Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 06-27-16Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2016 Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dunn, Larson, Griffin, Fields, Dodson, Kreimer, Lundquist and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & City Administrator Handt Approve Agenda: Agenda is approved as amended. Approve Minutes: June 13, 2016 M/S/P:Williams/Griffin, move to approve the June 13, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried, with Kreimer abstaining. The Planning Commission had a discussion regarding some of the Roberts Rule of orders. Public Hearing – Concept PUD Plans Meijer Stores Limited Wensman started his presentation regarding the Meijer Stores Concept plan on 54.69 acres. This property is in the RT Zoning and is in the Shoreland area. This site is guided in the comp plan as medium density and the southern portion is guided as commercial. This is in the Phase 3 sewer area. This project will need a number of other approvals before this plan can go through. It will need a Comprehensive Plan amendment to rezone from MDR to Commercial, RT to PUD, Preliminary and Final PUD Plans and a conditional use permit for some of the uses. This will require a public hearing, 4/5 vote from City Council and Metropolitan Council approval. Wensman went through the details of the project. The store itself is in the shoreland of Kremer Lake. There is 35% impervious allowed within the Shoreland. Plans will require MnDNR approval. There currently is no municipal sanitary sewer available, so the applicant would be fully responsible for the costs to bring it to the site. With a PUD agreement, things need to be negotiated up front, or the underlying zoning district would apply. To approve a PUD agreement, they need to meet at least one of 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 ten objectives. Wensman stated that they need to determine if the exception to the Moratorium has been met. Dodson asked about the moratorium ordinance. It is due to expire in about a month. Dodson also asked why a PUD was necessary. Wensman stated that there ar e a number of uses that are on a very large site and some flexibility might be needed. Dodson also asked about the Shoreland restrictions. Wensman stated that we have an ordinance and it must be in conformance with the DNR standards. Wensman stated that there is nothing currently in our code in regards to PUD’s. Williams asked about how the density of 270 employees would equate to say a business park. Wensman stated that he does not know, but that the Met Council has indicated that they are not too concerned about our employment figures. Fields is wondering what the equivalency for the employment numbers would be for residential numbers. Wensman stated that he has not done the calculations. Williams stated that the nominal calculation would be th at 10 employees would equal 1 rec unit. Kreimer is wondering how long a sketch plan is valid. Wensman does not have that information. Kreimer was wondering what the status of the moratorium is. Wensman stated that there will be a public hearing held on it at the July 5 City Council Meeting. Wensman stated that the County will need to approve the access on Keats. Lundquist asked if they have explored having the entrance off of Hudson Blvd rather than Keats. Dunn does not think it is appropriate to move into phase 3 until phase 1 & 2 are built out. There are phases so that the City can strategically pay for infrastructure. She is also wondering what the traffic count is on Keats and if a traffic light will be in order here. Michael Mondez, Meijer representative, stated this site has been in review with Meijer for over a year now. They have done lots of investigating of the site. There are factors that really decrease the usability of the site. 3 significant wetlands, the 5th Street extension and a 75 foot utility easement. There can be a lot of things that they can do to mitigate some of the runoff because they are in the shoreland area. They are concerned with the restricted access to 5th street for the outlots. He would like to also note that this project is adjacent to phase I, so the sewer availability might not be as big of an issue if they could connect into the phase I sewer. The Planning Commission had some general questions for applicant regarding configuration of site and if residential might be incorporated. The applicant explained how they came to the plan that they did. 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 Public hearing opened at 8:07 pm Tucker Pearce, 9811 7th Street, there was no notification for the Savona neighborhood. He read a petition circulated throughout the Savona neighborhood with 50 plus signatures, which in essence asked for the denial of the Concept plan. Steve Erdman, 9904 7th Street, agrees with Tucker’s statements and added that he works for Target Corporation and there is always a theft component. His fear is that this could overflow to the residential area. He is also concerned about the increase in traffic, especially on 5th street. Even though he is pro growth, what interested him in Lake Elmo was the open space concept and thoughtful growth. Stephenie Lorring, 9918 7th Street, before they built their home, they checked the zoning of this property that the back of their property looks out at. She is concerned that there is no land use transition. She is concerned about the increased traffic, noise and light pollution. She is concerned that the store is open 24 hours, 365 days a year. She does not feel this concept plan preserves the rural character which is why she moved to Lake Elmo. Kyle Heller, 9684 7th Street, grew up in Lake Elmo and is back because he is close to the City, but there is still an open and safe feel to the area. Where he moved from had a Walmart go in right by them and the theft in the area increased significantly. He is not anti growth, but feels this intense use is not a good fit for the site. Robert Elias, 9999 5th Street Lane, his townhome faces this development. He is strongly opposed to this development. They chose Lake Elmo because of the rural and safe feel. He has a petition as well from 16 residents of the townhomes in opposition to the rezone. Jason Jones, thought the presentation from Meijer was good, but there was no talk about the people that live in Lake Elmo. He is pro-growth, but would prefer to see something else in that area. There are many stores like this that they can go to right across the freeway. Tim Lupke, 9989 5th Street, he lived in Woodbury for 20 years and decided he wanted to move to Lake Elmo. Before he purchased his home, he contacted the Plan ning Commission and there was no talk of this use for this property. He feels that very little on the plan fits the Comprehensive Plan. Most of the plan is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. He doesn’t feel it is a good fit coming into the City and going into the park preserve. He feels the zoning should stay the same. There were 2 emails received from 2 of the people that spoke tonight. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 Public hearing closed at 8:27 pm Kreimer asked the Commission to discuss if they feel this plan would meet the exception of the moratorium. Fields feels that any Commercial development would meet that criteria, but he feels the real issue to discuss would be if this plan would fit this site. Williams agrees with Commissioner Fields and would like to have the definition of the mixed use for this area and what types of uses would be allowed. Dodson feels that the moratorium issue might be a moot point if they are not planning to break ground for 4 years. Dunn feels this is an inappropriate use for this area. The character and feel of this community has significantly been altered in the last 5 years. She thinks this is not appropriate at the entrance of the City to the park reserve and this will bring significant traffic, lighting and safety concerns to the residents in that area. She does not think it should be rezoned as residents in Savona thought it was residential when they purchased. Lundquist agrees with what Commissioner Dunn stated. Larson stated that the future of Lake Elmo is stressed because we do not have enough retail to offset the residential. Where are we going to find room for the retail? There is no place in Lake Elmo that you can buy anything of daily volume and he finds that problematic. He thinks that we need to give retail a better chance and some real planning needs to go into finding locations for the retail . He supports the city identifying the first point of contact for businesses wishing to get siting information within the City. Dodson feels that there is a feeling of not in my back yard from the residents in attendance. There was a lot of opposition to Savona when it went in and that is pretty typical of growth. The view to Kramer Lake is going to go away at some point as this property is slated to develop at some time. However, he is not in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan. Fields has mixed feelings about this development. He welcomes more retail and commercial development because without it, the residential taxes will go up as we introduce infrastructure. He believes though that this project being a 24 hour use is more intense than what people anticipated for this site. Williams is reluctant to lose the residential medium density in the I94 corridor, however, the City would be able to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment rezoning it to Commercial because the adjacent parcel is commercial. He is not in favor of this scale of development on this parcel, but feels it would be appropriate down on Manning. Williams would offer a finding of fact that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to reguide the mixed use parcel to commercial, but because the adjacent parcel is commercial, it would be justified by the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 Kreimer stated that the I94 corridor does have areas that are guided commercial. The work group spent a lot of time making sure that the most dense uses were closest to 94 and they become less intense as they get closer to 10th Street and the residential. He does not feel this use is appropriate for this area. Kreimer mentioned that 5th street is a collector road and as this area develops, there will be traffic from other areas using that and it is not just a neighborhood street. Griffin likes the work that Meijers store has done and appreciates that they have taken certain land out of the plan, but she does not feel that this use is appropriate for this lot. She would encourage them to look at the Manning area. Williams proposed another finding of fact that this overall site does have significant limitations for development in the Southern area. Fields stated that the Hy-Vee store in Oakdale is a little over 90,000 square feet and this is twice the size for comparison. Dodson is wondering if the site is better combined vs. separate from a development standpoint. He is concerned the southern property may not be developable as currently slated. Williams would like to add to his second finding of fact that they are mitigating or avoiding the environmental constraints. He would like to also add as a finding of fact that the surrounding residents are opposed to the development. He also proposes the finding that the applicant has not provided an adequate argument for changing the Comprehensive Plan. Fields says he would agree with statement, but does not feel it is a finding of fact. M/S/: Williams/Griffin, move to recommend denial of the Meijer PUD Concept Plan and outlots. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to amend the motion to have the finding that the Planning Commission does not feel that this scale of development is appropriate in this location, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Summary of five findings 1) Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to reguide the mixed use parcel to commercial would be justified by the Comprehensive Plan 2) The site has significant environmental limitations which the Developer has preserved with placement of buildings required by PUD standards 3) The surrounding residents are opposed to the proposal 4) the use is inappropriate without a Comprehensive Plan amendment 5) The Planning Commission does not feel that this scale of development is appropriate in this location. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 The original motion to deny with amendment and five findings, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Business Item – Open Space Perservation Ordinance Wensman started his presentation by going through the history of this item. There were 2 workshops held by the City Council and the draft being brought to them incorporates what came out of the workshops. The changes to come out of the workshops were to amend the purpose statement, to amend the minimum land area, to eliminate the 4/5 deviation vote, buffer language was added, specific roadway standards, minimum lot sizes for individual and community septic, clarification on how buildable area is determined, individual septic needs to be on private property, and a few other issues related to process. Lundquist asked about water. Wensman stated that it is not addressed, but would depend if it was available to the site. Williams thought that everyone except the NE corner would be on private wells. Wensman stated that there could be more discussion on July 11, 2016, and are looking for a public hearing on this on July 25, 2016. Williams does not feel that there should be greater density than is allowed by the underlying zoning. The developer gets significant benefit by being able to cluster the houses together. Fields feels that there needs to be additional incentives to draw these types of developments. Wensman stated that RR and AG are the underlying zoning district and are 1 per 10 or 1 per 40 as rural estates is no longer a zone that is available to develop. Williams thinks that if townhouses are allowed there should be more open space. Dunn agrees that if there are more homes, there would be more area ava ilable. On page 4, 20 units per 40 needs to be updated to 18 per 40. On page 5 there were some minor typos that should be corrected. Williams is wondering about lot sizes for townhomes and thinks that needs some work. Williams is concerned about page 8 (1) b 2. He would like to see those conservation easements with outside agencies, because they are too easily broken with future City Councils. He is not in favor of the City holding the conservation easements. Dunn would like more information regarding what types of land trusts are available and what their standards are as it is an integral part of the OP ordinance. Williams is wondering if the landscaping section should just refer to the general subdivision landscaping ordinance. Wensman said that he would do a comparison to determine if there was some difference. 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 Kreimer is wondering about the trails and if there needs to be a comment making them public. Wensman stated that Planner Becker is now staffing the Park Commission meetings and is working with them to try to figure out if trails shou ld be part of the park system and tied to the Comprehensive Park Plan. Some of these smaller size development would probably not provide a trail or park unless they were needed as a connection. Williams feels strongly that deviations from standards should result in an improvement meaning that the City should get something in order to give something and should be captured in 154.660. In 3a should say “higher” quality design and 3b should say deviations help to create a “more” unified environment. Williams would also like to add a (d) to this section to say additional or improved amenities such as gathering spaces, extra parks, etc. should be considered. On page 15 section 2b strike the reference to the public hearing and in 2c strike the super-majority vote of the City Council. Kreimer would like to add on page 16 under (2) 3e, primary and secondary location of proposed septic disposal areas. Williams would like to propose a 16 at the top of page 18 to say something like a plan sheet or narrative clearly delineating deviations from the sketch plan due to input from the public or staff. He would like to see at the preliminary plat, how the applicant responded to the comments. Williams is wondering why the preliminary plan is valid for longer at a year vs. the final plan only being valid for 90 days. Wensman stated that it is consistent with the other sections of code. There was discussion regarding the timing if there are phases in a development. Wensman is going to do some research and bring that back to them. Williams asked if the buffer is always an outlot. Wensman stated that currently it is not, which creates problems for a usable back yard. With this version, it is just that the buffer needs to be protected with an easement. There was some discussion regarding the letter of credit. Wensman stated that this might not be necessary in the code as it is covered in the developers agreement. Business Item – Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Wensman started his presentation by stating that in May of 2016 a law was created that permits and regulates temporary family health care dwellings. Unless a city opts out by September 1, 2016, people will be allowed to place these buildings in their back yards. We can opt in and draft our own rules, but then we would need to be consistent with the state statutes. Temporary dwellings are currently not permitted in our code. If we opt in, we need to create standards and clarify between temporary structures and accessory structures. 8 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 Fields is wondering how long this structure is allowed. It can be there for 6 months with a possible 6 month extension. The current Building Official is not in favor of opting in because there are many things to consider. The structure needs anchoring, it is essentially a mobile home, septic issues and access to water, insulation requirements for MN weather, issue with multiple sewer connections and Met Council SAC determinations, and backflow check valve access. Wensman stated that the next step is to a draft ord inance to either opt in or opt out. He is looking for direction from the Planning Commission. Staff thinks that the practicality of this ordinance seems difficult. The public hearing could be conducted on July 25, 2016 and could go to city Council for approval on August 2, 2016. Williams stated that it seems that the time frame of a year to have on site is not very realistic and it is much more likely that the person would move into the home with a relative rather than into a temporary dwelling. M/S/P: Dunn/Williams, move to opt out of this legislation based on comments from staff, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Fields is wondering what the driving need was for this legislation. He thinks that if this was put in to law, there had to be a reason. Kreimer was wondering if you could opt in at a future date. Wensman stated that he believes that to be the case, but if you don’t opt out, you need to follow the state statute. City Council Updates – June 21, 2016 Meeting i) Accessory Structure Ordinance (Fish House) – Passed on consent. ii) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow sewer connection for RS zoning – The City Council felt it was better to create a new category of RS that is in the MUSA rather than change that whole zone. This will go back to CC on 7/5/16. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. July 11, 2016 b. July 25, 2016 Commission Concerns Williams is concerned about how recommendations from the Planning Commission are being reported to the City Council. He is concerned that there is not a clear reporting of how revisions are made. He would propose that in matters where the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, there should be a separate section in the staff 9 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-27-16 report titled “Planning Commission recommendations”. Bullet items or numbered items would be fine. Dunn asked about the schedule for Tartan Park. Wensman stated that he talked about a tentative schedule of 7/25/16 concept review, but we do not have an application yet. Dunn mentioned the tree preservation ordinance and how important it is in the City and she also asked where we were at with the street lights that were out of compliance with the ordinance. Wensman stated that the acorn lights that the City Council has chosen are the closest to the ordinance that we can get. Lundquist talked about how we can identify locations for businesses and is that something we want to pursue? Wensman stated that the Comprehensive Plan does a broad brush in identifying where they can go, but does not take into consideration environmental conditions. Lundquist would like the City to spend some time considering how to promote commercial business. Fields stated that it would be difficult to predict the outcome of a development of the scale that the Meijer development is. Usually a business has reasons why it wants to be in a specific location. Meeting adjourned at 11:02 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant