HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 08-13-12 City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2012
Vice Chairman Fliflet called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
at 7:00pm.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bloyer, Pelletier, Hall, Obermueller, Haggard, and Fliflet.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams.
STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Zuleger, Planning Director Klatt, and City Planner
Johnson.
Approve Agenda:
There were no objections to the agenda as presented.
Approve Minutes ‐ None
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planning Director Klatt began his presentation by noting that this item is a continuation
from the previous meeting on 7/23/12. He continued by explaining the revisions that
Staff undertook to reflect the discussion and review completed at the previous meeting.
Most of these revisions are grammatical in nature, ensuring that the plan is consistent.
Some additional changes include the swapping of future land use near Oakland Jr. High
School from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, with the land near
the Forrest neighborhood changing conversely. Also, representative from Trans‐City
Investments have made a formal request to keep their property guided as Business Park
as opposed to the current High Density Residential zoning in the Future Land Use Map.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
proceed to the Zoning Code discussion.
Commissioner Haggard asked if the buffering requirements in the Comp Plan are
intended to buffer different zoning districts or buffer developments within the same
districts.
Planning Director Klatt explained that the buffering requirements are intended to buffer
rural development from the new sewered zoning districts.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Commissioner Pelletier requested an explanation about the land change near Oakland
Jr. High.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Planning Director Klatt explained that this change was made to provide relief to the
forest neighborhood from high density residential development in close proximity.
Commissioner Fliflet asked about why the growth projections include some numbers for
2015 that seem so unrealistic. In addition, does inclusion of these figures make it more
difficult to reduce growth figures with the Metropolitan Council.
Planning Director Klatt explained that these figures are targets. In addition, this
Comprehensive Plan is a first step to show the Met Council positive momentum towards
growth. The City could also petition to push back the 2030 figures.
Commissioner Hall noted that back‐loading the numbers may not be the best strategy
because it might not follow the natural flow of development.
Planning Director Klatt explained that if we weren’t showing these figures, we would not
be in compliance with the revised MOU with the Met Council. If the Planning
Commission were interested in changing these numbers, the discussion would move
towards revising the MOU, which is a different course of action entirely.
Commissioner Bloyer said that he supports Mr. Klatt and Commissioner Hall that we
should move forward in good faith and work on reducing the overall REC figures in the
future. In addition, is there any reason that we should not honor the request by Trans‐
City Investments?
Planning Director Klatt explained that there is already an existing industrial use on that
property now. It should be noted that if we change the property from high density
housing to Business Park, the household numbers must be adjusted accordingly.
Commissioner Hall asked if changing this parcel to BP would dilute the demand for other
parcels with this zoning designation.
Planning Director Klatt noted that it is possible that this parcel could be incorporated in
a future Business Park.
Commissioner Fliflet asked why it may not be appropriate to allow for a mixed‐use
designation in all of the land planned for commercial use along Hudson Blvd.
Planning Director Klatt explained that the proposed Zoning Ordinance allows for multi‐
family residential land uses in parcels zoned as commercial through a Conditional Use
Permit. Changes to the Zoning Ordinance can work through these proposals. In
addition, developers do have the tool of Planned Unit Development at their disposal.
Overall, there are mechanisms in place that will provide for more flexibility. However,
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
when placing residential uses near commercial uses, it is important for the City to have
additional review as to prevent nuisance situation.
Vice Chairman Fliflet welcomed members of the audience who wished to speak a
chance to address the Planning Commission.
Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave. N., wanted to highlight how the plans have changed since
the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Mr. Ptacek asked about the number of REQ
units associated with Commercial Use in the 2005 Plan and the current proposed Land
Use Plan. Mr. Ptacek wanted it made clear that the commercial land use has a much
lower REC count.
Jay Morreale, 785 Jasmine Ave. N., wanted to know what the density is in the Urban
Low Density area.
Planning Director Klatt explained the base density of this district is 2.5 units/acre.
Mr. Morreale felt that none of the changes that were discussed to buffer the Stonegate
neighborhood at the previous Planning Commission were shown in the current
revisions.
Planning Director Klatt explained that these changes would not be shown in the land use
map, but in the zoning regulations.
Mr. Morreale asked about the area designated High Density Residential near the
Stonegate Park. He believes that this area should remain Low Density Residential.
Administrator Zuleger noted that a developer would be able to do acre lots in the LDR
district to buffer rural development if they so wished as long as the average met the 2.5
unit/acre minimum.
Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave., explained that the current proposals do not reflect the
buffering proposals of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the residents of
Stonegate are opposed to the ability of developers to forego the 1‐acre lots mechanism
in favor of buffering. In addition, the language of the 2005 Comp Plan notes that there
will be a 1000’ buffer.
Planning Director Klatt explained that the language regarding the 1000’ buffer relates to
the instance of wastewater inefficiency fees. He also noted that there will always be
differences of opinion regarding what is reasonable vs. unreasonable in terms of
buffering.
Commissioner Fliflet wanted it known that the buffering provisions will be addressed in
the zoning discussion.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Tim Hood, Trans‐City Investments), asked that the property owned by Trans‐City
Investment either be zoned Commercial or Business Park
Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave. N., showed some slides regarding what the proposed land
use plan would look like around the southern boundary of Stonegate. He asked that the
Planning Commission be thoughtful of these residents.
Ifran Ali, 2390 Golf Drive, Woodbury, asked that places of worship be allowed in
residential zones as conditional uses. He noted that places of worship in residential
zones adds positive benefits such as balanced growth and economic activity.
Commissioner Obermueller asked what the REC counts are related to places of worship.
Planning Director Klatt explained that the REC counts associated with Churches are
difficult to calculate due to the many different uses that occur at a place of worship.
Gary Rieder asked that the City be considerate of the future traffic that the future land
uses may generate.
Commissioner Bloyer asked how long the Trans‐City Investment had been at its current
location.
Commissioner Fliflet noted that the company could continue to operate in that location
as a non‐conforming use regardless of the zoning.
Commissioner Bloyer asked why Trans‐City Investment would like to change the zoning.
Tim Hood of Trans‐City Investments explained that they currently operate under a CUP,
but would someday like to expand.
Commissioner Fliflet noted that the map does not show how adequate public facilities
will be addressed in the land use map, and that may be ok.
Planning Director Klatt explained that there are allowances for different uses in the
zoning code of the commercial zoning district.
Commissioner Pelletier noted that she would like to see more flexibility in the zoning.
She stated that she feels uncomfortable with the plan as it currently exists in regard to
the amount of land zoned as Commercial.
Planning Director Klatt noted that there are many zones that allow public facilities,
including community facilities and schools.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Commissioner Pelletier asked about the wastewater inefficiency fees.
Planning Director Klatt explained that Staff removed this element from the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment so that these penalties were not a major factor in the
document.
Commissioner Pelletier noted that the Planning Commission may not be ready to vote
on this matter.
Planning Director Klatt suggested that this item may be tabled until the buffering
discussion can take place.
Commissioner Pelletier asked if the current plan hit the targets in the MOU.
Planning Director Klatt noted that is does, with residential units and commercial units.
He then recommended that a motion be made to table the Comprehensive Plan
discussion until after the zoning discussion.
M/S/P, Fliflet/Pelletier, motion to table the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan until
after the zoning discussion, Vote: 6‐0.
Planning Director Klatt began the presentation on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He
noted the proposed articles that would be added to the current Zoning Ordinance. Klatt
began working through the changes and refinements that have been made since the last
meeting and discussions on 7/23/12. Regarding Article 6, a new standard for buffering
includes calculations for landscaping and screening known as opacity. In addition some
changes have been made to the residential districts to encourage clustering of lots in
order encourage open space. Klatt continued on through several other refinements.
After these notes, Planning Director Klatt moved on to the new buffering requirements
in Article 6 and Article 10. The first buffer standard is based on opacity, including
plantings and other screening mechanisms. These may include plantings, berms, and
fences, which are allocated based upon a point system including distance. Klatt also
explained that these buffer requirements are mandatory and reviewed at the time of
subdivision/preliminary plat. This technique allows for transition techniques between
rural and sewered development. Klatt also noted that in place of the opacity system, a
developer would be able to plat one‐acre lots instead. Moving on, Klatt went through
the opacity system for buffering. Finally, Klatt explained that the purpose of this
addition to the Zoning Ordinance is to clearly spell out the buffering requirements to the
development community. In addition, the new ordinance does not allow the Council to
waive the buffer requirements simply based on discretion. However, this proposed
ordinance requires the developer to proceed through the opacity exercise.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Commissioner Haggard noted that through this system, with a 5’ berm, there would only
be 4 trees every 100 feet near the Stonegate neighborhood. She felt that this amount of
landscaping is not adequate.
Commissioner Fliflet suggested that the developer should not have as much flexibility
simply planting shrubs. These would not provide an adequate buffer.
Planning Director Klatt explained that the ordinance can be refined to require a certain
amount of taller plantings.
Administrator Zuleger suggested removing plants that are less than three ft. tall from
the allowed types of plantings. This would ensure greater buffering.
Commissioner Obermueller questioned how this system might conflict with our current
fence code. In addition, she asked if the City has an existing ordinance pertaining to
berms.
Planning Director Klatt noted that Staff can check on the fence ordinance. Regarding
the berm question, he noted that the City does not have a related ordinance.
Commissioner Fliflet noted that new sewered development should not need to be
buffered from other new sewered development. On the contrary, rural development is
not buffered enough.
Planning Director Klatt noted that is depends on what the purpose of the buffering is,
being complete screening or providing a transition area.
Commissioner Fliflet noted that the medium density residential should not be buffered
from low density residential when those plantings can be used to buffer the Stonegate
neighborhood.
Commissioner Obermueller asked if the development community will perceive Lake
Elmo as difficult to work with.
Administrator Zuleger commented on the market study.
Commissioner Haggard noted that we could raise the standards for the RE district.
Planning Director Klatt noted that we will not have many instances of this situation.
Commissioner Bloyer explained that it would take enormous amounts of very tall
plantings to make an effective visual buffer. The elevation of the Stonegate
neighborhood makes it extremely difficult to shield it from a visual impact of
development in the I‐94 Corridor.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Planning Director Klatt explained that the buffering provision was always the most
difficult topic in discussing the I‐94 Corridor.
Commissioner Haggard felt that screening in the existing districts are important as well.
Vice Chair Fliflet opened the Public Hearing at 9:44pm.
Greg Milnar, 9073 9th St., noted that he is concerned that there is a provision in the
Code that does not allow for more than 50% of the same species in the opacity buffer
requirements. Some trees provide better visual buffers. In addition, he noted that
protection for existing trees is just as important as other provisions.
Tom Kreimer, 772 Jewel Ave N., noted that he worked on the I‐94 Corridor Project. He
noted that while the landscaping requirements are nice, but distance of the buffer area
reduced. In addition, he would like to see a 1‐acre lot requirement as opposed to an
alternative. This would allow a graduation of density.
Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave., noted that the setback for the RE backyard is 100’. It
should be reasonable to expect a similar standard. In addition, berming can be
effective, but it has to be quite significant. In addition, all of the provisions from the
2005 Comp Plan have not been followed. Finally, large commercial properties do not
include high REC counts. These commercial developments should be evaluated based
on REC counts.
David Carland, Stonehenge USA, noted that Dale Properties has owned property in the I‐
94 Corridor for 40 years. Mr. Carland noted that it is the charge of the City to deliver a
development plan that is economically feasible. In addition, the development
community market is not moving towards 1‐acre lots.
Ifran Ali, 2390 Golf Dr., Woodbury, asked that places of worship be considered as
conditional uses in the commercial and residential districts.
Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave., showed a demonstration of what berming would look
like in the rear of his property. He noted that the buffering issue is an extremely
challenging topic and he hopes that we can work it out.
Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave., noted that the opacity requirements will not work. In
addition, he is disappointed that the distance requirement has been reduced. He would
like it to be considered that 1‐acre lots be platted near the sewered residential
development. Again, he noted that the transition methods from 2005 Comp Plan be
considered.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
Jay Morreale, 785 Jasmine Ave., noted that there is a market for one‐acre lots in the
Twin Cities. He added that he felt like the new proposals are not very considerate of the
existing residences.
Vice Chair Fliflet closed the Public Hearing closed at 10:30pm.
Commissioner Fliflet suggested beginning with the request to include religious
institutions in commercial and residential districts.
Commissioner Hall noted that the City has allowed enough opportunity for churches to
be located in Lake Elmo. Therefore, he would not support this proposal.
Commissioner Fliflet asked where these institutions are currently allowed in the City.
Planning Director Klatt noted that they are only allowed in PF zones, and current
churches had properties rezoned to this designation. Staff would recommend that we
should revisit this topic at another time.
Administrator Zuleger noted that Staff is trying to provide a fair and equitable policy to
meet development requirements while preserving quality of life for existing residences.
Administrator Zuleger had 5 overall points. He noted that Staff is trying to work with
buffering requirements while avoiding a land taking. The second point is that the
market study has shown that there is market feasibility for one‐acre lots, but we have to
explore this. Administrator Zuleger’s 3rd point is that we need to know our land use to
complete our financial analysis of extending infrastructure. The 4th point is that the
MOU supercedes the 2005 Comp Plan. Also, moving the density from 3.5 units per acre
to 2.5 units per acre was a major victory. Finally, regarding Mr. Monteith’s comments
about a good faith effort, the Planning Commission needs to understand that they have
discretion at the Preliminary Plat stage to address buffering needs.
Commissioner Fliflet moved on to the Trans‐City Investment request.
Commissioner Hall noted that he is concerned about removing that much high density
residential because it would not be consistent with REC needs.
Administrator Zuleger asked if the Trans‐City Investments would be able to expand
under the CUP.
Planning Director Klatt noted that they would not be able to expand.
Commissioner Fliflet thinks it makes no sense to have the Trans‐City Investment parcel
zoned high density residential if they have no intention of halting the current industrial
use of the property.
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
M/S/P, Bloyer/Fliflet, motion to make the Trans‐City Investment parcel BP and swap two
other parcels to High Density Residential, Vote: 6‐0.
Commissioner Obermueller noted that she felt these swaps were not disciplined.
Commissioner Fliflet decided to move the discussion towards the one‐acre buffer idea
for buffering.
Commissioner Haggard asked about whether the current trail plan calls for a greenway
area.
Planning Director Klatt noticed that there is a provision for a greenbelt near the
southern border of the Stonegate neighborhood in the trail plan.
Commissioner Bloyer said that he is opposed to mandating a one‐acre lot solution.
Commissioner Fliflet said that she agrees with the residents that old buffering
requirements have not been honored. The current proposal does not go far enough to
protect the existing residents. Regarding the Met Council, Fliflet wants to know what
would be required to make this one‐acre lot scenario work with our MOU numbers.
Mr. Carland noted the market drives the single‐family product line, and the notion that
density can be made up somewhere else is not as simple as moving the border around.
Commissioner Fliflet does not agree that there is no market for one‐acre lots.
Commissioner Haggard asked if there are any other solutions available.
Obermueller noted that design standards can make sure that the development is
attractive.
Mr. Ptacek asked for a distance buffer.
Mr. Carland said that the developer is willing to work for a trail as a buffer solution.
Commissioner Fliflet moved on to opacity. She does not think the requirements should
include buffering within new residential areas.
Commissioner Hall noted that he believed that the opacity work was done in good faith
to try and satisfy all parties. He believes that this is a good faith effort by Planning Staff.
In addition, some compromises must be made on both sides.
Planning Director Klatt noted that there are 4 options to resolve this issue.
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
1. Work with the opacity mechanism;
2. Create new zoning district of lower density residential;
3. Create a greenbelt; or
4. Review this at preliminary plat.
Commissioner Fliflet noted that only working through preliminary plat does not provide
the existing residents the appropriate protection.
Administrator Zuleger asked if a greenbelt would work through parkland dedication.
Mr. Carland noted that if you use a greenbelt to buffer, it must have a public trail.
Mr. Prowse noted that he was not happy with a greenbelt solution.
Planning Director Klatt explained the parkland dedication scenario.
Commissioner Obermueller asked who maintains the greenbelt.
M/S/P‐ Fliflet/Pelletier, motion to add a greenbelt area around the Stonegate
neighborhood that would be credited to the developer’s parkland dedication, Vote: 6‐0.
Commissioner Hall amended the motion so that the greenbelt be done in place of
parkland dedication and that it is a desirable amenity.
Klatt explained that the Planning Commission is directing Staff to incorporate the
greenbelt into the Comprehensive Plan. The buffer yard provisions in the code will be
removed.
Administrator Zuleger implored the Commission to consider approving the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code with the proposed changes.
Commissioner Haggard felt that LDR should have larger side‐yard setbacks than MDR.
M/S/P – Hall/Bloyer, motion to pass the Comp Plan Amendment with the Greenbelt
provision for the Stonegate neighborhood and zoning change for the parcel owned by
Trans‐City Investments, Vote: 6‐0.
M/S/P – Bloyer/Hall, move to approve the Zoning Code update with Article 6 struck
rom the proposed changes, Vote: 6‐0. f
City Council Updates ‐ None
Staff Updates ‐ None
11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12
C
ommission Concerns ‐ None
Meeting adjourned at 11:46pm.
espectfully submitted,
R
ick Johnson
N