HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-9-2002 Planning.Council Workshop Packetl
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
651/777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
The Lake Elmo Old Village Special Projects Planning
Commission and City Council will meet for a Workshop
On MONDAY, December 9, 2002. at 7:00 D.M.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
The Public is Welcome to Attend.
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Zoning Map Amendments — General Business to Limited Business
printed on recycled paper
1
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
651 /777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
The Lake Elmo Old Village Special Projects Planning
Commission and City Council will meet for a Workshop
On MONDAY. December 9.2002. at 7:00 n.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
The Public is Welcome to Attend.
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Zoning Map Amendments — General Business to Limited Business
WV
'.4k7V /46446:
printed on recycled paper
APPROVED: NOVEMBER 25, 2002
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2002
Chairman Armstrong called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Armstrong, Helwig, Bunn, Deziel, Pelletier, Ptacek, Sedro, and Sessing. STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Dillerud, City Planner.
AGENDA
M/S, Sessing/Sedro, To accept the agenda as presented. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
WELCOME NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Jennifer Pelletier was welcomed as the new lst Alternate Planning Commissioner.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2002
The Chairman pointed out to the Commission that a memorandum was received from the Finance
Director asking for changes in the minutes. The Commissioners were given a copy. The City Planner
received the memorandum late this afternoon. The City Planner explained that the procedure for the
preparation of minutes is that the Recording Secretary drafts them, and he proofreads and amends or trims
them. The Finance Director thinks some of those things should have been left in. She reviewed the
videotape from the meeting of October 17, 2002, and drafted this memo that outlines very specific
changes she would like to be made to the minutes. The City Planner explained that minutes are meant to
be representative, and perhaps this was too much to read and review. He suggested the Commission
could table the minutes or attach the memo to the minutes.
Commissioner Bunn asked for page 7 to reflect that she asked the City Planner for a summary of Mr.
Hugunin's comments or to provide copies of the letter to the commissioners. On page 8, she reminded
the Commission of stronger language regarding the PowerPoint presentation. The City Planner explained
he removed those remarks for that reason. On page 3 she said that line 3 should read, "...Push it in
farther without cutting a larger swath into the hill in order to accommodate a sideways garage."
Commissioner Deziel said that on the bottom of page 7, the question was his but the answer belonged to
the City Planner.
Chairman Armstrong reminded the Commission that minutes are meant to be a summary. He said there
are audiotapes and videotapes available for anyone who wants to get very specific. He said the
Commission was getting awfully particular on these minutes, and they are getting bogged down.
M/S Armstrong/Deziel, To accept the Minutes of October 17, 2002 as amended, attach the memorandum
from the Finance Director to the end of the minutes, and let the Council decide. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
ZONING AMENDMENT: GENERAL BUSINESS TO LIMITED BUSINESS;
GENERAL BUSINESS TO AGRICULTURE
PUBLIC HEARING
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
The City Council had asked for a review of the zoning along the I-94 corridor back in June. The Planning
Commission has looked at this issue a couple of times. State Statute governs how regulatory devices,
such as zoning should be done.
He summarized the past history. The City Zoning Map has not been changed over many years since the
1990 Plan was developed. The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act says that zoning ordinances must be
consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan within 9 months of adoption of the Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 2002 1
APPROVED: NOVEMBER 25, 2002
This hearing was originally noticed for the last meeting but it was pulled from the agenda when we
discovered that the surrounding parcel owners' list did not include the parcels in question. The RECO
Plat was originally included. Since the Preliminary Plat has been approved, they cannot be rezoned for
one year. They were removed from this action.
The Planner was contacted by most of the property owners. He sent copies of the uses in General
Business and Limited Business to most of them at their requests. These businesses could continue
business as they exist. If they wanted to expand use or expand their buildings, those become variance
issues.
Value is not an issue the City should involve itself in. Up -zoning and down -zoning artificially change the
value of the land in most cases.
There are two State Statutes that provide legal basis for these zoning amendments.
He distributed a copy of a letter he received at 4:00 p.m. from an attorney representing one of the owners.
Commissioner Deziel
Did the City Attorney offer a legal opinion? He feels that this is legal limbo.
City Planner
There is no legal limbo. This is a housekeeping issue that should have been done in 1990.
Commissioner Bunn
There is a misprint in the staff report on line three. The General and Limited Business uses were
reversed. She clarified that one of the six parcels is east of Lake Elmo Avenue, and is guided RAD.
City Planner
That is correct. That one may be rezoned to Agriculture or Rural Residential.
The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Christopher Dolan
He is speaking on behalf of the owners of J & W Boat and Motor, 9200 Hudson. They are strongly
opposed to rezoning. They have owned the property since 1998*(see below) and it was classified General
Business when they purchased the land, and the price reflected that. There are almost 100 different uses
allowable under GB; rezoning to LB would allow about 4 different permitted uses. He objected to the use
of the word "artificial" in relation to their property values. The value is real, and they are looking to sell
it. Their real estate broker said the proposed rezoning would cut the value by at least half. Why does the
city want to promote a Limited Business District with such a restrictive use along I-94 anyway? He said
Met Council has taken issue with city's Comp Plan deficiencies such as the failure to expand the MUSA
line, increasing minimum densities, and create districts to balance residential and industrial uses. If they
are successful it may force the city to amend the Comp Plan to incorporate those factors. Will we be in
the same situation in one or two years? Wait until that is resolved to discuss rezoning.
Scott Saver
He is a new partner on the undeveloped parcel east of the outdoor theater. He completely agrees with
Chris Dolan's statement. It does not make sense that a corridor on 1-94 would have such limited uses
when anywhere else you go has General Business. A change now would significantly affect his
investment. He thinks the city should have General Business Zoning for its tax base. Limited Business
might be for the middle of the city but not for the I-94 corridor. His parcel would not be grandfathered in,
and he feels discriminated against. He strongly recommends taking no action now, at least waiting until
the Met Council has determined where the city is or is not in compliance. Please, take a hard look at it
before changing this zoning.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 2002 2
APPROVED: NOVEMBER 25, 2002
Bob Egan
He represents the owners of Lamperts. It is strange to change uses on the I-94 corridor. His other
concern is that the shape of his property is long and narrow; a prospective buyer will look at the 20,000
square feet building, and say, "We'll give $1.50 for it, and you can keep the back three-quarters because
nobody is going to want it either." That value is not artificial. It is real to us. We would take a hit
(financially) if we chose to move.
Chuck Goss
He is the owner of Crossroads Collision. He strongly opposes this zoning change. He has been there
since 1981, and the building was there since 1985. He had his attorney draft a letter that was received by
the Planning Commission.
Jack Dolan
They bought that property in 1988. He opposes the rezoning, and Christopher Dolan stated their position.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Chairman Armstrong
There might need to be changes to the Conditional Uses for Limited Business. It might be best to retain
Limited Business Zoning along I-94 and amend the zone to accommodate present uses. The law says
there is no vested interest in zoning.
Commissioner Bunn
With respect to Comprehensive Plan zoning, are owners generally notified of changes?
City Planner
No.
Sabrina Dolan
She feels an attitude (by the city) that we should approach this in a sophisticated way. Many of
these owners bought their properties prior to the 1990 Comp Plan. When prices were negotiated
the GB Zoning was a factor. These are small business owners without deep pockets. Our
family's life savings are (invested) in this. When you take away these uses you are taking away
our earning (power). She objected to the use of the word, "artificial" in relation to their property
values.
Commissioner Bunn
The citizens and elected officials came up with a vision for Lake Elmo and for the I-94 corridor, prior to
1990. Some may disagree with those visions; they may be different from what most people's would be
for the area along the highway but this was a public process, and the conclusion is why we are here. That
area was to be zoned Limited Business in order to protect the area around that highway corridor, and to
protect the village businesses from impact. We have those Comprehensive Plans. The Planning
Commission's role is to support that vision. She challenged the City Council to make all the zoning
changes in order to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. In the future it should be done in a timely basis.
City Planner
We have rezoned for consistency but all those were up -zones.
Wvn John
At the time of the formation of the 1990 Comp Plan there were working meetings and two public hearings
to come up with this vision for the city. They hoped to attract high quality office buildings along I-94.
Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 2002 3
r:PPROVED: N 3VE ER 25, 2002
Chairman Armstrong
As a community we have to decide and plan for the City. These decisions are made with citizen input.
Commissioner Ptacek
Paralleling what Commissioners Bunn and Armstrong said, he feels the Commission must honor
decisions made years ago while allowing existing uses to remain.
Commissioner Sedro
If one of these buildings burned down, could it be rebuilt? Can they expand?
City Planner
They can rebuild but expansion requires a Conditional Use amendment.
M/S, PTACEK/SESSING, Move forward with Limited Business Zoning as proposed on the condition
that these six existing uses are added as Conditional Uses in the Limited Business District, and the
existing businesses receive Limited Business Conditional Use Permits that will preserve their status as
confirming uses.
Commissioner Bunn
She noted that some of the current uses are allowable in the Limited Business District.
VOTE: 7:1 (Deziel) PASSED.
Chairman Armstrong
He noted that this action will come before the City Council on November 6, 2002. He said he hoped
some of these people will come in to work together with the Commission in the near future on the uses
for the Limited Business Zone.
ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Schaffel
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes of October 28, 2002 4
MEMO
December 5, 2002
To: Mayor Hunt and City Council, Chair Armstrong and Planning Commission
CC: Mary K - fn' , Ci; Administrator
From: C
erud
Subject: Rezoning for Comp Plan Compliance — GB to LB/AG in I-94 Corridor
On November 6, 2002 the City Council tabled a recommendation of the Planning
Commission to rezone several parcels in the I-94 corridor from GB (General Business) to
LB (Limited Business) or AG (Agriculture) after certain specified actions and under
certain specified conditions. This City initiative was originated by City Council direction
in June, 2002.
After tabling the matter on November 6, the Council directed a Workshop be conducted
with the Planning Commission and interested parties on December 9, 2002. That
Workshop has been scheduled and Noticed for 7:00 PM on December 9. It will take the
place of the Regular Planning Commission meeting that evening.
I have attached the November 6 City Council Minutes, together with the previous
Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Reports related to this matter.
Mike Bouthilet reported that during the Lake Elmo Hardwood fire, the water tank was
drawn down 30,000 gallons in a short amount of time. This will be remedied when Well
No. 2 is on line and as soon as the new pressure gauge is installed.
8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. 2003 Seal Coat and Street Maintenance
Tom Prew, City Engineer, asked for authorization to proceed on Seal Coat and Street
Maintenance work for 2003. This authorization would cover planning, design, and
inspection of these items. The City performs seal coating every other year, along with
crack sealing, striping and patching. This work has been budgeted
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong — to authorize the City Engineer to begin work on 2003 Seal
Coating and Street Maintenance. (Motion passed 5-0).
Council member DeLapp pointed out you cannot roller blade on these roads for at least 5
years.
M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn - when the sealcoat program comes back to the Council, to direct
Tom Prew to prepare a list of options to make the seal coated streets more pedestrian
friendly. (Motion passed 5-0.)
B. Catch Basin Repairs
Tom Prew, City Engineer, reported the Public Works Foreman identified a number of
catch basins that are in need of repairs or replacement. Repairs were made and the
invoice for the work was provided. $500 of this total will be charged to the Hamlet on
Sunfish Lake project for repair of a manhole that was scheduled to be fixed in our
agreement with the developer.
M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong — to approve final payment to T.A. Schifsky and Sons for
catch basin repairs in the amount of $17,652.00. (Motion passed 5-0.
9. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING:
A. Zoning Map Amendments — GB to LB and AG
The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review and provide a
recommendation regarding the several parcels along Hudson Blvd. that are currently
zoned GB (General Business), but is designed Limited Business, or RAD by the 1990
Comprehensive Plan. Most (all but 2) of the GB zoned parcels along Hudson Blvd., have
existing structures and ongoing business. One of the undeveloped parcels at Lake Elmo
Avenue and Hudson Blvd. recently received Preliminary Plat approval (RECO) and is
exempt from changes to City land use regulations for 1 year. The other undeveloped
parcel (east of the outdoor theater is designated RAD by the 1990 Comp Plan.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2002 7
The City Planner reported that State Statue mandates the rezoning of land in any
metropolitan community to be in compliance with the Comp Plan use designation within
9 months of adoption of the Comp Plan or amendment. Rezoning of these parcels from
GB to a zone reflecting of the Comp Plan land use designation should have been
accomplished years ago.
A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to consider the rezoning of the
parcels for compliance with the 1990 Comp Plan. All of the impacted property owners
were opposed to the rezoning.
Following the public hearing, the Commission recommend that the subject parcel be
rezoned for conformity with the 1990 Comp Plan, subject to the condition that the
allowable Limited Business Conditional Uses be made, as necessary, to include each of
the existing businesses affected by the rezoning; and, that each of those businesses
receive from the City a Conditional Use Permit thereafter. It is the intent of the
Commission to legally preserve the use rights of the existing business while rezoning the
parcels to comply with the Comp Plan.
The Planner noted that this strategy would not impact the case of the undeveloped parcel
east of the outdoor theater. That parcel is designated RAD by the Comp plan. The
correct zoning would be either AG or RR.
Jack Dolan, Sabrina Dolan, Christopher Dolan — Dolan Marine
At the Planning Commission meeting the City Planner stated that consideration of
depreciation land value is not what the Commission would get involved. Dolan asked
why can't you consider this? He said he would like to retire and sell to another marine
Company. He objected to the use of the word "artificial" in relation to their property
values. Value is a very important factor. There are only 4 peiiiiitted uses in LB and he
has a concern on just taking office parks and the valuation plummet.
Bob Egan
Lampert Lumber has a funny shaped lot with 300' frontage and a 1 mile deep and some
of the LB uses are not conducive to the shape of this lot. He objected to the use of the
word "artificial" in relation to property values. Land value is very important to us.
M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong — to postpone these Zoning Map Amendments - GB to LB and
AG in order to hold workshop with the Council and Planning Commission of December
9th to come up with a vision for office park and its uses with input from the business
owners for this specific area. (Motion passed 5-0.)
B. FP and Development Agreement Sunfish Ponds
The City Planner reported the Final Plat drawings, infrastructure cost estimates and
related documents have been reviewed by the City Engineer and City Attorney. A draft
development agreement has also been prepared by the City Attorney. The only matter
not resolved is that of the Park Dedication. Dillerud indicated the Park Dedication value
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2002 8
Lake Elmo
City Council
November 6,
2002
Agenda Section: Planning, Land Use and Zoning No. 9A
Agenda Item: Zoning Map Amendments — GB to LB and AG
Background Information for November 6, 2002:
On June 18, 2002 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review and provide a
recommendation regarding the several parcels located along Hudson Blvd. that are currently zoned GB
(General Business), but are designated Limited Business, or RAD by the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Most
(all but 2) of the GB zoned parcels along Hudson Blvd. have existing structures and ongoing businesses.
One of the undeveloped parcels (at Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Blvd.) recently received City
Preliminary Plat approval (RECO), and therefore is exempt from changes in City land use regulations for 1
year. The other undeveloped parcel (east of the outdoor theater) is designated RAD by the 1990
Comprehensive Plan.
As they first considered the Council direction on this matter, the Commission was advised by staff that State
Statute mandates the rezoning of land in any metropolitan community to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan use designation within 9 months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or
amendment. Rezoning of these parcels from GB to a zone reflective of the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation should have been accomplished many years ago.
The Commission directed a Public Hearing be conducted on October 28, 2002 (rescheduled from October
17) to consider the rezoning of the GB parcels for compliance with the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The
Hearing was attended by most of the impacted property owners — all of which were opposed to the rezoning.
(Rezoning — Continued on Page 2)
Action items:
Motion for one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Rezoning Ordinance # 97-
2. Direct staff to proceed with amendment of the LB
Condition uses and related actions prior to further
considering the rezoning.
3. Withdraw the City -initiated rezoning action in its entirety
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance #97- ., Rezoning
2. Draft Planning Commission Minutes of October 28
3. Staff Reports and Graphics
Person resible:
Time Allocated:
(Rezoning — Continued from Page 1)
Following the Public Hearing the Commission adopted a recommendation (7-1, Deziel
opposed) that the subject parcels be rezoned for conformity with the 1990
Comprehensive Plan, subject to the condition that the allowable Limited Business
Conditional Uses be amended, as necessary, to include each of the existing businesses
affected by the rezoning; and, that each of those businesses receive from the City a
Conditional Use Permit thereafter — both to be completed prior to rezoning the Limited
Business -planned parcels to GB. In that manner it is the intent of the Commission to
legally preserve the use rights of the existing businesses while rezoning the parcels to
comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
This strategy would not impact the case of the undeveloped parcel east of the outdoor
theater. That parcel is designated RAD by the Comprehensive Plan (and has been since
1990 — at least). The correct zoning would be either AG or RR.
It appears that at least three options are available for the Council in this matter:
1. Adopt the attached ordinance to rezone the 5 parcels with existing businesses
from GB to LB; and, the one undeveloped parcel from GB to AG or RR.
2. Defer consideration of the rezoning at this time; and, A.) direct amendment to the
LB text to include all of the subject existing uses as "Conditional" in the LB
zone; B.) direct processing of City -initiated Conditional Use Permits for all the
existing businesses after the text amendments are adopted and concurrent with the
rezoning of those parcels from GB to LB; and, C.)at the same time rezone the
undeveloped parcel from GB parcel to either AG or RR.
3. Direct the entire City -initiated rezoning case be withdrawn, resulting in continued
conflict between the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300.07
"ZONING DISTRICT MAP" OF THE LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 1. Amendment: Section 300.07 Subd. 3 (A) of the "Zoning District Map" of the
Lake Elmo Municipal code is amended to rezone the following described properties,
PID No. 33.029.21.44.0003, PID No. 33.029.21.44.0005, PID No. 34.029.21.33.0005,
PID No. 34.029.21.33.0004, PID No. 34.029.21.34.0004, from General Business (GB) to
Limited Business (LB);
AND to rezone the following described property, PID No. 36.029.21.34.0006, from
General Business (GB) to Agriculture (AG).
Section 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the day of
2002.
Lee Hunt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
Published in the Stillwater Gazette on the day of , 2002.
Planning Commission
Action Items: Public Hearing
General Business to Limited Business; General Business to Agriculture
October 28, 2002
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Armstrong, Helwig, Bunn, Deziel, Pelletier, Ptacek,
Sedro, and Sessing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Christopher Dolan
He is speaking on behalf of the owners of J & W Boat and Motor, 9200 Hudson. They
are strongly opposed to rezoning. They have owned the property since 1998*(see below)
and it was classified General Business when they purchased the land, and the price
reflected that. There are almost 100 different uses allowable under GB; rezoning to LB
would allow about 4 different permitted uses. He objected to the use of the word
"artificial" in relation to their property values. The value is real, and they are looking to
sell it. Their real estate broker said the proposed rezoning would cut the value by at least
half. Why does the city want to promote a Limited Business District with such a
restrictive use along I-94 anyway? He said Met Council has taken issue with city's
Comp Plan deficiencies such as the failure to expand the MUSA line, increasing
minimum densities, and create districts to balance residential and industrial uses. If they
are successful it may force the city to amend the Comp Plan to incorporate those factors.
Will we be in the same situation in one or two years? Wait until that is resolved to
discuss rezoning.
Scott Saver
He is a new partner on the undeveloped parcel east of the outdoor theater. He completely
agrees with Chris Dolan's statement. It does not make sense that a corridor on I-94
would have such limited uses when anywhere else you go has General Business. A
change now would significantly affect his investment. He thinks the city should have
General Business Zoning for its tax base. Limited Business might be for the middle of
the city but not for the I-94 corridor. His parcel would not be grandfathered in, and he
feels discriminated against. He strongly recommends taking no action now, at least
waiting until the Met Council has determined where the city is or is not in compliance.
Please, take a hard look at it before changing this zoning.
Bob Egan
He represents the owners of Lamperts. It is strange to change uses on the I-94 corridor.
His other concern is that the shape of his property is long and narrow; a prospective buyer
will look at the 20,000 square feet building, and say, "We'll give $1.50 for it, and you can
keep the back three-quarters because nobody is going to want it either." That value is not
artificial. It is real to us. We would take a hit (financially) if we chose to move.
Chuck Goss
He is the owner of Crossroads Collision. He strongly opposes this zoning change. He
has been there since 1981, and the building was there since 1985. He had his attorney
draft a letter that was received by the Planning Commission.
Jack Dolan
They bought that property in 1988. He opposes the rezoning, and Christopher Dolan
stated their position.
After the Public Hearing was closed two additional comments were offered.
Sabrina Dolan
She feels an attitude (by the city) that we should approach this in a sophisticated way.
Many of these owners bought their properties prior to the 1990 Comp Plan. When prices
were negotiated the GB Zoning was a factor. These are small business owners without
deep pockets. Our family's life savings are (invested) in this. When you take away these
uses you are taking away our earning (power). She objected to the use of the word,
"artificial" in relation to their property values.
Wyn John
At the time of the formation of the 1990 Comp Plan there were working meetings and
two public hearings to come up with this vision for the city. They hoped to attract high
quality office buildings along I-94.
M/S, PTACEK/SESSING, Move forward with Limited Business Zoning as proposed on
the condition that these six existing uses are added as Condition Uses in the Limited
Business District, and the existing businesses receive Limited Business Conditional Use
Permits that will preserve their status as confirming uses. VOTE: 7:1 (Deziel) PASSED.
n6512289161 hIkRT1N & SQUIRES 19/28/02 16:49 P.002/002
MARTIN & SQUIRES, F.A.
Attorneys At Law
441. Cedar Street
Suite 2050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: 65 1-767-3740
Facsimile: 651-228-9161
October 28, 2002
David W' Larson
Direct Dial # 651-7 67 3746
dwlarsonflartittsauTres. cam
Certified Trial Specialist
VIA FACSIMILE
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
Our File No. 7175-01
Dear Lake Elmo Planning Commission:
This office represents Crossroads Collision, Inc. in its corporate affairs.
The City is proposing to rezone the business site of Crossroads Collision at 8910 Iudson
Blvd from its current zoning of "General Business" ro "Limited Business" in order to make the
zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. This change would snake the: long established
business use of Crossroads Collision inconsistent with the zoning plan, and a nonconforming use_
Crossroads Collision strongly opposes the proposed rezoning of its site.
According to the Zoning Code, "The purpose of t13e! Limited Business district is ro establish
a Comprehensive Throned framework for development where inunicipal sanitary sewer does not
esdst." The Limited Business district has a minimum lot size of 3 '/ acres and setbacks, created to
accommodate septic systems. The zoning code notes that goals of the Limited Business district are
"To guide development by setting requirements for on -site sewer systems" and to "Protect tlw
natural environment, in accordance with the city ordinances."
However, Crossroads Collision, is connected to the municipal sewer, and the purposes stated
in the Zoning Code. for zoning this land as "Limited Business" does not exist.
The comprehensive plan should be amended, nor the zoning code, to reflect the fact that the
municipal. sanitary sewer services this property.
1
sp�.cth.iRy,
John Martin
David W. Larson
Genera
wuilding
pplie
Marine Sales
Multi
Tenant
Dental
Hudson Blvd.
a�
N
enera 1_13.usiness Zoning
>
Lake Elmo
usiness P
ending a�
Undevelo
Hudson v
V
Comcattik
Manning Avenue,.
MEMO
(October 24, 2002 for the Meeting of October 28, 2002)
To: Lake Elmo Pla n Commission
From: Ch
Subject: Rezoning from GB to LB (6 Tax Parcels)
As the result of a directive from the City Council on June 18, 2002 the Commission has
directed a Public Hearing to consider rezoning several sites along the I-94 corridor from
LB (Limited Business) to GB (General Business) as a legislative action to bring the city
zoning map into compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan.
This Hearing was originally Noticed for October 17, 2002. Due to an clerical oversight,
the affected parcel owners did not receivethe" Notice (although all of their neighbors
within 350 feet did). The City/County GIS system generates Notice mailing lists
automatically within 350 feet of a designated tax, but we have determined, the designated
tax parcel itself is not included in that mailing list. While this has not been a problem
where tax parcel owners have themselves made formal application for City approvals, it
became a Notice problem where the City initiates the action — as in this case. Once the
Notice problem was discovered, both Official Newspaper and property owner Notices
were re -sent with a new Hearing date of October 28.
Another City action that occurred midway in the Hearing Notice process results in the
deletion from this Hearing of one of the tax parcels currently zoned GB. On October 1,
2002 the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat of the Lake Elmo Business Park —
the 28 acre GB tax parcel at the Northeast corner of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson
Blvd. (I-94 Service Road). Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358 provides that: "...no
amendment to a ... official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density,
lot size, lot layout...permitted by the approved application...". This provision applies for 1
year following approval of a Preliminary Plat. As a result the RECO tax parcel (Lake
Elmo Business Park) should be removed from rezoning consideration.
Most of the tax parcel owners potentially affected by this rezoning proposal have
contacted City Staff; and were provided FAX copies of both the General Business and the
(recently amended) Limited Business lists of Permitted and Conditional Uses. FAX
copies were provided to Crossroads Collision, Dolan Marine, Lampert Building; and, one
of the owners of the vacant parcel east of the outdoor theater. In addition Staff was
contacted by the outdoor advertising firm with the billboard adjacent to the outdoor
theater.
The primary concerns of the property owners contacting Staff in this matter have been :
1. Their ability to continue to conduct their existing business — if rezoned to LB.
Governed by the "grandfather" rights and limitations for Non -Conforming uses
prescribed by Section 300.05, Subd. 2 of the City Code (copy attached)
2. Their ability to expand their existing structures and businesses — if rezoned
to LB.
Governed by the "grandfather" rights and limitations for Non -Conforming
buildings and sites prescribed by Section 300.05, Subd. 2 of the City Code (copy
attached)
3. The relative value of their land and buildings zoned GB and zoned LB.
While this is certainly of concern to any land/building owner, the value created by
governmental zoning is artificial (or, "unearned", for lack of a better term). As
such, differences in property value that result from governmental zoning actions
(be such differences either negative or positive) do not constitute an appropriate
basis for decisions in zoning matters.
I have also attached a copy of MSA 473.858; and, MSA 473.865, which address State
Law requirements regarding conflicts between a comprehensive plan and zoning. As of
today the 1990 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan is in officially in effect. All of the subject
tax parcels west of Keats Avenue are designated Limited Business by that Plan; and,
should have been zoned Limited Business years ago. The tax parcel east of Lake Elmo
Avenue is designated RAD in the 1990 Plan and should have been zoned either AG or
RR years ago.
Following the Public Hearing, the Commission should adopt a recommendation to the
City Council regarding these rezoning actions.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY. MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 97-113
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 307.07 SUBDIVISION 4.K.3 RELATING TO.
CONDITIONALUSES IN THE LIMITED BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT.
Section 1. Amendment: Section 307.07.Subdivision 4.K.3 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows; to wit:
3. Conditional Uses.
Art Sale and Gallery
Bicycle Sales
Boats and Fishing Equipment Sales and Service
Business Services
Furniture, Horne Furnishings and Related
Equipment
Greenhouses and Nurseries
Landscaping Services; flowers and floral
accessories.
Licensed Dependent Care Centers
Limited Business
2.0 000 Souare Feet Maximum Floor P r
20.000 Swore Feet Maximum Floor Area
21.Q2Q_Sqi re Feet Maximum Flo°Larm.
Uses normally associated with Office Developments
(photocopy and printing shops, travel agencies t) and
containing limited retail activity. 20.000 sous:re feet
maximum floor area,
20.000 Souare, Feet Mavimtun Floor Area
00 000 Square Feet Maximum Floor 3 rva.
20.000 Souare Feet Maximum Floor Area
20.000 Souare Feet Maximum Moor Area.
Limited Retail Uses clearly accessory to the
permitted principal use of the land.
Medical, Dental and Research Laboratories
Motorcycle Sales
Pre- School Facilities
Skiing Equipment
Snowmobile Sales and Service
Sporting Goods
Transmission Facilities for Teleconferencing
Veterinary Clinics
Vineyard and Winery Produce and Sales
20.000 Souare Feet Maximum Floor Ara
20.000 Souare Feet Maximum Floor Area
29 000 Sonamalit Macunum Floor Arza
?0.000 Square Feet Maximum Floor Area
e O,Q�.S.Q.1 1L S, '.'a21Lnum i^_I,S Rr Gait
20.000 Souare Fret Maximum Floor Area
aQ.Q.QO. gttRse.Feet M;M irnarn F ODL is
Are not free-standing and do not extend more than 20 feet
above the building to which they are attached. 20 000
Souare Feet Maximum Floor Area
No crematorium, outdoor kennels or storage. 20.000
Square Feet Maximum Floor Area
M.000 Square Feet Maximum FloorAcea
Deleted: etc
, Deleted: Light Manufacturing in areas
bounded by the
Chicago Northwestern Railroad Tracks to
the South,
Highway 5 to the North, Ideal .Avenue to
the West 9
and Snlhvater Boulevard to the Fast.
Deleted: Gross square footage of
building area not to exceed ten thousand
(10,000) square feet
Deleted: Limited Retail Sales
Deleted: 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 primsdly by medical,
dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or
optometric offices.
Deleted: Restaurants and Cafeterias
.' Deleted: 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
, Deleted: 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 Q
use of adjacent l..operties. The fmding of
„sarnej
general character" shall be mart,. by the
City 9
Council.
Section 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication
according to law.
Lee Hunt, Mayor
ttest
I
Mary fty Clerk nistrator
Adopted by the Lake Elmo City Council on August 20, 2002
,,,` "y`
Published in the Stillwater Gazette on the ` Eday ofSeir, 2002.
Lake Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 -Zoning
Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance
H. GB - General Business.
1. Permitted Uses and Structures.
a. The Following Service/Office uses:
Accounting
Advertising
Alterations
Apparel Cleaning pick-up Stations
Apparel Repair and Alterations
Architectural
Art Gallery
Auditing
Bakeries
Barber Services
Beauty Shops
Bookkeeping
Business and Management Consultant Offices
Business Associations
Cafes and Restaurants
Charitable
Chiropractic
Civic. Social and Fraternal Association Offices
and Halls
Collection and Adjustment Services
Credit Reporting (Consumer and Mercantile)
Dental
Detective and Protective Agencies
Duplication
Educational
Employment Agencies
Engineering
Finance
Galleries
Governmental Offices
Insurance
Investment
Labor Unions
Legal
Libraries
Mailing
...
Medical
General Business
(Sign fabrication not a permitted use)
(with production of bakery goods limited to retail sales)
(Limited to full table service operations)
300-32
2/18/97
Medical Services:
Lake Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 -Zoning
Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance
General Business - Permitted Service/Office Uses (continued
The compounding, dispensing or retail sale of drugs.
prescription items, patient or proprietary medicine. sick room
supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the
foregoing when conducted in the building occupied primarily
by medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric
offices.
Optometric
Osteopathic
Photo Gallery
Professional Membership Organizations
Real Estate
Religious
Scientific Research
Shore Repair
Stenographic Service
Welfare Offices
b. The Following Retail Uses:
Antiques and Second Hand Merchandise
Apparel and Related Accessories
Automobile Repair and Services
Automobiles and Automobile Accessories
Bicycles
Books
Building Supplies
Cameras and Photographic Supplies
Cigars and Cigarettes
Drugs and Proprietary Items
Electrical Supplies
Flowers and Floral Accessories
Food and Grocery Products
Furniture.
Gifts. Novelties and Souvenirs
Glass
Heating Equipment
Home Furnishings and Related Equipment
Jewelry
Liquors
Marine Craft and Accessories
Newspapers and Magazines
2/18/97
(excluding laboratory facilities)
General usiness
300-33
Nursery and Garden Supplies
Optic) Goods:,
Pets,;
:: Pluming equipment
• .Sorting' -Goods `
St: tii Parry'
LWa1l;PaPer ......:.......
.... -
Lake Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 -Zoning
Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance
General Business
(Permitted Retail Uses con '1)
c. The Following :Repair/Service .nest
;.�,...,. :-,:_:.._.,.. .�., ....._.__......... ....... .. GeneralBusiness
. .
Cloak kern*, .:
Electrical epi ii' and Suppiiea
Equipment Rental and Leasing
Food•Catering
Furniture Repair
Heating
Household Appliances
Jewelry Repair
Landscaping
Plumbing
Radio
Reupholstery
Television
Watch Repair
•
d. The Following Office Uses: (ezclud#n equipment storage)..
General Business.,.. ..
Air Conditioning Contractor
Building Coiistraction Contractor
Carpentry Contractor
Decorating Contractor
Hearing 'Contractor
Masonry Contractor
Painting Contractor
Plastering Contractor
Plumbing Contractor
Roofing Contractor
Sheet Metal Contractor
300-34
2/18/97
Stone Work Contractor
Tile Setting Contractor
Wallpaper Contractor
Water Well Drilling Contractor
Wood Flooring Contractor
L Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 - Zoning
Section 300 - Zoning Ordinance
General Business
(Permitted Office Uses cont)
e. Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit:
Bed and Breakfast Facility
Boarding Care Facility
Day Care Centers
Fitness Studios
Kennels
Nursing Care Facility
Open Sales Lots
Manufacturing
Veterinary Clinics2
f. General Requirements.
General Business
15 Beds Maximum.
15 Residents Maximum
40 Children Maximum
Maximum floor area not to exceed 5,000 square feet
15 Residents Maximum
Any industrial manufacturing operation in existence within the City
at the effective date of this section, including manufacture of wood
products and plastic products, may continue the use as a
conforming use without a conditional use permit. Nothing in this
provision shall otherwise be construed to require the City to
authorize any manufacturing use in the general business zone after
the effective date of this section.
i. All storage, services, repair or processing shall be conducted whollywithin an
enclosed building or behind opaque fence or wall not less than six (6) feet high,
except the outdoor display of merchandise.
ii. Incineration of waste matter shall be conducted in approved equipment located
within the building wherein the permitted use is conducted.
iii. Where a proposed GB development abuts on RR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, or RE
district other than at a public street line, buffer provision 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, off-street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. 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.
r Added 97-86 on 10-2-01
2 Added 97-20 on 10-21-97
300-35
2/18/97
1
Lake Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 -Zoning
Section 300 -Zoning Ordinance
C. Use Defined. For the purpose of this section, the word "use" shall mean:
1. Any purpose for which a building or other structure or a tract of land may be
designed, arranged, intended, maintained, or occupied; or
2. , Any, activity, occupation business, oroperation carried on, or intended to be carried
on, in a building or other structure, or on .a tact :of land.
Subd. 2 Non -Conforming Uses. Buildings and Structures.
A. Definitions of Non -Conforming Uses. Buildings. and Structures: "
1. "Non -conforming use" means any::iswfui;u4e eland or'any lawful use of a building
or structure existing on the effective date of this section,. -or -any amendment to the
ordinance wh.icl2.use does;not conform with the regulations forthadistrict in which it
is located after the effective date of this section or the airiendirient.
2. "Substandard building" or "substandard structure" means any building or structure
lawfully existing on the: effective date of this section'or any amendment to this
section,;which building.: orstructure>does not conform witYthe regulations, including
dimensional standards,- forthe district in which it is locatei after the effective date of
this section or the amendment.
B...P:reservation.of:Non.•Con.ft rming`Uses. Exceptas provided in tl islection, the lawful
use of;}and or -the. lawfuiuseof a building Or structure existing on the effective date of
this sectionor on the -effective date -of -any amendment to this section may be continued
although the use does not conform to the provisions of this section, except as otherwise
provided in this subsection.
C. Preservation .ofDimensionally Substantiard?B.uildin's ar"Structures. Except as
provided in this section, buildings .or structures'lawfuliy existing on the effective date of
this section or on the effective date of any amendment to this section may be maintained
although the building or structure does not conform to the dimensional standards of this
section. However, any such building or structure shall not be altered or improved
beyond normal maintenance, except that any lawful dimensional substandard residential
building, accessory building, or structure may be altered or unproved, if the existing
substandard dimension relates onlyto setback. equrreix ents and does not exceed the (10)
percent of the minimumsetback requirements: Additionally, the`alteration or
improvement shall conform to all of the provisions of this section and shall not increase
the existing substandard dimensions
D. Unlawful Uses. Buildins arid Structures.,.. N9:14n;lawfui use ofproperty existing on the
effective -date ofthis:sectioi orany amendment tothis section nor any building or
stmcture.which is unlawfully-existing:on the -effective date shall be deemed a non-
conforming use. or a non -.conforming building or structure.
300-4
2/18/97
.e Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 — Zoning
Section 300 Zoning
2. Conduct inspections of land, buildings, or structures at reasonable times, to detenn.ine
compliance with and enforce the provisions of this section;
3. Maintain all records necessary for the enforcement of this section; including, but not
limited to all maps, amendments and special use p' rnits, variances, appeal notices, and
applications;
4. Receive, file, and forward all appeals, notices, applications for variances, or other matters
to the appropriate officials or boards;
5. Institute hi the name of the City any appropriate actions or proceedings to enforce this
section;
6. Serve as ex-officio, non -voting member of the Planning Commission.
'r4A .R 'Variances,
A. Variances. The Planning-Gc iaaion ahall hear. requests for _ - front the literal
h ...�sr.•p b ei- sta. v
conaidcration, and to grant thc variance only when it is that:
Vg....ettily--te-,theepernes in the or vi nit5-, and result from let size. or
shape, topography, or other unique circumstances;
2. That Iitcrv! icitzpstation of the provisions of this section would deprive the
thc terms of this. scctien;
l ed' • _ ` from the actions of the
applicant;
That grantiao ‘et confer on thc applicant any .pedal
privilege tl►et lee sicticn tc owners of sL.s.c1c L, structures, Of
buildings in the same district;
`. T rtstanec rcqucstcd i� ere minim v; dcncc which wces. '� i►ii'ai:. Lardship;
6. The variance wouLi not L metayr,111 az -d r p ,..pones of this section, or
popc=.47 in the same zone.
