for one(1) family. GARAGE,PRIVATE. A detached 1 story accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport,which is used primarily for the storage of passenger vehicles, trailers, or farm trucks.. HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; that the plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; and that these unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. U fM ? Yii: t:$'-iLFul trm,�c.,;; !'l�ft�r fart Fariitncv. r r=0Y2 7�p tr'r:" r (i%'f(]t7L%::.',:�ltJ F'(if7: .i.1,1 r, l'. {„'{., y _}:%��. Pltt.rrrzirtg Cotftreziss;E)rt lit>ftz'rr7; 9..(,8—(Iv LOT,INTERIOR. A lot other than a corner lot, including through lots. LOT LINE, FRONT. The boundary of a lot which abuts a public street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street. 1f the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner. In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. LOT LINE,REAR. The boundary of a lot which is opposite to the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than 10 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be a line 10 feet in length within the lot,parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. LOT LINE, SIDE. Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. LOT LINE. A lot line is the property line bounding a lot except that where any portion of a lot extends into a public right-of-way or a proposed public right-of-way, the line of the public right-of-way shall be the lot line. LOT. A parcel of land designated by plat,metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by the description for the purpose of sale, lease or separation. SETBACK. The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system,or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff,road,highway, property line, or other facility. Distances are to be measured perpendicularly from the property line to the most outwardly extended portion of the structure at ground level. STRUCTURE. Anything constructed.or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including,but not limited to,buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins,manufactured homes, signs, and other similar items. i.USE,ACCESSORY A use subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use. VARIANCE. A modification of a specific permitted development standard required to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship as defined in Section 300.06, Subd. 3. Economic considerations along shall not constitute a hardship. [sic] t•C'i)'ttt'L:7 ri t.:1 `'19 -s.3�.�;r..«.Yl%v`i'N,_ i r,.., r } ; .. ,• ; l.J3'fr"n s/ )..?; , 1kIlf12ia"tl7t;(_.`LJ1.aJF7tlu,3JUY,.`:::'3C/Y?; 9-08-08 Variance Review Variance The applicant is requesting that the City consider a 25 foot variance from the required Request: 30 foot front yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage on the property. Variance By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can Criteria: successfully address the following three criteria: 1. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; The applicant is proposing to add a single-car detached garage on the property. The 0.14 acre lot currently does not have an enclosed garage space,but instead has a driveway located along the east property line. The property's size and shape prohibits the addition of a detached garage in a conforming location anywhere on the lot. While a more-conforming location is available for a garage on the site, the Iocation would place the garage closer to the existing home. There is a six foot required separation between the home and the garage for safety reasons. Attaching a garage to the west side of the house may present structural challenges. The request to build a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; As mentioned previously, the size and shape of the property, the location of the existing home, and the applicable setbacks do not allow the building of a detached garage in a conforming location anywhere on the property. The property is 0.14 acres in size— one of just a handful of properties under 0.15 acres in size with a single family detached home on the property in the city. The property has been in existence in its current form since 1848. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. 3. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. The property has been in existence in its current form since 1848. At that time,this I('Md USVI: 'rrriura:<t. '.1lfi(: �:r;e 33rif-3I., a?'liYiSR.ep'..1-'Z;�Brti7 :a:x�4 Varianc,.=;;lr irfin. 11 00� '', by f.f Planning C'.r..a�*ar�a.is,siv .;`r :c}� 9_08-08 area was unincorporated. Since then,Oakdale Township became the city of Lake Elmo and the city's land use regulations have undergone a number of revisions. Therefore,the land owner did not cause this property to be in it's current form. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. Variance Based on the analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff would recommend Conclusions: approval of the front yard variance to allow construction of a detached garage five feet from the front property line. Resident Staff is not aware of any resident concerns regarding the requested variance. Staff Concerns: received a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor and a phone call of support from an additional neighbor. Review Comments.- Planning The site plan identifies the proposed garage to be located five feet from the front Issues: property line and seventeen feet from the edge of Upper 33'd Street, a dead-end city road. This property is located in the Village Area of Lake Elmo and is adjacent to a property anticipated to develop with the availability of city sewer in the future. At the time the property to the west of Ms. Martin's property is developed,Upper 33`d Street may be expanded and extended to service the future single family homes on that property. This road expansion would decrease or eliminate the driveway located in the right-of-way and therefore, reduce the stacking space for vehicles in front of the garage. A car may need to remain on the roadway to wait while a garage door opens instead of safely off the road. Again, this will only become an issue at the point when (or if)Upper 33`d Street is enlarged. The city code requires three off-street parking spaces for each residential property. This code is currently being met through the existing driveway located on the property. However, with the proposed garage and new driveway, the property will be over the maximum impervious surface allowed on the lot which is 25 percent. Therefore, staff will request that a condition of approval be the removal of a portion of the existing hardcover to maintain the site's conformance with that regulation. Two off-street parking spaces(in addition to the proposed one-car garage) will also need to be maintained on the site. Fire Department The fire department has not expressed any significant concern with the proposed Comments: garage location and it's proximity to a nearby fire hydrant. Engineer The City Engineer has not expressed any significant concerns with the proposed Comments: garage. . anii t . .S{'1;1-o 'aIxe�:"'tt`.;00 C.' ...�'zI?t:d _ ''7,` ;gr_. i,F;•!?j•r'. xt,L�, f''I i6�C2Y7it7 :I' 'i Y?(.'.Ft r;: :>•(3;-�S3.G�f.�;' €ag e . Al actin. 11002 U,pip-�r 33;rr vi N l�r!117.T?ZY,'.y Commission P!?�::'.3;­ {i-68•48 VBWD The Valley Branch Watershed District did not have any concerns with the application Comments: as the project would be disturbing less than one acre or 6,000 cubic feet of dirt. Conclusion: The applicant is seeking approval of a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback for a one-car, detached garage. Commission The Planning Commission must examine the proposed variance to determine whether Options: the application meets all conditions of approval outlined by city code. The Planning Commission has the following options: A) Recommend Council approve the requested variance as it will not adversely impact adjacent neighbor's views or water runoff and that a conforming location for a detached garage on the property does not exist. B) Recommend Council deny the requested variance based on the findings identified by the commission. The deadline for a Council decision on this item is November 8, 2008. Staff Rec: Staff recommends approval of the variance request based on the following: 1) The addition of a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing home. 2) The size and shape of the property as well as the location of the existing home, septic system, and setback requirements prevent a conforming location for a detached garage on the lot. 3) The property was platted in its current configuration in 1848, pre-dating the existing city code requirements. Provided the following conditions are met 1) Prior to the city issuing a building permit, a portion of the existing hardcover must be removed to retain the property's conformance with the impervious surface requirement of twenty-five percent of the lot. 2) Three off-street parking spaces must be accommodated on the lot. Approval To approve the request, the Planning Commission is asked to use the following motion Motion as a guide: Template: I move to recommend approval of the variance from David and Mary Brown to S.,1 and IIJJa:me ..y:t.it N• Yza:th-I;kcpp <'l FO allow the building of a detached garage five feet from the front property line at 11002 Upper 33rd Street North...(use staffs findings provided above or cite your own) ...with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the city issuing a building permit, a portion of the existing hardcover must be removed to retain the property's conformance with the impervious surface requirement of twenty-five percent of the lot. 2) Three off-street parking spaces must be accommodated on the lot. cc: Jill Martin, 11002 Upper 33rd Street North •: HnCi I.S'. ;'arOrce—s.i.t,Nd_ t/C?,7.;r3?rd,ii11' 'bra f. �I�t° }� !'�;r, t,' r n r`_08 ,8 ro ...... - 'lrr:. [F, _ _ . IttYt�;PY t7.�"tt.: CL';> .�c*-f.-'(;.C,"C Pa, e 7 _ 45,64' I'ROF'ERTr LINE r r 1 J r EXISTING STAIRUlAY TO BASEI!'-Jdf O i / O r PUR}-06� / DDIT ION EXISTING DOUSE I r PURPoasm S€DEUALK ' A=ITION I __W EXIBTlNG / DRIVEUTAY PAR aARArtE J ADV Ft€oN MoR i !J r If UNE ' PURPOSy DRIVP AvpRIONON ! - ED:::E OF EXISTING STREET U .�f R D, STREET No NOTES, CONTRACTOR t OWNER tD YEZIFY ALL DtEhISIONS AND MAtERWL ON PLANS, PURPOSED ADDITION F05R): 5CALE: 1/16°' PROJECT NO. JILL MARTIN DRAWN 8Y: 11002 uFFER 33RD Sz, N. 6HEET: LACE ELMO, MN 53042 DATE REY. -'tee '✓ i F WE o k ,. ? J � Ml l 4 titer F:= �x "T < m. - J µ � , IJ- J• a; r. S §_�} Y• F x Planning Commission Date: 9-08-08 5A ITEM: Consider a request for an extension of the submission of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan Council SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The planning commission is being asked to review a request to the Metropolitan Council for an extension of the city of Lake Elmo's update to its comprehensive plan to February 2011 to complete the still remaining required plan elements. Currently, updates are due by December 31, 2008 according to state statute. The statute allows for a request for an extension to the comprehensive plan deadline. The Metropolitan Council has granted cities the opportunity to request extensions. Because the city is requesting an extension beyond May 29, 2009, a city council resolution is required to be considered by the Metropolitan Council Board. The city of Lake Elmo's current Comprehensive Land Use Plan was finalized in 2006. The Metropolitan Council is not anticipating that the city will re-work the entire 2030 plan. As of this writing the Metropolitan Council understands that the city has been proceeding with implementing the Village portion of the Comprehensive Plan and that this has absorbed significant time. This work along with the future development scenario selected for the Village has been a priority to meet the terms of the MOU and the adopted comprehensive plan for sewered development. In addition, the water, surface water and transportation plan elements that are required to be completed for the 2030 update, may be impacted by the future development scenario selected for the Village after the AUAR(environmental) and financial work is completed. The anticipated submittal date of December, 2010 for the three required comprehensive plan elements -water, surface water and transportation - is believed to provide the city with time to accomplish all of the required plans including a public input part of the process. If the city proceeds with a change in the future land use of the Village based upon the Village masterplan, this is also included in the timeline. Given the planning activities involved with this work, if and when this comprehensive plan activity related to the Village begins, the planning commission may find it useful to return to a twice a month meeting schedule with one meeting focusing on comprehensive planning related activities. According to the extension rules, it is the staff's understanding the city is encouraged to submit all the plan elements together through the review process. The city cannot request a plan amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, other than those identified in the resolution, until the required plan elements are completed and submitted unless these additional amendments are submitted at the same time as the plan elements required for the update. In developing the timeline for this process of updating the 2030 comprehensive plan, the transportation plan is the only plan element that may not be ready for adoption prior to an amendment to the Village future land use map based on a scenario related to the Village masterplan being completed and ready to go to the Metropolitan Council. Required plan elements The plan elements include: 1) a local water plan (required by statute) 2) a local surface water plan (required by statute) 3) a local transportation plan (needed to incorporate other transititransportation improvements in to our local transportation framework that are within the region as well as to do some local planning for roads and transit 1 that the city independently wanted to undertake to prepare for the future and be able to respond to county, state,adjacent city proposals) Although the Metropolitan Council is requesting these studies, prior to this request, the city council and staff had discussed the importance of the transportation plan, surface water plan and water plan for the city to deal with locally existing issues that encompass the entire community's needs. Additional plan element 4) when the city selects a preferred development scenario for the Village, if that development scenario varies from the future land use of the Village in the current comprehensive plan, the city will need to amend the future land use to reflect the preferred development scenario. (At this time,the city does not plan to select a preferred development scenario until after the completion of the AUAR(environmental review)and a financial analysis of some or all of the scenarios evaluated in the AUAR is completed sometime next year.) Reason for delay in submission The Metropolitan Council is asking for reasons for the delay in submitting an application. One of the primary reasons was the time and thought that went into creating the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and getting Metropolitan Council approval as well as the work that is going into implementing the first phase of sewered development. In addition, the city, under the leadership of the Planning Commission, brought the two areas in the City planned for future sewered growth into conformance with the zoning code through holding districts. 1) The Comprehensive Plan required the city to proceed with sewered development with the Village as the highest priority for this work according to both the MOU and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This effort requires land use planning, environmental, financial and engineering studies to gather information that will allow the city to make the associated decisions to accomplish these required goals. This work has been a priority since the adoption of the 2030 plan in 2006 2) A major environmental review process (AUAR) involving the Village is underway at this time. The outcome of this analysis will provide important information related to water, surface water and transportation needs for the city to incorporate into its future plan elements. 3) The City undertook a water plan in 2005, but put the plan on hold until the outcome of the PFC contamination work on health based values that was done by the Minnesota Department of Health and released in the spring of 2008. The city is now working on the water plan. 4) The City was functioning without a planning director from December, 2006 through December, 2007. Once hired, the new planning director requires getting acquainted with the community and land use actions and history; 5) It was important to determine the true status of the City's financial resources before proceeding with major studies in surface water and transportation without confidence that the City had the resources to pay for this work. Between January 2008 and June 2008 upon the advice of the city auditor, the City worked with a financial consultant to bring the its financial records into conformance with best practices in local government. 6) The City is committed to an open public process including opportunities for public input throughout these studies. This requires coordinating the activities so that there is time for input on all of the systems in a meaningful way. 2 The proposed timeline and plan elements (Attachment 1) The proposed timeline anticipates completing these plans over a series of months by staggering them so they come at the appropriate time in the City's planning cycle and so the process can be managed and allow for public information and input along the way. Required elements • Water plan (Now—March 2009)—currently underway; was on hold until PFC health based value data was finalized, which is now done. This is a high priority public health and safety topic in Lake Elmo. • Water Resources (Surface Water Plan)(January 2009- October 2009)This will be done using the information from the three watershed districts (Valley Branch, Browns Creek and South Washington), the Village AUAR data which includes a Village Storm water plan by TKDA, and new data on developments that have occurred in the past several years. • Transportation plan (March 2009— March 2010) There are many transportation improvements/studies being done by Washington County and MnDOT in the vicinity of Lake Elmo. There is also a Lake Elmo Elementary School Safe Routes to School study being finalized. To understand and plan for the city's transportation needs (road and transit), it will be important to do a local transportation plan. This can incorporate the data from MnDOT, Washington County, the Safe Routes to School and any other information. This plan is not just related to the Village, although this information will be important to incorporate from the AUAR, it will be important for the entire city for current conditions and as it may grow in non-sewered and sewered development. Potential plan amendment • Village future land use plan (April, 2009—November, 2009) If the city selects a development scenario consistent with the Village Masterplan, the city will need to amend the future land use section of the plan that relates to the Village. This action would be required to accommodate a new development scenarios based upon the Village Masterplan. The scenario will not be selected until the AUAR environmental review is completed and a fiscal analysis done on any scenarios that the city wants to evaluate fiscally prior to making a selection. Review by neighboring cities and Washington County (April, 2010--October, 2010)A review period for neighboring jurisdictions of six months is required. These jurisdictions often comment prior to the end of the six months. Public hearing, adoption and submission (November, 2010 — December, 2010)The city must hold a public hearing, adopt and submit the comprehensive plan update. Penalty The penalty for not updating the comprehensive plan within nine months after the Metropolitan Council makes a decision and orders the plan update in conformance to the systems statement the Metropolitan Council may pursue civil action against the City. (Statute 473.175 Subd.3) RECOMMENDATION for motion It is recommended that the City submit a request for an extension for the update to the 2030 comprehensive land use plan until December 2010 by moving to approve resolution 2008—XXX and forwarding the recommendation to the city council 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1 Proposed timeline 2 Draft Resolution requesting an extension 2008-XXx 3 Anticipated timeline for the Village project(as background information) 4 CITY OF LAKE ELAIO RESOLUTION NO. 2008- RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "DECENNIAL"REVIEW OBLIGATIONS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires local governmental units to review and, if necessary, amend their entire comprehensive plans and their fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure comprehensive plans conform with metropolitan system plans and ensure fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with comprehensive plans or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their"decennial"reviews by December 31,2008;and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 authorizes the Metropolitan Council to grant extensions to local governmental units to allow local governmental units additional time within which to complete the"decennial"review and amendments; and WHEREAS, any extensions granted by the Metropolitan Council must include a timetable and plan for completing the review and amendment; and WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo will not be able to complete its"decennial"review by December 31,2008,for the reasons listed below. WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is appropriate to request from the Metropolitan Council an extension so the City can have additional time to complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for review an updated comprehensive plan and amend its fiscal devices and official controls. 1} One of the primary reasons was the time and thought that went into creating the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and getting Metropolitan Council approval as well as the work that is going into implementing the first phase of severed development. In addition, the City, under the leadership of the Planning Commission, brought the two areas in the City planned for future sewered growth into conformance with the zoning code through holding districts. 2) The Comprehensive Plan required the City to proceed with sewered development with the Village as the highest priority for this work according to both the MOU and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This effort requires land use planning, environmental, financial and engineering studies to gather information that will allow the City to make the associated decisions to accomplish these required goals. This work has been a priority since the adoption of the 2030 plan in 2006 3) A major environmental review process (AUAR) involving the Village is underway at this time. The outcome of this analysis will provide important information related to water, surface water and transportation needs for the City to incorporate into its future plan elements. 4) The City undertook a water plan in 2005, but put the plan on hold until the outcome of the PFC contamination work on health based values that was done by the Minnesota Department of Health and released in the spring of 2008. The City is now working on the water plan. 5) The City was functioning without a planning director from December, 2006 through December, 2007, Once hired, the new planning director requires getting acquainted with the community and land use actions and history; 6) it was important to determine the true status of the City's financial resources before proceeding with major studies in surface water and transportation without confidence that the City had the resources to pay for this work. Between January 2008 and June 2008 upon the advice of the City auditor, the City worked with a financial consultant to bring the City's financial records into conformance with best practices in local government. 7) The City is committed to an open public process including opportunities for public input throughout these studies.This requires coordinating the activities so that there is time for input on all of the systems in a meaningful way. NOW,THE RFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DIRECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELMO,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Director is directed to submit to the Metropolitan Council no later than November 1,2008,an application requesting an extension to December 2010. 2. The Planning Director must include with the request a reasonably detailed timetable and plan. for completing: (a) the review and amendment by December 2010 and (b) the review and amendment of the City's fiscal devices and official controls. For: Against: 1 t p u U,v b c � N N Cl. Q� (ira fl ,cs c 0 5 y a n d1 y rL r o N 04) CD oar "O U p o cs O ) n N a = O _ v � �, o ° 7G o � ���. o aiLn r a 6 v a0 LA o � e� W as G iva Gta a7•-05 � � tU cv N oa "" � �'�aa o a- 09 m aa. O oaa� ,. w .tea o =' c o � � � � °v o o� °� > '>a a Cl. a az5 � � o � o I. a � o- �- ° /'.,{s� ow C t r i 1 C' GG77 ..6 O' N � co y. v+ = (D �yd or ° t� u r a) �? N 00 v ° O So agog Glu use N G 10 B O O Q o O dt "C} t3 p G G s t3 G O o u p O cv O G d q °� O 4) -a �r VC •iJN ti •'ri O L z �' v `r O L3 4 O C5 U N -ty N,, 4� O O O A- � O O N � Q cv co o t0? O U D c� u U �, p N Q x � q U o- S2 b q) N � � � � O�� � � © 'O � G rG � O 'X5 � � �,•� N p �? ° O p� 0 c y N Qy O L O O t5 47 ch c IS 0 0 .O ° �- -O 4 N io � Y h^ _ ■ \ � � \ % \ \ R clt t A \ ƒ ■ % ƒ « g $ i 0 � % 10 r % 3 tt \ / \ � « ■ § � ° © \ kS - 3 -0 6 7 � © — C: 0 6 R A 7 CL 0 k o § 4) -40 � � � . • ƒ e \ # e � p p C1 N i1 'p U ti Ci 6t G C p N O .r+ a} 0 'p 4 t "� m a � ka Z E 0 ° � u U v ? �° c -aa % o v u E Q- Z ,p 4 U i tY F W co 0, 4) O N GL d 4- Ln C Q r u t N Q, d N h'