Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2.12.07 PacketNOTICE OF MEETING The City of Labe Elle® Panning Comm.issi®n Will conduct a meeting on Monday, February 129 20079 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2, Approve Agenda. 3. Minutes a. December 11, 2006 b. January 8, 2007 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variances for Septic — 11225 31s' Street. North 5. City Council Updates a. January 20 — Village Area Infrastructure Workshop, 9 a.m. b. January 23 --- Village Area Financing, 6 p.m. c. February 1 Joint Workshop City Council & Planning Commission d. February 6 — Concept Approved for WV W e. February 6 — Moratorium on Signs - Billboards f. February 13 — Joint Workshop City Council & Planning Commission Work Session 6. Adjourn City of Lake Elmo Vice Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Van Zandt, Deziel, Lyzenga, Pelletier, Fliflet, Schneider, Armstrong, and (7:05) McGinnis. STAFF: Interim Administrator Bouthilet, Assistant Planner Matzek, and Recording Secretary Anez. ALSO PRESENT: Special Projects Director Susan Hoyt, Mayor D. Johnston and Councilmember Johnson. Agenda M/S/P, Armstrong/Van Zandt to accept the Agenda as presented. Vote: 8:0. Minutes M/S/P, Lyzenga/Deziel to accept the Minutes of November 27, 2006 as presented. Vote: 7:0:1. Abstain: Pelletier. PublicHearing: CUP Amendment—Oakdale Gun Club The Assistant Planner said the gun club sits on 62 acres with an extensive history since 1965. Previous amendments to the CUP included a caretaker house and an accessary structure. The applicants wish now to add an accessory building for storage. Schneider asked about the overhang size being exceptionally, large. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:05 P.M. A letter from Knappogue Farm which was signed by Jackie McNamara was read into the record by Commissioner Pelletier and will be made a part of these minutes. Richard McNamara, Knappogue Mr. McNamara said he was not t addressed the sound especially in their farm. He would like a barri everybody shooting all a.t once. as the past year has been Ibally relocated the driveway. He sai+ invited anyone to walls in the b, themselves think, complain about the club or the new building but months. He said they cannot hear themselves talk at constructed or time constraints for operation and without wondered if there are more people at the gun club these days d. He said they have noticed it more since the Gun Club really is a health and safety issue with all that noise. He portion of their forty acres and they would not hear THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:09 P.M. Jerome Marah, Director of the Gaon Club Mr. Marah said he has been with the club since 1975 and held this position since 1976. He said the club has done extensive work for sound reduction. They contract for independent sound studies. Every time they do a sound study, they perform it on the extreme southern boundary for those neighbors, The contractors have been unable to record 70db leaving the site. They are generally 65-68 db depending on the wind. The shooting ranges are under cover. They have almost completely enclosed one of the gun ranges. They are working to enclose other ranges too to keep noise within boundaries. They have looked at planting more trees as well, but trees only deafen sound a bit. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2006 Mr. Marah said that traffic in and out of the driveway was a concern for the neighbors across the street so the club relocated their driveway further to the west, making it safer. He said the overhang for the storage building will be for a canopy for the rain. Commissioner Pelletier asked the hours of operation. Mr. Marah said they are open to the public from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. On November 19, 2006, they closed until the lst Saturday in June 2007. The range is open each year on Saturday and Sunday until mid-October and then open to the public every day after that from 8 to 4. Forty-five minutes before sunset, club members must stop shooting. Timetables are taken from the IBNR hunting regulation book. Mr. Marah said they once had complaints about shooting at sunrise but that was goose hunters elsewhere. Assistant Planner Matzek said Building Official/Code Enforcement Officer Jim McNamara went out to the site after a verbal complaint was received last week followed by the letter from Knappogue Farm, and after inspecting the site said there were no::..violations of the CUP. M/S/P, Armstrong/Schneider to recommend approval of an Arnendmeii o the Conditional Use Permit of the Oakdale Gun Club for construction of a 36 X 60 accessory structure for storage. Vote: 9:0. PUBLIC NEARING: Rezoning to Village residential Assistant Planner Matzek explained that this rezoning of the Village Area will be responsive to the Village Area Master Plan. The specifics of that plan are not yet finished so specifics as to use and density are not yet available. The proposal presented''tonight is flexible enough to allow for the completion and implementation of the Villkg'e Area Master Plan. The Assistant Planner also noted that the city has requested an extension from the Met Council because the zoning districts and map are required to be submitted by January 16, 2007, and it will be difficult to meet t.N deadline given the loss of key staff members. The City Council will review the extension request at their next meeting. Chairman Ptacek said he..spoke with the City Attorney and staff and both recommendations are to request an extension of our deadline. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:24 P.M. Jose Chaves, 3505 Kelvin Avenue North Mr. Chaves said his property is south of Hamlet on Sunfish Lake, next to Schiltgen Farm, and indicated on the map that it was just west of the Village Area and adjacent to Sunfish Lake. He said the parcel is landlocked. He would like to find road access for that property. He has tried for a long time and there is no access. He hopes he will learn how this plan will affect him and his access. Preliminary surveying estimates say it is buildable and meets setbacks. He was assured when Hamlet on Sunfish was constructed that the city would not allow him to become landlocked but that is what happened. Peter Coyle, Larkin and 11of�nan Mr. Coyle he said he is attending the meeting on behalf of the Screatons whose affected land is on the northeast tip of the Village Area at Highway 5 and Manning. He asked if the substance of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2006 2 the Village Plan is still being created. He asked if a Land Use Map was ready. With respect to Village Residential zoning, he asked if 3 units per acre minimum will be