Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 12-12-16Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2016 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Dunn, Griffin, Dodson, Williams, Larson, Fields and Lundquist COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman Approve Agenda: Williams asked to add 5b, a discussion of the Golf Course Community. Wensman asked to add a discussion of the Village Parkway as 5c. M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to approve the agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Approve Minutes: November 28, 2016 M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to approve the November 28, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote: 4-0, motion carried with kreimer, Griffin and Dunn not voting as they were not present. Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – rezone the property known as Diedrich Preliminary Plat Wensman started his presentation by stating that this is a public hearing for a zoning map amendment for the Diedrich property. It is guided medium density residential, but is currently zoned as rural transitional. The preliminary plat was approved under the MDR land use category, but the rezoning was not done with the preliminary plat. Dodson asked if there was a proposed development. Wensman stated that there is an approved preliminary plat and the property owners are looking for a developer to proceed with the project. There are conditions that would need to be met before the project can final plat, but it is important that the other half of 5 th street be built. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16 Williams asked if in the future the rezoning and preliminary plat would be done at the same time. Wensman stated that they would either be done at the same time, or the rezoning might be done first. Dunn asked if the density for this development is double what it is for Hunter’s Crossing. Wensman stated that Hunter’s Crossing is LDR, so it would be about 3 units per acre and this development would be about 4 units per acre. Public Hearing opened at 7:10 pm No one spoke and there were no written comments Public Hearing closed at 7:10 pm M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the Diedrich Property Preliminary Plat, PID #36.029.21.32.0002 from Rural Development Transitional to Urban Medium Density Residential and PID #36.029.21.32.0034 from Urban Low Density Residential to Medium Urban Density Residential, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Business Item – Hammes II – Final Plat Wensman started his presentation for Hammes Estates 2nd addition Final Plat. There are 37 single family homes for this addition accessed off of Keats Ave. This is the piece that will provide the connection to Savona which was required with the 50th lot of the development. Wensman went through the specifics of the Final Plat and stated that it is consistent with the preliminary plat. There are some construction plan details that need to be updated. These will need to be updated prior to recording the plat. The Preliminary Plat conditions have been reviewed and they are working to meet all of the conditions. Staff is recommending 10 conditions of approval for with the Final Plat. Wensman went through the draft findings and is recommending approval with the 10 conditions in the staff report. Dodson asked about construction traffic. Wensman stated that it would access off of Keats. Dunn asked about the wetland buffers and why they are so lenient. Wensman stated that this development was allowed to move forward with some of those wetland buffers in the lot, which should not be. Once it is part of the lot, there is not a lot of control as to what the owner does and the buffer is not always maintained. Moving forward, the City will ensure that the wetland buffers are outside of private lots. 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16 Griffin asked if there is currently a grading permit. Wensman stated that they are waiting for an as-built grading plan. They will be grading with their development agreement. Williams asked if the phasing should be added to the subdivision ordinance. Wensman stated that it is being addressed in the development agreement and doesn’t feel t hat it needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission. David Stradtman, Rachel Development, went through some of the things that they had to deal with when they picked up the development. Stradtman stated that the second phase will move along a lot more smoothly and the second phase is to get ahead of things. MI Homes is going to purchase all of the home sites in second addition. Dunn asked what the threshold would be for a traffic light on Keats Ave. Wensman stated that this plat had County review and they did not feel it warranted a traffic light at this time. Williams would like to see some language of the wetland buffer protection mentioned in the HOA agreement and possibly monument signs in the lot. This should be added to condition number 4. Williams would like language added to condition number 6 to state that the requested modifications are from the Planning Director in the letter dated November 30, 2016. Williams would like condition number 7 to state written permission from Xcel Energy. M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, move to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates 2nd Addition Final Plat with the 10 conditions of approval as amended based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Business Item – Golf Course Community Discussion Williams stated that at the last City Council, they voted to have staff look at an updated Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow a golf course community. Williams looked at it and thinks that there should be some changes in the wording. There is language about the Village Transition area. If the golf course community option moves forward, there is not Village Transition area so that language should be eliminated. Wensman suggested referring to the former Tartan Park area. Williams would like to replace the reference of “destination” with “an expanse of open space”. He would like to replace “rather than develop the land as a standard OP rural develop” with “for at least 25 Years” because a golf course development could be done as an OP if the golf course was put into open space. He wants to protect the City and residents that purchase a home around the golf course for at least 25 years. That would be until 2040 which is when the next Comprehensive Plan would be. Wensman stated that there would be a public 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16 hearing for this item and they will be able to weigh in again in early January. Williams thinks these recommendations should be passed along to the City Council. Dunn wants people to come to this development with confidence that what they think they are getting is what they will get. She thinks there should be some assurance that the golf course will stay. She doesn’t see why anyone would object to having that guarantee. M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to forward the suggested changes regarding Golf Course community to the City Council, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Rick Packer, Royal Golf Club, they first brought an application forward for Village Transition at the staff’s suggestion. They came to the Planning Commission and the Commission thought there should be special zoning. The staff went back and prepared the Golf Course Community recommendation. At the public hearing, it was decided that it really didn’t get them anywhere with the Golf Course Community, so the recommendation that moved forward to the City Council was the Village Transition. At the City Council, it came back around and the City Council went back to the Golf Course Community. Last week they were told that this would have to be renoticed for Public Hearing again on January 9th 2017. He feels that it is not appropriate that they talk about this tonight, but should be talked about at the public hearing on January 9 th, 2017. Dunn does not feel it is inappropriate to talk about things in advance of the public hearing just to get ideas out there. Williams stated that they are not taking any vote tonight on the entire proposed amendment. They are only looking at possible changes to bring forward to the City Council in preparation for the public hearing. Williams feels they are an informal recommendation for the City Council to look at and accept or reject. Dodson stated that it is in their discretion to recommend to the City Council as they see fit. He also stated that the Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. Business Item – Village Parkway Discussion There are a number of pending projects that will be coming forward that will involve the Village Parkway and there are a few issues with it. Wensman has been reviewing the design of the Village Parkway and he has some questions and has identified some potential issues. There are 3 potential projects coming forward, the Village Park Preserve, Gonyea West and the Zignago Insurance Building. Wensman went through where the Village Parkway is and that there are 3 different designs. There is a zero setback assuming that there is an urban sidewalk such as in the Village. There is a problem with the Village Parkway design such in Easton Village where the trees are planted between the sidewalk and the boulevard. The trees need to be 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16 planted outside of the sidewalk area to prevent tree damage and such from snowplowing. A summary of the design is that it is designed to Municipal State Aid Road Standards, the design profile determines parking, access control (no residential driveways allowed), and final design has no center medians, irrigation required and theming. The irrigation for 5th street is quite expensive and the theming was thrown out for 5th street. Another question is where and when should 14 foot sidewalks be required. Arbor Glen does not have a zero lot line. Do we want consistency? The setback is between zero and 20 feet. It would not look good if it fluctuated on a site by site basis. Dunn asked why on 39th Street the sidewalk on one side is a concrete and the sidewalk on the other side is asphalt. She is not happy with the result. She is not happy with the VMX zoning and feels that it really needs to be looked at. She calculates that there could be 5000 people in a very small area. Wensman wants to be ahead of the setback issue for when the Zignego project comes forward. If they are rezoned to VMX, they will probably ask for that zero lot line. Williams thinks that with the new City Council coming onboard, the Planning Commission should get their feedback before they do a lot of work on this. Dodson is struggling because he sees the VMX as not being an office building, but more of shops. Wensman stated that office building is an allowed use in VMX. Uses change once a building is up. Dodson stated that the zero lot line to him is more of a retail use. Wensman stated that it is a question of how far out of the core Village they want VMX to go and how big they want the Village to be. Fields stated that there needs to be a critical amount of housing within walking distance to stimulate pedestrian oriented retail. Wensman stated that there needs to be a strong vision to reassure businesses that you are working towards that vision. Williams suggests to bring this back to the first Planning Commission meeting to look at the Zignago building as the first opportunity to look at the VMX and the vision for the Village, and maybe limit the discussion to 39th Street. Fields stated that he believes that the vision for the Village was a strong desire to have pedestrian oriented retail. He thinks that the pedestrian oriented retail in Lake Elmo would not be able to compete with the car oriented retail in the metro area, because Lake Elmo is a fairly low density City. It would be difficult to be competitive. Dodson thinks the theming needs to be looked at and that there should be consistency throughout the City. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-12-16 City Council Updates – December 6, 2016 Meeting i) OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment – passed. ii) Wildflower 2nd Final Plat and Final PUD Plan – passed. iii) Review of Preliminary Royal Golf EAW iv) Royal Golf Comprehensive Plan Amendment – direction given for Golf Course Community. 1. Upcoming Meetings a. January 9, 2017 b. January 23, 2017 Commission Concerns Dunn brought up some safety issues to Washington County regarding the Lake Elmo Inn and the railroad tracks. People are parking on the bump outs and there is only one lane to get through. The flow of traffic is not very good. There are trees under the power lines that were not a good idea either. Wensman stated that the signage and striping was delayed because of the weather which has been a problem. Kreimer asked about the advertising for the Planning Commission members. He was under the impression that they were full right now. There are 2 terms expiring at the end of the year. Dunn and Fields. Meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant