Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo Phone: 651-777-5510 Fax: 651-777-9615 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 1. Agenda 2. MINUTES: March 11, 2002 3. PUBLIC HEARING: United Properties Preliminary Plat of Outlot B Eagle Point Business Park 2nd Addition 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Ameranieiri Accessory Structures 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Variances — Shoreland Overlay District Kevin & Lori Peterson 8278 Hidden Bay Ct. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Family Violence Network/Dee Flatau 9730 Hudson Blvd. Rezoning From Highway Business to Limited Business Conditional Use Permit 7. Daniel Rude Variances 8. Allowable Uses in the Limited Business Zone 9. Other 10. Adjourn n t� printed on recycled paper LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 11, 2002 Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Commissioners Armstrong, Deziel, Bunn, Sessing, Helwig, Ptacek. MAC Members, Dege, Gustafson, Stanley, Talcott. City Planner Dillerud M/S/P Sessing/Helwig — to move the Planning Commission portion of the agenda before the MAC/PZ portions because this application would be of shorter duration. (Motion passed 11-0). CONVENE AS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1. AGENDA M/S/P Helwig/Sessing — to approve the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission agenda, as presented. (Motion passed 6-0). 2. MINUTES: February 11, 2002 M/S/P Sessing/Armstrong — to approve the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes, as amended. (Motion passed 6-0). 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Daniel Rude, 3250 Kraft Circle Variance to Minimum Lot Size R-1 Zoning Daniel Rude has requested City reconsideration of the zoning code variance application based on an enlarged site area. Planner Dillerud agreed to present this modified application to the Commission/Council as an amendment to the earlier application. The two major differences between the applicant's 2001 variance application, and that which is now before the Commission: 1. The area of the land parcel for which a variance from the R-1 lot area standard is requested. 2. An increased site area over which drain fields for a private wastewater system are possible making the ability to prove area for those two drain fields probable. Planner Dillerud pointed out the City code has been amended as to Zoning Variance process since the 2002 consideration of this application. Based on the present Code procedures, the Planning Commission conducts the public hearing, and adopts a recommendation to the Council, rather than render a decision. The necessity for Findings in support of the recommendation remains. Dan Rude provided a memo, dated March 11, which is made part of these minutes, supporting his variance application. Chairman Armstrong opened up the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. There was no one to speak for or against the Variance requested. Chairman Armstrong closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Deziel agreed with Mr. Rude in the analysis of his variance application in the content of the variances approved for Carlone lots in Tablyn Park. Commissioner Deziel stated that he would recommend approval of the variance request contingent upon the sale that there is testing of soils required as in the Carlone minor subdivision/variance. Commissioner Bunn asked if this 12,000 sq.ft. lot would accommodate a home and sewer system. The Planner responded that the City Engineer had previously advised the Commission that the 12,000 sq.ft. would likely not be significant area. Commissioner Helwig said he thought the key issue is whether the City is seriously selling or not; and, when did the Rl zoning code change? He asked that these items be tabled until they get these questions answered. Council member Sessing suggested asking the City Engineer, Tom Prew, how many sq.f.t. would be needed to handle two conventional septic systems in the R1 zoning. M/S/P Helwig/Sessing — to ask the staff to bring back answers to the March 25 PZ meeting to when the R1 zoning code changed from requiring 1 acre tol %2 acres and ask Tom Prew how many sq.ft. is needed to handle two conventional septic systems in this area and soils. (Motion passed 4-2:Deziel, Bunn) Mr. Rude indicated the soils perked at the Steve Peterson property which is 200 ft away. A 20 x 80 `ft drain field was installed for a 3 Bedroom house. ADJOURN AS THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE AS MAINTENANCE ADVISORY SPECIAL PROJECTS 1. AGENDA M/S/P Sessing/Sedro — to approve the March 11, 2002 Maintenance Advisory Special Projects agenda, as presented. (Motion passed 11-0). 2. MINUTES: February 11.2002 M/S/P Armstrong/Helwig — to approve the February 11, 2002 MAC Meeting Minutes, as presented. (Motion passed 11-0). 3. TKDA — Community Facilities Consultant Discussion: Demographics; Other Cities Services Richard Thompson, TKDA, and Paul Steinman, Springsted presented the Demographic Profile for Lake Elmo, Dated March 5, 2002. The Consultants will provide answers to the Commissioners questions at the April 8, 2002 meeting. Per the City Planner, minutes were not taken of this presentation. Adjourn at 9:00 p.m. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 22, 2002 for the Meeting of March 25, 2002 Applicant: United Properties Location: 8555 Eagle Point Blvd. Requested Action: Preliminary Plat Land Use Plan Guiding: Commercial Existing Zoning: Business Park (Subject to an Approved PUD Plan) Site History and Existing Conditions: The site of 13.6 acres a portion of the previously approved (1999) Eagle Point Business Park. The initial plat of Eagle Point Business Park designated all but approximately 6 acres as outlots, with the understanding that those outlots would be replatted, consistent with the Eagle Point Business Park PUD Plan, at such time as specific projects were proposed. A 2001 plat of the entire Eagle Point site north of Hudson Blvd. created two buildable lots, and the Eagle Point Blvd. ROW. The balance of the site remained as legally unbuildable outlots. This preliminary plat is to replat one of those 2001 outlots to create the site for the Bremer Financial project, for which a Site Plan has already been reviewed by the Planning Commission, approved by the City Council. Discussion and Analysis: The preliminary plat is consistent with the process of land division described above; consistent with the approved PUD Plan; and consistent with the approved Site Plan for Bremer Financial. All reviews of grading and storm water conveyance/storage have been completed as a function of both earlier plats and the Bremer Financial Site Plan. This plat becomes a legal and "housekeeping" matter only. A Public Hearing has been Noticed in the Official City Newspaper, and to property owners within 350 feet of the site. Findings and Recommendations: Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat consistent with the provisions of Section 400 of the City Code (as they may apply in this case); the approved Eagle Point PUD Plan; and the approved Site Plan for the area proposed for platting. We recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Eagle Point Business Park 3rd Addition per plans staff dated February 21, 2002, subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat riannittannatanOMP Approx Eagle Point Blvd r N Site C a)/ Q R21W R1OW MOW 73222 732N T3 N 73 W TION : v TION 729N 12H7 727N • - T27N R22W RZIW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 801 Scale in Feet Tg.dn,bna fl.U.gbq..«nM.mn .maduYM pone rowan Inn 001.11! w a.dN w..Mngn Cat. edam. tint name. Mauldin Mal (q Wawa, impamts O nmangfat my M.O..nhbaq W Mina:w nntgton O.oMM aun.yan DIB... Mime (051)1.11/0 rzY at. O.Y< on MB4% InImmSYn (NU?:YPgan 00, ]mt Mama: Jan. », 2007 PRELIM/NARY PLAT EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION • / • :tin' 2 �31 266 L /ram •lase � `/ f rTe/y ,aL1�a- - - - -Iir --s��°°�� �al - - -(-- - ` - - are' - *n--'' - Ies ��_� �� ..._� p" - - .. - r see - 1-- cat, -" I 1 \•_, I .e.• -1.- "1 "'" ;,f�,:� ( `""" � .„ • ., Ir, I1� .wa.l\\ lulu e \\\ a.. «,.\1 .�_ `NI,,_� wee.l as (am a,A )\ N •""\ •car. a 1 me. \ �• .., at, a..l a•• \per \11. \\1 //� //,.. / ',a.. \�,a. \l4 % \ ->.�e, �,.a. ! _, �r ° fr \ , ae, aa, \ \�,1 ` \ \, 1\ .�` as 1\ • ,.L t, \caul, �5, 961 sq• fG w„e \ ,w.e a„ C. ,--A 1 o' \1 \ \ \ \ � � \ ... a„ f3• �518 acres I \\ 1 \ \ N \ \ nnf ra0arer ,nav ) • art / N.004 1100 • •,rp,s PROPOSED DRAINAGE - - - AND UOUTY EASEMENT 1020.3 .10014 50 0 50 100 SCA• LE 1N FEET • Denotes found. 1/2 Inch kdn pipe with plastic cap Insu0ed RLS 15480, unless otherwise noted. BFNQIMARRS 1.) MNOOT Brass Disk #8282 AD - located of the northwest corner of bridge on Radio Drive over Interstate Highway 94. Elevation - 1008.19 feet 2.) MNDOT Brass Disk /8282 AC - Located at the scutheoet corns of bridge on Redo Drive over Interstate Highway 94. El.vrton - 1006,67 feel 3.) Ralruod spike in south lots of let set of double power pales east of Inwood Avenue North. Elevdtim. = 996.62 last 4.) R,4road spike in south face of 2nd eel of double power poles earl of Inwood Avenue North. Elevation - 1005.25 feet 5.) Ro9,bad spike in evuth toms of 3rd set of double power poles stet of Inwood Avenue North. Elevollon - 11)12.68 feel PROPERTT DESCRIPTION (per Fkfl American Lille Insurance Company, Commitment far Title Instance Ile No. 59-B846C. Commitment Dole. November 29. 2001. 0u4ot 9. Eagle Point Business Pork 2nd Addition, Washington County, 411msedla. 1.) tacallon and sizes of underground utilities shown hereon ore approsbhals only and are shown based on field location of visible fixtures in combination with available data provided by swims sources. Utilities sham are dependent on the completenese and accuracy of data provided. Other underground utilities of which we ara unaware may islet. Verify all 0411(4es vitloal to conelnfcllon or design. 2.) Contact GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at 651-454-0002 for precise onslle lorniion.oi utilities prior to any eecovatie. 3.) Fire American Title Insurance Company. Commitment for Title Ineuronee File Na.'59-6846C, Commitment Dole, Nowmbr 29. 2001 was relied upon os to rl�ollue of record. • 4.) Propp'ety 6 abject to Declaration of Protective Covenants per Doc. DoNo. 1085503 5.) Property Is subject to Development Standards for Eagle Point Business Pork pet Doc. No. 1092260. B. Prroadd 1yy le subject to Toone and conditions of Declaration of Llamen t Easements and Landscaping Maintenance Covenant. per Doc. No. 1094005. Sold easement locollons are not specifically described. 7.) Total Area - 1.124.942 eq.N, or 25.8251 acres B.) Survey coordinate basis Washington County Coordinate System 9.) No i,dlmlion of wetland delineation by qualified wetland specialist has beer located or observed on site. 10.) ON:'03i OF PROPERTY: United Land LLC 11.) Editing topographic Inlarmollon shown Ls taken From survey prepared by Sondp Land Surveying. LLC. Proposed elevations re per pions provided by T):01 entitled "Eagle Point Boulenrd Sheet and Storm Improvements•. dated August 17, 2001. PROPOSED CUR 1. I \ \ ( •w �,u. 7: M PROPOSED DRAINAGE A0 UTILITY EASEMENT/ •/ / • e,e, e,v / 911.1.11 O GO Denote. gate vain 1411). Denotes fro h4dranl MH Denotes man hole 0.14. ELEC Denotes overhead electric PP Denote, 5AN 5 Denotes power sanitary sewer W Denotes water main WV Denotes water solve INV Denote. Invert elevation (P) Denotes elevellon or structure per plan (net field verified) proposed contour We hereby certify that this survey, pion or report Was prepared by me or under my Instruction and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. Dated this Bm day of Februay, 2002 SUNDE LAND SURVETING, LLC. By John 6. Banes, R.LS. Minn. Reg, No. 16456 Revised: February 14, 2002 (5. line of Lot 1 moved) �.. -•lip \ • \ •`\ B L O`C K �. 4. ,,, •NIe0 \\ ' I1,I •101 11 \ \ \\ •case °' N. \ \- \•10.7 \naA, `„ . I'I I tin I: \ ' �\.' \ �\ N \ \\ ,,J.ea. /----I 1 1 L,1 i... II Ili • \ •,,1 • \ •Ica •-� , �. I " a„ 1 aF-\ �\\ \ �,�,�• \ �"" \\ / •..... tr. IL e1- \ \ \• 6� �_ '' . ta%\. �, \ •\,... . ,�... :i�. Totes 1 T .. \L. \ ..,m •... i;� %) � <\ .,au � `, � �,o n umIT V EASEMENT 15 \ \ \ \ \N. ---.�--\ - \N89:7802£ 828.73 \, \ \ \ \\ s'N 1 \ \ • ma \ \ \ DB\ acs 1 •'are A l t, J 1,... 1 \. a.. \ 1 - J�i�w '�\ �'r,,,:k\ ,ewe • Nlu \ \ \\ ��' \ • \ •.•al \ \ \ \ o:s \ a,. \ .,� \ \ .. w �. \y�� \\ .\tale \\ •ws.. %. \ car, \ \ 5\38, 982 sq'ff. t� 12_\3733 acre'''" \ \\ •,awe \\ ImMal • 171 1111L .1I lsl 14011 • me \ • was \ \• nest \ \. ma \ •\°\\ •\ • .acre \ •004 \ • so.. \ • ••". P=11315d' R=86.00 \ `=1z31 \ ') \ .awK •w n \� C: cy_ l_/ MILO ED¢ . ,s 8, r 7W� 10.60 • Irate llSunde Land Surveying, LLC. MEMO (March 22, 2001 for the Meeting of March 25, 2002) To: Lake Elm: ' anning Commission From: erud Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Accessory Structures The Zoning Ordinance presently includes a clause that requires the "...written approval by adjacent property owners..", as one condition for approval of location garages or other accessory structures closer to the front property line than the principal structure on the lot. While the entire provision is a bit unusual, the provision for property owner written approval is probably illegal in this state — "referendum zoning". The Commission has often heard my sermons on the subject of neighborhood opinions on zoning matters (which may be — and often is — as much a function of interpersonal disputes over other matters, as having anything to do with land use regulation). The City Council has directed that the Commission consider repealing that "neighbor's permission" clause from the Code. I sincerely concur with that direction, and endorse the repeal as a move toward objectivity — and legality. A Notice of Public Hearing has been published in the City's Official Newspaper. City of Lake Elmo Washington County, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on Monday, March 22, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 3800 Laverne Avenue N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 to consider amending Section 300.013 Subd. 3 I., to wit: No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR, and R1 districts where detached garages may be permitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution of the City Council.and written apprc al ✓y adjacent property owners to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, and except in planned unit developments or cluster developments. All persons who wish to be heard regarding the proposed amendment to the 1997 Lake Elmo Municipal Code will be given that opportunity at this public hearing. Written comments will be accepted until the public hearing is closed. By Order of the Lake Elmo City Council Mary Kueffner City Administrator Published in the Stillwater Gazette on March 8, 2002. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 21, 2002 for the Meeting of March 25, 2002 Applicant: Kevin and Lori Peterson Location: 8278 Hidden Bay Court Requested Action: Zoning Variances — Shoreland Overlay District Land Use Plan Guiding: SRD Existing Zoning: R-1 (Subject to Shoreland Overlay District Standards) Site History and Existing Conditions: City Records reveal a permit for a 24'x22' detached garage in 1971; and the plans for a 201 on - site waste disposal system in 1984. We assume that the system was installed. The applicant has proposed two additions to the existing home. A 288 square foot (12'x24') footprint is proposed to be added to the north end of the home, which will yield 576 square feet of legal living area; and, a one level 120 square foot addition is proposed to the street side (east) of the home. The existing home has a 1250 square foot footprint, of which all but approximately 100 square feet is legal living area — a total of 2,400 square feet of existing living area. It is proposed that the home be expanded approximately 30% to a finished legal floor area of 3.096 square feet. At 39,200 square feet of area, the lot is non -conforming to the 1.5 acre (65,340 square feet) lot area minimum for a Recreational Development Lake (Olson Lake); and the existing house is located a minimum of 46 feet from the Olson Lake OHW. Therefore the lot and existing home are non-confoiiiiing to the applicable Shoreland Zoning standards. It should be also noted that the proposed north building line of the addition will be very close to the 10 foot north side setback. No survey is required with a variance application, but would be required if a Building Permit is applied for in the future. We are assuming that the north setback of 10 feet will be complied with. The addition to the north end of the existing home will be an expansion of the non -conformity of the structure (Shoreland Setback); and therefore can not be permitted without a variance from the terms of Section 325.07 Subd. 2A. The addition will be no closer to the OHW than the existing home, but well within the required 100 foot OHW setback. Discussion and Analysis: We have reviewed numerous applications for Shoreland Overlay District Variances over the past several years. Before someone again mentions in the "precedent" issue, it is important to reiterate that no zoning variance application is identical to ones that precede or succeed it. While there is a certain similarity among many of the variances we have seen in the Tri-Lakes - area related to homes that existed prior to Shoreland regulations, it is generally at that point that the similarity ends. Minnesota DNR has been notified of this Shoreland Variance application, as is required by the City Code and State Rules. As of this writing we have received no response from DNR to our February 25 notification. We have been previously advised by DNR that we should not expect to see written comments from them in every variance case. I have taken that to mean that we will hear nothing from them unless they have objections to the variance. State Rules and the City Code only require DNR be given notice of the variance, and that the City consider their comments. In neither case is DNR written (or even verbal response/comments) required. The City Code requires that any Shoreland Variance application be subjected to a review of the wastewater treatment capabilities/status on the site. The City Engineer was advised of this application on February 25 as well; and, has responded by advising staff of the 201 system that was installed in 1984. As this is written, we are awaiting further City Engineer advice as to the adequacy of that 201 system to handle projected additional waste volumes that could result from this home addition. From the notes attached to the 1984 plans it appears that the system was designed to handle 5 bedrooms - that could mean 4 bedrooms and a garbage disposal. It appears that the home expansion plan could result in 2 new lower level bedrooms — regardless of what the applicant may chose to call those two areas with bedroom -legal windows. That would be 5 bedrooms when added to the existing 3 main level bedrooms. We intend to have further comments/recommendations from the City Engineer in that regard by March 25. As with most Shoreland non -conforming structure expansions, once the issue of wastewater treatment is satisfied; and, when there is no proposed further encroachment on the OHW proposed, the primary issue tends to be the "reasonableness" of the expansion. As we have written previously, there is a point at which the overall mass and scale of the home, in relation to the site and other structures on the lake, passes being reasonable. While impervious site coverage may have been intended to address that concern, the prevalence of walk -out style homes on lake front lots reduces the effectiveness of impervious coverage in this regard — it still is effective for surface water run-off considerations, however. Findings and Recommendations: Assuming the City Engineer provides an affirmative finding regarding wastewater; and, assuming the DNR does not provide negative comments at this point, Planning Staff suggests the following Findings regarding this variance application: 1. The existing home pre -dates Shoreland Regulations. The variance will not result in additional encroachment to the Ordinary High Water elevation of Olson Lake, nor result in violating other Zoning Ordinance dimensional standards. 2. The mass and scale of the home as the result of approving the variance will remain in keeping with other homes located in the Shoreland Overlay District. No special right of privilege to this property owner will result from the variance. 3. The variance is not totally the result of actions by the property owner. The imposition of Shoreland Standards after platting of the lot, and construction of the existing home, has resulted in the entire home being located within the OHW setback. No home modifications are possible without variance. 4. Several variances have been approved by the City under similar circumstances: no additional encroachment on the OHW; no property owner option to expand an existing home without violating OHW setback; and, modifications to an existing home in scale with other lake front properties — as a function of home living area. 5. A determination of "minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship" is not possible under these circumstances. 6. The variance is not detrimental to the purposes of the Shoreland Overlay District, nor other properties in the R-1 zone. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to recommend approval of the Shoreland Overlay District variance for Lori and Kevin Peterson at 8278 Hidden Bay Court, based on home expansion plans staff dated March 21, 2002, ande Fiij gs of the' ling Staff Report dated March 21, 2002 Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Documentation ONCE ACRES FOURTH ADDITION • • \ Location Map • • 545 CIES SECOND • / ADDITI • ADD) • • R2IW R2OW R19W T32N T3IN TN T31N 'MON DON T29N 129N TUN T2RN T27N T27N R22W R21W R2OW Vicinity Map 0 384 Scale in Feet Dile drawing mt. result of a cm... 0. reproduction al land recur. as SP. Wear In various Wash.,. Own, olficee. T. dn.. elsta00 be itted popes. only Wastanclon County te not response. ke any 0.0.rustee Soarer W.... County Suneyots Office PM. 1651) 4.10.687S Pied 0.0 Posed on AS000 Intermit. ascent mous. Moan 31, POOS M.ppflS Ithth42DO2 0 R2INV 11.20W 11.19W 1122W R2IW MOW Vicinity Map 60 Scale in Feet drawNe *Ms tesurt el e eentebotee raereete. of Mee metes ar eery Tr r elebnelan Counly Weer; elgeiiii:Tnould be unoe let 1.11111<• Nebee.•• W Betiebeen Ceunly is net tIsRonsible sae Insmeaciet Belem ellbigien Coen., bee...goes Office (BSI) 00.61es ,PEralmer, te 1.e.,07. 311111 0, 1. 01 ocam• February 14, 2002 Zoning Administrator City of Lake Elmo Washington County RE: Request for Variance Dear Sir or Madam, Greetings! We'd like to request a variance for an addition to our existing house which is located at 8278 Hidden Bay Ct. North. Here are the details: a. Name and address of applicants: Kevin and Lori Peterson, 8278 Hidden Bay Ct. N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042. b. Legal description of property: Lot 14 in Oace Acres as surveyed and platted and now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles of said county of Washington, State of Minnesota. The street address is 8278 Hidden Bay Ct. N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, The property ID number is: 09.029.21.23.0010. c. Name and address of owners: same as in letter "a." d. Site plan drawn to scale: See enclosure. e. Location of all existing and proposed buildings and size: See enclosure. f, Curb cuts, driveways, etc.: See enclosure. g. Variance requested and reasons: We are requesting to build a 24 ft. X 12 ft. 8 inch addition onto our existing house. The house is currently 72 ft. from the shoreline of Lake Olsen. The addition would not be located any closer to the lake, but would be added onto the north end of the house. So the addition would be the same distance from the lake as the existing structure. h. List of abutting property owners: 1) Mrs. Lois DeLong, 8274 Hidden Bay Tr. N 2) Eric and Carol Muehrcke, 8282 Hidden Bay Ct. 3) Helen Ylonen, 8292 Hidden Bay Tr. We greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call us at 651-777-4716, or Kevin can be reached on his pager at 651-864-1895. 4( AWE , tv 61 4-1) Alehen Tev ailmay ;/4/ez Kevin and Lori Peterson 41 I 8 I tLL • F.1.-0) - • • LAKE oL -701 E3 Arreolc OHV 827 S i cv J 16. ' Cr 0- S . TANK t Gunp G49cr77ioN V. REVISIONS tE 1 ti \ / CLEAN QIYT N95MT. FL. \ EL. 94 2.5 , N \ \ \ \ OF SOI(O DM*. LDB DLW C (IAFD LDB %L 934 • gym, I ///ZZt/ D[toDOEmTMIMEO •ARCR t/ONY MKT X/EDwONHD 1W• T K D-NADUI, REOIMIEREDa FMY*f11 VIDFII�� �AAyv6OE 1 VAN OF ! r. wr( "to ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS NDTES ; 1f‘.ISTP,LLED 1500 GAL. S1 500 GNP.. PUMP STATION PUMP 75.1 SF OF 31 WrOE THE 21 OF ROCK UNDER P\ • Wastewater Facilities Improvements TOL TZ, FONG. DWALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED /Lake 'vElmoA, Minnesota SAINT PAOL. MINNESOTA EPA Protect ow C 271411 LE - EX. SE, Q -EX.DR O-EX. WE =-EX.OR - PROP • -PROPF PROP O -PROP I -1,-- PROP: - PERCO SOIL B -PROP I 7018 SHEET NO. 8 OF (O7SH LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 21, 2002 for the Meeting of March 25, 2002 Applicant: FVN+HTC, Inc. Location: 9730 Hudson Blvd. Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit (Applicant)/Rezoning (City) Land Use Plan Guiding: Limited Business (1997 Plan and 2000 Plan) Existing Zoning: HB (Highway Business) Site History and Existing Conditions: This 9/10 acre site has been the location of a motel facility since Oakdale Township days. It appears that the motel has existed as an owner's residence and 11-12 motel/rental units from that time to the present. City records on the property begin in 1973, with the installation of a new roof. In 1986 a perspective buyer proposed a 2,700 square foot addition to the east end of the structure to house a ceramics business of some type. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the Site Plan for the addition, based on as finding that the addition would constitute structural expansion on a non -conforming parcel (non -conforming as to lot area). The application was withdrawn before consideration by the City Council. In 1995 a portion of the private septic system serving the motel failed. As a result, a new septic system was installed. From the Building Dept. records it appears that the new system was sized to handle the entire facility even though the old system was partially serviceable. It appears that the result of the project was a combined system that is slightly oversized for the facility. Discussion and Analysis: At some point in time — probably in 1979 — this site, and several others in the City, were zoned Highway Business. Later, there was an effort by the Planning Commission to repeal the Highway Business classification, which was not ultimately approved by the City Council. The repeal of Highway Business was again considered in 2000 — at the direction of the City Council. The Planning Commission conducted a Hearing on the proposed repeal on September 11, 2000, with direction the Staff to contact the affected property owners. That action completed, the Commission again considered the repeal on October 11, 2000; and, recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. At that point the initiative again went off track — for no apparent reason, other than a heavy volume of applicant matters then being processed by planning staff. It is the intent of staff to send that October, 2000 recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the repeal of the Highway Business zone to the City Council concurrent with these applications — regardless of the Commission's recommendations on these applications. The applicant proposes purchase of the motel facility; and, conversion of the facility to a temporary residence for women and children in need of such an accommodation as the result of domestic issues. FVN+HTC, Inc. is an organization engaged in providing assistance to women and children impacted by domestic issues. The applicants have not proposed any structural modifications to the facility to accommodate their proposed use. Therefore we do not believe the issues of dimensional non -conformity of the site or structures (if any) are the same as with the 1986 application to both add a use, and increase the area of the structure. There is no expansion of non -conformity proposed by this application — unless the zoning would remain Highway Business. As noted above, the site is Land Use Plan guided Limited Business by both the 1997 and 2000 Land Use Plans. Regardless of the Highway business repeal initiative, the site is eligible for Limited Business zoning — and has been since at least 1997, and probably well before that. The City should amend the zoning map from Highway Business to Limited Business to comply with State mandates regarding consistency between Land Use Plans and Zoning Maps. Assuming the rezoning action, the current Limited Business allowable Conditional Uses include "Licensed Dependent Care Centers". While this particular use was likely not anticipated by those terms (more likely, day care centers for children), the proposed use is surely "dependent care", if not specifically licensed. It would appear that the "uses of the same general character" clause of the Limited Business Zone would apply to this proposed CUP. As with any Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission is directed by the City Code to consider such application with respect to the following: 1. Effect on the health, safety, morals, convenience, and general welfare of occupants of. surrounding lands. 2. Existing and anticipated conditions on adjacent streets and lands. 3. Effect on utility and school capacities. 4. Effect on property values of property in the surrounding area. 5. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission may recommend conditions of approval (in addition to those that may be mandatory for the specific use in the Zoning Ordinance — in this case, none) to assure the above listed concerns are complied with. As required by the Zoning Ordinance, a Hearing Notice has been published in the Official Newspaper of the City; and, all property owners within 350 feet of the site have been mailed Notice of the Hearing, and an invitation to appear and testify. A Public Hearing is required. Findings and Recommendations: Staff finds that the rezoning of this parcel from Highway Business to Limited Business is both consistent with the 1997/2000 Land Use Plans; and, because of that, such rezoning is mandatory under State Law. We recommend approval. Staff finds that the temporary residency use proposed by FVN+HTC, Inc. qualifies as an allowable Conditional Use in the Limited Business District as being of the same general character as the allowable use "Licensed Dependent Care Centers". Staff further finds that the proposed Conditional Use complies with the Conditional Use Permit standards specified by Section 300.06 Subd. 4A of the City Code. We recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Inspection of the private septic system by a qualified septic system technician; and, certification by that septic system technician of the adequacy of the existing system for the intended use and occupancy. Such inspection and certification shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to any use of the facility by FVN+HTC, Inc. Maximum occupancy limitations, based on the septic system capacity, shall be prescribed by the City Engineer. Exceeding those maximum occupancy limits shall be a violation of the Conditional Use Permit terms. 2. The existing facility shall not be modified to increase the number of residency units, nor structurally enlarged in any manner. 3. All existing signage relating to the motel use of the site shall be removed from the site within 30 days of occupancy by FVN+HTC, Inc. 4. Temporary residency shall be limited to women and children clients of FVN+HTC, Inc. No other classes of dependent care/housing, or care/housing for other agencies/organizations is approved. The Commission may also wish to consider a condition regarding the maximum length of residency permitted for any individual/family unit — to overcome this facility becoming an apartment facility by another name. If such a condition is considered necessary, the Commission may wish to discuss the term length with the applicant on March 25. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion(s) recommending the following to the City Council: 1. Approval of rezoning of 9730 Hudson Blvd. from Highway Business to Limited Business, based on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A Finding that the use posed by application of FVN/HTC, Inc. is of the same general character as "licensed dependent care center". 3. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for FVN/HTC, Inc. to permit use of the existing facilities at 9730 Hudson Blvd. for temporary housing of women and children; based on a Finding that the proposed use complies with the standards of Section 300.06, Subd. 4; and, subject to the conditions specified by the March 21, 2002 Planning Staff Report. QA/..i Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Documentation Location Map R2IW R2OW R19W T32N T3IN R22W R2IW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 1200 Scale in Feet Tale e.*, Os Ine result of a emaaenen end aareevelaeeI lane rem. es eery Were es various w.en lVen cemly nnurre. Tlr dressing Moule m we la re..m.. ,aeosea ones. Washington County Is not .egonpda la any inMvtaCb. Berme: WeCM4bn County &rveyore Mee. Proses 1)eSUBB)B Parcel eMa lases m RB.eg Mena. armee enough: January St 20,2 Map printed; MrM 21.2002 City of Lake Elmo Attachment to Development Application Form Type of business or activity and number of employees FVN+HTC, Inc. will use this facility to operate the Doris and Stand Hill Home (Hill Home). Hill Home is an emergency shelter which offers a full range of services to women and children fleeing family violence, including: • 24-hour telephone, on-line and on -site crisis advocacy and support • Temporary emergency housing for 28 women and children • Case management • Access to immediate mental health crisis assessment • Support in creating a safety plan and setting goals • Assistance in retrieving and storing personal belongings • Parenting, healing, goal -setting, informational and other support groups • Transportation support • Intervention line with police and healthcare professionals evenings and overnights Services are provided by intake personnel, family violence advocates, on -staff and volunteer medical and mental health professionals, representatives from related agencies (e.g., chemical dependency and mental health counselors), licensed cooks, and kitchen, security and custodial staff members. Trained professional volunteers also serve and support clients. During day and early evening hours five to seven staff are on site. During late evening and overnight one staff is on site at all times. Cue_e_En-f PIC: 34-029- .21-213- DOOZ _J 'UNIT LOIN IN. DM H 1 1 WHY VNIT UNIT• _ uN1T 10... VISIT 11 •IV WIDD rAMtC BED ROOM n eeo ROOM AIMS N Uvula. Deets A oFrog MTM . VNIT 1 Nor TO MEMO (March 20, 2002 for the Meeting of March 25, 2002) To: Lake Elmo P, From: Chu uji . ning Commission Subject: Daniel Rude Variances The Commission tabled this application on March 11; and, requested staff to address two specific issues: 1. At what point in time was the R-1 District minimum lot area changed to 1.5 acres (or 1 acre). 2. The City Engineer's opinion as to what surface area would be required to accommodate two septic drain fields for a home of the proposed size. I recalled that the City Attorney had researched the history of Lake Elmo zoning some time ago related to another issue. I have therefore asked him to repeat his findings in that regard. He had also, more recently, researched the County records regarding the land division action(s) that resulted in the Kraft Circle parcels. From what we can gather the subject Rude parcel was created in 1956 as the result of the "Simonet Survey", at the existing lot areas — 10,000 or 12,000 square feet, depending on whether Kraft Circle ROW is included. If there was any zoning ordinance at all at that time, it was likely the Washington County Model Ordinance. The zoning of this site, and probably most of the Village (which was only about 700 acres at that time) was SFU, which had a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size — with public sanitary sewer assumed. As often is the case when Model Ordinances are adopted, certain "model" standards and features are not universally applicable to each governmental unit adopting the model. That public sanitary sewer caveat should have been addressed by the village before adopting the model, but did not, and the Kraft Circle lots were created at or near the SFU minimum without public sanitary sewer as a result. If there were no foiiiial zoning standards in 1956, there certainly were in by the time of Lake Elmo/East Oakdale consolidation in 1969. But, these were the same model ordinance standards; with the same problem regarding the reference to public sanitary sewer lot area minimums. In 1979 the City adopted a "local" zoning ordinance, which changed the zoning class from SFU to R-1, and included recognition of the difference in lot size minimums for private on -site and public sanitary sewer. (1.5 acres for private sanitary sewer/24,000 for public) I understand that there was discussion, and even intent, by the City to install public sanitary sewer at some point (or points) of time in the 60's and 70's. That probably influenced the inclusion of R-1 alternative lot area standards. The City Engineer has reviewed the soil investigations recently submitted with the design of a new septic system a few hundred feet north of the Rude site. It would appear, from the Engineer's March 20 communication, that 6,400 square feet of area would be required for the 2 drain fields (one active and one backup area) to serve the Rude site. While the sketch the applicant submitted with his present application does not depict drain fields that large, it does appear that drain fields of the area suggested by the City Engineer could fit on the site — if the City owned land is included. The City Council has continued its consideration of a Policy regarding sale of City owned land. There is no clear direction as to whether the applicant' s plan to include City owned land with his existing parcel will be approved by the Council as to sale by the City of the additional land area the application assumes. It is clear, however, that two septic drain fields of the required area would be difficult, if not impossible, on the parcel that the applicant now owns. Attachments: 1. City Attorney's Letter of March 18, 2002 2. City Engineer's Email of March 20, 2002 3. Applicant's Response to the Staff Report 4. March 5 Planning Staff Report and Attachments Warren E. Peterson Jerome P Filla Daniel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman John Michael Miller Michael T. Oberle Steven H. Bruns` Paul W. Fahning Esther E. McGinnis Cameron S. McLelland P FRAM 111 ta Atoll *NON Chuck Dillerud City Planner City of Lake Elmo 3 800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Zoning History Kraft Circle Area PF&B File No. 11145.010001 Dear Chuck: ERSON. LEGMANlimmittiotosvd March 18, 2002 Suite 300 50 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-I 197 (651) 291-8955 (651) 228-1753 facsimile Direct Dial #(651) 290-6907 RECEIVED MAN E i 'i4iuf CITY OF LAK.k eiNIO Based upon my review of various City matters over the years and upon my review of the development proposals for the Kraft Circle area, I believe the following statements are fairly accurate: 1. This part of the City was located in the Old Village prior to the merger with East Oakdale Township. 2. The plat of Lake Elmo Park was filed in March of 1911. The first rearrangement of Lot 3, Block 3, Lake Elmo Park was recorded in November of 1914. This subdivision created Lots 1 through 6 which had frontage on Lake Elmo Boulevard (32 nd Street North) and Lot 7 which had frontage on Railway Avenue (33rd Street North). 3. Lot 7 of the first rearrangement of Lot 3, Block 3, Lake Elmo Park was the subject of the 1956 Simonet Survey which created meets and bounds descriptions for 8 tracts of land. The lots of record were created when the deeds of conveyance were recorded using meets and bounds descriptions. The lots described in the 1956 Simonet Survey vary in size from approximately 12,500 square feet to 18;500 square feet. `ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN March 18, 2002 Page 2 4. I have not reviewed City records prior to 1969. However, the Old Village probably had a zoning ordinance. There should be a record of this contained in the City's files. The Old Village zoning ordinance may have been nothing more than the incorporation of the Washington County Model Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. 5. In 1969, the Old Village and East Oakdale Township merged. After the merger, the City adopted or re -adopted the Washington County Model Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. The Kraft Circle area was designated as a Single -Family Urban area ("SFU"). The Washington County Model Ordinance indicates that property in the SFU District "represents urban density used by single-family detached dwellings provided with public sanitary sewer". The SFU minimum lot size was 10,000 square feet, but this assumed that the lots were served by public sanitary sewer. Without public sanitary sewer, all of the lots in the Kraft Circle area were non -conforming lots. 6. In 1974, the City adopted its first codified set of regulations, but continued to incorporate the Washington County Model Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. 7. In 1979, the City adopted its first local zoning ordinance and zoning map. The Kraft Circle area was designated as One -Family Residential district ("R-1 "). The minimum lot size was one and a half acres per unit for lots without sanitary sewer and 24,000 square feet per unit for lots with public sanitary sewer. As a result of this legislation, the Kraft Circle area parcels became more non -confirming in 1979 than they were in 1969. 8. The Kraft Circle area remains in the R-1 zoning district subject to regulations which are the same or very similar to the regulations adopted by the City in 1979. March 18, 2002 Page 3 9. The Washington County Model Zoning Ordinance, the 1979 City Zoning Regulations, and the City's current Zoning Regulations all contain provisions which restrict the development of non -conforming lots unless variances are approved. I hope this summary helps your review of the development proposals for the Kraft Circle area. I am speculating that in the mid 1960's, the Village and City officials anticipated the extension ofpublic sewer to Lake Elmo. The City's vision for development appears to have changed in the mid 1970's and this change is reflected by revisions to the City's regulations which require larger lot sizes. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, JPF:lk cc: Mary Kueffner Chuck Dillerud From: Thomas D. Prew [prew.td c@tkda.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:56 AM To: Chuck Dillerud Subject: Rude Variance Lake Elmo 11979-021 Chuck: I reviewed the Rude variance in regards to septic system. It appears that a standard drainfield for a 3-bedroom house would take up 3200 SF of lawn area. 2 would use up 6400 SF. This was based on the soil tests the neighbors property to the south recently completed on the City property. Please remember that there is a driveway on that potion of City property that he is requesting. So his assumption that he will have an additional 12,000 SF may be in error. Tom Thomas D. Prew, P.E. phone: 651/292-4463 fax: 651/292-0083 e-mail: Prew.td@tkda.com Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2140 1 DANIEL B. RUDE 3250 KRAFT CIRCLE NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 651.779.6564 Date: Monday, March 11, 2002 To: City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Re: Rude/Hegna Variance Application (Amended) The Staff Report before you presents one main argument for its recommendation to deny this request — the adverse Public Impacts of residential density, and in particular the aggregate impact of private septic systems on a given geographic area, in this case, the Old Village. On May 30, 2001 the Planning Commission passed a Resolution approving the variance request by Anthony Carlone for lots in the Tablyn Park neighborhood. The decision in that action was based, in part, on three criteria, with two notable omissions: • an earlier request by the City to combine existing lots (unique circumstances), • the Average Lot Size of the Neighborhood criterion, • the current direction of the City regarding non -conforming lots in R-1 zones, • The lots were contiguous non -conforming parcels under common ownership, and • there was no mention of the Public Impacts in Carlone Findings, yet the decision actually increased the Public Impacts (especially the impact of private septic systems) by a factor of two and one-half. No two variance applications are identical, but they all must meet the same standards in order for a variance to be approved. The ambiguous language of the zoning ordinance with respect to variances seems to allow some latitude when it comes to applying those standards and, as a result, not all applications are treated equally. The following ideas may lead to a different recommendation than the one presented in the Staff Report. 1. If a broad definition of "unique circumstances" was used in other decisions, it should be used here. 2. If the "Average Lot Size of a Neighborhood" criterion was used in other decisions, then it should be used here. 3. If the "current direction of the City regarding non -conforming lots in the R-1 zone" was considered in other applications, It should be considered here. 4. If other recent applications involving non -conforming lots under common ownership in R-1 zoning (300.09 Subd. 2) were approved by the City, this application should also be approved. -1- 5. If the Public Impacts included under the R-1 zoning (aggregate effect of private septic systems) were not considered in other decisions, they should not be included here. Clearly, the City recognizes the unique circumstances which exist in the Old Village and plans to address the issue of non -conforming lots in the R-1 zone. I am seeking equal consideration for this request based on previous actions of the City. I respectfully request you set aside the recommendations of City Staff based on the additional information provided here, and that you will find sufficient cause to pass a resolution recommending the approval of this application based on the following Alternate Findings. Alternate Findings 1. There would appear to be unique circumstances regarding this lot as it exists because it was created prior to the current R-1 zoning ordinance and it is located in the Old Village, an area which the City has determined requires special consideration. 2. The Literal interpretation of the lot area standards of the R-1 district in this case would deprive me of rights enjoyed by other property owners in this Old Village neighborhood, if not all R-1 zoned areas in the City. The average lot size in the neighborhood is 15, 000 sq. ft. This lot combined with the proposed purchase of a city owned lot would result in a lot of 24,000 sq. ft., larger than many of the other lots in the neighborhood. (see Carlone Resolution) 3. Although the City can not create a hardship, adopting the current zoning ordinance did create "unique circumstances". In past actions the, City has worked to address those circumstances with other lot owners. I am seeking similar relief. 4. The variances requested would not confer any privilege that has been denied to other property owners in the neighborhood, if not all of the R-1 zoned areas of the City. In fact it complies with prior variance approvals which have used the Average Lot size of the Neighborhood criterion. (see Carlone Resolution) 5. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the requirements 300.9 Subd. 2 and 3 of R-1 zoning. 6. The variances will not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code nor to properties within the neighborhood and zone. (see Carlone Resolution) 7. The hardship may be, in part, economic but is also due, in part, to previous actions by the City and the unique nature of the Old Village as demonstrated by the decision of the Planning Commission, Village Commission, and the City Council to consider changes to the existing R-1 zoning ordinance. Respectfully, Daniel B. Rude -2- LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 5, 2002 for the Meeting of March 11, 2002 Applicant: Daniel Rude Location: West Side of Kraft Circle, South of 32❑d Street Requested Action: Zoning Code Variance(s) Land Use Plan Guiding: SRD (Single Family Residential) Existing Zoning: R-1 Site History and Existing Conditions: The Planning Commission denied a variance application at this location on September 24, 2002. The Commission's denial action was appealed by the applicant. The appeal was not heard by the City Council. The applicant has requested City reconsideration of the previous variance application based on an enlarged site area. Staff has agreed to present this modified application to the Planning Commission/City Council as an amendment to the earlier application. A Public Hearing Notice has been published, however, to overcome any potential process issues regarding consideration of the amended application. For all practical purposes, therefore, this becomes a new application. The City Code has been amended as to Zoning Variance process since the 2002 consideration of this application. Based on the present Code procedures, the Planning Commission will conduct the Public Hearing; and, adopt a recommendation to the City Council, rather than render a decision. The necessity for Findings in support of that recommendations remains, however. The detailed "Site History" regarding this site is addressed in the attached copy of the September 18, 2001 Planning Staff Report, and therefore not repeated here. Since preparation of that report, the applicant has petitioned the City for connection of this site to the 32nd Street 201 Wastewater Treatment System. We have attached the Staff memo to the City Council from the February 5, 2002 City Council meeting, at which the applicant's request was considered. I have also attached the City Council Minutes of February 5, 2002, which describe the discussion of the applicant's 201 connection request, as well as the Council's action denying that request. Discussion and Analysis: There are two major differences between the applicant's 2001 variance application, and that which is now before the Commission: 1. The area of the land parcel for which a variance from the R-! lot area standard is requested. 2. An increased site area over which drain fields for a private wastewater system are possible — making the ability to provide area for those two drain fields probable, rather than doubtful. Both of those are "conditional" in nature, however. This application is made on the assumption that the City will sell the applicant approximately 12,000 square feet of the City -owned land located immediately West of the applicant's 12,000 square foot (or 10,000 square foot, depending on whether the area of the lot under Kraft Circle ins included) parcel. A portion of this City -owned land was sold earlier this year (subject to appropriate parcel division/consolidation) to a neighboring land owner in immediate need of a replacement drain field location. The City Council has directed that no further sales of City -owned land be made until a Policy is established governing such sales. The City Council will be considering a draft Policy at its February 6, 2002 meeting. Based on the assumption that the City will sell the additional 12,000 square feet of land to the applicant, this application is to allow construction of a new home on a parcel of 22,000-24,000 square feet with private on -site wastewater treatment. Since the parcel assumed is not a "Lot of Record" in its assumed configuration, the standard from which variance is requested is 1.5 acres (65,340 square feet). In addition, the applicant is the owner of three other contiguous parcels, the sum area of which does not meet the 1.5 acre R-1 minimum lot area requirement. A second variance is required from the terms of Section 300.09 Subd.2., regarding the required combination of separate contiguous non -conforming parcels of land under single ownership. Finally, a variance is required form Section 300.09 Subd. 8, regarding the need for at least 1 acre of on -site sewage treatment area for each dwelling unit. The applicant has concurrently applied to combine his other three tax parcels (all fronting 32nd Street North) into a single parcel. The sum of all 4 of the applicant's parcels, plus the area of land proposed to be acquired from the City is still well short of 1.5 acres (approximately 45,000 square feet, or 7/10 of an acre, including Kraft Circle) Most of the "Discussion" found in the September 18, 2001 Planning Staff Report on the previous application focused on two areas of concern: 1. The high probability that there would not be adequate space on the 12,000 square foot parcel for a second drain field. 2. Concern with the effective residential density that would result from approving a new residence on a lot ; and, the potential compounding of that density by future variance actions using that application as a precedent. Assuming that the applicant's land purchase from the City is consummated, the probability that a second "back up" drain field site can be accommodated is increased — but not assured. At this point, the applicant has not invested in the investigations necessary to determine soils suitability for drain fields. One impediment to the variance for lot area would, therefore, likely be reduced or eliminated by adding lot area, as proposed. The second issue — that of effective residential density — is reduced by a factor of one-half when compared to the previous application. If one assumes that there is a certain measure of logic to support the lot area standards of the R-1 zoning district, one may (at this proposed lot area — 24,000 square feet) conclude that the residential density issue is partly addressed as well. The rationale for residential density standards (incorrectly, but commonly, reflected by minimum lot size requirements) is a function of several factors that will result from land development — sometimes referred to as "externalities". Those include traffic generation, impacts on municipal and educational services and facilities, and others. Whether or not a site is served with public or private wastewater handling is but one of those externalities. Where public sewer is available, it becomes a matter of conveyance and treatment system capacities — the capacity is either there or it is not. The permitted residential density can — and often is — based on that factor (treatment capacity) alone when public waste treatment is available. That same concern/logic is likely one basis for the 1.5 acre R-1 lot area minimum in the Lake Elmo zoning ordinance. In Lake Elmo's case, however, it is not the capacity of a wastewater plant at issue, but rather the aggregated wastewater treatment carrying capacity of the soils. While individual on -site wastewater treatment systems may be of adequate size and design to each function properly for the residence, at some point the combined impact (density) of multiple individual systems in a given geographic area may exceed the capability of the soils to process the waste product from the multiple drain fields. The density of homes/private septic systems at which that soils capability is lost will vary with the types of soils encountered. A density equal to home sites not less than 1.5 acres in area (6/10 units per acre) has been determined to be a safe assumption for soils caring capacity for the R-1 areas of in Lake Elmo (primarily the areas of the City that were platted under earlier — or non-existent — zoning regulations). Findings and Recommendations: We have carefully considered the 7 Findings recommended by Staff, and adopted by the Planning Commission regarding the 2001 variance application. This review was to determine how those findings could now be different, given the increased site size the applicant now conditionally proposes, together with any impact on those findings that may result from recent interpretations of the City Code confirmed by the City Council (particularly the intended meaning of the zoning ordinance terms, "with sanitary sewer"). Considering those factors, the Findings of September 18, 2001 appear remain accurate and valid essentially as written: 1. The requested variance does not exhibit extraordinary or exceptional circumstances which do not apply generally to other properties in the R-1 zone or vicinity of the site. A significant number of vacant tax parcels, zoned R-1 and of a similar parcel area exist within the platted area of the Old Village. 2. The granting of the variance will confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by standards of the Zoning Ordinance to other owners of land under similar circumstances within the R-1 district. Numerous vacant tax parcels of similar area are denied the privilege to construct a residence that would be conferred on the applicant by approval of the variance. 3. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance by establishing s significantly reduced standard for unsewered R-1 lot area. Granting of the variance request would nearly triple the land use intensity from that assumed by the Zoning Ordinance for unsewered parcels. 4. The hardship claimed by the applicant is economic alone. 5. The hardship claimed is the direct result of actions by the applicant by his failure to combine several substandard lots of record that are contiguous. 6. The applicant's existing reasonable use of the subject parcel is established by the fact that, when the area of the subject parcel is combined with the area of the three additionalcontiguous parcels owned by the applicant, and the land area proposed to be purchased by the applicant from the City, the resulting sum area is substandard for a single residence by R-1 standards. There is no hardship demonstrated by lack of reasonable use of the subject parcel. 7. The approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 300.09, Subd. 2 of the City Code regarding contiguous non -conforming parcels of record in common ownership. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to recommend denial of the application of Daniel Rude for variances to Section 300.07 Subd. 4C3 (R-1 Minimum Lot Area); Section 300.09 Subd.2. (Contiguous Parcel Ownership); and, Section 300.09 Subd. 8 (Minimum Sewage Treatment Area) based on the seven Findings found in the Planning Staff Report dated March 5, 2002. Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Documentation 3. City Council Minutes of February 5, 2002 4. Staff Memo to Council for February 5, 2002 5. Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2001 6. September 18, 2001 Planning Staff Report Location Map R21W R2OW RI9W T32N T32N T3IN T31N T3ON T' T3ON ,j muAilEFi rE T29N T29N T28N T2BN T27N - T27N R22W R2IW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 400 Scale in Feet TM.drawing I. W =0*recompiWlad Pad raproducitu al INN I.oa., as hey Rpm 1yam. WWinpancountyamc.a. Tla erewvg slot. a road la r.lg.nce Ms only. Wuninplon Cant' n.p tulble a Wry a...a.. Pause' WeYngl n County aaaer.r.anwe Prone lCat/e966876 Parcel delabawlad arrant Waugh; aer„wy al. TOM Nap PlnNt ear. B, ADrP J h uZ P 1E E 120.16' Z Plagu�eJQ CD n. Kraft Circle Site Plan City's Vacant Lot (12,016 sq. ft.) 0 ,120.16' 20' o C p (CD Vl O. '11111-30' —► Vacant Lot to be Developed (12,016 sq. ft.) Garage 3250 Kraft Circle North Rude's House I4JJO OpID ljaI North MEMO (March 22, 2002 for the Meeting of March 25, 2002) To: Lake Elmo P ' Q Commission From: Ch Subject: A owable Uses in the Limited Business Zone While I have not had time to, myself, further consider the subject, I do not wish the matter to be lost in the shuffle of consultant projects and applicant matters either. I have therefore placed the matter back on the March 25 agenda. I have attached the materials previously prepared by staff, as well as the Memo prepared by Commissioner Bunn. In addition, Commissioner Ptacek provided me some reprinted materials from other zoning ordinances that may provide some additional direction. I need to look over that material, as well as provide the Commission the inventory of existing uses zoned Limited Business. I hope to be ready to further address these matters at the March 25 meeting. MEMORANDUM DAt'E: February 19, 2002 RE: City Council's request for advice on the "Limited Business" part of the City Code TO: Members ofthe Lake Elmo Planning Commission: and Chuck Dillerud FROM: Julie Bunn (748-1448; iuliebunn us@vahoo.com) At our last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Dillerud conveyed to us the City Council's request that we advise them on cleaning up the "conditional use" component of the Limited Business section of the City Code. As we had some difficulty addressing this issue in the limited time allowed, after some examination ofthe issue, I have written up for your consideration what I have come to understand in the hope that it might provide a basis for further discussion by the Planning Commission. In attached Exhibit 1, you will find two definitions of conditional use provided by professional planners. While the two definitions are not entirely consistent with one another, in practice they can be made to be so_ Given these definitions, I see at least four separate points to be addressed. Below I outline these four points and provide some suggested recommendations for the City Council concerning them. 1) No business should be listed under conditional use (see 1st column of Exhibit 2) unless it has included with it an explicit statement of conditions accompanying it (listed in column 2 of Exhibit 2). If such conditions are not listed, then the use is a "permitted use," not a "conditional use." You will note that many of the supposed "conditional uses" listed in Exhibit 2 do not have conditions accompanying them. This problem is not limited to the conditional use portion of only the Limited Business portion of the Code; it is also true of the General Business and Business Park conditional use sections of the Code. Recommendation: Regarding all items in column one of the conditional uses section of the code that fail to list conditions (in Limited Business, these are items: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22), either (i) drop them entirely if they do not indeed reflect what is intendedfor the zone in question, (i) add conditions if they are to remain under conditional uses, or, (iii) if indeed they are suited to the zone in question and no specific conditions are intended, add them to permitted uses. The current list of conditional uses under Limited Business includes a variety of retail businesses that may be on the list due to these businesses having existed in the zone prior to a rewriting of the zoning. This is not a reason to list them in the conditional use section of the Code without attached conditions. The Council should either (i) determine that they are "permitted uses," (ii) list them with conditions, or (iii) drop them from the "permitted" or "conditional" uses and allow them to be "nonconforming" businesses. 2) Several of the items listed as conditional uses on p. 1 of Exhibit 2, appear to mislabeled. They would be more accurately described as "accessory uses" to the four `Permitted Uses" listed under Limited Business (these are items 4, 11, 12, 15 and 19 in Exhibit 2). Recommendation: Move businesses more appropriately understood as "accessory uses" to the primary "permitted use" businesses to the list of Accessory Uses on p. 2 of Exhibit 2. 3) From my understanding of the first of the two conditional use definitions provided in Exhibit 1, the only item on the list of Conditional Uses under Limited Business that appears to meet the test is item 9; it appears to be a very intentional exception made to the four `Permitted Uses" and a clear condition is stated. 4) My comments above do not address the issues raised by activities included in definition two in Exhibit 1, temporary activities such as concerts, carnivals, etc. Recommendation: if the Council wishes to allow such activities under certain conditions, a category for this type of activity should be explicitly listed under "Conditional Uses" and the conditions stated. In conclusion, without drawing any conclusions about the substantive content of what is contained there, if what is stated under Purpose and Permitted Uses for Limited Business does indeed reflect the Council's vision for the Limited Business zone (see Exhibit 3), then I would recommend dropping all but conditional use 9 from the List (assuming item 9 is still consistent with the land Use vision for the property indicated), and move uses 4, 11, 12, 15, and 19 to the list of Accessory Uses. Thank you for your time. Exk,"Lit t : e-Ck`,nt'$S oyi o - 6,./1 c -F;onok Use GOdVDITtONAL USE • Definition - A use which may be appropriate, but due to certain characteristics is subject to additional standards/conditions. • Principles/Characteristics • Conditional use should be listed •• Standards/criteria should be incorporated um If conditions are met, conditional use becomes permitted use Conditional use: A use that may locate in certain zoning districts provided it will not be detrimental to the public health, morals. and welfare and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoned district. Examples of conditional use permitted in a commercial, industrial, or agricultural zone are . . temporary carnivals; religious revivals, and rock concerts. The duty of the commission approving such applications is to condition the use so that it will not be unsuitable to the surrounding area or community at large. ce-0"—: 6un..44, er) f3vcr vEct. Co„n -,1 litre._ Pteor'�. t Pro GJD_s5 . 5a[k- yt er+. sckt 4 $� Plclnn• AA t'S5 imnt E )01; i • k 3. Conditional Lases. Limited Business II Art' Sale and Gallery 241 Bicycle Sales a.� I Boats and Fishing Equipment Sales and Service Business Services S Furniture, Home Furnishings and Related Equipment 6 ; Greenhouses and Nurseries Landscaping Services; flowers and floral 7 accessories. T Licensed I endent Care Centers Light Manu curing in areas bounded by the Chicago Northwestern Railroad Tracks to the South, Highway 5 to the North, Ideal Avenue to the West and Stillwater Boulevard to the East. 1p I Limited Retail Sales Limited Retail Uses clearly accessory to the permitted principal use of the land. Ad !2 rt t3 ZZ, Medical, Dental and Research Laboratories Motorcycle Sales Pre- School Facilities Restaurants and Cafeterias Skiing Equipment Snowmobile Sales and Service Sporting Goods. Transmission Facilities for Teleconferencing Veterinary Clinics Vineyard and Winery Produce and Sales Other Similar to Uses: A Conditional Use Permit may be granted for other uses determined to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses which will not impair the present,or potential use of adjacent properties. The finding of "same general character" shall be made by the City Council. 300-44 Lake Elmo Municipal Code Chapter 3 -Zoning Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance Uses nonnally associated with Office Developments (photocopy and printing shops, travel agencies. etc.) and containing limited retail activity. Gross square footage of building area not to exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The compounding, dispensing or sale of drugs, prescription items, patient or proprietary medicine, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the conditionally permitted uses when conducted in the building occupied primarily by medical, dental. osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric offices. Must be incorporated within a principal structure and oriented predominantly towards serving the needs of employees of the surrounding area, but excluding drive - up and exterior walk-up facilities Are not free-standing and do not extend more than 20 feet above the building to which they are attached. No crematorium, outdoor kennels or storage 2/18/97 z3 araaileoiid grofvtded they are subordinate to and associated with a permitted user ?- e. 2— Wilted Business g ziCta. flowing Fifiti�iiti the LiFfIittLl g�2C.� . , .., ._ .._• 11 o"te: onifies'ipt filmoperation of he'iicopters and ST©L aircraft are expressly forbidden. Lake Elmo Municipal Cade Chapter 3 -Zoning Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance Satellite Dish An ennavto pennit teleconfGicueing Lanes' cageateterpNidieti%'e'Areas="maternal Pteas,'e81J g ateined Roads for iy • off street patfsuig and `ioadttig areas, between btiildit wtfihi a s igle ii Iot vOti*VOCiiiitAttitilMsatibiiifearWith, and clearly 2.5 indidental to 4 a•" :,use, as cdetennined by the Domicil. 5. ltniinum District Reauirjnents. Lot Area: Minimum Lot Width: Minimum Lot Depth: Building Setback from Property Lines: (4lsosee Section 300.11) Front Side: Side (street): ►I Rear Any lineadjacent to a residential zone: Parking Setback from Property Lines: Front: Sidet. . Side (street): Rear I Alt line ad scent to a residential zone; Pritnaiy Bu i t glit Maximum= (,41so see S` d on`.3t1f I2I' Acre so "S ;iictt es aid B T idstgs . A cessr ry.S es and Buildings_1eight (441so.see, Sectront jp; 41) . .. Oft** Parkin& (Aisp see 4ectiop 30013, Sui>ti, Mascirriiuri Cove by.all struGturesi.... . . 2/1 E/97 300-45 Ils"tsess• 3.5 ...Acres....,.... 300 Feet 400 Feet 100 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 50 Feet 150 Feet 50 Feet 50 Feet 50 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 35 Feet See 300.07 K. 6. b. '5% Exit bt'-f--- 3 Lake Elmo Municipal Code Chapter 3 -Zoning Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance c. Where a proposed CB development abuts on RR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4. RE, or OP districts other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be provided a protective strip of not less than thirty-five (35) feet in width. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveways, off-street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. The landscaped treatment shall contain shrubs, hedges, trees, or other natural material. The protective strip must be approved by the Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the commercial area. K. LB - Limited Business District. 1. Purpose. 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. Specific development goals within the district include the following: a. To encourage a high quality development standard for structures within the district, b. To protect the natural environment, in accordance with City ordinances. c. To allow development to comply with the capacity of regional and local road systems, d. To guide development by setting requirements for on -site sewer systems, e. To establish permitted, accessory and conditional uses in order to stimulate local economic prosperity along the interstate corridor and within the Metropolitan Rural Service Area while closely monitoring the magnitude of development so not to prematurely demand the expansion of local governmental services. 2. Permitted Uses. Limited Business Banks and similar Financial Institutions Medical Clinics and Offices Offices for Administrative, Executive, Professional and Management Functions Schools: Business. Professional, Private Trade Schools 300-43 2/18/97 MEMO (February 20, 2002) To: Lake Elmo Tanning Commission From: Ch Subject: Uses in the Limited Business District Consideration by the Planning Commission of the Permitted/Conditional uses listed in the present Zoning Ordinance Limited Business Text has been directed by the City Council. On February 5 the Commission discussed the City Planner's memo on the subject, and tabled the matter pending the following: 1. Additional individual review by Commissioners. Commissioners were urged to reduce their thoughts to written proposals - to be distributed to the entire Commission prior to the February 25 Commission meeting. Not only were the individual uses currently listed to be considered, but also the Intent and Purpose of the Limited Business zone and any suggested Required Conditions for the individual Conditional Uses that would be retained in the Limited Business zone. 2. Additional work and suggestions by the City Planner regarding the matters addressed by #1, above. Upon further reflection I continue to be convinced that there exists some ambivalence today as to what the Limited Business zone is/was intended to be. Yet, the "Purpose" preamble to Limited Business (Page 300-43 of the City Code) appears well conceived and stated. I do not believe it is a coincidence that the only two business zones in the Zoning Ordinance that have any "Purpose" preambles are Limited Business and Business Park (Pages 300-48 and 300-49 of the City Code). Nor, is it coincidence that both "Purpose" Preambles read very similar, except for references to inside/outside the MUSA. Nor is it a coincidence that the lists of Peiniitted Uses for Limited Business and Business Park are identical. These two business zones were apparently intended to be essentially mirror images of each other — one inside, and the other outside, the MUSA. Why then does the Limited Business list of Conditional Uses vary so significantly from the list of Business Park Conditional Uses? The answer goes, again, mostly to the Conditional Uses included in Limited Business, but excluded from Business Park: 1. Art Sale and Gallery 2. Bicycle Sales 3. Boats and Fishing Equipment Sales and Service 4. Furniture, Home Furnishings and Related Equipment 5. Green Houses and Nurseries 6. Landscaping Services; Flowers and Floral Accessories 7. Light Manufacturing in areas Bounded by the Chicago Northwestern Railroad Tracks to the South, Highway 5 to the North, Ideal Avenue to the West and Stillwater Boulevard to the East. 8. Limited Retail Sales 9. Motorcycle Sales 10. Skiing Equipment 11. Snowmobile Sales and Service 12. Sporting Goods 13. Vineyard and Winery Produce and Sales As I have observed previously, this list can be specifically matched with many existing or former uses in areas either now, or at some time in the past, zoned Limited Business. Others may have been uses intended by one or more property owners of Limited Business zoning that never materialized. The bottom line appears to be avoidance of creating non- conforming use. And, the bottom line to that — in many cities — is fear of litigation over "down -zoning". A final factor resulting in such a list of uses - not often discussed publicly, but a real issue in some cities — is a desire to accommodate the interests of existing local businesses (the perceived/potential personal financial aspects of down - zoning). As I have advised the Commission repeatedly, and as Professor Isberg has stated at planning commissioner workshops repeatedly (including last Saturday), a city has the legal right (and responsibility under State Law) to zone in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Contrary to what is often stated by land owners and their attorneys, a city can "down -zone" (and create non -conforming uses) without fear of adverse court decisions and monetary damages. Any arguments to the contrary are nothing but planning/zoning "old wives tales" — but they (together with other forms of land owner pressure) have been known to coerce a city into illogical zoning decisions. If the foregoing LB/BP paralleling logic is valid, the lists of Conditional Uses should probably match in the same manner that the "Purpose" statements, and lists of Permitted Uses, already do. By deleting the Limited Business Conditional Uses listed above, the Limited Business District would become (or be returned to) the unsewered parallel of the sewered Business Park District. If the Commission/Council has something else in mind for the Limited Business District, more work on that zone is needed — not just band -aids. 1, BP =. Business Park. K. LB - Liiifftel'Y3ifsitis District. • 1, Ramose. The purpose of the Business Park disarictis to establish a Comprehensive Plannedframework-for development along 1,94. The City has determined that it is in the.bestinterest of the City and the region to:responsibly manage growth in this district:: his the intent of this district topromote a high quality of business design and developmentthat'produces a positive visual image and minimizes adverse impacts from traffo.congestion, noise, odor-; glare, and similar problems. Specific development goals within •the'district includethe following: • a. • To, protect•the natural environment, in accordance with City ordinances; b. To provide adequate space for off-street parkingnf automobiles and, where • 'appropriate, off-street loading of trucks; e: "fopgUow'd��a eiliTtiietir that is consistent with the capacity of regional and local road §747e iSI k'?i F!.': •' ¢: T :.0-41 1afe`•local eebnoiiiic development withintlie?bifsiness park district area. }vhile,}ninirpizing the demands of additional City services; Q?.TQ p..1 3,'oi i; panties of a togte�u"tegsg gsetliait aror$iossible:outside the MUSA: f.0 proyide users with an attractive working environment that is unique in the eastern Metropolitan -area. with'inimediatcacces5 to 194. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Limited Bnsiriess district is to establish a Comprehensive. Pianned•framework fordevelopment whemmur?icipal F,op Lary sewer deea not exist. The City has detemned that it is m.the best mterestof the ;ty and the region to responsibly manage gip i is t6i: t isirict. 1i 1.eifii tritgar o;t;Ails district to promote a high.quality. of business design•.and develgprnepttha3 jirodpoes a positive visual minimizes adverse nnpact8irom aai is cong iion;'noise. odot;'g1aPeK i<tid s'uniler problem§; Speciti di5veitipkn'eni: gba9s iviilim this district inciiide'the follow-f g! a To encourage a hi alr evelo `` " . d . z,:,,:,,._.... �.......� 9t'.,�ty P,m..s�!'l.�iard;�'n;.�'ttgsurE�.ivifhiti x�`►e district b. To,protect the natural environment, in accordance with City ordinances. c., To allow development to comply with the capacity of regional and beat road systerrts; • d: "Til giiid lleV l`opirienf'ty setting iiiiii cements for on -site sewer systems, e. To establish permitted, accessory and conditional use's iti grtict t9 atiintilate local eoonomic rosppfity along the interstate corridor,attd Witiiita.the. jvletfjpplitan Raul $,ervrce Area while closely monitoring the magnitude of development so not •' fo preinathreiy demand the expansion of local governmental services. 4. Accessory Wei: business:paric.distninfr thettilidWiptare-allowerl provided they are subordinate to and. ahliablifiali . : " :" • "" • x - Bus' i3aric District, e)birdsvm:\ Wz e mess g are allowed provided they are subordinate to and Netei ittiailities for the operation of associated with apermitted u.se: . helicopters and SIOL aircraft are expressly forbidden. Satellite Dish Antennas to permit teleconferencing .,,gignioon,mp4,1„Nyosillonging a-4as Internal Briy,gtely,,,Ownettendr-Maimanted Roads for • off-gtfeet plifkliiffaid-Rildfrit areas, between kntild1Pg .wfthiti -Oltigig: Kaft.t4 lot Other Uses Customarily Associated With, and clearly incidental to it pertn—itted ute, asdetermined by the , • • ...• . Wtthm the Prefteti Bus.. Pjztriqt..ft following- • are.ailovied pidVidedtig, are F!Ilgrdipzo ip an associated with a pertitittedtiserti • Satellite Dish Antennas perrait teleconferencing Landscaped3uffersplArildlife AteliPlriternal onicising,r.Areas,q0alkinglogging,Prrails eit7ifedItiff•Vraigiiined Roads for • eff-altettplifielligliallesiciiiii tame= V.111WV,geligt.diMalli$Y-"Aiiiitriiillea'lliFith, and clearly theidthitel Vikiiiiti=." ;Lilac, as determined by the Ocnincg. 101806.6 aid eta, ititte`ilift are expressly forbidden. 2. Permitted Uses. .2.. Permittedlls- ,••• --- • • I APOPM Park jj11‘;f_.,- — — Ranks ao..4...s1FilllSTAPAPIALks„;1111BPAS .; •••': "-'44 Medical Clinics and Offices OffioeSlor Schools: Business, Professional Private Trade Schools 3, Conditional lbw,. uie§e7Vicei Conference Centers Health Clubs Hotels and Motels Licensed Dependent Care Centers ' Limited Retail Uses clearly accessory to the tifincipilitie of the land MediCal, Dental and Research Laboratories Pre -School Facilities Recording Studios Restaurants and Cafeterias Restaurants and Cafeterias Theaters Tsittrientistion'Facilitiot leleclififaibbing Veterinary ' Dther Uses Similiftb jbytInS Section, as determined by the Council Business Park tis'es diet ii*verlopments (phOt00,ppY iiittiniVIWi;travI ineheies, etc.) and containing Ihnited*Otil Tetutik'taniftiOball, ifetobid, weight lifting, swimming, weightloss dirtick MilgfincOrpoliiteti ftill4erVice restaurant and rooms accessibltonlythrough interior corridors MI be subordinate to a main business complex • • •, The c1apanding, Olverlaing or §Bie of drugs, prescription items, patient.or proprietary medicine, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the conditionally permitted uses when conducted in the bi1giiPAM-al-1y by medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric offices. .. :, .... , . • 1VItlif iii itiCorndialtid within a princinal structure and talented prgoTniiiiiitlY476wiu-ds serving the needs of employees of the surrounding area, but excluding drive -up • and exteria Walktira fatilities ' ••'• •• ' • ' * " "•—• ' Fii'll'SififieW•Wiinte food is served to a customer and ' ' • obifiliine'diviiiirseated at a counter or table Excluding drive-in theaters ' '''''''Cliiiiifie tleTifecitanding and cannot extend more than 20 feet above the building to which they are attached ye'Cittiiiii0Ou*outdoor kennels or storage • ,. , , • • Limited Business Medicaj CliolU,tutfi %rms._ Offices for A_thpppslrative Exepye rfsSional and [ Schools: "Business,-Profestiottal, Private Ttfuld"S'ehodli" • ''' 3. Conditional Uses. • •-•:. • ft,; .,141 q; • "r..:1 ""tir •• iniithrBair40' Art Sale nd Gril1tt,13?-1'; • . . , • • BitYilleszer Witt Beftio.1"ei"-- ' BauceliSeiVides Uses normally associated with Office Developments (.0.9M.FRPX,P4prin#18 shops, travel agencies. etc.) retail activity. Furniture, 1:147,he Furc•W_IpP all0.40•ted :,•—•'• • • --- PrettObT4A4c114404 _ . --- 44444410:: Ottiees; flfteni and tiosik accessories 44?/L14 - :‘90tifiqt4 At PRO Canters -4.1 ..,.. :4„..,....„... . - , Lighs,iviafOlcsiO4:41,4#gAPPOgLIV the Cfiicago Northwestern Railroad Tracks to the South, Highway 3 to the North, Dial Avenue to the West ! andkillwllgr..-4PlileYar.dP9thaE.agt'....._. .;.......1 . Limited Retail Sales • Limited Retail Uses clearly accessory to the pefinitted principal use of the land. . 3 - Olpsa Kum footage of buiiding area not to exceed te thoustutd (100013) square feet. • The compounding, dispensing or sale of drugs, liresirriptioti Items, patient or proprietary medicine. sicl room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to a •ofthe-dOtiditidnally permitted uses when conducted in the builditig tietimied primarily by medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric offices. • MediotilvDental and ReseartilfLataiiiilikiel' •-„": • • Motorcycle Sales Pre,: Relfildriditiltrid`Cdfeterias ( • Skiing Equipment .anoyfmobileSales and Service SlatgrSing „ — TransiniasiPa FaciMies for Teleconferencing feetabove the buildtng t� whidh tli0 are attached Mail tie" ittCOMOrated within a principal structure and mienpetanipantly towards serving the needs of employees cif the surrounding area, but excluding drive - up and eXteriprwaCup facilities free4tith4fitg mind tid't ax;etuiinore than 20 r•,;(iterinary Imo& • iiisterituti,taitileakerinela Or storage Vineyardfd WinerKprodtme an__ . „ . Other Similar t-oi.ises: A eon-Zdon Ose errnit may be granted for other uses determined to be cif' the same general character as the above permitted uses which will not impair the present or potential use ofadjacent properties. The finding of "same general character" shall be made by the City Council.