Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 03-13-17Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2017 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Dodson, Dorschner, Emerson, Larson, Williams, Lundquist and Hartley COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Fields STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman and City Administrator Handt Approve Agenda: M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to approve the agenda as presented, Vote: 7-0, motion carried, unanimously. Approve Minutes: January 23, 2017 M/S/P: Dodson/Larson, move to approve the January 23, 2017 minutes as presented, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Approve Minutes: February 27, 2017 M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to approve the February 27, 2017 minutes as amended, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – PUD Concept Plan – Lakewood Crossing 2nd Wensman started his presentation regarding the Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition PUD Concept Plan. This will be a 3 lot subdivision on 3.82 acres. The proposal is for a full service restaurant, chiropractic and other retail activities. This property is currently vacant but is guided for commercial. This PUD Concept Plan is intended to be intended to provide the applicant guidance so that they can adjust the proposal if necessary. The PUD will give flexibility to maximize the use of the property when straight zoning does not work. There is a requirement that 20% of the project area be open space. There are no open space calculations which must be provided. Lot dimensions and Bulk requirements are largely met, but flexibility is being requested for the following 1) minimum lot width 2) Impervious surface 3) Parking setbacks. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 There are some deviations from the commercial design standards. Some of the standards do not apply to this site and the unique shape of the lot make some of them a challenge. There is not much landscaping proposed, especially along the exterior streets. Most of the review comments come from engineering and have to do with traffic and access management. Hudson Blvd is a main collector and there is spacing limitations to 660 feet spacing for full access intersections. That would put the West access in the Ebertz property. The City is suggesting working with the Ebertz to develop together. There are 18 recommended conditions of approval including meeting all engineering comments, a comprehensive sign plan, open space calculations, amended landscape plan to meet city standards, financial security, obtain necessary permits, etc. Kreimer asked if this could be done with one entrance or if there would need to be two for safety. Wensman stated that to his knowledge there would not need to be two, but should be run by the fire chief and city engineer. Williams asked why there would be no deed restriction on the shared parking as part of this as it states it is at the time of sale. Wensman stated that there should be a cross access agreement with the plat, not at time of sale. Hartley asked if the city engineer reviewed this for drainage. Wensman stated that at the concept plan, they are looking at the bigger picture and the issue is the access management. Kreimer asked why this property would need to provide the sewer and water. Is it not in Hudson Road? Wensman stated that the sewer access does not extend all the way down to Ebertz property. Bruce Miller, CM Properties, they are building on speculation and hope that the businesses will come. They are asking for some flexibility from the code so that they can bring a much more quality development forward. The drive through component is a CUP in the Commercial code through the PUD process and they would like to get those approvals now so that they can market to those types of businesses with confidence. He feels that the allowed signage is limiting and signs would be difficult to see. They have been working on some signage proposals for a comprehensive sign plan. Miller stated that rather than the 20% open space required with a PUD, he is proposing upgraded architectural features. He is confident that there will be enough parking. It is to there benefit to make sure there is adequate parking to meet the needs of their tenants. Hartley asked about a shared driveway on the West side with the Ebertz. Miller stated that the first phase would not need the second access point unless the fire chief 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 requires it. He stated that he does not control the Ebertz property, but he is willing to give them an easement for access. Public Hearing opened at 7:52 pm No one spoke and there were no written comments Public Hearing closed at 7:52 pm Williams feels that this is a good development and good for this spot. He does have concerns about the access spacing, traffic flow for all the drive thru and parking needs to be more detailed. The offsets to open space he is willing to discuss, but needs to be convinced with more details of landscaping and architectural design. Dodson agrees with Williams and would like to see an agreement worked out with the property owner to the West. There was discussion regarding concern with the traffic flow of the drive thru. Kreimer would like to see a couple of islands in the center of parking lot to break it up a little bit. He is also concerned about the turn radius for the multiple drive -thru and is concerned about the access spacing. Lundquist thinks this will be a great addition to the community and she is not concerned about the drive-thru radius. Hartley is uncomfortable permitting some of these activities without knowing what the actual use or scale will be. He would like to see them as Conditional Use Permits as the use comes in. Kreimer would like to add condition #19 that the applicant shall be limited to 4 drive thru accesses and 2 of these must be low intensity uses. Miller stated that the approval or denial for a drive th ru would impact how you lay out the site and construct the building. Dodson is wondering if the design of the buildings limits what types of businesses would go in there. Miller stated that the design would dictate what types of businesses would go in th ere. Williams is wondering if with the next phase the developer could give them information regarding the drive thru traffic. Hartley stated that the drive thru traffic could be part of the parking space analysis. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to add condition of approval #19 that an analysis be done on the drive thru traffic volume, including any impact on the parking areas as well as the secondary access and overall development, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Dorschner feels that this would be self-managing as businesses will pick a location that will accommodate their needs. He doesn’t see the concern with the parking as this development doesn’t seem any more dense than in other communities. Lundquist agrees. She sees the traffic going around with a flow. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the Lakewood Crossing 2nd addition PUD Concept Plan with the 19 conditions of approval as drafted by staff and amended by the Planning Commission, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams would like a friendly amendment to #14 that the word “for” be inserted at the beginning of the sentence. This friendly amendment was accepted. Wensman suggested that for condition #17, the first part of sentence should be struck and it should read “a deed restriction that guarantees access to the parking for all uses must be submitted.” This friendly amendment was accepted. Public Hearing – Final Plat and PUD Plans – Inwood 5th Addition Wensman started his presentation regarding Inwood 5th Addition final plat and PUD Plans. This is the last addition of the residential portion of the development. This is a replatting of Outlots A, B, F and G of Inwood 3rd Addition. They are proposing 101 Single family lots. In 2014, Washington County conducted a Preliminary Plat review and requested an additional 32 ft of ROW from future 10th Street improvements. This condition was a condition of approval documented in several locations. It is in the 2014 Preliminary Plat report, the resolution approving Preliminary Plat and the signed developer’s agreement. At one point the Developer was talking with the County about ROW to the north. That never transpired and plans were never updated. The County has control over the proposed Island Trail and 10th street intersection and they want the 32 ft of dedicated ROW with this plat. Another condition of preliminary plat approval is that the developer install a mult i- purpose trail along 10th street between Island Trail and Inwood Ave. Staff was supportive of removal of this trail, but the Commission and Council’s resolution of approval required this trail. Preliminary Plat was never updated and it is not included in Inwood 5th Plat submittal. There are some Landscaping and engineering revisions that are required, such as removal of certain trees and berms and required water main easements. Kreimer asked if there is room to build the homes if they do the 32 foot ROW dedication. Wensman stated that those are deep lots, but the back yards will have part of the berms and it will tighten things up. Williams is wondering why the application is not deemed incomplete without that ROW dedication. Wensman stated that it was originally deemed incomplete. The Developer provided more information and upon the City Attorney’s advice, it can be dealt with through conditions. There was discussion about the advantage of the trail ROW to the North vs. the South. The trail would be located within the 32 feet of ROW being required. Wensman stated that from a Planning perspective, the trail is desirable to move people to the future commercial properties to the West. Dodson asked if the segment of trail along 10th street would be a City trail. Wensman stated that he thinks it is HOA owned and maintained, but he is not sure. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 Williams stated that condition #4 should be South Washington instead of Valley Branch watershed district. Hartley is wondering if this was reviewed by the Fire Chief, specifically if the Circles that dead end are wide enough. Wensman stated that it was a concern of the City Engineer and he would like the pavement widened there so that they function better. John Rask, MI Homes, stated that the cul-de-sacs are standard radius for cul-de-sacs so they would accommodate a fire truck. He does not necessary disagree with the conditions of approval of Preliminary Plat, but what is missing is that there were subsequent approvals granted for final plats and grading that didn’t have this trail. They had discussions with the County and they agreed to take the ROW and trail to the North. Rask feels that with the staff turnover, some things have fallen through the cracks. Rask stated that these discussions were held after the Preliminary Plat was approved. He feels that the County has changed the requirements. When Inwood was approved, it was known and stated that both Inwood and 10th Street would someday be 4 lane roads with trails on one side. Rask stated that if they grant the ROW, they will need to take out the berm and the trail was never once shown on any of their plans. The berm was installed at expense to the developer to make the development look better. They graded the berm with a grading permit and no one ever mentioned that the trail wasn’t on the plan. Rask feels they are consistent with the City’s trail plan and added trails at the City’s request. Rask is making the following request that 1) the Planning Commission find that the trail along 10 th street is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2) Strike the conditions requiring additional ROW and a trail along 10th Street 3) Reconfirm that the trail and additional Row should be on the north side of 10th Street 4) allow the existing berm to remain as approved in the Development contract approved by the City Council. Dodson asked what would happen to the berm if the additional 32 feet of ROW is given. Rask stated that they would need to take out the berm. Williams asked why it couldn’t be moved to the south. Rask stated that the whole row of lots would be lost as it couldn’t remain in the ROW. Williams asked when the developer was made aware of the staff’s analysis of the ROW issue. Rask stated that it was probably in December. What happened is they went to County for an access permit to construct the road and then they were told about the trail and additional ROW. Rask doesn’t believe that the County has that authority. Williams doesn’t see that the City should be involved in this other than dealing with what is in written record which is the condition of approval. Wensman stated that the trail and the ROW were conditions of approval that are in multiple locations and were carried over from Preliminary Plat. It is typical for the County to require these things with access and typical for the City to require that as part of the plat. Public Hearing opened at 9:00 pm 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 No one spoke and there were no written comments Public Hearing closed at 9:00 pm Williams thinks that the trail and ROW issue is more complicated than they can deal with tonight. He would suggest that under condition #9 that at the end add “unless the County submits written permission for less ROW”. He feels that the written record shows that the ROW should be dedicated, but it is up to the County. Wensman stated that the County has reaffirmed their letter from November 17, 2014, that they would still need that ROW. Handt stated that if the City does not get that ROW at the time of plat, when the County does need to acquire the land, they will come back and charge the City for the acquisition of the ROW. Rask disagrees with that statement. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add finding #8 that the legal issues surrounding the additional 32 feet of ROW and the trail from Island to Inwood along 10 th Street are beyond the scope of the Planning Commission, Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Lundquist opposed. Lundquist feels that they have an obligation to remain consistent with what the County is asking for. M/S/P: Kreimer/Dodson, move to add finding #9 that the Planning Commission finds significant value to the existing berm that the developer built along 10 th Street and the County should be requested to retain the berm regardless of the ROW issue, Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Lundquist opposed. Wensman stated that the County is fine with the berm staying as long as there is a wall once it gets to the ROW. They don’t want to have to move or restore the berm if improvements need to be made. Lundquist stated that 10 th street is a major thorough fare with plans to go to a 4 lane and they need the space. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to recommend removing condition number 11 requiring a multi-purpose trail along 10th Street between Island Trail and Inwood Ave be removed, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Kreimer remembers the discussion about the trails and he remembers giving up the requirement for a trail on Inwood, but that they decided that they wanted the trail along 10th Street. Larson stated that there is already a trail through the development to the commercial so it is not like there is no trail at all. Dorschner remembers the developer stating that they could get easements on the North side of 10th for the trail. He feels it makes sense to make the connection. Rask stated that to give more ROW and build the trail, he would have to remove the berm. Rask stated that when they sat down with the County, he felt that there was no compromise. He feels that the County wants everything and is willing to give nothing. 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, move to add a condition requiring that the section of trail from Island trail to the eastern buffer is built, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to add a finding #10 that the City consider any trail required to be implemented by the development from Island Trail to Inwood be credited towards parkland dedication, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and Final PUD plans with 11 condition s of approval based on the findings as amended in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment and Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans - Royal Golf Wensman started his presentation regarding the rezoning from PF to GCC – Golf Course Community and the Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans. Wensman went through the issues from the Concept plan that were addressed with the Preliminary plan. With the PUD Overlay, the developer has requested flexibility. They would like single access to the clubhouse, lot sizes smaller than 9000 for villa lots, 40% impervious and 20 ft front yard setbacks on villa lots, 50 ft ROW on Street C, add’l subdivision and neighborhood signs, and garages greater than 1000 sq ft to be permitted rather than a CUP. With the Shoreland evaluation, there are 100 lots within the shoreland area, the development is preserving 50.5% or the shoreland, where 50% is required, less than allowed base density within each shoreland, shoreland impact zones and steep slopes preserved in Lake Elmo and Downs Lake, 70% of shoreland impact preserved for Rose and Horseshoe, 59.9% of Lake Elmo shoreland preserved, and preserved a wildlife/drainage corridor from NW to SE. The developer needs to maintain a 100 ft Natural Corridor outside of lot areas. They have 89 feet, so staff has made the 100 foot corridor a condition of approval. The GCC minimum lot size is 9000 sq feet. The PUD flexibility sought is 6,600 sq ft on some lots. The average lot size is 13,499 sq feet because of some of the larger lots. There is also a request for PUD flexibility for 20’ front setback and 7.5’ setbacks. The 7.5’ setback averaging is already allowed by policy. Staff is requesting there be an exhibit which clearly shows specific lots and setbacks, no encroachments into D & U easements and lots with 20’ setbacks should have garages adorned with windows or other architectural features for sides of garages facing the public ROW. The GCC maximum impervious per lot is 30%, the request for PUD flexibility is for 40%. Staff feels this is ok as it matches LDR zoning and will be limited to the villa lots. The developer is asking to forego the sidewalk requirement on a number of streets. Staff is only supportive of street C having no sidewalk because of site limitations. Dodson would like the exhibit showing the setbacks to also show which lots can have the larger garage. 8 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 GCC allows 1000 sq ft maximum garage and the developer is asking for a deviation for a larger garage to store golf carts. Staff is supportive of the request, provided that the garage doors will not exceed 60% of the principal building façade fronting a public road, impervious surface limits are not exceeded, and that the upper limit of permitt ed garages is 1300 square feet. Williams stated that in a PUD process the City is supposed to get something to give something. He is wondering what we are getting for all of these deviations. Wensman stated that a large part of what the City is getting is less impact to the Shoreland. There are other things in the presentation and they can discuss the give and take at the end of the presentation. GCC zoning requires a 100 foot buffer from external residential lots. They are meeting or exceeding that buffer. Note that the City does not require the buffer to properties outside of the City limits. There was some discussion about parkland dedication and trails. The Park Commission is not recommending a park on this property, but would like to see trail dedication. The trails in the development connect all of the neighborhoods which was a goal. Wensman would like a trail phasing plan as trails need to be constructed with each corresponding phase of the development. The development exceeds the open space requirements both for GCC zoning and for shoreland. There are restrictive covenants that need to be submitted prior to final plat. These would include conservation easements over shoreland areas and HOA/CIC documents. The subdivision code allows for two 24 square foot subdivision signs per development. Developer is requesting flexibility to have up to 4 subdivision signs (including one at clubhouse entrance) and up to 6 neighborhood markers to identify the villa enclaves within the development. Staff is supportive of the flexibility due to the unique layout and size of the development and the multiple entrances. A sign permit is required prior to construction. The developer is proposing unique street names that have a golf theme. Wensman stated that it does not meet the County street naming conventions, but does meet the City’s street naming ordinance. The allowed architecture would be addressed in the HOA documents. For tree preservation and tree replacement, the developer is interpreting the site as mixed-use which would allow replacement trees to be used as landscape required trees. The City attorney and staff interpretation is that it is not a mixed use. The landscape plan cannot be evaluated until tree replacement is determined. Landscape walls crossing residential property lines shall be owned and maintained by the HOA and within the maintenance easements. Williams asked if there was a definition of “forest management and natural seeding”. He feels that it needs to be clearly defined. The developer’s vision is to have all the development accessible by golf cart. The public ROW and trails would need to allow golf carts. This would require a special City ordinance as it is currently prohibited. An agreement has been reached with the Emerson property to provide access to 10th Street. Wensman talked about phasing of the development. It is anticipated to be done in 4 phases from 2017 -2023. Phase one 9 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 is a big phase as the infrastructure must be put in and the golf club is required to be sewered within 2 years. There are some engineering issues that will need to be addressed such as infiltration ponds located in gas line easement, lift stations on ou tlots that do not appear large enough to accommodate them, outlots need to be dedicated and others on the engineers report. There are some transportation requirements including dedicating ROW and supplying turn lanes. The Golf Course is planning to put in clubhouse cottages. The location is currently shown as a separate lot. Staff is recommending that the lot be combined with the clubhouse lot as these cottages are accessory to the clubhouse and will require a CUP. Hartley asked if this property is then considered commercial. Larson feels that the zoning is confusing when the golf course is taken out of it. There are a lot of different things going on with this development and he is wondering why it would not be mixed use. Wensman stated that the City Attorney does not feel it is a mixed use. Wensman went through the 34 conditions of approval and findings of fact. Staff is recommending rezoning from Public Facilities to GCC based on the findings identified in the staff report. Staff is also recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD plans with the 34 conditions with the understanding that the City Council cannot approve this until the Met Council approves the comprehensive Plan amendment. Wensman stated that the jurisdictional review period ends on March 24th. Once that ends, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be submitted to the Met Council. The Met Council has 60 days to review it and get back to the City. Dodson is asking about impervious surface and drainage around the vi llas. Wensman stated that the engineering plans were not included but the water has been addressed through the engineering plans. Dorschner asked about reductions of golf fees and six figures for replacing ball fields. He is wondering if it is not a condition, where would that be captured for the City. Schroeder, HC Golf , stated that it would be in the developer’s agreement. Kreimer asked if the Park Commission weighed in about the Tot lot location. It seems in a location that would not serve many people. Wensman stated that the Park Commission did not really talk about it. The developer is actually talking about moving it where the more millennial product is located. Dodson is concerned about the drive into the clubhouse. If there is a big tournament, people might try to park along that driveway. Is there a way to mitigate that? Wensman stated that it could be signed no parking. Rick Packer & Clark Schroeder, Royal Golf, are not in favor of the sidewalk/trail and prefer 6 ft. He does not like the look of sidewalks in a cul-de-sac and they do not help with connectivity because they would dead end. Sidewalks are not typically put in a cul- de-sac. There is discussion regarding the tree preservation. This is clearly a commercial use and should be treated as a mixed use. They are not opposed to the forest management. The golf cart access is very important to them as a golf course community. 10 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 Lundquist stated that at one time there was talk about putting an 8 foot shoulder on the south side of 20th street to make it safer. She is wondering if they still plan to do that. Schroeder stated that they will be dedicating ROW, but what that is used for, they are not sure. Packer stated that they will be building right turn lanes at 4 locations. There will be widening at the turn lanes. Packer stated that the speed limit is 45 mph on the road. If there is a concern about safety, maybe the speed limit should be reduced to 30 mph. Williams stated that a trail in the NW corner from 20th Street to Lake Elmo Ave would be very useful. Packer stated that they could look at that and it would take tree removal. Larson would like to discuss the zoning for the golf course as public facility vs. golf course community. Packer stated that was the route the City Council chose to go with. He feels that it helps preserve the golf course and the open space. Kreimer asked about the tot lot location. Would it work by street “F”. Packer stated that it might work there or in the Southern area, but they are trying to be sensitive to the Homestead neighborhood. Packer stated that maybe it could go up with the pool and fitness center on HOA maintained property. Public Hearing opened at 11:10 pm Michael Biebl, 12020 18th Street N, representing people on the East side of the development, he feels some of the things that the City is asking for, such as increased sidewalks, decreases the buffers. The City has no requirements to provide buffers to anyone outside of the City. The tightest units are the one that border West Lakeland and there are no buffers. Even though there have been traffic studies, he is concerned that development traffic and wedding venue traffic will be too much for this road. Would like to see a good give and take with the developer to make this a good plan. Michael Zwiefel, 2055 Manning Trail, the common theme of this development is flexibility. He would like to point out that this property was purchased with the only use allowed a golf course. He heard at the very first presentation that a well-run golf course is sustainable on its own, so everything else being mentioned is not necessary. He feels with all of the uses on the site, close to 300 homes, restaurant, fitness center, wedding venue, etc., the traffic count will increase 10, 20 or even 30%. The events held at this location will be very hard on the community surrounding it. There are a lot of Villa lots and it seems that there is an exception being asked for with almost all of them. Lot sizes are being asked to be smaller, setbacks reduced, larger garages and less impervious surface. All of these things seem to be counterproductive for what the City should be looking for. He feels that to meet City requirements, they should reduce the density and they could easily meet the standards. Jim Voeller, 11314 12th Street N, it is hard to stay on top of this development as it continues to change. He does not like the trail that goes to the northern of the existing neighborhoods. He does not see the benefit of it with people running along their 11 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 backyards. The City has agreed to sewer and do all of these extra things. When is the City going to say no to something? He feels the answer to the cottages should be no. He feels that this development is totally inconsistent with the neighborhood. It seems that the City is too willing to give the developer everything that they want. He feels that if the golf course would not have been a part of this, the development would have been done as an open space development as 18 units per 40 acres. Even if the golf course property was included as an open space development, there would have been 200 houses vs 300 houses. Voeller feels that the neighbors are not being listened to as there was a petition signed by 160 neighbors that were not in favor of the density here. Ellen Johnson, 11050 14th Street, board member for Homestead community. Her neighborhood feels that having the trail so close to their neighborhood infringes on their privacy. Their neighborhood is currently in negotiations with the developer to provide a custom shielding. They have an agreement in spirit, but would like it in writing so it is clear. They are wondering if the neighbors will have access to Royal Golf if the shielding isn’t adequate and they want to add to it. Dana Smith, 2121 Legion Lane N, he likes the forest management and the fact that about 60% of the trees are being preserved. He likes the idea of reducing the speed limit on 20th Street to 30 mph because the safety of bikers and walkers is a big concern. All of the deviations stem from the number of units being put in. He feels that if the number of units are reduced, the deviations would be fewer. He is not sure why the density discussion has been abandoned. He feels that the safety of 20 th street is very important and he feels that the developer saying that they have done the best that they can is not good enough. He is concerned about the light pollution from the lights. He is wondering if there are regulations surrounding lighting. Mary Leslie, 11546 20th Street, her husband negotiated the original purchase agreement with the original property owner when 3M purchased the property. She is very concerned with how steep the banks are on 20 th Street and the fog that is on the road from Lake Elmo Lake. She feels with the intensity of the things going in at Tartan Park, the speed limit should be reduced. She is concerned about the water and the ponding. Public Hearing closed at 11:53 pm Dorchner is still not clear why the golf course needs to be rezoned. Wensman stated that it is currently public facilities. If it stays that way, there would be no development and the comprehensive plan approved by the City Council guides it for a golf course community zoning. Dorschner stated that when they approved the golf course community zoning he did not understand that to be adding all of the commercial type uses such as the clubhouse, rental units, restaurant and the fitness center. Williams stated that as much as he is opposed to this development, the City Council has decided on the direction and this proposal meets the GCC zoning. 12 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 M/S/P: Lundquist/Larson, move to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Royal Golf Course Development properties from PF-Public Facilities to GCC-Golf Course Community based on the findings identified in the staff report, and changing the finding on page 19 to say “that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive plan approved by the City”, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add condition #35 that a sidewalk be constructed along the south side of 20th Street from what is labeled street E, West to Lake Elmo Ave, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Lundquist was going to make a proposal or finding of fact that we do a little more work on 20th Street as it doesn’t have any shoulders on either side. In all the public hearings, people talk about the safety on 20th Street with current traffic, let alone adding more to it. Dodson feels that the sidewalk is needed to get to the Park Preserve. M/S/P: Lundquist/Larson, move to add finding of fact #9 that there has been a significant amount of testimony that 20th Street is already dangerous because it has no shoulders and poor line of site without any additional traffic and the City and developer need to explore ways to make the road safer, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move that the Royal Golf Development will not have any street lighting, except at street intersections and that there be a photometric analysis to ensure that any current lights in the parking lot meet the dark sky ordinance, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams asked about the photometric analysis of the parking lot near the clubhouse. Wensman stated that they are not making any changes. The position of the City is that any intensification would require a CUP amendment. Wensman stated the current City code does not require lighting, but there are standards for when they are placed. This might be a topic that the Planning Commission looks at in the future. Packer stated that they do not have a strong feeling one way or the other in regards to street lights. They would like to see the street lights at intersections for safety however. M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to add condition #36 that the developer work with all adjacent properties to get an agreement for shielding in place for screening and that it be incorporated into the final landscape plan, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams stated that there was testimony from a West Lakeland resident that there was not adequate screening and it is not shown on the plan for the Eastern border. Packer stated that there is an email agreement with the resident for a septic and landscaping agreement. Schroeder stated that the person that spoke regarding not having adequate screening, actually lives across Manning Trail and is not actually an adjacent property owner. 13 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 Dodson wanted to discuss the forest management proposal. Wensman stated that one of the builders for the development is proposing different lot lines for the eastern portion of the development. Wensman stated that staff would like to review this and bring it back to the Planning Commission in the future. The developer is requ esting that this be tabled to the next meeting to give staff time to review the changes with revised plans. The forest management discussion can also be brought forward at that meeting. There was some discussion regarding the irregular shaped lots. Williams wanted to comment on the number of units for the development and the fact that the time has passed to try to lower the number. Dodson is wondering if the trail in outlot “T” can be re-routed to go along the new homes of the development. Packer stated that there are wetland buffers that do not allow trails and there is a retention basin. There is no way to get a trail closer to those homes. M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to postpone consideration of the preliminary plat and PUD plans until the next meeting, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Wensman asked about the forest management plan. Williams stated that buckthorn is a big concern of his. Hartley stated that it should be a continuing effort and not a one shot deal and there should be some assurance that the woodlands is preserved. Williams reminded everyone to bring all of the data for Royal Golf to the next meeting for Royal Golf so that the City doesn’t have to reproduce it. City Council Updates – March 7, 2017 Meeting i) Hammes Estates 2nd Addition Final Plat Extension –Passed ii) Approve SHC Comp Plan Update Agreement – Passed iii) Shoreland Management Overlay District Ordinance Amendment – Passed iv) Planning Commission Appointment – Terry Emerson 2nd Alternate Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. March 27, 2017 i. Comp Plan Amendment hearing for Tri-Lakes MUSA ii. VMX rezoning hearing iii. Possibly Hidden Meadows Final Plat b. April 10, 2017 2. MAC CEP Report Commission Concerns 14 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-13-17 Dodson is concerned that the commercial code was not adequate for the commercial development that was brought forward tonight. He is concerned with the number of PUD’s that keep coming forward. Wensman stated that once the PUD ordinance is in place it will be easier and is a tool that is used to make development better. Dodson mentioned that another thing that was not talked about with Royal Golf was the use of golf carts. He is in favor of the use of golf carts in this development. Wensman stated that it would be an ordinance amendment. Lundquist is wondering if the City Engineer works with a hydrologist. Wensman stated that they work with Valley Branch which is probably a hydrologist. Goose Lake is filling up and probably can’t take much more. Meeting adjourned at 12:47 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant