HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 09-24-12 City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 24, 2012
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Obermueller, Haggard, Fliflet, and Bloyer;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Hall
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Williams/Fliflet, motion to approve the agenda as presented; motion carried,
vote: 5‐0.
Approve Minutes:
M/S/P: Fliflet, Haggard motion to accept the minutes from the September 10, 2012
meeting as presented.
Chairman Williams requested that several corrections be made to the minutes.
M/S/P: Williams, Fliflet motion to amend the minutes with corrections as noted; motion
carried, vote: 4‐0 with one abstention.
Public Hearing: Shoreland Ordinance Amendment – Water‐Oriented Accessory Building
Setbacks
Planning Director Klatt presented proposed amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance
that would allow water‐oriented accessory structures to be set back a minimum of 10
feet from the Ordinance High Water Level of recreation lakes. The ordinance presently
requires that such structures maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet. He noted that the
proposed ordinance amendment would bring the City’s requirements into conformance
with the State rules for shoreland areas.
Chairman Williams opened public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐24‐12
Klatt summarized a letter that had been submitted by the Valley Branch Watershed
district noting the district’s requirements for shoreland buffers. There were no
additional public comments.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐24‐12
Chairman Williams closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Fliflet stated that the proposed change could be a good thing, for example, to preserve
trees on the site and to provide some additional flexibility for building placement.
Bloyer noted that he owns a shoreland lot and that the reduced setback would allow
him to build a water‐oriented structure closer to the lake while preserving two large
trees on his property.
M/S/P: Fliflet, Haggard; motion to recommend approval of the amendment to reduce
the required setback for water‐oriented accessory structures with the Shoreland District
to a minimum of 10 feet from the Ordinance High Water level of recreation lakes.
Motion carried, vote 4‐0 (Bloyer abstained).
Business Item: Village Planning Update
Klatt presented an update to the Planning Commission concerning the activities of the
Village Planning Work Group. He noted that the work group had recently conducted a
town hall meeting to present some of the work that has been accomplished in
preparation of a major updated to the Comprehensive Plan for the Village area. Klatt
reviewed the land use plan that has been endorsed by the work group, and reviewed
potential locations for a village green that had been considered by the group. He
explained that staff is presently working on a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment
that will be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future.
Williams asked how the proposed mixed use zoning for the Village area would differ
from the proposed mixed use areas along the I‐94 Corridor. Klatt responded that the I‐
94 district primarily included mixed use areas as a way to promote flexibility within the
overall development areas, but that a special mixed use district has not been proposed
for the corridor. He noted that a mix of uses could be allowed through a Planned
Development. The Village mixed‐use would be much more unique and promote a more
integrated and district‐wide approach to land use.
Bloyer asked why the City could not lower the ranges that are being used for the
variance residential land uses, for example, why the 5‐7 units per acre in medium
density zones could not be lowered to 2‐7 units per acre. Klatt noted that staff has used
the lower number in the ranges to estimate household and population totals, and that
these are the numbers that demonstrate compliance with the Met Council
Memorandum of Understanding.
Haggard questioned what would happen if all development occurred at the upper range
allowed in the land use plan. Klatt explained that the City would have the ability to
reject land use applications that exceeded the area‐wide densities specified in the plan.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐24‐12
Haggard noted that the Comprehensive Plan did specify a maximum number of 15 units
per acre in the high density planning areas.
Bloyer asked why development could not be extended out to Manning Avenue in order
to provide more opportunities for green space within the Village Planning areas. Klatt
noted that one of the key concepts of the Village Plan was the creation of a green belt
buffer area around the Village center.
Haggard questioned what would happen if housing was developed in advance of the
City proceeding with development of the village green and other parkland. Klatt stated
that the Village Green would need to be planned and secured in conjunction with any
decisions regarding a larger ball field or recreation complex.
Williams indicated that the existing playground within Lions Park is heavily used and
that a playground should be preserved as part of any future development. Fliflet noted
that any new development would need to provide for neighborhood parks. Klatt
explained that staff is still reviewing ways to require park and open space preservation
within the Village planning area.
There was a general discussion concerning the availability of sewer and the expected
timing for future improvements.
Obermueller suggested that a referendum could be one source of funding for
acquisition of open space within the Village.
Bloyer asked if the City Attorney has been reviewing the proposed land use plans. Klatt
explained that the attorney has not been specifically asked to review the proposed
plans, but has been sent drafts for review. He explained that the attorney’s office would
likely be involved in reviewing specific implementation measures.
Williams questioned the potential realignment of HWY‐ 5 and CR‐14 and whether or not
this realignment was still part of the plans. Klatt explained the realignment has been
removed from the plan based on feedback from the pubic open house and from
members of the business community.
Haggard stated that the current situation on Highway 5 is very unsafe, especially for
people that are crossing the highway near the high school. She asked Planning Director
Klatt to bring this issue to the attention of Mn/DOT at the next opportunity.
Obermueller asked if there were any statistics concerning the number of crashes
occurring at the new Highway 5 and Jamaca Avenue round‐a‐bout.
There was a general discussion concerning the town hall meeting and the comments
that were received at this meeting.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐24‐12
City Council Updates
Klatt explained that the City Council adopted and codified the new sewered zoning
districts and supporting amendments at its last meeting, and that these amendments
will become effective in the near future.
Staff Updates
Klatt noted that the next Planning Commission will be moved to a Wednesday evening
on October 10th.
Commission Concerns
Williams asked about the status of new applicants for the Planning Commission. Klatt
indicated that the City has taken steps to advertise for the Commission and that there
have been at least two applications submitted to date.
Adjournment at 8:37pm
Respectfully submitted,
Kyle Klatt
Planning Director