Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 01-11-16Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2016 Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Dunn, Griffin and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard, Fields STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Stephen Wensman & Interim Administrator Schroeder Election of Officers: M/S/P: Larson/Kreimer move to postpone election of officers to the next meeting, M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer move to amend the motion to delay the election of the chair only to the next meeting, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to nominate Commissioner Kreimer as the Vice Chair, Vote: 5-1, motion carried. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to nominate Commissioner Larson as Secretary, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Approve Agenda: M/S/F: Dodson/Griffin, move to adjourn the meeting in protest of the dismissal of Commissioner Dorschner from the Planning Commission, Vote 2-2-1, motion fails with Commission Larson abstaining. Williams, Dunn and Kriemer spoke against the motion because they feel City business should continue and it would not be fair to the people who came to this meeting and there were public hearings posted. The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: December 14, 2015 M/S/P: Williams/Dodson move to approve minutes as amended, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 Interim Use Permit – Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue. Wensman stated that at the request of the applicant, they would like to continue the public hearing to the February 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Public Hearing opened at 7:26 pm. No one spoke and there was no written or electronic correspondence. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson move to continue the public hearing to the February 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting , Vote: 5-0, motion carried, unanimously. Varinace Request from IRET properties for a sign Variance. Wensman started his presentation for a sign variance at 8650 Hudson Blvd. The variance is for 5’ in heigh and 4’ in width for a pylon sign. This property is located in the Eagle Point office park. The purpose of the sign is to display the signs of the tenants that are in the building. Right now there is not much visability for these businesses due to topography. There is some ambiguity in the Eagle Poin t Development Standards. When this application was first submitted, the former Planner thought it looked good, but when the Community Development Director looked at it, he said it didn’t meet the requirements. Based on research and what Wensman has read regarding pervious conversations, he is recommending a variance. The applicant first approached the City in January 2015. Staff feels that the variance criteria has been met and is recommending approval. Griffin asked if this met the sign ordinance. Wensman stated that this development is a PUD and this application would be covered under their PUD Regulations. Kreimer is wondering if the location where the sign is going is a buildable lot. Wensman stated that it is part of the same lot. He did not evaluate if more could be built there. Dodson is wondering if this is a lighted sign. Does this go over the height for lighting? Wensman stated that we can follow up with the applicant to see if the whole sign is lighted. Dawn Grant, IRET Properties, distributed pictures to the Planning Commission. She stated that this is one property. This property was designed to have an additional building, but this is a very small piece of property. She also stated that they have talked about putting a road through where the sign is so people would know where to turn . Steve Hertz, Nordquist Sign, stated that the height is dependent on where it is measured. He addressed the lighting of the sign and stated that not all parts of the sign 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 are illuminated. He estimated that the distance from this sign to Park Dental is about 150-200 feet. Louis Suarez, Colliers, went through pictures of all angles of the property. Griffin asked if Park Dental will have a problem if people use their driveway to get to this building. Dawn Grant stated that Park Dental is a tenant of theirs and they received a letter of support from them. If it becomes an issue, they are willing to put a road back to the building. Dunn stated that she is in support of sign for giving better clarity to where this building is. Larson asked if there was a way to put something on the sign as to where people are supposed to turn. Dawn Grant stated that it would be a possibility. Mal Sullivan, St. Croix Orthopedic, stated the visibility of the campus has always been a challenge, but their business has changed and grown. People have trouble finding them and they would really appreciate the help in getting this sign passed as it would help their business. Public Hearing opened at 8:04 pm. No one spoke and there was no written or electronic correspondence. Public Hearing Closed at 8:05 pm. Williams is in support of the concept for a more visible sign, however, there are a number of unanswered questions for if this is the solution. He feels that the location of this sign might actually induce people to turn into Park Dental. He would like t o learn more about access spacing, the elevation differences and the feasibility of routing traffic to the Park Dental lot and possibly increasing that parking lot. He wants to support this business, but he is not sure enough global thinking has gone into this decision. Steve Hertz, stated that the idea of this type of sign is to create an identity for the businesses. There could be an addition to the sign about where to turn, but the intent was really to identify what businesses are back there. Dunn supports the signage and feels it is important to identify what is back there. She feels it meets the intent of the PUD ordinance and it is an exception for this one building that is hard to see. She said it is the age of GPS to assist on where to turn . 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 Kriemer agrees with Commissioner Dunn. He feels that the visibility is key to the success of these businesses. He does not feel it is for visibility, but more for advertising. He wants to support the commercial businesses and would like to see more in this area. Griffin feels it is a good place for the sign so that you can see it from the freeway. She also feels it would be beneficial to get another sign out on the freeway. Suarez stated that this PUD was planned 20 years ago. Healthcare has dramatically changed since then and part of that change is to advertise and attract more people and identify the businesses that are there. The point of this sign is to build the brand of the Highpoint medical campus. Dodson is not in favor of the aesthetics of the sign. He would have liked to see more of a monument type. M//: Williams/ move to postpone consideration of this application until the Commission recieves elevations, access spacing, opportunities to modify the Park Dental Parking lot for access and MnDot contact for I94 signage supplied by the applicant , motion fails for lack of 2nd. M/S/P: Dodson/Griffin, move to recommend approval of the 5 foot height and 4 foot width variance request at 8650 Hudson Blvd to allow for a 35 foot high, 16 foot wide pylon sign at the High Pointe Medical Campus based on the findings identified in the staff report, Vote: 4-1, motion carried. Dunn stated that the elevation is important to think about . She goes along with this motion. M//: Dodson/, move to amend the motion to add a condition of approval that the possibility of a road be looked at, Motion fails for lack of second. ZTA and Ordinance Amendment – a request from the City of Lake Elmo to rezone an RR Parcel to PF Wensman started his presentation by stating that this a request by the City of Lake Elmo to exempt essential services from the dimensional and buffer requirements in the PF Zoning District. Wensman is presenting the 2 itmes together, but will require 2 separate motions. This particular essential service is for the City’s water booster station. Essential services can be in any zoning district, but it is the City’s policy to rezone these to public facility. Dimensional and buffer requirements are important for most land uses, however, essential services are generally incidental and subordinate to the surrounding land uses. The location of this booster station is on inwood. This is a small building on a small 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 piece of property. This change would not change the architectural standards and there is landscaping on the outer edges of the development. Dodson asked if this was just for this site, or if it was for all sites. Wensman stated that it would pertain to all properties. Dodson is concerned about what this would mean in other situations. Wensman stated the City would have the ability to purchase whatever size property they wanted. Public Hearing opened at 8:41 pm. John Vettruba, 8451 26th Street N, lives right to the north of this site. He would like to know what the setback will be. He is wondering if this building makes any noise. Wensman stated that he doesn’t know about the noise, but there will be landscaping. Wensman states that this is conceptual, but thinks it will be about 15 fee t. Vettruba would like there to be a pipe back to 26th street to improve the pressure of their water. All of their homes have booster pumps and they need to replace them regularly. Al Eberhard, 2298 Inwood Ave N, he is the property owner of this property and has worked with the City Engineer extensively. He is wondering if the rezoning is turned down by the commission, what would the options be. He would like the intrusion to the agricultural land as minimal as possible. He was told that there was a 10 foot setback requirement. He also asked what type of lighting there is for this. He also thinks that if the design of the building looks like a small house, the need for landscaping would not be as great. There was no written or electronic correspondence, there were a few calls asking what it was about, but no concerns. Public Hearing Closed at 8:57 pm. Williams thinks it is ok to exempt this, but he would like to see conditions added that when it is adjacent to a residential property and does not meet the basic setback, screening should be added. Williams thought we could add something regarding the noise. Kreimer thought especially since it was next to a residential area. Schroeder stated that if you stand outside of this building, you will know that something is running, but it is not concerning. Williams suggested that as a footnote to the table in section E, 1, that footnote 1 should be that essential services shall be exempt and footnote 2 that increased 4 seasoned vegetative screening and fencing should be included when the PF zoning district is adjacent to the residential zoning district. There was no objection to changing this. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 Williams suggested that structures housing essential services, when the setbacks are not met, should be designed to look like houses when they are adjacent to residential properties. Dodson feels that the architectural standards are enough and does not want to put an unnecessary burden on the City. He doesn’t necessarily think that looking just like a house would be the best. Kreimer also thinks that in this case it borders both AG and residential and possibly a rural structure might work better. Dunn feels that on larger structures, the City should work with the Engineer to design a structure that blends in with the surroundings. The surroundings could be different depending on the site. Al Eberhard, 2298 Inwood Ave N, asked where the additional screening would be. Williams stated that his thought was to have it on any border that did not meet the setback. Mr. Eberhard feels that it should be on all sides, even if it is agricultural next to it that could be residential in the future. Dodson is wondering if there should be something specifically stating that they are not exempt from the noise ordinance. Williams would like to add a number 8 stating that the noise ordinance should be met. The Commission is in agreement with that. The Commission is wondering if it might be a good idea to have a separate table of setbacks for essential services, possibly 10 feet. Dunn & Dodson were uncomfortable with no setback as well. M/S/: Dodson/Kreimer, move to postpone voting on the proposals until they get another draft of setbacks for essential services that have buildings in the PF zone , Motion and second withdrawn. Kreimer asked about including the other suggestions. Interim Administrator Schroeder said that there is some urgency on this issue. This needs to be resolved for the $3.5 million grant. One of the verifications for the grant is that it complies with all our local ordinances. Wensman stated that he would suggest that the Planning Commission recommend what setbacks they are comfortable with and move it forward to the City Council. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of a zoning text amendment for essential services to exempt them from the overall PF zoning requirements. There will be improved buffering and screening and the setbacks will be 10 feet, in addition to adding the noise restrictions, Vote: 5-0, motion carried Unamimously. 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to recommend rezoning of the Inwood booster station property from RR to the PF zoning district, Vote: 5-0, motion carried Unanimously. Ordinance Amendment – a request for an ordinance amendment to the animal ordinance that pertains to the keeping of pigeons. Wensman started his presentation stating that he had an inquiry regarding the keeping of pigeons. Currently pigeons are not regulated. Wensman researched what other Cit ys do. He used the Gem Lake ordinance as a guide and also used our accessory building ordinance as a guide to know how many pigeons would fit in what size building. The minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres and it would only apply to AG and RR zoning. Maximum number allowed would be 20 and they would need to be banded. Aviaries would need to be enclosed. The loft area would have an area of 4 cubic feet per bird and the maximum loft height would be 20 feet with a maximum of 200 square feet. They would need to be located in the rear property 50 feet away from any habitable structures. Dodson thinks the construction of the loft is very specific and is wondering why. Wensman stated it was taken out of other code and is probably to keep the birds safe from predators. Dodson was also wondering why it is limited to RR and AG. Wensman stated it is because he is trying to restrict it to where there is the least potential for complaints. Williams asked how the number 20 was arrived at. Wensman stated that he looked at the size of the accessory building and worked backwards. Williams is not sure that 20 is enough. Public Hearing opened at 10:04 pm. No one spoke and there was no written or electronic correspondence. Public Hearing Closed at 10:05 pm. Dodson would like to see the number increased to 60. Larson would like to see 100 as a maximum. Kreimer thinks that is a lot of birds on a 2.5 acre lot. No one spoke at the public hearing and he thinks that we should be restrictive until someone comes in and asks for more. Griffin stated that it can be a big nuisance if they are not taken care of and saw it first hand this summer. Dunn agrees that we should add to the code, but should be more restrictive for now. Kreimer would like to see on page 3 letter K read “Pigeon lofts may be located in the rear yard only and shall be at least 50 feet from property lines and adjacent habitable structures.” Williams would like to include in 95.117 an item C that 8 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 would state “Any property where pigeons would be kept will have a principle use conforming to the zoning ordinance.” Williams would like to add under 95.117 letter D “The property will be the primary residence of the pigeon keeper.” M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer move to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to the keeping of pigeons with the 3 suggested changes, Vote: 5-0, motion carried, unanimously. Ordinance Amendment – a request for an ordinance amendment to the weapons ordinance as it pertains to hunting. Wensman started his presentation and stated that this is being brought forward based on the number of calls the City received this fall. Wensman stated that the City might want to consider producing a map each year to designate where hunting is allowed. Public Park, public trail, ROW and public school was specifically added. Wensman ran these changes through Washington County sheriff and they were in support and liked the idea of a map. Griffin would like to see some distinction between shotguns and rifles. She would like to see rifles prohibited in the City. The Commission was wondering how this applies to conceal and carry and how 130.15 (B) (2) would apply. Wensman stated that he can bring it back to the City Attorney. Dodson asked how much of this had to do with land use and if it really needed to come to the Planning Commission. Public Hearing opened at 10:30 pm. No one spoke and there was no written or electronic correspondence. Public Hearing Closed at 10:30 pm. Kreimer was wondering where paint ball, air guns, etc. would fall in this scope. Wensman stated that he looked at it only from the standpoint of hunting. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer move to postpone consideration of the weapons and hunting ordinance until clarification on 4 issues is received , Vote: 5-0, motion carried, unanimously. Council Updates – December 15, 2015 Meeting 1. CUP Amendment-Oakdale Gun Club – Approved. 2. Preliminary Plat Approval-Reider – approved. 3. ZTA-Uses in Rural Districts – Repeal uses that were added in 2013. 9 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 Council Updates – January 5, 2016 Meeting 1. Update on Status of BRT – Verbal. 2. Open Space Development to move to workshop. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. January 25, 2016 b. Frebruary 8, 2016 Commission Concerns Meeting adjourned at 10:55 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant