Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 01-09-17Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2017 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Griffin, Dodson, Williams, Larson, and Lundquist COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard, Fields and Dorschner STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman, City Planner Becker & City Administrator Handt Approve Agenda: M/S/P: Dodson/Lundquist, move to approve the agenda as amended, Vote: 6-0, motion carried. Election of Officers: M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to elect Tom Kreimer for Chair, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Lundquist/Griffin, move to elect Todd Williams for Vice Chair, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Griffin, move to elect Rolf Larson for Secretary, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Approve Minutes: December 12, 2016 M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to approve the December 12, 2016 minutes as presented, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment and Minor Subdivision– rezone the property at 3880 Laverne Ave Becker started her presentation regarding the Zoning Map Amendment and Minor Subdivision. The Zoning Map amendment is requested to rezone from GB to VMX. This land is guided for VMX in the Comprehensive Plan, which has not minimum lot size for non-residential. The subdivision will create three separate parcels. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 This property does qualify for an exception to platting as it is not creating more than four parcels. There is a cash contribution for park land dedication of $5,220 required. GB requires 1.5 acres per parcel, so if this is not rezoned, those 2 lots cannot be created. Some engineering comments are that they are recommending a combined driveway access for Parcel A & B. There is also a need for a number of easements. There were more engineering comments regarding sewer & water and stormwater. The zoning map amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending 13 conditions of approval. Dodson asked if the City Engineer considered access of parcel B to Laverne Ave. Becker stated that the City Engineer did not look at that. The condition could be changed to state reviewed by the City Engineer. Williams is wondering why the condition doesn’t require shared parking vs. just encouraging it. Becker stated that there might be circumstances where that might not work. Tim Freeman, represents Zignego, the idea of sharing parking is something that they are interested in. He talked about suburban type zero setbacks for the VMX district. He thinks making a condition of approval for the building setback and combined parking, limits things for this approval and could be dealt with when a project comes forward. Freeman feels that the parkland dedication has already been paid for this area by the acre. He feels replatting this property does not add any acreage, it just further subdivides it. Instead of having that be a condition of approval, he would like to see something like this will be reviewed a little further with the City Attorney. Dodson asked the developer what the motivation of subdividing the lots is vs. just adding buildings to the existing lot. Freeman stated that the new lots would most likely have different ownership. Dodson stated that when property subdivides, Parkland dedication is paid. Freeman stated that the fee was already paid on all of the acreage. Wensman stated that the City Attorney has already reviewed this. There was debate about collecting it on 2 lots or 3. The discovery of the previously paid fee, limited it just to the 2 newly created lots. The City Attorney is the one that recommended it as a condition of approval. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 pm No one spoke and there were no written comments Public Hearing closed at 7:31 pm 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 Williams agrees that there is a conflict of the VMX zoning and the required utility easement. This area needs to be looked at for if it should be a parkway or something else. He is interested in removing number 7 as a condition of this project approval. Wensman would recommend changing the wording of condition #8 to read if there is an access to 39th street, that it be a shared driveway. Williams is wondering if it would be better to say that there will be only one access permitted to 39th Street for those 2 lots. Williams would like condition 9 to state that the City will work with the owners of Brookfield II building to analyze parking needs with the possibility of shared parking with Brookfield II building and submit their findings to the City within 60 days of approval. Wensman stated that there are no building plans yet and they should be required to submit that with the site plan review. Dodson’s concern is that the building plans will not come at the same time. Williams is wondering if something should be included in the findings that it would be desirable for the existing Brookfield parking to be shared with the new development. That way it is not a condition of approval, but makes it should desirable. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to recommend approval of the zoning Map amendment to rezone the property located at 3880 Laverne Ave to Village Mixed Use, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision request for the property located at 3880 Laverne Ave, subject to the 11 outlined conditions of approval as amended and based on the amended findings, Vote:6-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan Amendment – to create a new land use designation called “Golf Course Community” with updated maps and figures Wensman started his presentation regarding the Comprehensive plan amendment for the former Tartan Park property. There would be 5 changes to the comprehensive land use plan. 1) A new land use category called “Golf Course Community” 2) updated density of 1.5-2.49 3) updated planned land use map 4) “Preservation of Community Amenities” will be added which describes the need for “Golf Course Community” land use 5) updated map to reflect the changes to the MUSA. The City has broad discretion when reguiding property. The Golf Course Community specifically ties the residential development to the golf course and cannot be redeveloped if the golf course is eliminated. The Royal Golf development will be a PUD and if an amendment was requested to eliminate the golf course, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be denied. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 There are 4 changes to the Comprehensive wastewater management plan 1) reference made to the Golf Course Community on former Tartan Park property 2) Community Forecast for areas served by regional sewer service (REC Units) was updated to reflect the addition of Royal Golf development 3) Table 6B updated to reflect the increased sewer flows by the addition of Royal Golf Course Development 4) Maps were updated to reflect changes in the MUSA to accommodate the Royal Golf development. Staff is recommending not guiding the Emerson property to Golf Course Community at this time because 1) net density is .46 if platted alone, less than 1.5 min 2) if platted with Royal Golf, net density would be 1.43, brings the average d.u.a. to lower than 1.5 3) not ready to plat at this time 4) Brings MUSA average from 3.7 with RG to 3.3 d.u.a. A letter was received from the Homestead Homeowners Assoc which asked for less density and greater buffers. An email was received from Mike Tate giving support for the Golf Course Community. Dodson stated that he is still concerned about the road access to 10 th Street. Wensman stated that he is under the impression that there is an agreement with Mr. Emerson for the road access. Williams stated that on page III-13, the changes in blue do not incorporate the changes that the Planning Commission recommended at their meeting on December 12, 2016. He is wondering if this property was developed as an OP development, could the Golf Course be included as the open space. Wensman stated that would be a possibility, but there would be no urban services. The Shoreland ordinance requires urban services, so there is a conflict in the codes. Clark Schroeder, Royal Golf, stated that the road going through the Emerson property is an absolute according to the City Engineer for Cul-de-Sac length and for the gravity system going through there. The city will own a lift station on the Emerson property with an easement through that property. Public Hearing opened at 8:06 pm Terry Emerson, 2204 Legion Lane Circle N, he is not interested in being with the Golf Course Community, but he would like to see the MUSA line include his property because he believes the sewer should be along the lake and that is what the Shoreland Ordinance calls for. He doesn’t see any ordinance that his property would fit under. Emerson stated that this is a 28 acre piece of property and he is looking to put in about 13 lots with sewer and water. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 Philip Simonet, 11125 14th Street, he feels the density is way too high and is inconsistent with the mission statement of Lake Elmo. He would like to see some restrictive covenants for the golf course not being redeveloped. He feels that the setbacks should be much more substantial. Shelli Wilk, 11253 14th Street, she is pleased that the City is looking at Golf Course Community instead of the Village Transition. However, she has a petition signed by over 160 residents asking for Rural Area Development on this property. This is more in line with what is in the current Comprehensive Plan. She would like to see lower densities to protect the natural resources in this area which is more in line with the DNR recommendations. Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, she feels that this comprehensive plan is tailored to one property and might even be considered spot zoning. She doesn’t believe that Tartan Park is a City Amenity, but was a private amenity. She also feels that there should be a conservation easement on the open space. The city decided that the sewer would be kept south of 10th Street and in the Village Area. What has changed? Why are we giving up the low density that was supposed to be north of 10th Street? She feels that this property could easily be developed in an OP development. The Shoreland Ordinance does not require that a development be sewered. Michael Zwiefel, 2055 Manning, the developer purchased this property as a golf course. There was no guarantee that anything else would be allowed there when the property was purchased. If the City is going to accommodate residential, he is still confused on why anything other than what is around the rest of the area would be allowed. Stacey Stoffregen, 2390 Legion Lane, she is concerned about the safety of 20th Street for biking and pedestrians. It is already congested and will get increasingly so with additional housing. Tim Mandel, 2479 Lisbon Ave, he feels that when comprehensive Plan changes are made, it affects a lot of people. He feels that it is an important document that should not change frequently. This Golf Course will be doing a lot of things such as the fitness center to make money. These are all things that people have to get to, which will create a lot of traffic. Public Hearing closed at 8:30 pm Williams is concerned that there is no significant guarantee that the golf course will remain. He is concerned that double the houses could be put in. The DNR and PCA consider community septic as legitimate public sewer. He is interested in having this OP density served with a community septic with the golf course being in a conservation easement. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 Wensman stated that the DNR states that municipal sewer is required if available. Our ordinance currently requires it. That ordinance is under discussion later on this agenda. Lundquist stated that she feels it should be sewered because of the Shoreland. Her concern is to ensure the open space. She is also concerned about the setback. She feels it should be much greater. She is concerned about 20th Street. It is already unsafe and with more traffic, it will be even worse. Dodson is concerned about preserving the golf course for open space. His concern with using the open space ordinance is that it cannot have municipal sewer. He is not a fan of community septic. He is also concerned that if the Emerson property is not included in the MUSA tonight, he will have a difficult time getting it put in at a future date. Wensman stated that if we went down to a minimum density of .46, this would bring us below the 3.00 required by the Met Council and this Comprehensive Plan would not be approved. Williams stated that we do not need more sewered development to meet Met Council guidelines. Until 2011, it was not public and was not an asset of the City and we need to stop referring to it as something that needs to be preserved. M/S/W: Williams/Dodson, move to postpone consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until we receive an analysis of the West metro golf course case from the City Attorney, Motion was withdrawn. Larson wants people to recognize that this is a good development. There are some negatives, that have room for discussion, but this is a very unique and historic golf course. Administrator Handt stated that she did receive a memo from the City Attorney today. The court concluded that the deciding factor was whether th e denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment leaves the property owner with any reasonable use. If there is a less dense development that is economically viable, the court could make a different decision. Williams is still concerned that once this property develops with the golf course, at some future date when the golf course is no longer viable, a developer will come forward to redevelop the golf course and the City will have no alternative but to allow housing there as a park or open space at that tim e is not a reasonable use. The only way to protect against that is to put it in a conservation easement. Lundquist asked how much of the land is required to remain open with the Shoreland Ordinance. Wensman stated that a minimum of 50% of the Shorela nd area needs to remain open. Most of the golf course is not in Shoreland. Kreimer asked about developments on golf courses in other communities. He is wondering if when people buy these homes if they are just risking that it will always 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 remain a golf course. Williams stated that the significant thing here is that the City is extending sewer and having more density. Sheila Smith, 2121 Legion Lane, residents that surround the golf course are already in this situation. They bought their homes believing that Tartan Park would always be there and they are finding out that is not the case. She is concerned about the density with or without the future of the golf course. If the golf course fails, it will be even more dense. Clark Schroeder, Royal Golf Course, if you have a private golf course, everyone in the development would own part of the golf course and it would be run by the HOA and there are requirements for all of the homeowners. They do not feel that is a viable business model. They feel that for the golf course to be successful, it would need to be debt free and they need the density they are proposing for that to happen. Williams would like something put in where it talks about the preservation of the golf course that it state some kind of a period of time. They had previously talked about a 25 year guarantee. Wensman stated that it seems unenforceable. Williams stated that they could put it in and the City Council could take it out after talking to the city attorney. Dodson stated that he would strike that whole sentence. M/S/P: Williams /Dodson, move to recommend adding to page III-3 “one expansive open space that does not share the same certainty of continuance”, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams /Lundquist, move to make the following changes: change the words “destination within the community” to an “expansive open space” that is worth saving if at all possible. At the end of the paragraph, delete “amenity rather than develop the land as a standard OP rural development”, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Kreimer asked if these additional 292 units can be used to reduce the number of required units south of 10th or in the Village Area. Wensman stated that anything that is already in the MUSA has to remain at a minimum of 3. We need to stay pretty much at what we already have to meet the 3 tiers of the Comprehensive plan such as affordability in the Comprehensive Plan. Williams stated that there is a practical limit to what we can lower the density to. He doesn’t think that they can go any lower if they want to have sewer there. Dodson stated that alternate uses for that property could be an open space development or rural residential or residential estates. Dodson is leaning towards residential estates vs. golf course community because there is too much uncertainty around the golf course. Williams asked Dodson for clarification if he would rather have this property rezoned residential estates rather than having a golf course. Dodson stated that he would. Williams stated that we don’t need a golf course in Lake Elmo as there are many golf 8 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 courses within driving distance. Williams likes the idea of residential estates. Lundquist stated that this property was sold by one private property to another. Her concern is that the City needs to be accountable for protecting the Community and upholding our standards, but also recognizing the rights of the property owner. She is uncomfortable with the conversation of rezoning it to residential estates. Williams stated that at the Comprehensive Plan level, they would be talking about zoning it as rural development which would include AG, RR and RE. The City has the most discretion at the Comprehensive Plan level as long as it is a reasonable use of the land. Handt stated that she would encourage them to either approve this or deny this tonight. The whole reason that this is back is that what is talked about needs to be advertised. They do not have to go into the details of if they do not do the golf course community, what would they like it to be at this time. They can either approve this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or start developing findings for denial. Kreimer asked if the City Council asked them to start developing standards for the Golf Course Community. Handt stated that they did. There was interest from the Council in the Golf Course Community and the Council asked that the Public Hearing be held to talk about it. Williams stated that he was told by at least one member of the City Council to be sure and tell the City Council what the Planning Co mmission wants, not what they think the City Council wants. Wensman stated that if the Planning Commission wants to go with a different land use designation, they would have to deny this application. The City would then have to advertise and hold a public hearing for a different land use designation. Dodson stated that he takes into consideration private property rights of one property and weighs it against the property rights of the surrounding neighbors. Those 2 are sometimes in conflict with one another. M/S/: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment proposal to create a new land use designation called “Golf Course Community” with the following findings 1) we do not need any more sewered units 2) the current Comprehensive Plan reflects the overwhelming desire of Lake Elmo residents to limit residential growth and sewered growth 3) one of Lake Elmo’s core values is to preserve rural character 4) sewered development north of 10 th street does not preserve the rural character 5) there is a significant but unknown level of risk that the golf course would be redeveloped into more housing in the future 6) there are a significant amount of Lake Elmo residents that live in the area that object to the project based on density that would come with the sewer, Vote: 3-3, motion did not pass, with Lundquist, Larson and Kreimer voting against. Kreimer is not in favor of denying the proposal. He feels this development has a lot to offer and that the developer has done a lot to make this a very nice development. He is 9 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 concerned about what else this could be if this is denied. Larson agrees that it would be unfortunate if they let this development go. He doesn’t think anything this good will come forward in the future. Williams asked Kreimer for clarification of what he thinks the good aspects of the development are. Kreimer stated that he thinks the types of houses vs the types of houses in some of the other developments we have are much more quality. He feels they are high value homes that will make a beautiful neighborhood which would be a great asset to the City. Larson thinks the connectivity and the ablility to have access to all the landscapes of the golf course and environmental features that will be connected by trail system. M/S/: Kreimer/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment proposal to create a new land use designation called “Golf Course Community”, with the amendments as discussed in the 2 previous motions, with the following findings 1) golf course community would protect a regional amenity that the City wishes to maintain 2) the sewered development would protect the Shoreland from pollution 3) the densities would support an efficient level for municipal sewer 4) the golf course is another form of open space 5) there are a significant of residents around the property that object to the density and subsequent traffic increase, Vote: 3-3, motion did not pass, with Griffin, Williams and Dodson voting against. Dodson is concerned with the thought process of relying on the fact that this developer is a quality developer. Things can change and that doesn’t always maintain throughout the development. M/S/F: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend to the City Council that this land be guided for rural development with a preference for residential estates zoning, Vote: 2-4, motion failed. Rick Packer, Royal Golf, stated that they have initiated the process to reguide this property. The Planning Commission has chosen not to give a recommendation to the City Council. He doesn’t understand why the City has a burning desire to guide this property rural development. He is not sure why the City would want to guide this property for something that they are not asking for. Williams is not in favor of extending sewer north of 10th Street. He is in favor of a property owner having a reasonable use of his land. In Lake Elmo, north of 10 th Street, excluding the Village Area, a reasonable use of property is rural residential development. Packer stated that if the motion fails, to do anything with this property, they would need to come back in and ask to have the land reguided to something else. Williams stated that the motion on the floor asks the City Council to guide the property as rural development without any further initiation from the property owner. 10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 Kreimer is not in favor of the motion. He thinks they should just wait for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and see what the Council comes back with. Larson is in agreement with that. Williams stated that in defense of the motion, it is reasonable to give the City Council an alternative since there was not a specific recommendation one way or another on the request that was b efore them. Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment to create “Golf Course Community” Zoning. Becker started her presentation of the ZTA for the Golf Course Community Zoning District. This is a rough draft of what a golf course community would look like as a land use plan. Becker went through the uses that would be allowed in GCC either as permitted or conditional uses. The density for residential would be 1.5 -2.49 units per acre. Becker went through the minimum lot size and setbacks and compari sons to LDR zoning and why staff is recommending these. The recommended open space is something that they need to discuss. Staff is recommending 50% of the gross acreage be dedicated to either a golf course, its accessory uses or as open space. There would be a 100 foot buffer required from external residential lots within the City. The buffer area shall be part of the required 50% open space. This buffer may be reduced by the council if there is a visual buffer provided. There must be connectivity and adequate street design to support the proposed uses. There are a number of site development standards set forth for allowed and conditional uses, in addition to the ones already established in the City Code. Staff also is proposing to add semi-transient accommodations at the request of Royal Golf. If this use is added, there would be standards specific to Golf Course Community. The only comment that the City has received from the public hearing notice is to include more standards for indoor recreational facility. Dodson asked if the semi-transient accommodations would be considered commercial. Wensman stated that would probably be used for the owners or relatives of residents who live in the community. Williams thinks that on page 14 of proposed zoning code (O) (4), regarding street designs can be struck as they are required to meet current street standards anyway. Clark Schroeder, Royal Golf Course, stated that the concept of the cottages is something they have not fully vetted out, but is still in the idea stage. Schroeder stated that the buffers are currently very similar to the OP buffer setbacks. Dodson is wondering why the City would deal with the cottage issue now if it is just a concept and not at a future date so they can really think about what conditions might be necessary. Wensman stated that they would not have to approve this tonight. They noticed th e public hearing for tonight, but it could come back at a future date. Public Hearing opened at 10:35 pm 11 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, she hopes that the public hearing is extended as this is the first time that they are hearing about some of these thi ngs. She feels that adding 4 more cottages increases the density again. She doesn’t think the cottages are necessary on site which is more like a B & B. There a lot of places to stay in the area and she does not feel these are necessary at the golf course. She does not feel the minimum lot size should be reduced from the 20,000 square feet. She feels this area does not need the substantial traffic indicated with the recreational use. She does not want to see any exterior secondary dwellings as they are not appropriate for this development. There is a standard of a 100 foot buffer. She would argue to make it bigger vs. smaller. She would like the public hearing extended as new things have been brought up and the public has not had a chance to look at them completely. Tim Mandel, 2479 Lisbon Ave, he is wondering if they can issue a conditional use permit for anything they want on this property. This is not a commercially zoned property, and these cottages would be “commercial”. He does not want to see a lot of these more “commercial” things put in as if the golf course fails, those buildings will be used for other things. Public Hearing closed at 10:42 pm Dodson would like to change the lower end of the density from 1.5 to .9 to allow for the lowest density possible. Kreimer is concerned about that because of what it will do to the other areas to keep minimums for the Met Council. Williams is concerned about the secondary dwelling. He is fine if it is inside the principle dwelling, but he is not in favor of having additional structures on the properties. If this is specific to Golf Course Community, he would like the definitions and standards for secondary dwelling to read a residential unit located within the principle structure or above an attached garage. Becker stated that this is a definition for this use for anywhere that this is allowed, not just for Golf Course Community. He wants this limit to apply to all sewered areas. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, motion to have a definition for secondary dwelling specific to Golf Course Community that reads a residential secondary dwelling unit is located within the principle structure or above an attached garage, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Kriemer, motion to add letter Q on page 15 to add indoor recreation Golf Course Community district this a conditional use only if it is owned and operated by the same entity that owns and operates the golf course or CIC. This is not allowed as a free standing commercial operation open to the public, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. 12 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, motion to change Item (O) (3) connectivity on page 14 to read “Trails, walkways and paths must make planned connections to planned external trai ls and walkways and paths within the community, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/, motion to delete Item (O) (4) on page 14 regarding street design, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/, motion to delete Item (O) (4) on page 14 regarding street design, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to require that the restaurant and drinking establishments must be in the same structure as the clubhouse and golf shop, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to require the clubhouse follow the city’s commercial design guidelines and standards manual for Lake Elmo, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams is not in favor of including the semi-transient accommodations without further definition. Kreimer stated that he doesn’t feel that they need to do that now. Wensman stated that this would be the time to include it and get the definition set, otherwise they will need to do a zoning text amendment in the future. Handt suggested that they could table this to the next meeting which would give staff time to draft the standards. There was discussion regarding the 9000 square feet minimum lot size and how that number was arrived at. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to table the addition of a Golf Course Community Zoning District to the Zoning Code until standards are received for the semi -transient accommodations, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment amending the City’s Shoreland Management Overlay District Becker started the presentation with some history regarding the Shoreland Ordinance. In 2014, a Shoreland ordinance was drafted that was modeled after Woodbu ry’s. It was submitted to the DNR, but the DNR did not approve it. In 2016, staff started working to make amendments to submit to the DNR. Definitions were removed, 4 water bodies were removed, Berschen’s Pond was added, and the language for water orien ted accessory structures was kept. The DNR suggested that the City include a Forest Land Conversion as a conditional use with standards. They also suggested deleting the riparian dedication, changed the setbacks and impervious standards. Standards are 13 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 addressed for lots intended as controlled access to public waters, restrictions on roads, driveways and parking areas and subdivision standards. There is a nonconformities section and a more detailed list for the planned unit development section. The proposed ordinance for a PUD maps out what the open space can and cannot be. There were 2 public comments received. One comment was asking for an increase to setbacks for sewered development on Natural Environment Lakes from 100 ft. to 150 ft. The second comment is requesting that Goetschel pond not be removed. Dodson asked if community septic is considered sewered or unsewered. Becker stated that by City standards it would be considered unsewered. The DNR might have a different standard. Dodson stated that the proposal states that when municipal sewer is not available, a community septic is required. Is there a minimum number of lots for that? Becker stated that by City PUD standards, a minimum of 5 acres is required and they would have to adhere to the minimum base standards of the district. Williams would like the wording regarding the requirement for 50% open space more clear to say only in the shoreland area vs. the total project area. Public Hearing opened at 11:39 pm Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, she is wondering how much of the shoreland area has to be open space. Becker stated that they spoke to the DNR and they stated that it does not mean the open space needs to be in the shoreland area and that it can transfer to anywhere in the project area. She is wondering if it is requiring city sewer. Becker stated that with a PUD, when city sewer is not available, a community septic is allowed. Terry Emerson, 2204 Legion Lane Circle N, went through a few of the water bodies on the list and a number of them would not meet the ordinance. He thinks there will be a lot of issues with the current homes on the lakes that do not meet the code and are going to be coming in for variances. He feels that changing the building setback from 100 to 150 feet is a little excessive as compared to the lakes that are already developed. Public Hearing closed at 11:56 pm M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to recommend keeping Goetschel Pond in the Shoreland classification table, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to recommend clarifying the open space requirements for PUD: open space must constitute at least 50% of the total project area within the Shoreland, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. 14 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-9-17 M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of Ord. 08- . amending section 154.800: Shoreland Management Overlay District of the Zoning Code, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. City Council Updates – December 20, 2016 Meeting i) Boulder Ponds 2nd addition Final Plat and PUD extension – passed. ii) Village Area AUAR – passed. iii) Diedrich Property zoning map amendment – passed. iv) Comprehensive Plan to meet population targets and growth plans – forwarded to Planning Commission. v) Moratorium ordinance – repealed. vi) Low impact development standards – referred to Planning Commission. vii) Noise Ordinance – failed. City Council Updates – January 3, 2017 Meeting i) Hammes Estates 2nd Addition Final Plat – passed. ii) Planning Commission appointments of Gary Fields and Dale Dorschner. 1. Upcoming Meetings a. January 23, 2017 b. February 13, 2017 Commission Concerns Meeting adjourned at 12:30 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant