HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 08-16-10APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 9-13-10
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 16, 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, McGinnis,
Pearson, Van Zandt, Williams and Ziertman. Absent: Van Erem, Pelletier
STAFF PRESENT: Administrator Messelt, Planning Director Klatt and Planner Matzek
Agenda
M/S/P, Williams/Hall, move to approve the agenda as presented. Vote: 9:0.
Minutes - June 28, 2010
M/S/P, Fliflet/Williams, move to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 7:0.
McGinnis and Van Zandt abstained.
Business Items – Comprehensive Plan Urban (Sewered) Area Density Analysis
Discussion (cont)
Planner Matzek presented employment information and explained the analysis for the
Village area. She stated that the city will use an actual REC count in the future and the
employees per acre number is used for planning purposes only. She then presented the
overall population projections through 2030 for the entire city. Planner Matzek said she
used the persons per household number calculated from the Comprehensive Plan.
Business Item – Agenda Discussion
Planning Director Klatt suggested the commission define what may be appropriate for
discussion under the “Commissioner Concerns” heading of the agenda and to set some
ground rules.
Administrator Messelt said there is a difference between commission concerns and
commissioner concerns. He said the commission could use Robert’s Rules of Order or
they can continue to be less formal during their meetings. He suggested retaining
personal opinions, but to also state what the body’s decision was as a majority if choosing
to speak at the Council meetings on a topic.
Chairman Van Zandt said as the chair of a commission it is a fine line for him to express
his opinion without directing the discussion of the commission in one direction. He
apologized if there was a misunderstanding as there are certain topics he is passionate
about.
Commissioner Fliflet said that the item on the agenda should be to raise issues for staff to
look into for a future agenda item.
Commissioner Williams said his comments at a previous meeting were intended to
stimulate discussion on a topic. He said he respectfully disagrees with Commissioner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-16-10 1
APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 9-13-10
Fliflet as he thinks it is a good idea to have some time when commissioners can comment
on issues facing the city. He would be in favor of renaming the topic “Commissioner
Concerns.”
Commissioner Fliflet stated that all commissioners are able to suggest agenda topics, but
that it should go through the appropriate process for placing it on a future agenda.
Commissioner McGinnis said she liked the suggestion of the Administrator for a
commissioner to pose an agenda item and the commission as a whole can decide if it
should be something to bring to the next meeting.
M/S/P, Fliflet/Ziertman, move to leave “Commission Concerns” on the agenda and if
commissioners have agenda items they would like added to an agenda, it should be done
through a formal process through the commission. Vote: 9:0.
Agricultural Sales Zoning Ordinance Discussion
Planning Director Klatt said this is a preliminary discussion in order to get feedback on
how to proceed with developing potential revisions to the ordinance. No draft revisions
or new ordinance is being proposed at this time. He said the current city regulations
require agricultural produce to be grown on-site when sold outside of commercial
properties. City staff met with at least two of the larger agricultural sales businesses in
the city to receive their input, but two other businesses did not follow up with staff. City
Council has directed staff and the commission to review the city’s agricultural sales
ordinance. Planning Director Klatt identified the following as options for consideration:
Interim Use Permit; Non-Agricultural Low Impact Use; Definition amendment to allow
off-site sales as a percentage of overall sales; reclassify off-site sales as a commercial
activity; licensing; no changes; or remove “produced on the premises” from definition.
He stated that single family homes are the predominant use in rural areas, particularly in
the Rural Residential Zoning District.
Administrator Messelt said this is more of a higher level discussion to establish a policy.
He added that because there is not a specific item in front of the commission, there is no
need for anyone to recuse themselves, but to note their opinion is from personal
experience.
Commissioner Williams asked if the Krueger tree farm and the Bergmann’s property are
guided for RAD in the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Director Klatt said the Krueger tree farm is partly guided for open space/buffer
in the village area, but otherwise is guided for RAD which is slated for residential
development at 0.45 units per acre. He said the Bergmann’s are guided for RAD.
Administrator Messelt encouraged the commission to speak in general or in categories
and to leave specific property owners out of the discussion.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-16-10 2
APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 9-13-10
Commissioner Fliflet asked for a clarification on the word “foodstuffs” as it appears in
the definition of agricultural sales business.
Planning Director Klatt said examples would be a bundle of wheat, Indian corn, hay for
decorative purposes. He said it means agricultural product that is not made for
consumption.
Commissioner Hall asked if items that are processed off site like jam and jellies would be
included in that as well.
Chairman Van Zandt said businesses in our city produce sales tax, but that traffic needs
to be controlled as well. He said that farmers have good and bad years, but their fixed
costs stay the same such as land and machinery.
Administrator Messelt said there is a difference in agricultural businesses and other
businesses. He said the State of Minnesota regulations say if you grow it, you can sell it.
If a farm is in the Green Acres program, the property is allowed a deferral for
assessments and is not taxed at commercial property rates. Farmed property has inherent
rights other land does not. He asked at what point does a business become more than an
agribusiness.
Commissioner Ziertman said she will speak from her perspective as a farmer. She said if
a farmer is not limited by their land, they could do anything of an agricultural nature, but
so could anyone else. She said when you sell what you grow, you are a farmer, but when
you bring everything in, you are a commercial business. She would agree to a small
percentage in order to supplement a crop failure. She said there is a reason farmers have
crop insurance – there is a risk to being a farmer. She said most people who go to a farm
believe they are doing so to get fresh produce. She asked for more information on the
interim use permit and licensing options.
Administrator Messelt said the preferred option is to do an interim use permit to manage
traffic impacts, onsite and off-site advertising, storage, and impacts to neighbors. He said
when he researched farmers market, he found that the Minneapolis farmers market does
not regulate where the food comes from, but the St. Paul group is run by a non-profit and
does regulate the food’s origin.
Commissioner Pearson asked if there was a problem or a particular issue the city is trying
to solve or is it a matter of trying to be ahead of something.
Administrator Messelt said the issue is the enforcement of this ordinance. The city has
enforced the off-site sales issue before in the 1990’s and has enforced the wayside stand
ordinance as well. He said the city could limit the business by the size of the parking lot,
the permanent sales floor, and can limit it by the season through an interim use permit.
The County Assessor taxes an agricultural business at the commercial rate for only the
portion of the property used for commercial uses and for the number of days it is utilized
for that purpose.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-16-10 3
APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 9-13-10
Commissioner Bidon said that the “produced in Lake Elmo” language should go away as
farmers own land elsewhere and land is not readily available for farming in Lake Elmo.
An Interim Use Permit should limit the number of days a business operates per year.
Administrator Messelt suggested a reasonable supplement also be required such as
pumpkins for pumpkins and not bananas for pumpkins.
Commissioner Hall asked if there was a limit of how much someone can sell.
Administrator Messelt said if an IUP was the process used for review, more detail could
be required. An example for consideration is someone who owns 50 acres up in Duluth
and one acre in Lake Elmo; should that property owner be able to bring 50 acres worth of
produce for sale at a one acre site in Lake Elmo? If a supplement is allowed, it needs to
be well defined.
Commissioner Williams said he wants to support existing agricultural businesses. He
asked if in discussions with two of the businesses, if they mentioned any preferences or
gave any guidance.
Planning Director Klatt said the primary point made was the need for them to supplement
their crops.
Commissioner Pearson said he is not worried about someone new starting a business.
Commissioner Ziertman said she disagrees. She said if she was able to bring in
everything from offsite, why wouldn’t she and make a lot more money.
Commissioner Fliflet suggested limiting the retail sales floor to control the impacts rather
than the amount of supplement allowed.
Administrator Messelt said there is value in both. He said there are negative impacts
when a lot of traffic is added to an established neighborhood instead of in a truly rural
area. Administrator Messelt said it would be easier to manage with several criteria versus
only one criteria. He said he could talk to the City Attorney to see if submittal of sales
documents could be required with an IUP.
Commissioner Williams said he is in support of allowing the supplement of the same
product from elsewhere. He suggested the supplement be allowed up to fifty percent. He
suggested staff should come back with more information on the IUP option.
M/S/P, Williams/Hall to recommend staff draft an IUP ordinance to handle agricultural
sales business.
Administrator Messelt suggested a friendly amendment to allow staff to look at a
seasonal sales permit and an administrative licensing option.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-16-10 4
APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 9-13-10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-16-10 5
Chairman Van Zandt suggested the interim use permit be an annual renewal instead of
every two years.
Commissioner Hall suggested amending the motion to include directing staff to research
the topic of incremental taxing as part of the criteria.
Vote: 9:0.
M/S/P, Van Zandt/Williams, to recommend staff not enforce the ordinance that currently
exists regarding agricultural sales. Vote: 9:0.
M/S/P, Williams/McGinnis, to recommend removal of the “roadside stand” definition
from city code. Vote: 9:0.
Business Items – Village Area Work Plan (Verbal)
Planning Director Klatt gave an update of where the city is in the work plan process and
what steps are coming. Staff will come back with more discussion on South of 10th Street
as Council directs staff to move forward.
Commissioner Williams said he is concerned with the lack of planning for the South of
10th Street area. He said the city does not have code requirements for sewered
development in place.
Planning Director Klatt said there is a process by which an applicant can amend an
ordinance in tandem with a development application, such as the farm school
development is currently. He said that is not a preferred method and staff will be
working to have regulations in place ahead of time.
Updates
Planning Director Klatt stated the Council approved the final adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan update on August 4th. He said they had a workshop at which
Planner Matzek presented the sewered area analysis provided to the commission. He said
the Washington County staff will be at the next Council meeting to discuss the septic
ordinance.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned 9:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli Matzek
Planner