required. He asked if allocations of the density were still to be determined. He questioned staff s schedule a11d why the public hearing is being conducted if we don't have the substance of the Village Plan tonight. He asked if this hearing was driven by deadlines of Met Council and asked when will there be another hearing. Commissioner Ptacek explained that there have been delays due to staffing resources. The city does not have an exact date for the next public hearing. Assistant Planner Matzek said it will be renoticed in the future. She said she would like City Attorney Filla at the next public hearing. Todd Williams, Old Village Resident Mr. Williams explained his extensive history as a councilmember and -,commissioner for the city, and said he is very familiar with this concept for the Village Area. fe has been to all the public meetings and the one issue of most concern is the total number of units. He said he understands PUDs and the need for flexibility but he wants to know how M any totalhouses will be in the Village Area. Normally, the number of units would not be given, but a density. There is an escape clause written into this code that reads, `Unless part of a PUD" which,would put no limit on the number of units. He said he thinks it should be corrected, The Comp Plan mentions a number of units to be accommodated in the Old Village. ;This code will be a matter of law when it is passed and it is important for it to be clarified and pinned down better than it is. Commissioner Lyzenga skid she would ;like to clarify that tonight we are not designing the Village area but going through the formal process of reclassification. Assistant Planner Matzek clarified that this rezoning is tied to the Village Plan. This is the connecting piece and not just a name change. She explained that existing homes will not have to be torn down if they do not meet new setbacks. Susan Hoyt, Project Director for Village Master Plan Ms. Hoyt introduced herself and said she is here to learn as well. She said that the PUDs brought forward in the future will develop criteria for the number of homes and even for home designs. This is a kind of transition zone and transition discussion. Commissioner Fliflet asked if there will be a public hearing for Village Master Plan details. Ms. Hoyt said she believes the Master Plan will define the area with clear criteria. She said she believed that property owners would like to know what they could do in some detail, and some of that is not available tonight. Commissioner Armstrong said he would like to pass it quickly because of the Met Council. He said that last time the city requested an extension, a wastewater impact fee was also given. He Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2006 DRAFT said. the Planning Commission has been left out of the loop with regard to the Village Plan. The code before the Commission is pretty generic and little to be afraid of. M/S/P, Armstrong/Fliflet to amend 3A, Uses permitted in VIZ by Conditional Use Permit in front of townhouse add single family detached. Vote: 9:0. M/S/P, Armstong/Deziel Amend 2A under VR. to read, "One family detached dwellings, one unit per 20 nominal acres." Vote: 9:0. Commissioner Armstrong said that in and of itself this code is harmless, the Commission will have the right to see PUD Plans as they are submitted, and judge them as they come in. He said this code is vague but it needs to be at this point. He is comfortable with the text now. Commissioner Pelletier asked if there will be another opportunity to speak for residents at some point. Interim Administrator Bouthilet said there will be public hearings for specific design standards after they become available. Assistant Planner Matzek said that CUPs and PUDs will also require public hearings. Commissioner Armstrong said he would like the Planning Commission to create some PUD guidelines so applicants know what would the City would like to see: setbacks to existing homes, landscaping, more stringent buffering, etc. He said he would like a clean draft after changes have been implemented into this draft. Interim Administrator Bouthilet said,-,with:all the public hearings for all the other zones, we cannot meet the January 9 meeting deadline, Commissioner Lyzenga said if we cannot meet the deadline, she would rather the Commission be more thoughtful in thcir work, M/S/P, Armstong/Van Zandt, to table VR zoning text for a fresh draft until a future date uncertain. Vote: 9:0. Variances — Millers on Bennett Avenue The Assistant Planner said the applicants for this variance withdrew their application, and they plan to have a meeting with staff after the holidays. Zoning Districts Commissioner Pelletier asked about General Business zoning district allowable uses such as cafes and restaurants limited to full table service. She would like a coffee shop without full service as well. Commissioner Lyzenga thought it would need to be incidental to something like a bakery. Commissioner Van Zandt said we have to get more creative or we are not going to have a village like the City would want to claim. The City needs to have something more than just the Lake Elmo Inn. Dake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 1.1, 2006 DRAFT Commissioner Ptacek suggested the Commission either propose a change or ask a question that can be answered. Commissioner Pelletier asked if the Assistant Planner can bring back proposed text for GB coffee shops. M/S/P, Deziel/Lyzenga to allow coffee shops as a permitted use in the General Business Zoning District. Vote: 9:0. Commissioner Armstrong said there are blanks in some districts with regard to impervious surface percentages. Assistant Planner Matzek will come back with Impervious Surface Percentages for each Zoning District. Commissioner Van Zandt left the table at 8:38 p.m. and returned at 8,A0 p.m. The Assistant Planner was asked to bring IVC back to the next meeting with regard to average lot Kimberly Anez Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2006 1. AG zone, Permitted. uses, add the following from current code: e. One familv detached dwellin s9 one unifier nomina140 acres. f. Farm buildings and farm drainage and irrigation systems. 2. AG zone, Permitted uses, amend item d. as follows to reflect current code: Commercial recreation of a rural nature, including outdoor target ranges. 3. AG zone, Conditional uses, item g. needs additional standards for Non -Agricultural Low Impact Uses as shown in current code. (currently Section 300.07, Subd. 4(a)6). So amend item g. as follows: Ikon -agricultural Low Impact Uses as defined and regulated by thi-s section 5 below. Then add in the Non -Ag Low Impact standards as section...5 right after the section 4. Minimum District requirements. 