Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 09-26-16Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2016 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fields, Dodson, Dunn, Larson, Griffin, Kreimer, and Lundquist COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard, Williams STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman Approve Agenda: An amendement was suggested to add getting some information on Minnesota Administration rule 6120 that was brought up at the last City Council meeting. M/S/P: Fields/Dodson, move to approve the Agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried Unanimously. Approve Minutes: September 12, 2016 M/S/P: Fields/Dodson, move to approve the September 12, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – Wasatch Storage Wenman started his presentation for a conditional use permit for a self -storage facility and exterior vehicle storage for the property located at 9200 Hudson Boulevard in the Commercial Zoning District, PID 34.029.21.33.0005. Wensman went through the existing site conditions. Lamperts and Boulder Ponds borders this property. They are proposing 4 new buildings and 170 spaces for RV’s with 2 proposed future buildings. They are proposing security of fencing, gate keypad and security camer as. There will be 4 handicap accessible spaces. There will be 2-3 employees at a time. Office hours would be 8:30a-6:30p. Wensman went over the tree preservation requirements and the proposed landscape plan. There are 10 additional parking lot trees required. The proposal does meet setback requirements. There was some concern regarding the setback for Boulder Ponds, but the setback requirement is met. The parking stalls proposed meets the requirements and dimensional standards. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 The buildings do meet the setback and height requirements. They are subject to the City’s design guidelines and standards manual. Wensman went through the proposed fencing and signage proposed and what is required. The lighting plan meets the city lighting standards. The maximum impervious surface requirement is met. 70.25% is proposed with the City maximum being 75%. They need to meet all of the City standards for Drainage and Stormwater and meet the engineer comments for revisions. There are some required easements for hydrants and connections for City Standards. There might be a conflict for future buildings. They demonstra ted that they meet requirements for emergency services, but they need additional fire hydrants. Wensman stated that the 12 required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are all met. There were no comments received. Staff is recommending approval of the CUP subject to 17 staff recommended conditions. Dodson asked about potential berming and choice of trees along the North boundary. Wensman stated that is the intent with the requested changes to the landscape plan. Dodson asked about REC counts. Wensman stated that the REC count comes from MET Council and there are probably not a lot of REC’s with this application. Dodson asked about the storage ponds and if they could be moved to one of the borders to provide more of a screening. Wensman stated that the back of the site is like a bowl and the ponds would not be able to be moved. Griffin asked if the SWWS has looked at this proposal. Wensman stated that he has no confirmation that they have looked at it. Dodson is wondering if the Planning Commission has latitude to decide if the design meets what is acceptable to the city. Wensman stated that the Commission has the ability to enforce the design standards. Kreimer asked if our design standards included recommended fence material. Wensman stated that in the front, the fence is compliant, but in the back it is not necessary as no one sees it. Larson asked if there were any similar uses in the City. Wensman stated that the only other self storage is a small 12 unit facility in the Village area. Wensman stated that this is a fairly restrictive site as it is long and narrow. Scott Wyckoff, Wasatch Storage, said they took the previous comments regarding screening, parapet height, etc. into consideration. Wyckoff showed aerial photos and street level photos showing the landscaping. Wyckoff showed pictures of buildings incorporating suggestions from the Planning Commission. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 pm 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 There were no other written or electronic comments received Public hearing closed at 7:40 pm Fields thinks the applicant has done a nice job for this type of use. However, we have very limited area for commercial and this is along 94. Commercial property is the primary resource to bring in employment and lower the residential property tax burden. Fields feels this development makes a very limited contribution to the City in terms of employment or tax base. He is concerned that if this development goes in, it will set the standard for lower value uses for other developments coming forward in the vicinity. Dodson is persuaded by the argument made by Commissioner Fields and struggles with the aesthetics of this project. Dunn stated it is an improvement to what is there now, however, this is our prime commercial district. She struggles with this being a good fit and the scope of it is so huge. She is not real excited about it. Lundquist doe s not believe that if it meets the zoning, that they can vote against it just because they want something better. Larson stated that this property has been available and no business has come forward. This is a difficult site and from a standpoint of other businesses, it will not be visible. This will serve the community and he would like to support it because it is an improvement and they will meet the recommendations. Dunn asked Wensman to explain the differences between permitted and conditional uses. Wensman stated that it is conditional to give the City some discretion in the use of the land. It provides safeguards to the City. Fields asked if he was saying that approving a CUP is not discretionary. Wensman stated that with a CUP, you can put conditions on it to make it more acceptable, but if they are willing to meet those things, it should be granted. Kreimer stated that they were told a number of years ago that they are not tasked with fiscal impact and employment. They are tasked with if it meets the code. The Plannning Commission is not responsible to make a project viable, but are tasked with making sure it meets the code. Dodson stated that he would like to see the building look more like a farm building to be more aesthetically pleasing. Kreimer pointed out that it is in the middle of the other buildings. Dunn would like to add to condition #5 that they should try to save as many of the mature healthy trees as possible. Wensman stated that the trees on the site are not of high value species and the City does not go out of their way to save them. M/S/P: Lundquist/Larson, move to recommend approval of the CUP for a self storage facility and Outdoor Vehicle Storage for the property located at 9200 Hudson Blvd North subject to the 12 findings of fact and 17 conditions of approval, Vote: 5-2, motion carried, with Dunn and Dodson voting no. Fields stated that they have limited ability to deny based on financial and employment issues, so he will have to support it. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 Dodson feels that it does not meet the design standards. Wensman stated that they do meet the basics of the standards, while there could be room for improvement. Kreimer would like to see a little more enhancement on the front, but feels they are meeting the requirements. Dunn wanted to make sure that the SWWD looked at this project and this site for the runoff. Dunn feels that in this commercial district, storage is not a preferred use for this sewered area and there should be something of higher value. Public Hearing – Interim Use Permit – Common Ground Church Wensman started his presentation regarding an interim use permit for the keeping of horses in the public facility zoning district. The Church had an interim use permit that expired at the end of 2011, and it has not been renewed since. There are 4 acres identified for the pasture of the horses. Staff is recommending approval with 6 conditions, including the date for termination for December 31, 2026. Dawn Oswald, applicant, stated that they have been able to serve many different groups including teen challenge, Willow Health and other adult groups. Griffin asked what they do with the manure. Oswald stated that they compost it back into the ground. Griffin stated that Washington Conservation district has plans that people can get for composting sites and there are sanitation services that will come and get the manure. Rolf is wondering if there are ever cooperative events where other horses are brought in. Oswald stated that they have not. She stated that they are foster horses and they like to have 2. They have an electric fence that is powered by solar. Public Hearing opened at 8:22 pm Bob Taverna, 10174 Stillwater Lane, this is the first notice that they have received. He is concerned that when they come to work with the horses, they are parking on the road by the stop sign. He would like them to put class five on the other side of the gate to get the cars off of the road. With school buses, etc. it is very tight when they are parking on the road. The back yard of the church is his front yard. If they could make it a little more pleasant, he would appreciate it. Where the horses are, is actually supposed to be a retention pond and now the water can’t get across Kelvin and is backing up behind the Church. There were no other written or electronic comments received Public Hearing closed at 8:30 pm 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 Dodson is wondering about the gate being on the corner. Is there any chance that the gate could be moved? Oswald stated that it was the flattest part of the property to put the gate in. Dodson also asked if it is feasib le to put gravel in. Oswald said that she is open to the gravel solution. When it isn’t wet, she is able to park inside to unload supplies. Possibly a sign might be an option. M/S/P:Dodson/Lundquist, move to add a condition #7 that the applicant work with staff to install no parking signs at the SE corner or Kelvin and Stillwater Lane, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P:Griffin/Dunn, move to recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit for the keeping of horses at 10240 Stillwater Blvd N with 7 conditions of approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Dunn added the item on Minnesota Administration rules 6120 that was brought up at the last City Council meeting. It is about Planned Unit developments within sensitive areas. With Tartan Park, this would be the first time ever that it is applied as a mixed use. She is not familiar with how this would play into anything they are looking at. She would like this explained to the Planning Commission. It talks about how it pertains to Shoreland and how 50% should remain in open space. She wants to know how this will apply to Tartan Park. She also wants to know what other areas in Lake Elmo this would apply to. Wensman stated that it is the statutory requirements for the Shoreland Ordinance. Because the Royal Golf is in the Shoreland, this rule would apply. Wensman stated that he believes that the residential portion of the project has 50% open space. Dodson is wondering what would trigger a DNR review. Wensman stated that they are going through that review right now. Dodson asked what the difference is between the DNR review and the watershed district review. Wensman stated that they have different goals. City Council Updates – September 20, 2016 Meeting i) Solid Wall Fence Text Amendment – Failed. ii) OP Ordinance – tabled. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. October 10, 2016 b. October 24, 2016 Commission Concerns 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 Dunn is concerned that Easton Village put in playground equipment while they are still doing construction. There was a lot of water damage and concerns. She would like to see playgrounds put in after the development is further along. Lundquist is concerned about the North end of Wildflower and Village Preserve. This area used to be a marsh that has now turned into a lake. Even though we have been above average rain, this shouldn’t be happening. Kreimer mentioned that Wildflower II is on the October 10th meeting and maybe a little background could be brought forward in conjunction with that. Wensman stated that he will gather some background info regarding what was planned, what is there and if it is functioning properly. Dunn also wanted info regarding possible replatting in Easton Village. Wensman stated that the Developer was interested in putting in a Villa product similar to what Wildflower and Inwood has and increasing the density. Wensman made it clear to the developer that it wasn’t allowed. He hasn’t heard of any other proposal from the developer. Kriemer asked if Boulder Ponds is putting in a Villa product where single family homes were approved. Wensman stated that as far as he knows, they are compliant with what was approved. Dodson is concerned that they are compelled to vote on something that they don’t agree with because of how the codes are written like the CUP from tonight. He is concerned that if they vote for things they don’t like because they feel compelled to, it sends a message to the City Council and the applicant that the Planning Commission voted unanimously for it. He feels it might also strengthen the legal position of the applicant if the City Council denies it for some other reason. Wensman stated that their comments that it meets the basic criteria, but they have reservations, will be communicated to the City Council. Wensman stated that if the Planning Commission does not agree with staff findings, they can change them and that can be part of the reason for voting against. Larson asked what the roll of abstention would be. Can you abstain and send a message that way. Wensman said that can be an option. Could get complicated if there were numerous people abstaining. Fields feels that it is very ambiguous to abstain and they need to vote and comment to make their message clear. Dunn mentioned that the Minnesota Land Trust is holding their 25 year celebration on October 2nd. Meeting adjourned at 8:57 pm 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-26-16 Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant