Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 10-18-10APPROVED AS PRESENTED 11-22-10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-18-10 1 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2010 Chairman Van Zandt called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bidon, Britz, Fliflet, Hall, Pearson, Pelletier, Van Zandt and Williams. Absent: McGinnis, Van Erem, and Ziertman. STAFF PRESENT: Administrator Messelt, Planning Director Klatt, Planner Matzek. Agenda Commissioner Bidon added “Discussion on Senior Housing/Farm School” to the Commissioner Concerns section. M/S/P, Britz/Pearson, move to approve as amended. Vote: 8:0. Minutes - July 26, 2010 M/S/P, Hall/Pelletier, move to approve as presented. Vote: 8:0. August 23, 2010 M/S/P, Fliflet/Britz, move to approve as presented. Vote: 7:0. Williams abstained. Public Hearings – Zoning Text Amendment; General Requirements in the Interim Use Permit Planner Matzek identified the main changes being proposed in the general requirements for an Interim Use Permit. She said the primary revisions proposed eliminate the duplication of requirements, allows the City Council to set the termination of the use to a date or event, and allows an administrative extension of 30 days to eliminate a potential time gap in a renewal application. Commissioner Hall asked if there was a minimum time the Council must set for an IUP. Planner Matzek stated there was not a minimum, but that staff is suggesting those uses that would be for less than one year should instead be permitted as a Special Event Permit. She said that permitting process is not yet established in code, but will be back in front of the commission soon. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:06 P.M. Anthony Sanders, Attorney for Country Sun Farm, West Lakeland Resident Mr. Sanders said while he likes many of the proposed changes to the ordinance he has a few concerns. He said the existing language says the applicant must sign a consent agreement identifying that the applicant is not entitled to future permit approvals. He said if an applicant is going to be economically invested, they should have a right to a reapproval. He said it could get into a legal issue of a takings, or an exaction in certain instances. Mr. Sanders said it would not seem right if a City Council could add conditions after an agreement is signed. APPROVED AS PRESENTED 11-22-10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-18-10 2 THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:09 P.M. Planner Matzek said an interim use permit is, by design, supposed to be a minimal investment by a property owner and understood upfront that it should not be a long-term investment. She said she would look into the timing, but believes the agreement is signed after the Council approves the application so all conditions would be understood ahead of time. M/S/P, Williams/Hall, move to approve the Interim Use Permit ordinance amendment as presented. Vote: 8:0. Public Hearings – Zoning Text Amendment to Holding Districts Planner Matzek said the commission is asked to consider revising the holding districts which were put in place in 2007. She said the primary amendments would eliminate the property owners’ ability to apply for future conditional use permits until the land is developed with city sewer and is in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. She said there was some concern expressed previously that conditional use permits, which stay with the property, were inappropriate in holding districts given the future uses were generally inconsistent with those uses allowed by CUP. One of the proposed changes would allow those uses previously identified as conditionally permitted instead be allowed by interim use permit. She handed out a proposed revision to the purpose section of code. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:24 P.M. No one spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:25 P.M. M/S/P, Pearson/Hall, move to accept the changes Commissioner Williams suggested changing “as an interim use permit” to “by an interim use permit” and under special requirements add the word “applications.” Vote: 8:0 Public Hearings – Interim Use Permit; Cranky Ape at 9200 Hudson Boulevard Planning Director Klatt summarized the application for the Interim Use Permit for an open sales lot at 9200 Hudson Boulevard which is zoned HD-GB-SRD. He identified the differences between a conditional use permit and interim use permit. He stated that the applicants have previously applied for a conditional use permit for the same use on the same site, which the City Council has not yet taken action on. Commissioner Williams asked what would happen to an interim use permit if the land guidance changed to allow a business park on this site. APPROVED AS PRESENTED 11-22-10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-18-10 3 Planning Director Klatt said typically when a city decides to extend sewer to a site, the city can make a determination if the property use is consistent with future zoning. If an IUP is in conformance with what future zoning allows, it will become a permitted use or could be a CUP. Commissioner Fliflet said she is concerned about an IUP for ten years and suggested five with an option to renew for two years thereafter. Administrator Messelt said from a business standpoint he believes there is less risk for the business for ten years instead of five. He said from a planning perspective, ten years is a blink of an eye, but that it is a negotiated agreement. Chairman Van Zandt stated this property right on I-94 is not a good site for residential uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Fliflet asked if development South of 10th street had to start at Hudson Boulevard due to the pipe location. Administrator Messelt said the infrastructure extensions have not yet been planned. He said the forcemain being planned along Lake Elmo Avenue up to the Village Area may instead be planned for a portion South of 10th Street to be built as gravity instead, which would open up other properties South of 10th Street to development first. Brian Livingston, Cranky Ape; Co-owner Mr. Livingston said he researched the city code before the company applied for a conditional use permit and he did not think they would have a problem getting the permit. He said with the all unknowns, he is uncomfortable making a significant investment, not just the money, but for the forty families that would be moving as well. He said it does not make sense to have housing in that location. Mr. Livingston said they want to be a long-term partner with the city, but that they are considering not moving at this point because of the unknowns. He said they had previously had something presented to them with no expiration, but now the agreement says five or ten years, which goes by very quickly. Commissioner Britz said if the business continues to grow, they will need a bigger site. Mr. Livingston said they are already a national company and this site takes into account their plans for their corporate headquarters. Jay Adams, Cranky Ape, Co-owner Mr. Adams said they currently own a four acre site at Cannon Falls which can function as overflow if needed as they will not be able to sell that property quickly, but this move would double the amount of land they are already using. Administrator Messelt said this is the type of business the city wants to try and make work. He said this agreement was shared with the applicants last Friday. He said a CUP APPROVED AS PRESENTED 11-22-10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-18-10 4 at this time is still an option and the city can attempt to button up the language, but the IUP is just for the outdoor display as the remaining portion of the business is an allowed use. He said that at the end of the day, the permit will probably not be taken away. Commissioner Williams asked the applicants if they would like the city to temporarily postpone discussions until they have had an opportunity to renegotiate the agreement. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Keith Bergmann, 5833 Lake Elmo Ave Mr. Bergmann said a business owner wants to know they can stay as long as they are able to and that a business should still be able to stay even if it is non-conforming in the case of a rezoning. He said if the city is working toward not allowing any businesses, the entire city should be rezoned residential. He does not understand why the city would not give them the requested CUP. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. Commissioner Pelletier asked staff to clarify why this area was guided for future sewered residential development. Planning Director Klatt summarized by saying the city created a plan south of 10th Street that called for a certain amount of sewered residential development. He said the city established holding districts to allow uses to continue as some properties would not be developed with sewer for fifteen to twenty years. Commissioner Fliflet said it was understood that for every acre south of 10th Street that wasn’t guided for residential, higher density would be required elsewhere in the city given the agreement with the Metropolitan Council. She said the comments that no one will live next to a busy interstate isn’t realistic as it happens in many other cities. M/S/P, Williams/Fliflet, move to postpone consideration of the IUP application until such time as the applicant wishes to reinstate it. Administrator Messelt said the commission can recommend approval of the application, but not the agreement and it can move on to the City Council if the applicant is comfortable. Mr. Livingston said they are not lawyers or experts in land use and while they were not expecting this delay, they would rather not rush it. Vote: 8:0. City Council Updates Planning Director Klatt informed the commission that the zoning text amendment application from Lake Elmo Inn was approved, as was the interim use ordinance for agricultural sales. APPROVED AS PRESENTED 11-22-10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-18-10 5 Staff Updates Administrator Messelt said the city had received word that the plaintiff will be seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on the City Council’s actions the previous week. He said staff will be sitting down with the Country Sun staff in the future. He said the media has been inaccurately reporting on the dismissal of this lawsuit, but it should be clarified in the future. Commission Concerns Commissioner Bidon said he read a newspaper article about the Senior Housing/Farm School application by Mrs. Malmquist which stated there was a signed petition against the application. He was wondering what had happened to change the support seen by the commission at the previous public hearing. Chairman Van Zandt said the city did inform the public of open meetings and the seats were full at a number of meetings in which multiple people got up to speak. He said, in his experience, no matter how often you tell the public, there will always be those who come back at the end who say they were never told. Administrator Messelt said the concept plan submitted is intentionally left with few details as that is done at the next stage of applications. It is now incumbent on the applicant to come back with more detail. He said he understands the applicant is planning an informational meeting with area residents, but without the city. Administrator Messelt said he believes a point of contention is the secondary access that was required by the city and was not originally proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Fliflet said the next meeting is the same date and time as an important school district meeting to which both her and Commission Pelletier will be attending. Planning Director Klatt said he has talked to the Chair about possibly seating the commission’s alternate members at the ends of the staff tables so they may continue to participate at the meetings, but it is more clear to staff and the public as to who can vote. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli Matzek Planner