HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 03-27-17Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of March 27, 2017
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Larson, Dorschner, Emerson, Williams, Lundquist and
Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Fields, Kreimer and Dodson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman and City Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: March 13, 2017
M/S/P: Lundquist/Dorschner, move to approve the March 13, 2017 minutes as
amended, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – General Business to Village Mixed Use
Wensman started his presentation regarding the rezoning of properties from GB to
VMX. Since 2013, there have only been 3 properties rezoned to VMX based on
applications received by the City. In 2016, the Planning Commission discussed rezoning
all of the properties to VMX, but tabled it for the following reasons 1) densities within
this area are guided too high 2) VMX standards are less restrictive 3) form based code
should be created 4) updated population and development projections for area needed.
The rational for the rezoning is to bring the subject perperties’ land use consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Without the rezoning at this tiem, many improvements to
these properties would require owners to rezone to VMX and obtain variances.
Wensman went through the differences between GB and VMX such as lot width, lot
area and impervious surface maximum. There are 83 parcels currently zoned general
business. There are some parcels that are guided RS that are guided for VMX and there
are a number of parcels zoned RS being used for business, not single family homes. The
residential properties being used for business were not noticed, but should be included
in this rezoning. Re-publication of the public hearing to include these properties would
be needed. The properties that are guided for VMX, but currently used as single family
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
residences, staff is not recommending rezoning at this time. Staff feels that single
family residences should be an allowed use in the VMX. If that is the case, thos e
existing single family homes could be rezoned to VMX as it would have no impact on
them. New and existing homes should be treated the same.
Hartley is wondering why there is long list of condition uses as part of the VMX district.
Wensman stated it is the choice of the City Council to decide what is permitted and
conditional. Some uses are conditional to allow greater scrutiny of those uses. In the
Village, the lots and structures are very close to each other, so there could be uses that
should have greater scrutiny with conditions put in place to mitigate unforeseen
situations. Hartley thinks the veterinary services should be more specific to small
animals, not large animal services.
Wensman stated that if there are specific changes to the code, that code be discussed
through the public hearing for the zoning. Williams is wondering if the City Council
responded to the June Planning Commission request for updated population projections
for the Village area. Wensman stated that they did not specifically respond. They have
now launched into the Comprehensive Plan process and it will be addressed through the
process. Williams is asking if there were 2 houses fairly far apart on existing lots, could
they then subdivide and build another house. Wensman thinks there are greater
requirements for single family homes, but he will look at it. Williams asked about the
status of the form based code. Wensman stated that with the Comprehensive Plan
update, the priority for form based code was lowered. Emerson asked how many single
family homes would be affected if they change them to VMX. Wensman thought maybe
around 30 properties. Williams asked what the downside would be of those properties
being legal non-conforming. Wensman stated if the home burned down, they could
only rebuild on the footprint and would not be able to expand without a variance.
Williams is wondering about making single family homes conditional uses. Wensman
stated that might be a good solution.
Public Hearing opened at 7:32 pm
Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street, she would like the Commission to really think about
what things should be conditional uses. She is concerned about surface water and
impervious surface. She thinks the VMX could possibly add an additional 10,000 people
in the Village Area. She is concerned about the existing businesses. She thinks single
family homes are important to the Village Area. She thinks it is important to know what
the projections are for 2040 and how close we are to meeting those projections.
There is also a huge section to the East that is considered part of the Village area.
There were no written comments
M/S/P: Dorschner/Williams, move to continue the public hearing for the Zoning Map
Amendment Discussion to rezone properties to VMX – Village Mixed Use to the next
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
possible meeting in order to properly notice the public hearing to include the additional
properties in the Zoning Map Amendment, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add 2 properties to RSF Sewered
Wensman started his presentation regarding adding 2 properties to the Olson Lake Trail
sewer area and re-guiding them to Rural Single Family sewered. This would add 4497 &
4473 Olson Lake Trail to the MUSA. The feedback from the Met Council is that it would
just be an administrative review and would be similar to what was done in the Village to
add additional properties. This does not require any jurisdict ional review as we have a
joint powers agreement with Oakdale. We have not received any comments from the
public notice sent out and advertised.
Dorschner asked what the Oakdale capacity would be for hooking up the rest of the
properties around Olson Lake on that road. Wensman stated that they are not in the
MUSA so there has been no talk about Oakdale picking them up. Wensman stated that
they do not know, because there is no plan for it and the property owners are not
requesting it. Handt stated that the Engineers did reach out to neighboring properties
to see if they wanted to be included, and these were the only 2 properties interested in
being included.
Williams is wondering if there is a Zoning Text that is actually rural single family
sewered. Wensman stated that the City does not have that specific zoning, but it is
probably something that could be created. Wensman stated that there really is no
problem leaving them as Rural Single Family zoning, but the change to the land use
designation was something the City Council was interested in to distinguish those
properties within the MUSA. Met Council was only concerned with land use designation
in the Comprehensive Plan allowing for sewer connection.
Emerson is wondering if they would move the MUSA line without the property owners
asking for it. Wensman stated that the City has not required properties to be sewered
unless the property owner has petitioned for it and signed a waiver.
Public Hearing opened at 7:44 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments
Public Hearing closed at 7:45 pm
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the amendment to the
City’s Wastewater Facilities Plan by adding PID #’s 090292132001 & 080292140059 to
the Olson Lake Trail MUSA, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
Hartley stated that they are adding these properties because they specifically requested
it. Looking at the map, there are potentially 4-5 properties that would seem to fit the
same characteristics of the other properties and why they requested it. Why is the City
not adding those properties? Williams stated it is because they did not request it and
according to Handt, they actively declined by not responding. Wensman stated that
there was one additional parcel that was thinking about it, but after further discussion
with the Engineer, they declined. Dorschner is wondering if we have the means through
the MUSA to require connection. Wensman stated that with the joint powers with
Oakdale, we have the means to connect these properties. Dorschner is conc erned that
properties along the lake are still on old septic systems and what that means for the
future. Hartley stated that he is concerned because the City does not have a very good
mechanism to catch when drainfield fail and so we end up with even one house
affecting the Lake. Handt stated that most septic problems are caught when the
properties are sold or a building permit is issued. Williams stated that the same logic for
the additional properties could be applied to the whole Tri-Lakes area. If the MUSA was
opened up to the whole Tri-Lakes area, there would be numerous people speaking
against it. Wensman stated that there are a number of 201 septic systems in this area
that have been created to deal with some of the failing septic systems.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment re-guiding PID #’s 090292132001 & 080292140059 to Rural Single Family
Sewered on the City’s Land Use Plan, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Dorschner wanted to confirm that there was no Rural Single Family Sewered zoning.
Handt stated that there was not, but this is just guiding it as such in the Comprehensive
Plan. Hartley wanted to reinforce his concern from the standpoint of the
Comprehensive Plan, they do not have the potential pollution issues under control for
all of these properties that have individual septic systems and the inspection of them
comes well after the fact that they have failed. Williams doesn’t disagree, but doesn’t
feel that it will change anytime soon as he has heard the same discussion for 40 years.
Business Item –Preliminary Plat and PUD Plans - Royal Golf
Wensman started his presentation by stating that the Planning Commission approved
the rezoning to GCC on 3/13/17 and tabled the approval for the Preliminary Plan and
Preliminary PUD Plans. At the last meeting, the developer was proposing some changes
to the NW neighborhood. They have withdrawn those changes at this time. The
Planning Commission requested addition information on forest management , but the
developer is no longer interested in doing that. The developer has indicated he will
comply with the tree replacement requirements, but there is still dispute as to whether
the project is a mixed use. Since 3/13, the VBWD has raised concerns regarding some of
the infiltration basins. The developer is working through those issues and is confident
there are adequate solutions that will not impact the plat. Staff has slightly modified
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
the condition pertaining to VBWD approval. Staff added a missing condition that the
green corridor in the NW neighborhood be a minimum of 100’ wide outside of the lot
area. Right now there is one area that is shown at 84’ with one of the lot lines.
Staff is recommending the same conditions with some corrections and additions. A
correction to #15, correcting the Lots and Block it pertained to. Condition #20 pertains
to the woodland management. It doesn’t hurt to keep that condition if the developer
changes his mind, but it is up to the Planning Commission how to handle that. Condition
#24 was reworded to make it clearer. #35 was added to capture the 100’ green
corridor. #36, #37 & #38 are the 3 conditions added by the Planning Commission
regarding the sidewalk along the South side of 20 th street and that there would be no
street lights except at street intersections to meet the dark sky ordinance and to work
with adjacent property owners to come up with screening that gets incorporated into
the landscape plans. The recommended findings are the same with the addition of #9
that a significant amount of public testimony regarding that 20 th street is already
dangerous without the additional traffic and the developer needs to explore ways to
make the road safer. Staff is recommending approval with 38 conditions of approval
and the 9 findings identified.
Dorschner asked what the dispute is around mixed use. Wensman stated that the tree
preservation plan has a provision that requires mitigation as well as landscape
requirements for residential development. For commercial and mixed use
developments there is an exception that all trees with the exception of ornamental
trees may be counted towards tree replacement requirements. The developer is saying
that this site is mixed use with the golf course being the commercial piece. They are
arguing that it the case so that all of the replacement trees will count towards their
landscaping requirements. Staff is saying that the golf course is the principle use; open
space. It was a public facility in the past and it had an accessory commercial use, which
is not the primary use. They will be creating a separate parcel for the more commercial
site, and possibly that could be exempted, but exempting the whole golf course is not
consistent with past practice and the City attorney does not support the mixed use
interpretation. Wensman stated the difference would be a large cost to the developer
in tree replacement or a significant loss of trees for the City. Staffs solution for this was
the idea of forest management to better serve the development. The develo per likes
the tree preservation better because it is more quantifiable vs the forest management
which is kind of a gray area.
Rick Packer, Royal Golf, stated that the attorneys were discussing the mixed use concept
and they had hoped that they could come to a compromise. They did not feel that the
forest management was a compromise, but an exchange for the tree preservation
requirement. The Royal Golf attorney opinion is that this development is mixed use.
There is economic incentive that the City has provided to commercial development.
There is currently no definition of mixed use in the City code. In the absence of a
definition, those terms are supposed to be given their plan and ordinary meaning. The
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
Royal Golf Community has 4 different types of uses on the property. There is
residential, business services, food service and outdoor recreation. They feel that the
golf course is clearly a commercial use. This is a wooded site vs a cornfield, so the
number is really large. There are 8500 trees on this site, with about 3000 trees being
removed. They are allowed to remove roughly 2500 trees or 30%. They are removing
about 35% or 418 trees more than what is allowed. Based on the City code without the
mixed use exemption, they would need to plant 3024 trees or 10 trees per lot. Packer
states it would cost them $1.5 million dollars for trees alone. They had proposed 900
trees or 3 trees per lot. Packer stated that staff rejected that as there was no way for
them to inspect them. They are planting 214 trees that are ornamental which do not
count either. They feel that they legally qualify for a mixed use and should get the
exemption. They were looking for some compromise that they did not get.
Royal Golf is proposing to construct a wide shoulder between Street E and Lake Elmo
Ave vs a trail on 20th Street that has no shoulders. There is a significant grade change
where the trail would need to go and a loss of trees. They would argue that it would be
better served with adding a shoulder to the road that is wide enough to walk and bike
on. Packer talked about the alternate Villa design and would like that to move forward
to the City Council. There is one driveway that is in the sanitary sewer easement which
is a concern to the city engineer. They can enter something into documents recorded
against the property. Packer stated that this plan has one less unit than proposed with
plat, but is essentially the same grading plan.
Lundquist asked why the proposed sidewalk on 20th only goes just past the clubhouse.
Packer stated that there are places that are very steep and would be very disruptive to
that area. Williams asked why the City would not accept the sidewalk within the ROW.
Wensman stated that MSA standards would require the sidewalk t o be located on the
outer edge of the ROW.
Larson asked what the status of the tree replacement is. Wensman stated that there is
the landscape requirement and the street tree requirement. The City is going the more
lenient interpretation, requiring landscaping based on the disturbed area calculation.
Street trees will go in with the road when the improvement goes in. In terms of the
development trees with 4 trees going in with the home, as long as the City has escrow
to ensure the trees go in, the timing isn’t as important. There is a difference between
the developer and the City of approximately 1000 trees. That difference hinges on the
Mixed Use issue as the City and developer have failed to come to a compromise.
Williams asked if they are opposed to any forest management in exchange for relief of
the tree replacement. Packer stated that there is no compromise if it is dollar for dollar
exchange they would not be interested. Williams stated that he is willing to relax the
tree replacement provisions from 1000 to 500 in return for a program of buckthorn
removal for 3 years after construction has started. Hartley thinks that it is problematic
as it is not just the individual home owners. Dorschner stated that buckthorn is very
difficult to manage and is good screening. Hartley feels that the City is better off having
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
new trees vs a management plan based on the possible tree diseases. Emerson feels
that the uses out there are mixed use and that is what they need to decide. Williams
feels that they need to go with the City Attorney’s opinion on that issue, but also feels
that there should be some relaxation of the number of trees with buckthorn removal.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to add an additional condition that the tree
replacement requirement based on residential use be relaxed by 50% in return for the
developer controlling buckthorn by cutting stems and treating the remaining stumps by
either physical pulling or by herbicide application for a period of three years beyond the
date for which construction begins for the adjacent phase, Vote: 4-2, motion carried
with Hartley and Dorschner voting no.
Wensman stated that this motion would replace condition #20 in the packet. Dorschner
asked how many trees this would leave them to replace. Half would be around 500.
Dorschner feels there would be more value in trees vs. the forest management. He
feels the real issue is the mixed use interpretation vs. residential, but feels they need to
go with the attorney’s opinion. Jim Felton talked about what they did for the wildlife
corridor and what was required by the VBWD. His estimate of cost for what they have
done is about 50K.
Dorschner inquired about developer talking to property owners on the East side
regarding screening.
Williams doesn’t believe there are any West Lakeland properties that they need to be
concerned about in regards to screening. Packer stated that they have an agreement
with the Homestead development. Williams feels that the City should allow the golf
carts on the streets for the GCC. Wensman stated that a separate ordinance would be
required that is not part of the zoning code. They could recommend that staff bring one
forward. Hartley stated that personally he is not in favor of the golf carts because they
are often driven irresponsibly and rules are not followed. Emerson doesn’t have a
problem with golf carts and maybe an age limit could be put on it. Dorschner was in
Arizona and many of the communities there have them. Larson stated that the golf
carts would have destinations such as the clubhouse, restaurant, etc. Schroeder stated
that they have looked at many ordinances in different cities and they address such
things as age, speed, hours of operation, lights, etc.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to propose an additional finding #10 that the
Planning Commission determines that it would be desirable to allow golf carts on the
public streets within a golf course community, Vote: 5-1, motion carried, with Hartley
voting no.
Williams asked if the Fire Chief commented on the street names. Wensman stated that
the Fire Chief does not like the new street naming policy, and is going to be taking the
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
whole street naming policy back to the public safety committee. This street naming
complies with the current ordinance.
In regards to the street lights, the City Engineer stated that there is no requirement to
have street lights in a development.
Packer is wondering if they have addressed the Villa area. Handt stated that as of
Friday, the developer was pulling that section, but tonight included it in the
presentation. Wensman stated that one clear problem based on their limited review is
the driveway with a storm pipe underneath it which will need to change.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to recommend condition #39 that staff reviews and
approves the new plans presented tonight regarding the Villas and that the developer
complies with all of the staff recommendations, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Larson, move to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plans for the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo with
the 39 conditions based on the 10 findings identified in the staff report and amended by
the Planning Commission, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Village Low Density Residential Zoning
Wensman started his presentation regarding the Village Low Density Residential Zoning.
Since the last meeting, there were density ranges added, the impervious calculation was
added to 35%, struck the maximum setback standard, allows free standing multi-family
dwellings as a CUP to match the comprehensive plan, and clarified the setbacks for
other residential uses. There was a desire at the last meeting to have a build to line
incorporated into the VMX and the staff thinks that they have addressed that by the
prevailing setback of the street to have consistency. If it is a new street, it can be
decided at that time. Wensman went through some of the other standards.
Williams asked about the garage standards and why that need to be called out
specifically. Wensman thinks that it for existing homes that might want to build an
additional garage. There was some information regarding tiny houses and if the City
wants to alter its minimum home size. Wensman thinks more research needs to be
done regarding this for the next meeting. Another consideration is would we want to
have different standards for the urban vs rural areas. There was discussion if the
Planning Commission thinks the VMDR zoning should just use the standards for LDR and
have that reference made in the Comprehensive Plan.
Hartley is wondering how the City determines in the VMX what is a permitted use and
what requires a condition use permit. Wensman stated that there is not a straight
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
criteria that determines if it is permitted vs a CUP. Typically the City makes uses
conditional if it is perceived that the type of use could potentially create issues so the
city wants to put conditions on the use. Williams stated that if there were
recommendations of uses that should be permitted, the Commission could take up that
discussion in the future.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Solar Ordinance
Wensman started his presentation regarding the solar ordinance. Some of the reasons
for a solar ordinance are to protect neighbors from glare, that it meets imperious
surface, area and size requirements and that there is a decommissioning plan. There is
also a solar farm definition, which is not currently outlined in the Zoning Code as
allowed permitted or condition primary use. Where should they be allowed as a
primary use if anywhere? Some of the standards are that it must comply with accessory
structure setback, height, lot coverage, etc. Should solar energy systems be exempt
from certain standards in certain areas? Hartley is wondering if the City wants to add to
the ordinance that an HOA can’t prohibit the use of solar panels. Wensman stated that
would be unusual, but the City could put that restriction on. Currently solar farms are
not allowed as the primary use anywhere, should th ey be? Staff is looking for any other
additional standards that the Commission would like to include.
Hartley thinks a large commercial installation is very different than a residential one. He
also feels that in residential, if it is limited to the rooftop, that is different issue than if it
takes up a whole back yard. Williams suggested a slightly different definition of solar
farm from “wholesale sales” to “offsite customers”. Williams wants “off -grid systems”
defined in the interconnection agreement section. Williams would like to eliminate
“using a reflector to enhance solar production” from the reflectors section. Hartley
stated that the commercial operations are probably the only ones to use reflectors.
Williams is also confused about “screening to the North side of the solar array”. He
thinks they need to look at that. Hartley suggested just striking the word north.
Williams thinks that it needs to be stated that solar panels are considered impervious
for calculations. Emerson doesn’t feel that the whole thing should be considered
impervious. Williams feels that especially in commercial operations, you have
compaction of the soils and it is no longer like a vacant field. There are also access roads
and maintenance to consider. Wensman stated that it is creating a concentrated flow
and runoff. Williams feels that it is easier for the City to manage and not inconsistent
with the codes of other Cities if it is considered impervious. Hartley stated that maybe
the total area could be calculated and 50% is considered impervious.
Williams would like to add a provision that HOA’s and CIC’s are not allowed to prohibit
solar systems. He is wondering if they should add solar systems as an incentive in the
PUD bonus table. Williams asked if these systems would require a city building permit.
Wensman stated that they would because of the footings. Hartley stated that screening
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-27-17
and such would need to be reviewed by the City. Wensman stated that it might not be a
building permit, but a zoning compliance review. Williams stated that there is a
reference to building code in the code requirements section and it should say all rooftop
or building integrated systems. Williams would like to add the words “and/or screened”
to item #7 Visibility to be consistent with other rooftop structures. For storm water
management, Williams would like to add “Watershed Districts requirements”.
City Council Updates – March 21, 2017 Meeting
i) Wildflower 2nd Developer Agreement - passed
ii) Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Concept Plan PUD - passed
iii) Noise Ordinance – on hold
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. April 10, 2017
b. April 24, 2017
2. MAC CEP Report
Commission Concerns
Hartley would like to reinforce the idea that the meetings not be too long and that the
Commission get out at a reasonable hour. If the meeting gets too long, they are not at
their best.
Dorschner wants to finalize the rural single family sewered. Wen sman stated that the
ordinance states that the rural single family should be predominately individual septic,
but does not require it to be so. If they are designated in the comprehensive plan by the
MUSA, it is allowed. Dorschner feels there should be d ifferent standard for when you
are sewered and when you aren’t. Wensman will look at it more detail and report back.
Williams is concerned that there has been nothing done as a City regarding form based
code. He recognizes that it takes a long time, but it just keeps being pushed down the
road. Wensman stated that through the Comp Plan amendment process, the vision will
be reaffirmed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant