HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 04-10-17Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of April 10, 2017
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dorschner, Fields, Kreimer, Dodson, Emerson, Williams,
Lundquist and Hartley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman, City Planner Becker and City Engineer
Griffin
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to approve the agenda as amended, adding a 5c for a
condition for buckthorn management for Royal Golf , Vote: 7-0, motion carried,
unanimously.
Approve Minutes: March 27, 2017
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to approve the March 27, 2017 minutes as amended,
Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Easement Vacation – Bremer Bank 8555 Eagle Point Blvd
Becker started her presentation regarding the request for a vacation for two public
easements. The first request is to vacate an existing D & U for a stormwater facility
easement to be relocated to allow for expansion of the existing building. The second
easement to be vacated is along the property line (to be replaced), to allow for
combination of three parcels. The City Attorney and the County have been consulted
and it is ok to combine a platted lot with outlots. There is one condition being
recommended that the applicant shall record replacement easements as approved by
the City Engineer.
Dorschner asked if this approval secures the other necessary easements. Becker stated
that it does through the condition of approval.
Public Hearing opened at 7:10 pm
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
There were no written comments and no one spoke
Public Hearing closed at 7:10 pm
Dodson is wondering why there are two separate motions being recommended. Becker
stated that there would not need to be two separate motions, but two motions clarify
what is being vacated.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to recommend the approval of the vacation of the
easement described as south 5.00 feet Lot 1 Block 1, Eagle Point Business Park 3 rd
Addition and also the easement as shown in Doc. No. 1208614, subject to replacement
easements, as approved by the City Engineer being recorded, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – VMX Zoning District
Becker started her presentation by talking about some of the updates from the last
meeting. The Commission wanted to add a definition for Mixed Use. Staff does not
recommend adding. It does not fit broadly into code and is specific to the VMX district.
Staff added additional density standards using the language from the Comprehensive
Plan for senior congregate care facilities up to 16 units per acre with CUP. The garage
setback of 25 feet was added to Table 11-2, rather than the text. Standards for V-MDR
were not added because the existing LDR zoning district can be used for areas guided as
V-MDR. Setbacks for properties abutting County roads were added for consideration by
the Commission.
The issue of single family homes in the VMX needs to be resolved. Existing single family
homes should be non-conforming, or permitted uses. If permitted, the City would need
to allow both existing and new single family homes in this district. The current
Comprehensive Plan language does not mention detached single family homes as
allowed uses in the VMX district, except for those existing. The minimum lot size for
single family homes in VMX is currently 5000 sf, but staff is proposing to change that to
9000 sf to prevent an influx of property splits. The minimum lot width is proposed to
change from 50 ft. to 70 ft. to mirror V-LDR standards.
There was a discussion at the last meeting regarding conditional and permitted uses in
the VMX district. The Commission should specifically outline which uses are of concern
and discuss. New housing type mixture requirement was copied from the MDR
standards for multi-family and two family dwelling units. Staff is recommending striking
this. There was concern at the last meeting regarding veterinary services, so standards
were added to limit services to small domestic pets.
Lundquist asked about the single family housing not being in the Comprehensive Plan.
Becker stated that the issue can be addressed with the Comprehensive Plan update
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
currently being worked on. Williams thinks that single family should be included as a
permitted use in the table for VMX. Wensman stated that he believes this is the right
way to go as you cannot have permitted existing single family without allowing
permitted new single family. Dorschner thinks that it should be conditional because
they are talking about downtown. He does not feel that the vision for downtown is
single family homes, but is commercial. Williams does not recall discussing finding
number 4 in the staff report that states the Planning Commission is interested in
exploring increased densities within the Old Village as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. There was discussion about if the VMX needs more density to
attract commercial development. Williams is wondering if it would make sense to
increase the single family attached lot area since the single family detached lot area was
increased to 9000 sf. Becker stated that by leaving it the same, it would encourage
more density. The LDR, Urban Low Density Residential minimum lot size is 8000 sf.
Williams is wondering why a parking facility is only allowed as an accessory use and not
as a principle use. Becker stated that it is allowed as a principal use, but is a conditional
use.
Williams asked about the City Attorney’s recommendation to strike 5b for
redevelopment projects. He doesn’t see how that is infringing on someone’s rights.
Wensman stated that it makes sense if someone buys up the whole block, but not if
there is partial redevelopment. Hartley thinks that they need to decide if it is ok for one
type of housing to be on a single street.
Williams is wondering about on page 9 (5d) if “except on a permitted driveway” should
be added. There was some discussion about structured parking on the ground level and
what that should look like.
Wensman brought up setbacks from County roads. The VMX code states that the
setback is 10 feet from the right of way. Wensman is wondering if the setback should
be greater on County roads as there is greater potential for road expansion. The County
thinks it is too small.
Williams does not understand why a definition for mixed use would cause a problem in
other parts of the code. Wensman stated that they looked extensively through other
codes, and they did not find any definitions of it. Becker stat ed that the VMX already
states that it allows 2 principal uses. It also describes the district and its intent in the
Purpose and District Description. Williams stated that he still doesn’t understand why
having a definition will cause issues. Wensman stated that mixed use can be vertical or
horizontal. Vertical would be a mixed use on the same lot, while horizontal would be a
mixed use development, like Inwood. Staff could not find an applicable definition and
did not feel that one was necessary and it may actually create other unforeseen issues.
Public Hearing opened at 8:03 pm
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
No one spoke and there were no written comments
Public Hearing closed at 8:03 pm
Dodson thinks the minimum lot size for single family detached should be 8000 sf to
match the LDR. Becker stated that the 9000 sf came from the 70 ft. width calculation.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, move to change single family detached from a conditional use
to permitted use in the VMX zoning district, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Dorschner thinks that there are some areas in VMX that single family should be
permitted and some areas where it should be conditional, but he isn’t sure how that
would be handled, but he is afraid there may be some unintended consequences.
Dodson feels that a comprehensive plan amendment needs to be done to get the
wording right and to avoid spot zoning.
Dorschner feels that a conditional use permit gives the City a little more control.
Williams feels that if there is a conditional use permit, there should be some basis for
which to approve or deny. Dorschner feels that there are parts of the VMX that it is
appropriate, but in the downtown proper from north of the tracks to old Hwy 5, it
probably would not be. Dodson is wondering if possibly the number of businesses that
surround the property could be the criteria. Fields agrees that in areas that have
potential to develop as commercial, having single family detached as permitted could
disrupt the development pattern. He feels having it conditional gives the opportunity to
evaluate the development pattern. Hartley is wondering how to develop the standards
without it sounding arbitrary.
Wensman stated the problem is that they are talking about allowing single family
detached, but don’t really want them everywhere. He suggested maybe the way to
manage it is to have a sub district. Williams agrees with Dorschner’s concern, but feels
there needs to be some basis to limit the new single family detached. Williams feels
that from the City’s point of view, the safest way to handle this is to make the single
family detached a legal non-conforming use. Dorschner feels that they need to go with
what their vision is and that would be to make the single family detached a legal non -
conforming use.
Becker stated that if the existing single family homes wanted to expand, the City would
not be able to grant the variance as it is a use variance. Lundquist stated that the
residents in this area should not be penalized by what is adopted. Becker stated that at
this point, for the short-term, they are not proposing to rezone the properties that
currently have single family homes on them to VMX. However, if a property owner
wanted to develop their property to VMX, they could ask for a rezoning at that time.
Dorschner stated that he doesn’t want to penalize the existing residents, but by
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
rezoning their property to VMX, they have more opportunities for their property and it
increases the property value.
Williams is wondering if it should be left in as a conditional use and a finding be made
that the standards need further work. Wensman would like this issue to be tabled until
further research can be done. Dodson is wondering if there is any case law in regards to
this and if the City Attorney can weigh in on this. Wensman stated that staff can consult
with the City Attorney.
M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to reconsider the motion to change single family
detached from a conditional use to permitted use in the VMX zoning district, and that
the motion be rescinded with the intent to discuss further at a future meeting, Vote: 7-
0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to substitute on page 9 (5b) “proposed development”
for “developed block”, Williams withdrew motion.
Hartley is wondering how the wording would work for one lot. Dodson is wondering
what the intent of this. Williams stated it is to encourage diversity on the block, but not
to completely change the character of that area and to preserve the mix. Kriemer
stated that he is in favor of removing the paragraph all together and Dodson agrees.
Wensman asked the commission how they would feel if someone came in and took out
a whole block of commercial and put in all townhouses. Fields stated that could be a
real possibility based on demand.
Dorschner stated that he feels the VMX is a good idea, but is hard to implement in this
area. He feels that they are kind of missing a business district. Williams thinks that
during the Comp plan update, they need to look at what the vision for downtown should
be.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to change the wording on page 11 (8) the first sentence
to say that “structured parking is permitted within a mixed -use building, provided that
the entrance is located on side or rear facades, not facing the primary abutting street”,
and striking the last sentence that says “The primary street façade may include an
entrance into the parking facility”, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to change Page 13 (3) (a) (i) to say “the front façade of a
garage shall be offset from that of a principle structure by a minimum of two feet from
the public right of way”, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Wensman asked about the request from the County to have a larger setback than the
current 10 feet to a county road. Dorschner is not in favor as there are already some
properties such as Arbor Glen at the 10 feet. Williams doesn’t understand why the
County wants a larger setback. Wensman stated that typically County roads are at
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
higher speeds which creates noise and other issues. Lundquist stated it is also for public
safety such as if a car went off the road. Hartley stated that the other reason would be
that it gives them another 60 feet so that if the road needs to be widened to four lanes,
they have the right of way. There was no interest from the Commission to change the
setback from 10 feet from County roads.
Williams would like to change footnote (g) on page 7 to differentiat e county 17 south of
CSAH 14 vs north of CSAH 14. Williams would like more information from the County on
why they want the greater setback.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to postpone further consideration of VMX until they
get further information on the items talked about, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to move the Engineering and landscape standards item
before the solar energy systems as the City Engineer is in attendance for that item,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Engineering & Landscape Standards
Wensman started his presentation by stating that staff is looking for a recommendation
for the Engineering & Landscaping design details and specifications. The purpose is to
set minimum requirements for all public infrastructure projects in the City with the
intent of constructing consistent and compatible infrastructure systems throughout the
City. Staff is suggesting to have a separate section specific to landscape and irrigation
standards vs having them be part of the engineering design and construction standards.
Engineering design standards and specifications will include having electronic plans
required, reference to benchmark system removed, lot corner elevations required and
the record drawing requirements clarified. There are many areas that are clarified such
as the street width, minimum tangent length for intersections, collector street right-of-
way width, and sign post standards changed per direction of PW.
Griffin stated that many of these updates, the City is already doing in practice. As
development happens, standards evolve as circumstances arise. Staff uses the
standards, but they are only formally updated every 2 years.
Dodson asked about the street light standards. It seems like the developers are
assuming that since street lighting is in the Engineering standards that they have to be
put in. Is there a way to specify that it is not required? Griffin stated that there is a
difference between what is in a standard and what is in an ordinance. The ordinance
would determine where or when things are done, while the design standards are if it is
done, this is how it will be built. Dodson stated that he would like to see less lighting
within developments and feels that there should be something in the design standards
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
to discourage lighting. Griffin stated that when street lighting is put into a development,
Xcel actually is the entity that decides where the lights will go. If the City wanted to say
where lights are to be located and the spacing, the City should specify that in the
standards. Williams is wondering if it would be appropriate to have different districts
and have standards for each district. Such as district 1 has no street lights, district 2 has
street lights only at intersections and district 3 has street lights throughout the
development. That way the City could determine through conditions what type of
lighting the development should have. Griffin stated that might be a good way to give
high level guidance to a developer. Emerson is wondering if Xcel would baulk at the
idea of putting street lights only at intersections. Griffin doesn’t think so.
Dodson asked if the irrigation standards are in the Engineering design and construction
standards manual. Griffin stated that the detail of the service line is in the engineering
standards and then it refers to the landscape plan for the details of the landscape meter
and specific details. Hartley asked about the issue that landscaping hadn’t been
handled properly in the past. Wensman stated that the water meter and service
location need to be on the landscape plans. In the past, that wasn’t a requirement so
they were not necessarily located properly.
Wensman stated that in the landscape standards, there is a recommended and required
section. By putting in a recommended section, they are hoping that developers will go
beyond what is required. Standard notes were cleaned up and made more usable and it
recognizes the bee safe policy. The tree standards were refined and addressed more of
the issues. Hartley doesn’t see where the root flare is addressed for planting a tree.
Wensman believes it is addressed and is one of the most problematic things they have
seen in the field. Hartley thinks it might be worthwhile to draw specific attention to it.
There are standards for trees and shrubs on slopes. The biggest thing would be the
irrigation details and the interface between public and private systems.
Dodson would like staff to research what the best mechanism would be to deal with the
issue of street lighting in different developments and possibly having various zones.
Wensman stated that staff felt that it was not necessary to have a policy regarding
street lighting. Dodson wants to see the City try to minimize the street lighting and
would like to see no lighting in residential developments. Williams would like there to
be guidelines in regards to street lights so that the Commission does not need to decide
each time. Dodson likes the idea of the zones so that in different locations, you could
have different lighting. Griffin stated that the lighting requirements would only come
into play on higher level streets vs. neighborhood streets.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to recommend approval of the March 2017 revision to
the Engineering Design and Construction Standards Manual, and adding a condition of
approval that staff look into proposing a lighting ordinance and/or engineering standard
for residential districts with the intent to minimize lighting, Vote: 6-1, motion carried,
with Hartley voting no. Hartley voting no because he feels the engineering standards
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
should stand as they are. He feels the lighting standards should be addressed via
ordinance in the zoning code.
Dorschner has the same kinds of concerns regarding Landscaping that Dodson has with
lighting. Dorschner would like to see the use of water and irri gation minimized. He is
not sure how that should be formulated. Wensman stated that they are re -evaluating
what the options there are to mitigate the use of water and irrigation. Staff is looking
at no mow turf, and salt tolerant turf. Dorschner want s the landscape standard to spell
out that they need to be plants that need no water or minimal watering or even rocks
and shrubs that would need no pesticides or fertilizers. Wensman stated there were
some things they could do with the landscape ordinance to encourage this or even
provide some incentives.
M/S/P: Dodson/Fields, move to recommend that staff look into minimizing the use of
water, irrigation, herbicide and pesticides in the landscape ordinance : Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Landscape Design
Standard Details and Specifications: Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment – Solar Energy Systems
Becker started her presentation regarding the solar energy systems. Changes from the
last meeting include exemptions for size, different standards for rooftop vs ground
mount, standards for solar farms, definition for off-grid, language about reflectors
clarified, and restrictions on HOA documents forbidding solar energy systems.
Dodson asked how the decommissioning would be enforced. Becker stated that a plan
might be required dependent on how large of a system it is. Becker stated it would be
enforced like any other nuisance complaint.
Williams wants the word wholesale deleted from the solar farm definition. Kreimer
asked if the Commission wanted a size exemption. The Commission felt 6 sf was a
reasonable exemption. Kreimer asked why they were saying a homeowners association
can’t forbid solar energy systems, he feels it should be up to them. Dorschner thinks the
rationale is that the City should want to promote clean energy.
Williams thinks they should be talking about ground mount and building mount vs roof
mount as a roof would not be the only place that solar could be mounted. Kreimer
asked what zoning districts the Commission feels the solar farms should be allowed in.
Williams suggested AG and Rural Districts only. Dodson asked if there is a limit on the
size of a solar farm. Becker stated that no size has been suggested. It is currently a CUP,
but if they wanted minimum acreage and maximum size, they would need to put
standards on it. There was discussion around if solar farms should be considered
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
commercial and only allowed on commercial property or if they should be allowed in
other areas. The Commission discussed if there should be a 10 acre minimum. They
also discussed if the city would allow a solar farm to be a principle use. Kreimer is
wondering if the farm should be restricted to a certain percentage of the property like
maybe 25%. Wensman asked if the solar farm was the principal use, what would be the
front and side yard setbacks. Williams thinks there should be a greater setback if it is
more of a commercial use next to a residential use.
Williams wanted to talk about the condition of buckthorn control for the Royal Golf.
There was a condition that in return for relaxing the tree replacement ordinance by
50%, Royal Golf would initiate a program for Buckthorn control.
M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to add to the existing condition the following sentence
“the applicant shall present a buckthorn control plan for approval by the City landscape
consultant who shall report at least once a year to the Planning Commission and City
Council on the plans progress and effectiveness”, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Emerson feels it is throwing away a lot of money because he doesn’t feel that the
residents are going to continue it.
City Council Updates – April 4, 2017 Meeting
i) Inwood 5th Addition Final Plat and PUD Plans – approved
ii) Approve Comp Plan Amendment to City’s Wastewater facilities - approved
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. April 24, 2017
b. May 8, 2017
2. MAC CEP Report
Commission Concerns
Williams is still uncomfortable not having a definition of mixed use. He doesn’t
understand why other Cities do not have it. Wensman stated that each use has its own
definition and if it is a mixed use, it combines more than one use. Williams would like to
see a definition.
Meeting adjourned at 10:35 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-10-17
Planning Program Assistant