The Planning Commission may not per►niv. r a variance any use that is not permitted undi
lak&►w� located. The Commission
may perrnit as a vimaac_ thc tcmpos:,e3 :vs e:
a u I ��' ?✓.tie arised prior to
the adoption of
mended Ordinance 97-95 on 11-07-01
300-6
2/1B/97
Minnesota Statutes 2002, 473.858
Minnesota. Statutes 2002, Table of Chapters
Table of contents for Chapter 473
473.858 Comprehensive plans; local governmental units.
Subdivision 1. No conflicting zoning, fiscal device,
official control. Within three years following the receipt of
the metropolitan system statement, every local governmental unit
shall have prepared a comprehensive plan in accordance with
sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871
and the applicable planning statute and shall have submitted the
plan to the metropolitan council for review pursuant to section
473.175. The provisions of sections 462.355, subdivision 4,
473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall supersede the provisions
of the applicable planning statute wherever a conflict may
exist. If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with
the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into
conformance with the plan by local government units in
conjunction with the review and, if necessary, amendment of its
comprehensive plan required under section 473.864, subdivision
2. After August 1, 1995, a local government unit shall not
adopt any fiscal device or official control which is in conflict
with its comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the
plan, or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan
system plans, as defined by section 473.852, subdivision 8. The
comprehensive plan shall,provide guidelines for the timing and
sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned,
orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent
with the comprehensive plan. For purposes of this section,, a
fiscal device or official control shall not be considered to be
in conflict with a local government unit's comprehensive plan or
to permit an activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans
if such fiscal device or official control is adopted to ensure
the planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or
redevelopment areas designated in the comprehensive plan
pursuant to section 473.859, subdivision 5.
Minnesota Statutes 2002, 473.85 Page 1 of 1
Minnesota Statutes 2002. Table of Chapters
Table of contents for Chapter 473
473.865 Adoption; conflicts, amendment of controls,
devices.
Subdivision 1. Control copies to council. Each local
governmental unit shall adopt official controls as described in
its adopted comprehensive plan and shall submit copies of the
official controls to the council within 30 days following
adoption thereof, for information purposes only.
Subd. 2. No conflict with plans. A local
governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal
device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which
permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans.
Subd. 3. Amendments. If an official control GOMMIIMMIr
conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an
amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by
the unit within nine months following the amendment to the plan
so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan.
HIST: 1976 c 127 s 16; 1977 c 347 s 68
Copyright 2002 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
10/24/2002
ake
)Imo.
RAD
RED
SRD
URD
P
C
JAMES R. HILL, IIIC.
humus Woos Surntoi
•
f
•
ea
t�3
P
C1
• .
iti
RAU.
LEGEND
RURAL AORICULTUUAL DENSITY
RURAL ESTATE DENSITY
SUnu :AN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC -QUASI PUBLIC
COMMERCIAL
tp•
1
UOC URBAN OFFICE / COMMERCIAL
LB LIMITED BUSINESS
WELL, ADVISORY AREA
SEE FURTHER DESCRIPTIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
GUIDE PLAN TEXT
FUTURE LAND USE
•
Ir« . .. ,re.-Y.. 1
le re torea Ile
ere* oee ere
DATE: 15-IT-90
MAP 10
P.29A
MEMO
(August 20, 2002 for the Meeting of August 26, 2002)
To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
From: Chuck Dillerud
Subject: General Business (GB) District Uses
On July 22 the Planning Commission discussed this matter with the City Council
Members in attendance (Delapp and Hunt) at the Council/Commission Workshop. The
Commission had requested the Workshop to discuss this (and another) issue, which the
Commission had been previously directed to review by the City Council. Following that
discussion the Commission tabled further consideration due to the late hour and lengthy
regular agenda.
It was apparent during the Workshop discussion that the primary issue with the present
list of allowable GB uses is focused on the I-94 corridor. During the discussion it was
suggested (by Councilmember Delapp, I believe) that the continuation of the broad list of
allowable GB uses — or continued GB zoning — in the I-94 corridor is contrary to the
Policies of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan regarding the location of retail commercial
businesses within the City. The Plan emphasizes the strengthening the Old Village
commercial core as the Lake Elmo retailing center; and, avoiding creation of outlying or
strip commercial sites elsewhere in the community — particularly those that cater to non -
local "pass through" vehicles for business volume.
Today, seven individual tax parcels along the I-94 service road are zoned General
Business, of which 2 are vacant and of significant acreage; and, the other 5 are developed
as business locations. The attached map locates the I-94 corridor GB zoning. The uses of
the GB sites are also noted on the map. Given the age of the structures housing these
existing I-94 businesses, it is clear that GB zoning was assigned to accommodate the
businesses rather than the businesses being located in tune with pre-existing GB zoning.
In addition to these I-94 sites, all business locations in the Old Village are zoned GB. It
was apparent from the Workshop discussion that there was a concern that, by modifying
the uses of GB to overcome the potential Comprehensive Plan Policy conflicts in the I-94
corridor, the City would constrain the growth of Old Village commerce. I had suggested
that what may be necessary is a "split" GB zone that both recognizes the existing
businesses (and zoning) on I-94 — but does not encourage further expansions; and,
maintains the broad range of commercial uses allowable in the Old Village.
Upon further reflection, it seems that other solutions to accomplish the same goal may be
available — and more appropriate. First, 5 of the 7 tax parcels in the I-94 corridor now
zoned GB are Land Use Plan classified Limited Business by both the 1990-2010 and 200-
2020 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plans. Those sites can and should be rezoned Limited
Businesses now, regardless of the outcome of the Metropolitan Council review of the
Lake Elmo 2000-2020 Plan.
The two remaining sites in the I-94 corridor now zoned GB are currently undeveloped;
and, located immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue. The site on the intersection of Lake
Elmo Avenue and Hudson Blvd. is 28 acres in area and the subject of a Preliminary Plat
("Lake Elmo Business Park") now tabled by the Planning Commission, as an incomplete
application, pending receipt of a traffic study. (tabled on June 10, 2002). The second site
zoned GB is located approximately 850 feet east of the first site; and, is 14.5 acres in area
and undeveloped. This site is located between the outdoor theater (Zoned AG) and the
new school bus terminal (also zoned AG). While staff has spoken with this land owner in
the recent past regarding the development potential of the site with GB zoning, no
specific development plans have been forthcoming.
The "Lake Elmo Business Center" site is land use guided Limited Business by the 1990
and 1997 Comprehensive Plans — and should be zoned Limited Business rather than
General Business today.
The other undeveloped site zoned GB (14.5 acres, east of the outdoor theater) is land use
guided RAD by both the 1990/1997 and 2020 Plans; and, should be zoned either AG or
RR today. To date, research of City records provides no enlightenment as to the history
of this site — at least regarding the existing GB zoning. The County land parcel mapping,
when overlayed by an air photo, does reveal that the land division creating this 14.5 acre
parcel postdates the outdoor theater, however. Clearly, the odd shaped west property line
of the site was created to exclude the pre-existing outdoor theater facilities.
As I have advised the Commission previously, State Statute requires lands to be zoned in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan within 9 months of adoption of a
Comprehensive Plan. This Statute dates from the late 1970's. It appears that the 1979
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan guided this site "Highway Business", which may
account for the General Business (GB) zoning. The superceding 1990 Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan, however, reclassified this site as RAD (as noted above), and the site
was required to have been rezoned to AG or RR within 9 months of the Plan adoption by
the City — but was not.
In summary, it would appear that the City has appropriate basis to rezone all 7 of I-94
corridor sites now zoned GB. In 6 cases, the 1990 Comprehensive Plan requires LB
zoning; and, in one case the same Plan requires AG or RR zoning. There would appear to
be no need to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to establish use distinctions
between the I-94 and Old Village GB zoning. Rezoning for required compliance with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan would appear to accomplish the intended outcome.
Planning Commission advice and direction regarding this matter is requested.
MEMO
(June 20, 2002)
To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
From: Chuck Dillerud
Subject: Council Directives — June 18, 2002
At its June 18, 2002 meeting the City Council adopted two directives to staff regarding
matters that require review and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and,
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The Council is concerned with more recent OP Concept Plans that have been
presented to the City. While they concede that the plans may meet the quantitative
specifications of the ordinance, the more qualitative aspects of project design have
not been as completely addressed as they were with some of the earlier OP
projects (such as Fields I. and Hamlet on Sunfish Lake). These later Concept
Plans have not addressed such matters as house design, view sheds,
environmental aspects of the site, and project landscaping in the degree of detail
that the Council intended with the original OP Ordinance. As such, the Council
does not believe that some of the more recent OP Concept Plans have responded
well to intent of the OP Ordinance.
The Council has directed staff and the Commission to address amending the OP
Ordinance to require all Concept Plans to be reviewed by an independent and
licensed architect or (preferably) a licensed landscape architect, to be selected by
the City, but the professional fee of which would be paid by the project applicant
— in addition to the normal staff review and report.
2. The Council has expressed concern with the General Business District listing of
Permitted and Conditional Uses. As with the Limited Business District list of uses
we just completed review of, the Council is concerned the General Business use
listing was created decades ago, based mostly on the County Model Ordinance
and uses that existed in the City at that time — many of which still exist, of course.
They are concerned that some of the listed uses would no longer be compatible
with the City's development policies, as expressed by the Comp Plan. — at least in
locations other than the Old Village Commercial area. The concern goes to the
potential, with all of those uses available, of creating remote islands of heavily
commercial use is areas of the City other than the Old Village — contrary to the
policies of the Comp Plan that specify that such uses should be limited to the Old
Village. Of course, the intent of those policies regarding such commercial uses is
to insure Lake Elmo retails a Rural Center development structure rather than the
scattered outcome that we see in so many "typical" suburban communities. That
scattered outcome, in turn, results in a loss of the sense of community. The
Council is, as well, concerned that changes to the General Business District not
negatively impact the Old Village commercial area.
Before staff begins preparation of analysis and Code amendment drafts — or schedules
any Hearings — we are interested in the Commission's direction regarding how (or even
if) they would want to address these to topics. I suppose the Commission could decide to
recommend to the Council that nothing be changed on one or both of the topics.
RECEIVED
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
December 4, 2002
Mayor Lee Hunt
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Sir:
I am the VP of Operations & Sales for Lamperts. As an affected party, I
attended the October 28 Planning Commission and November 6 City
Council meetings concerning rezoning of several parcels, including
Lamperts, from General Business to Limited Business.
You asked us to forward our concerns about the potential rezoning to you. I
have several concerns that I would like to express.
In a Limited Business environment, as it is presently defined, a
lumberyard might be perceived as an undesirable neighbor. The
activities of our business involve considerable truck traffic, along
with considerable material handling activities that an office complex
may find objectionable.
The lot currently owned by Lamperts is long and narrow; it is
roughly 330' wide and 1320' deep. If we were to relocate, a lot of
these dimensions, and the buildings on it, would lose significant
value if sold into a Limited Business zoned area.
One of the proposed solutions was to proceed with the zoning change
to Limited Business, and make the existing businesses acceptable
"Conditional" uses. This does not benefit Lamperts. If we were to
sell our current site, it would be because we had outgrown it.
Subsequent sale of our existing property would be made on condition
that it not be used as a lumberyard in the future. We would not sell it
to a potential competitor.
1850 Como Ave. • St. Paul, MN 55108-2796
Telephone: 651-695-3600 • Fax: 651-695-3601
website: www.lamoertvards.com • email: lamperts@lampertyards.com
Since 1887
We appreciate the efforts made by the Planning Commission and City
Council to consider the impact of the proposed changes. In this case, it
would appear to be excessively onerous for existing businesses that have
been at their locations for quite some time, and have been allowed to
proceed with property improvements, approved by the City, under the
assumption that they were within zoning compliance.
Please consider our request that the area in question retain its General
Business zoning.
Yours truly,
?ad
Lampert Yards, Inc.
Robert K. Egan
VP Operations & Sales
1850 Como Ave. • St. Paul, MN 55108-2796
Telephone: 651-695-3600 • Fax: 651-695-3601
website: www.lamoertvards.com • email: Iamperts@lampertyards.com
Since 1887