4. AG zone, Conditional uses, must add item h. for Outdoor Social Events(right term?) as it was passed recently. 5. AG zone, Accessory Uses, reletter item c. to. b. 6. AG zone, renumber Permitted Uses as section 2 and Conditional Uses as 3. 7. rr zone, Permitted Uses, amend item a. as follows: a. One family detached fesi&ntial dwellings, one unit per norriinal 10'cres9 g. rr zone, Accessory Uses, add item b. as follows: b. Home Occupationsas re Mated by City Code. 9. rr zone renumber paragraphs following 1. Purpose. 10. r-2 zone, Accessory Uses, amend item b. as follows: b. Home Occupations as 11. r-2 zone, under Minimum District requirements, the Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage is blank, as it is in current code. Delete or add percentage? 12. NC zone, Permitted Uses, amend item a. as follows: a. One family detached dwellings, one unit per buildable taxarcel of record or combination of tax parcels of record as of January 1, 2007. 13. NC zone, Accessory Uses, amend item b. as follows: b. home Occupations as iulated by C Code, 14. NC zone, Minimum District Requirements, we should add a minimum amount to the lot size and setbacks since the adjacency average may be very low in some cases. For example, under lot size it could read: 15,500 square feet, or adjacency averaged, whichever is less, but no less than 12,000 square feet. 15. IVSD zone, Permitted Uses, item a. amend as follows: a. One family detached f&4&44al dwellings, one unit per2Q nominal acres. 16. FSD zone, Permitted Uses, item b. amend as follows: Commercial agriculture ..... 17. FSD zone, Accessory Uses, amend item b, as follows: b. Home Occupations as re Mated by Citi Code. 18. SRD3.5 zone, Permitted Uses, delete item �„ o„^=^l _"_g ^_ 1 re, as this SRD3.5 zone would only be applied to a property after it has an approved PUD plan for development and therefore would no longer be in the SD zone where Agriculture City i' Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2007 Vice Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lyzenga, Armstrong, Van Zandt, Deziel, Pelletier, Schneider, McGinnis, Fliflet, Roth. STAFF PRESENT: Special Projects Director Hoyt, City Planner Gozola, Interim Administrator T. I3outhilet, Assistant Planner Matzek, and Recording Secretary Anez. ALSO PRESENT: Councilmember Johnson. Election of Officers Commissioner Roth nominated Commissioner Pelletier for Chairman of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Deziel. Commissioner Armstrong nominated Commissioner Ptacek for Chairman of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Schneider. No other nominations were forthcoming. Vote for Pelletier: 3, Roth, Fliflet, and Pelletier; vote for Ptacek: 5:0:1 Lyzenga, Armstrong, Schneider, Van Zandt, and Deziel; Ptacek abstained out of modesty. Commissioner Armstrong nominated Commissioner Pel Commissioner Schneider. No other nominations were f+ Commissioner Pelletier nominated Commissioner Ro Commissioner Deziel. No other nominations were fo out of modesty. Agenda Remove Minutes for November 13 and December'1 1 Add distribution of the most recent Met Council Svsti Vice -Chir, seconded by rg. Vote: 9::0. Ary, seconded by Vote: 8:0:1, Roth abstained Add to 4.c. Introduction of the Planner. Statement to 6.d. M/S/P, Fliflet/Schneider to approve the Agenda as amended. Vote: 9:0. Introduction Interim Administrator T. I3outhilet introduced Iden Gozola as our new Consulting City Planner from the firm of Schoell Madson. Ben said his experience was primarily with the City of Minnetrista. Minnetrista<dlalt with similar issues with the Metropolitan Council. PUBLIC HEARING: Open Space Preservation Concept Plan and Conditional Use Permit WHISTLING VALLEY WEST (aka Phase III) Assistant Planner Matzek introduced the application for eight residential lots and three outlots on approximately 15 acres adjacent to and west of existing Whistling Valley I. She said the existing home on the site will be removed as a condition of approval of this subdivision. She noted that this application for WHISTLING VALLEY WEST could be viewed in two different ways. If viewed as a stand alone application, then a 4/5 vote of City Council will be required for deviations from the OP Ordinance. The plan has no Open Spaces over 10 acres in size and the code requires 60% of Open Spaces be 10 acres or larger, 50% of buildable area is not preserved, and there are no trails within the plan. Assistant Planner Matzek said that WHISTLING VALLEY I and II created excess Open Space and trails. They also oversized their septic system, perhaps in anticipation of this addition. If viewed as a third phase and part of WHISTLING VALLEY as a whole, the application would average Open Space, trail length, and other provisions of the OP Ordinance. In that scenario additional OP requirements could be met, but at Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2007 least one deviation and a 4/5 vote of the City Council would still be needed - 60 percent of the Open Space would not be 10 acres or larger. She said staff recommends viewing this application as an independent, stand alone project, and asked for direction on how the Commission wished to view it. Commissioner Deziel said he does not consider it a stand alone OP project because it lacks the qualities that define Open Space Preservation developments. City Planner Gozola said an application like this is not a standard OP application for a number of reasons. The developer is proposing to apply the new OP ordinance with a higher density across the proposed development and the existing Whistling Valley I and 11. He said the staff recommendation is to look at it as a unique stand alone project. He said it is not a legal precedent, and we don't have to worry about another developer doing something similar in the future. This is a unique application whether it is unique on its own or a unique set of circumstances. Under a super majority vote, the Findings could include that this development preserves more land in the existing developments to the east, objectives of the OP Ordinance and Comp Plan are met, and by doing so the Commission could then differentiate it from anything in the future. Commissioner Armstrong clarified that the application in eets the 50% open space requirements if averaged over all three phases. Commissioner Pelletier asked. if this parcel was in the long-term plan to be included in this development. Assistant Planner Matzek said that she had heard this phase may have been verbally discussed in the past, but it was not found documented in Whistling Valley I or II. Bob Close, Close Architects Mr. Close said he worked with Dave Sorenson on all three phases of WHISTLING VALLEY,. Open Space and trail length exceeded'the requirements in I and II. Phases I and II addressed connectivity and the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. Phase III was addressed in the original filing with the county. The Forsythe land is particularly unique and a minimally accessible piece of ground due to topography and the creek bed. He said the lay of the land makes it difficult to exit the lot. Streets were laid out for connectivity between I and II and the same kind of connectivity was designed between I and III. I.wo streets in Phase I stub to the east and another stubs to the west toward the Forsythe property which is something the city wanted. All three parcels were always part of the design. Dave Sorenson, Whistling Valley West, LLC, Developer Mr. Sorenson said when first starting WHISTLING VALLEY they tried to look at the highest and best use of the land. They felt passionate about the niche created there and looked forward to extending it on; Originally, the owners of the now 2nd Addition were not ready to move on from their horse business and the owners of the proposed 3rd Addition were in discussion with the developers to some day add his parcel. Original covenants and documents were re -filed and recorded within three months to include those lands to the east and to the west as expansion lands. Sewer extensions and elevations where streets terminated were all designed with the plan of incorporating those lands and careful thought went into all of the plans. Assistant Planner Matzek said the property to the south requires 200 feet of buffer setback and Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2007 2 WWI the most southerly lot within the proposed plan does not meet that requirement. Mr. Sorenson said they can shift the lot lines northward to meet the required setback to the south. It is a densely forested site and surveyors marked trees over eight inches and then clumped woodlands. A couple of the lots are on the smaller side when compared with the lots within Phases I and II due to contours of the road. There is a large stand of pines east to west and the land slopes north to south. Commissioner Schneider asked about surface water impact to the south. Julie Johnson Ms. Johnson said there is a dry creek that sometimes fills with water in the spring and with heavy rains. She lives in the house to the south. Mr. Sorenson said the Johnsons are actually higher in elevation than the subject property. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:39 P.M. James Kaufhold Mr. Kaufhold said that at the public hearing for WHISTLING VALLEY 2�'D;ADDITION, they brought up some issues. His son owns the ten acres to the southeast of Phase II. The developer agreed to do some things and he didn't do them. The berm was to be 8 to 10 feet high because of the road design so headlights would not be shining into his son's home. The developer would keep the road down on the other side and people would not see into his son's yard unless on they were on the 2nd or 3rd floor of their homes. After development,'the berm is higher than they said it would be but somehow between the public hearing and the final plat approval, they raised the five lots to the same height as the bean so :now these people are sitting on top of a hill overlooking his son's property. Mr.' Kaufbold said that he and his son fool around with old tractors and they play in the field and they make noise. The developer agreed to do these things but that is not what happened. He said he and his son are changing his property now with a permit from VBWD. The water used to go where the WHISTLING VALLEY drainfield is, and now the water sits on it because of the berm. He doesn't think that is right and he said he doesn't know how the developer got that through. In front it shows that they were supposed to put type 4 erosion control blankets on it. They did not put the blankets on the berm, they left caterpillar tracks on it, and threw someseed on it. The north side of the berm is fine. On the other side, the silt fence has dirt piled on it. , e said that the City Planner, Engineer and Building Inspector had been out to the site four times two years ago. He was assured by staff that the city was holding back money to insure that the developers were going to do it. He does not know if this developer is really going to do what he agreed to. Mr. Kaufhold stated Phase III does not have enough acres. He said he does not know how the developer would get this approved. Mr. Kaufhold said he lives in Tablyn Park and so far his well is good. IIe believes no new development in Lake Elmo should have a well because it is going to be polluted. He said he thinks they should have city water if they are going to develop it. Concern was expressed regarding turning around in cul-de-sacs and fire truck accessibility. Neil Krueger Mr. Krueger said he knows a lot of work went into the Open Space Ordinance and many people feel it is too liberal today. The city should enforce the 10 acre parcel size for Open Spaces. He supports the staff recommendation. IIe lives across from an OP project that was originally 30 acres to which they later added some acreage. He said it was not the best use of that property. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January `, 2007 Julie Johnson Ms. Johnson lives south of the Forsythe parcel. She asked if the dead end road would be constructed right away and if it was 100 feet from the property line. She asked if they would be changing the landscaping of the land. She said she is concerned for water flowing into the gully. Mr. Sorenson said there would be an easement to the city for a, potential future road as he understands it. He said the intent of the proposed ponds is to pick up water from these homes. He said they will not be changing the creek. THE CHAIRMAN? CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Chairman Ptacek said pad elevations relative to the berm would be dealt with by the City Engineer or administration. He said that Valley Branch Watershed District is in charge of water flow. Interim Administrator T. Bouthilet said Mr. Kaufhold's concerns were previously being handled by former Administrator Rafferty. Interim Administrator T. Douthilet will work with the resident to get some resolution to his concerns. Chairman Ptacek said that Letters of Credit can be used to assurei things are done to city satisfaction. He asked Interim Administrator T. Bouthilet to get answers for Mr. Kaufhold with regard to pad elevations, height of berm at the silt fence, and erosion control. Commissioner Armstrong said the only constant about the OP Ordinance is change. When first passed it was 6/20 acres then it was 10/20 acres if you preserved a barn. Then it became a 20 acre minimum until it was deterr was much higher density and the 40 acres to meet Met Council sty onto existing; projects but all oriE the interim projects oven,the yeas a precedent would mean that Ohl qualify for this sort.., f applicatio: been a short period of tire, since disallow this project. In order to of approach. fined that those developments were not well managed. Then it density, dropped to 16 units per 40 acres. Now it is at 18 per dards, He said in this case they are combining additional land tral;,projects were already built at 8 lots per 20 acres. Some of might have difficulty trying to increase density. Using this as four or so unfinished developments currently in the city might He said he doesn't see a problem with this one because it has hese other two phases were created. He sees no reason to reet Met Council criteria, he has no problem with their method Commissioner Fliflet said she agreed in theory but struggles with allowing the tack on of land. She said this a special circumstance, it is a good use of the land, and the existing development isn't finished yet. She suggested they add trails or possibly redesign and remove one lot to increase overall lot size. Commissioner Lyzenga said she doesn't have a problem in principle but has a problem with the scale of homes on those lots. She suggested smaller homes or fewer lots. Homes are kind of tight together in the other two phases but they are in a grandiose landscape. Planner Gozola said the underlying issue is to allow this development to move forward as a fifteen acre development. From there the applicant can make some modifications. M/S/P, Armstrong/Van Zandt to recommend that the approach of allowing 15 acres in Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2007 4 y WHISTLING VALLEY WEST be combined and considered with Phases I and 11 for this application and move the project forward. Commissioner Armstrong said he disagreed with the Planner to treat this as a stand alone project because there are many parcels of that size in the city. He added that this development is not finished yet. Commissioner Ptacek said the applicant did give us extra trails and Open Space in the other phases with some plan for the future. Commissioner Deziel said Phase III is generally similar. It fits together overall. Separated it is not what an OP development is about and he could not approve it as a stand alone project. Vote: 9:0. Commissioner Deziel asked for the street design to be forwarded to the City Engineer. He said that the applicant indicated to the neighbor it would not be install,;d right away and that may be a conflict. Commissioner Armstrong said Cardinal Ridge and Parkview had to build t4 r road to the boundary of their properties. Planner Gozola said the Concept Plan is the opportunity to give your comments and suggestions, to express concerns about the east -west road and have the Citi Engineer look at location for that road and the scale of the homes. M/S/P, Roth/Armstrong to recommend approval of the OP Concept Plan for WHISTLING VALLEY WEST according to plans in the file and report dated December 19, subject to the Engineer's recommendations, C.obesiveness with Phases I and 1I, and integrating look and feel with those other two phases. (SchneiderlDeziel amended) To include trails in this addition. (Deziel/Schneider amended) Ta specifically look at the roadway to the west and buffering to the south of this parcel. Vote as amended: 9:0.. M/S/P, Fliflet/Schneider to direct staff to work with Mr. Kaufhold about the berm for WHISTLING VALLEY 2ND ADDITION, and to direct staff to return with a report about Phases I and II when WHISTLING VALLEY WEST comes back to the Planning Commission as a preliminary plat. Vote: 9:0. Special Projects Director Hoyt Special Projects Director Hoyt said she and some of the Council have met with the Met Council regarding the extension request for the zoning code. They will take action later this month with regard to that request. Village Residential Zoning Special Projects Director Hoyt said there are a couple of sites in the Comprehensive Plan where sewer is coming and we need to determine priorities. Approximately 3,000 properties and 2400 property owners will be affected by rezoning. She would like the Planning Commission to decide which areas have the highest priorities for the rezoning process. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2007 Special Projects Director Hoyt said the City Council would like to have a workshop and a firsthand discussion with the Planning Commission. GTN will make a presentation for up to date information on Planning with changes to state statutes. The date and time is scheduled for Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. and it will last until about 9 p.m. The City Attorney has been asked to be there. The Council would like to work together with the Planning Commission and to offer some direction for the process. Ms. Hoyt said the Village Area Master Planners are moving along with the draft. The team is working to finalize that plan and bring it back to the Council. They will be looking for Planning Commission feedback as well around the end of February and early March. She said the Village Area Master Plan is a Council initiative. The Planning Commission will also have input during the Alternative Urban Areawide Review. Special Projects Director Hoyt distributed a handout of a portion of therevised Met Council Systems Statement. Ms. Hoyt explained that upon initial reading, the'language in the Systems Statement didn't appear consistent with the MOU and the Met Council agreed, and the language was cleared up. She couldn't bring the entire document to the Planning Commission because it has not been reviewed but she is trying to make sure the Planning Commission does see it. She said the Planning Commission will receive the full System Statement before its submission to the Met Council. Commissioner Armstrong asked if the map of the city on Page W7 shows distinction between developing area and rural residential_ Special Projects Director Hoyt said she anticipates there is very little change at this point. Commissioner Armstrong asked her opinion if in the current state of negotiations that the MOU supersedes the Systems Statement. Ms. Hoyt said the MOLT is absolutely driving the Systems Statement. Commissioner Ptacek asked for any differences between the Systems Statement and the MOU and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He asked for a staff report, what the Systems Statement means, if it changes the MOU substantially, and what it means for switching of densities from south of l Och Street to the Vi11�,e'Area. Special Projects Director Hoyt said she is not sure it is a policy change, although she has heard some of that discussion. At the Workshop with Council on February 1, GTN will offer training that is more in-depth than Planning 101 but it will have some of that, and updates on statutes. She was asked for it to be taped for commissioners who cannot attend. Special Projects Director Hoyt stated that a number of residents will be interested in the future rezonings due to property values and uses. She suggested they attend the workshop on education and then get together to determine priorities. She suggested they pick a couple of zones to focus on. She said the city can have information sessions for residents preceding or separate from the public hearings. She said the Planning Commission will prioritize with the Council. The Council has policy concerns they will share with the Planning Commission. She said it is a good Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2007 6 idea that residents have the opportunity to speak with staff and it makes the public hearings less contentious. It takes more time and money but it is better for communication. Ms. Hoyt said the Met Council is not expecting an entire zoning code. It would be nice to clean up and fix up the existing code but she suggested that for now the Planning Commission focus on the critical codes because that is where the deadline will come into effect. On January 22, the Assistant Planner will identify the Work Plan and regular Agenda. Commissioner Pelletier asked if the Village Area Master Plan is going to drive some of their work. Commissioner Schneider asked if the Village Area Master Plan should be decided to drive the zoning code. Special Projects Director Hoyt said the Zoning Code will be last piece. Once that is in place, developers can come in with their proposals. Commissioner Deziel said the Commissioners haven't seen a draft of the Village Area Master Plan. Special Projects Director Hoyt said she will bring back the color maps in the Systems Statement and the draft of the Village Area Master Plan. City Council Undates Assistant Planner Matzek said the CUP On January 2", Hidden Meadows 2"d A They had gone beyond the 180 days req Councilmember Johnson Kimberly Anez Recording Secretary Jun Club was approved on December 19. Plat was granted a one-year extension. lected officers, agrees with the philosophy of Special n with citizens. She also welcomed Ben Gozola, the Dake Eli -no Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2007 APPROVED: JAN. 22, 2007 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission eetin Minutes of November 1, 200 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Van Zandt, Deziel, Schneider, Roth, McGinnis, Pelletier, Ptacek, Fliflet, and Armstrong (7:02 p.m.). STAFF PRESENT: Planner Dillerud, Assistant Planner Matzek, and Recording Secretary, ALSO PRESENT: Councilmember Johnson. Agenda M/S/P, Van Zandt/Roth to accept the Agenda as presented. Vote: 9:0. Minutes M/S/P, Roth/Pelletier to accept the Minutes of September 11, 2006 as presented. Vote: 9:0. Zoning Ordinance The Planner introduced draft zoning district regulations for Public Facilities, Business Park, and Neighborhood Conservation. There are very few proposed changes proposed to PF and BP. Public Facilities The Commission suggested amending PF to exclude site certified regional sewer from the maximum wastewater generation requirement. The Commission agreed. Business Park A list of uses in chart form was presented and it was similar to that created by Lane Kendig when performance zoning was discussed as an option earlier in the year. The Planner said it seemed sensible to use for most zoning districts because there is a great deal of duplication. If the Plamier can deal with all the exceptions in a reasonable fashion, he said he would like to use the chart. Architectural Standards have been removed along with Lighting from the individual districts because they are now covered elsewhere. Neighborhood Conservation The Planner said the locations of the proposed district are existing areas currently zoned R -I as well as the Carriage Station neighborhood. Few parcels do not currently have a structure on them. The purpose of this district is to conserve what exists, and not to increase house sizes, setbacks, densities, etc. The neighborhoods that would fall in this zoning district have a wide variety of characteristics, even from each other. Commissioner Pelletier asked if the proposed lot size of 18,500 is a good average for lots in those neighborhoods. The Planner agreed it was. Building Setback from Property Lines should say, "Adjacency averaged, whichever is less." The Commission agreed. M/S/P, Armstrong/Van Zandt to delete the septic and water supply portion of the table because the purpose of this district is to eliminate non -conformities and that provision creates further Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2006 APPROVED. JAN. 22, 2007 non -conformities. Vote: 9:0. The Commission suggested adding the text "Minimum of 18,500 square feet" for lot size within the table. Commissioner Armstrong suggested adjacency averaging the minimum lot size of 19,500 square feet and it should only apply to lots of record. Also, that should be stated elsewhere in that district as well as in the table. Lots are not buildable without adequate wastewater treatment. M/S/P, Roth/Van Zandt to recommend approval of the revised zoning district for Neighborhood Conservation. Vote: 9:0, M/S/P, Roth/Deziel to recommend approval of the revised zoning district for Business Park. Vote: 9:0. M/S/P, Roth/Deziel to recommend approval of the revised zoning district for Public Facilities. Vote: 9:0. Zoning Map The Planner said our task is not to worry what zoning exists today. Our only goal is to match our Zoning Map to our Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Plan. Definitions The Assistant Planner reviewed definitions. She distributed an ordinance defining Agriculture and Farm, Rural. Automobile Detailing Shop can be removed. The Commission questioned the need for a separate definition of major and minor Automobile Repair. The Assistant Planner said it offers gradients of intensity to reflect gradients of uses. The Commissioners questioned why we are adding definitions for uses we don't have because it causes confusion. They suggested it should occur with the use first and then have a definition. The Assistant Planner said it is something that could be looked at soon. Commissioner Armstrong said our code should stand alone and definitions should not wag the dog. Without direct follow-through, it isnot a good idea to add those definitions prematurely. The Planner said that just because it is listed in the definitions does not mean it is allowed. M/S/P, Roth/Armstrong, to put back into the definitions, the old automobile repair definition and remove the new minor and major definitions for auto repair. Vote: 7:2, Nay: Deziel/Armstrong. M/S/P, Roth/Fliflet, to only include definitions for words that are in the code and to exclude any definition that is not already in the code. Vote: 7:2, Nay: Van Zandt/Ptacek. Commissioner Fliflet recommended changing bed and breakfast stays to 14 days. It was suggested to delete one of the definitions for "Building." Commissioner Armstrong would like to keep the existing definition of "Club." IIe suggested. combining the two definitions, keeping the long definition and deleting the short definition, or rename the short one "Lodge." Staff was asked to look at the definitions of "Day Spa" and "Therapeutic Massage" to identify Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2006 - 2 APPROVED: JAN. 22,2007 any overlap. A more generic definition for "Day Spa" may be appropriate as well as adding the text "and similar services." The Commission asked for a more clear definition for "Director of Public Safety." Commissioner Armstrong talked about the Green Acres program. He requested a closer look at the definition of "farms." The Commission left off at the definition of "Farm" and would like to pick up at that location at the next meeting. City Council Updates The Planner reported that the ordinance was changed to allow for seasonal sales. The Council has requested to review the City Code regarding terms for Planning Commissioners; this topic will be on the next council agenda. Outdoor Commercial Social Events is also on the next agenda. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f 4 Kimberly An Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2006 3 STAFF REPORT Date: February 8, 2007 for the meeting of February 12, 2007 Mlicant: Jeff and Claudia Anderson Requested Action: Chapter 700 Variance for Septic Setback from property lines and structure M M�� The 0.34 acre (15,000 square feet) lot was platted in the Meiers Park subdivision. An approximately 1,990 square foot home and a septic system were constructed/instal led on the lot in 1965. City records reveal no Planning or Building applications/permits of significance to this request since that time, An MPGA Compliance Inspection was per -formed on the septic system in 2006. A resulting Septic System Compliance Report was then completed in May of 2006 which identified the septic system as "failing." Discussion and Analysis: The applicant is applying for variances from the Chapter 700 drain field setback standards. The new drain field would be located 3 feet from the north and east property lines (10 feet required); and within 13 feet of the applicant's house (20 feet required) at the single closest points. There is an additional 10 foot setback from water pipes that is being met by this proposed septic system location. A six inch waterpipe is located along 31" Street. The City Engineer reviewed this distance and found the pipe parallel to the property line was located 20 feet from the property line. A hydrant was located adjacent to the property and was measured 7 feet from the property line. Therefore, the proposed septic system location would meet this 10 foot setback requirement. A septic designer has reviewed the lot and has determined proposed that location as the site for the septic system. It should be noted that the licensed septic designer reported the proposed pressure bed has the smallest foot print of any standard drain field the company could install. The Lake Elmo Building Official (a Certified Septic Inspector) visited the site, reviewed the application and found that the proposed septic system location is appropriate. A conforming and appropriate location is not available on this property for the proposed septic system, This property is located in the designated Old Village area and is slated to obtain sewer at some point in the future. However, this may not occur for a few years and the current septic system was determined to be failing, The City Engineer has reviewed this application and recommend approval due to the lack of any alternative drainfield sites on the lot. The Valley Branch Watershed District did not see any issues with the request. VarianceRequest: By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can successfully address the following criteria: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the applicant's land that the strict application of the minimum standards of this section would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of that land. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested. The physical constraints of the lot mandate the proposed site as the only location possible for a new drainfield. This criteria is met. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property. Granting of the variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public welfare. This criteria is met. 3. That the variance required by reason of unusal hardship relating to the physical characteristics of the land. The variance requested does result from physical circumstances found on this property. This criteria is met. Staff would find the three criteria outlined above are met with this variance application. Commission Options® The Planning Commission has the following options: A) The Planning Commission may recommend approval of the requested variances based on the applicant's submittals, the contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the commission. 13) The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the requested variances based on the applicant's submission, the contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the commission. C) The Planning Commission may table the request for further study. Findings and Recommendations: Variances to the standards of Chapter 700 (the City's septic ordinance) are processed in the same manner as zoning variances, with specified Findings required by the Code. Staff would recommend Option Ae Approval of the requested variances with the following findings. 1. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested. The physical constraints of the lot mandate the proposed site as the only location possible fora new drainfield. 2. The variance requested does result from physical circumstances found on this property. 3. Granting of the variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. Kelli Matzek, Assistant Planner 1. Location Map 2. City Engineer's memo 3. Malley Branch Watershed District Comments 4, Applicant's Documentation Cc. Jeff and Claudia Anderson, Applicant 32N4�1REEII. NOI I R < STREET N RTH 9- 0 CO w I 31ST STREET ND11TH y. 0 0 MEIE PARK 1 0 S.[BA ISTER 42N g ADDITIO 0 0 0 < MEIERS ARK I�ADDITIO� r e�(O�'Qu& Tn"T COUNTYUIMTOWS PLA', 1 09 T -H , g STREET w4� NOR 01^ z m"T c ------- --- Location Map ,I I IZ21W R20W ROW '112Nj 132N 13IN! 130N DON ' 7t Toru naelrz,nr: '129N 129H T28N T28N T27N 7N 4 R22W R21W R20W Vicinity Map 0 300 Scale in Feet Tfilo drawingis the 1-1W a n-PIJ.1- and reproduction ,f land—rd, a,th,y eppoar in —1... Wo,hgt,, county 16,— The d= Mold he u..d f.—.= P"P. ly W.SN'gt" C"nny n, "'P ... IN, for any In ... u"t's snu— wnshlngt.n cnnnly sn-y.". offi— Phcnn, (651) 430-WU 11-0 data b.s,d on AS400 Information ~ ' Pogo1ofZ From: Ryan W. Stempski [ryan. @tkdaoon] Sent: Thursday, February O8.2O874:04PM To/ KeHMetzek RE: variance application ` This setback variance would baallowed because: 1. We agree this isanimminent health threat. 2. Sewer will beavailable inthe near future, 3. The dnainfie|dsetbacks are tothe road R/VVand not anadjacent lot. yWyreview iabased on the sketch providedbythe septic designer. Please note there ieanerror onJeff and Claudia Anderson's letter referencing the setback being 15"ofthe house. Feel free tocontact mewith any questions. Ryan Kell! Matzek From: John Hanson Ohenann@ban.conn Sent: Thursday, February 08'20079:39AK4 Subject: RE: variance application comments Ke|i- I'm sorry | haven't provided you any comments sooner. | don't see any Valley Branch Watershed District issues with this request, From, Nel|i Matzek |maOto:Kel|i.Matzek@knkae|n7o.orgl Sent: Thursday, February 08, 20079:17AM To. John Hanson Subject: variance application comments John, |on)writing upareport onthe septic variance application for 1122531st S8Ntoday. | wanted tomake sure that you received that information. It so, | was wondering if you had any comments on the application to be included inmyreport. Thank you. -Ke|iK8atzek (651) 233-5413 2/8/2007 M I then contacted Tom Zellmer, who installs septic systems to consult why the system was not working. In reviewing the system Tom informed me the system was "shot". Tom suggested I contact Barry Brown (License Number 177-2) v,,ho desig—'s sep-b- systems and performs soil testing. Barry also informed me the system is non compliant and the system was "shot". At that time I contact Brian Humpal to ask why he told me the system was -tdcq- eiatc for us until cagy sewer came in and WIiy I was having problems immediately, He informed me that at the time of the inspection the system was hydraulically functioning, but was not a guarantee that it would confinue to do so., I informed Brian 1 already had spent over $700.00 to have the system pumped and pipes snaked. Brian called back a few hours later to inform me that in 1971 a permit was pulled to add a drain field and he thought maybe the pipe to the drain field was clogged. I then contacted Tom Zellmer and infoi med him of Brian Hu mpal's findings of a permit for the drain field. I contracted Tom Zellmer to excavate the pipe between the two tanks RE CE I IIIED and pull the cover off the seepage tank to see if there was a pipe leading to the drain field, On Friday, January 5, 2007 Tom Zellmer duo up the pipe, replaced the cast pipe between the two tanks, and pulled the cover to locate the drain field pipe. We did find a pipe totally open., but because there was no baffle on the first tank the sewage was able to float out to the drain field and the drain field was non operable. Tom once again informed me the system was shot and we would have to continue pumping the system until Lake Elmo came in with. city sewer or the other option would be to install a new system. Since we acquired ownership, we have replaced all toilets with 1.5 gallon per flush toilets. 'We have not washed clothes, have not used the dishwasher, and take 60 second showers to help conserve water. I have now spent an additional $175.00 to have the pipe replaced and have been, informed instead of one year of city sewer coming onto 31 Street it will likely be three to five years. MTjir*ptamwwrf re rotten 18" up off the floor and mold on the sheetrock. These findings lead me to believe this system has been backing up and failing for many years. �1 This system is an imminent threat to public health and has been for some time and at no fault of ours. We can not wait until Lake Elmo brings in city sewer; we need a new system now. The peculation report has been completed per the requirement for installation of a new septic system. Due to the fact we are on a comer lot with water running through the west side, there is very little space for a new drain field. A pressure bed has been designed for the front yard using new septic tanks and a lift tank. Set backs are a problem for this drain field. The pressure bed has the smallest footprint of any standard drain field we could install. The mature oak trees in the yard are also a consideration, Hence, a variance is needed to approach within three feet of the lot line and within approximately 15" of the house. This variance is necessary to install this new systern, The length of pressure bed is cut shoi t to maintain a 10' setback to the pressure water line running through the front yard. Any other information regarding the installation of the new septic system, is attached to this request..4 new septic system needs to be installed as soon as possible; as the system at, 11225 -31st Street North is an imminent threat to the public health and has long been a problem. For this reason we are requesting the variance fees to be waived. WIF I ff,"-q, M-MIXIIIII, 011� - , . JEFF ANDERSON 651-770-5740 V The existing system for this 1965 home failed a compliance inspection at time of sale this past summer. The house was purchased without an update being done to the system with hope that it would last until city sewer arrives. The second tank has failed and the system backs up constantly. Being a comer lot with a water run through the west r a new drain field, ,A pressure bed has been desigw, the front yard using new septic tanks and a lift tank�� Setbacks will be a real problem for this drain field. The pressure bed has the smallest foot print of any standard drain field that we could install. The mature oak trees in the front yard are also a consideration. A variance to approach within three feet of the lot line and within approximately 15' of the house will be necessary to install this system. The length of the pressure bed is cut short to maintain a 10' setback to the pressure water line running through the front yard. The with–dTnottled im— soj samples shall be left in place until this inspection and all stakes shall be lelt in place until the system is installed. mmx�� I H v % OF sc ZC5 v % n e� x .( l/ 9Nk a aF UA �I a t Jar �x i n 1 y x a � Y .r ..t 7 l/ 9Nk r.M ; s.co 3'a f 6 1 Ci aF UA a t i n y x r.M ; s.co 3'a f 6 1 Ci