Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 05-08-17Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-8-17 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2017 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dorschner, Fields, Larson, Kreimer, Dodson, Emerson, Williams, Lundquist and Hartley COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman Approve Agenda: Accept the agenda as amended adding an item for the Lake Elmo Library. Approve Minutes: April 24, 2017 M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to approve the April 24, 2017 minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Easement Vacation – Southwind Builders Wensman started his presentation regarding a request from Southwind Builders to vacate a public roadway and utility easement from PID #36.029.21.32.0034. Vacation of the easement will allow for development of the property. Public Hearing opened at 7:15 pm There were no written comments and no one spoke Public Hearing closed at 7:15 pm M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the request to vacate a Public Roadway and Utility Easement as recorded by Document Number 3970178, subject to recommended condition of approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – PUD Agreement Amendment for Wildflower at Lake Elmo Development 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-8-17 Wensman started his presentation regarding a request from Robert Engstrom to amend the PUD agreement for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo Development. The requested changes are to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks on some lots from 20 ft. to 10 ft., allow front doors to face the corner side yard, to allow driveway access locations to be more flexible, to reduce the side yard setbacks for conservancy and ridge lots from 15/10ft to 10/5 ft., and to increase the courtyard lots allowed impervious from 50% to 56%. The developer withdrew his request for all items except for allowing driveway access to Sunflower Lane for Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wilflower at Lake Elmo 1 st Addition, the reduction of the rear yard setback for Lot 18, Block 3, Wildflower at Lake Elmo 1st Addition, the increase in impervious surfaces for the courtyard lots from 50% to 56%, and the reduction of the sideyard corner lot setback from 15’ to 10’ for two lots in phase 3 of the preliminary plat, Lots 108 and 115. Wensman explained that there was no need for approval for the entrance to be located on the side yard setback, as it is not prohibited in the Code. Public Hearing opened at 8:14 pm Rich Smith, 11456 Blazingstar Lane, asked about the Park in Wildflower and if they are open to all residents of Lake Elmo, or if they are only for the Wildflower residents. Wensman stated that the roads that surround the park are City owned, but the land labeled as park is HOA owned and maintained. Public Hearing closed at 8:16 pm Lundquist stated that the developer seems all over the place with what they are asking for and haven’t really made it clear what they are asking for. She is very uncomfortable with this. Dodson is wondering how they are supposed to deal with the page dealing with the public art, monument and landscaping. He doesn’t feel that staff has been given enough time to review those items. Wensman stated that the developer has wanted to be able to be flexible with the landscaping which makes it very difficult for staff to know what is actually in the ground. Wensman stated that they are trying to get the developer back to the process of what is proposed is what gets planted. Wensman stated that as far as the shed in the outlot, staff has not been given any details on size, location, etc. Typically, no structures are allowed in open space. Engstrom stated that it has become obvious that there is a need for a storage shed to store hoses, dirt, etc. For the association to use to store equipment to maintain the common area. He said it would be something around 300 -400 square feet. Hartley asked when the information was received. Wensman stated that the narrative was received on Wednesday and packets went on Thursday. The graphics that helped 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-8-17 him to understand what was being asked for was received on Thursday morning. The public hearing was noticed before all of the information was received to try to be accommodating for the developer as he has a request from a homeowner that he needs to get back to. Wensman stated that it is a PUD, but is not an open ended PUD. There is a process for PUD’s which they are trying to accommodate tonight. Initially he thought the request was only going to deal with changing a couple of setbacks, but the request has gotten much larger. Staff had asked the developer to be inclusive of all requests at this one time, which is why the list got longer than what staff expected or understood was being asked for. Dorschner is wondering if the City Engineer has reviewed this request as he is concerned about the public utility issue. Wensman stated that he is concerned with the request for a side yard corner setback reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet. The closer the homes get to the public ROW, the bigger the issues when there is public work. Williams stated that all of the setbacks in all districts is 20 feet so that a car can be parked between the garage and public ROW without interfering with a sidewalk. The setback is already less than that at 15 feet. Wensman stated that the garage setback is larger than 15 feet. Fields stated that a buyer of a lot has an issue that they would like to resolve. This is a development that he finds attractive, but feels that this request was made at the last minute when there really wasn’t time to review the information in a timely manner. It seems that is what the Commission is struggling with. Fields feels that renegotiating the PUD standards after the Final Plat sets a poor precedent and would n ot want all developments to renegotiate their agreement as new things come up. Williams feels the driveway requests are reasonable given the configuration of the lots. He feels the side and rear yard setback requests are not appropriate because of the vehicle interfering with the sidewalk. He feels that the setback issue should have been anticipated and to change the whole PUD agreement to benefit one homeowner is not a good thing. Dorschner agrees with what Williams said and he is concerned with changing the setbacks, but the driveways seem fine. He recalls when this development was proposed he asked about the small lots and was told that these were for retired couples and they would not be large houses. Dorschner stated that he is not comfortable making these changes after the fact and maybe the home is just too large for this lot. He is concerned with the impervious surface as there were drainage issues. He would like to table this until such time as they bring forward all changes. Larson pointed out that even though these are small lots, there is a lot of open space in this development. He feels the only significant issue would be safety and fire access. Larson also feels that this could open up a can of worms for other developmen ts. He feels these are design issues and should be up to the designer to work with the 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-8-17 homeowners. He would like to see the Planning Commission vote to allow the changes to lots 16, 17 & 18, and the rest of it be brought back with further information. Williams asked if there was any consequence of them denying certain parts vs. the developer withdrawing until they provide further information. Wensman stated that if the applicant withdraws, they will have to start the process over again. Hartley feels that changing the setbacks on these lots, affects the lots around them. He feels the corner setbacks will not be consistent with the other setbacks on the street. Kreimer stated that when he reviewed the packet, he was against a lot of this. He went and spent some time in the neighborhood to see what the issues are. He agrees with the driveway reorientation. He is not opposed to the reduction of the side yards, if it is approved by engineering, as this is a very unique development. Dodson agrees that if it is just an aesthetic issue, he is ok with it, but if there are utility issues identified by the engineer, that would be a different issue. Dodson is not in agreement with the change of setbacks for the conservancy and Ridge lots. He does not feel that just because there is a buyer, this is an urgency. M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to recommend 2 findings 1) the proposed driveway locations for some courtyard lots are a minimal number and do not change the character of the PUD and 2) the overall development has significant open space with pervious surfaces. A small change in impervious surface coverage for the courtyard lots will not significantly impact the overall stormwater management system pending VBWD approval, Vote: 7-1, motion carried, with Dorschner voting no. Dorschner is concerned that pervious surface is condensed and there is not enough are a for it to seep in and it will all be discharged to the storm water sewer system. He thinks this needs to be reviewed by the engineer before this is approved. Lundquist added that it is the area just north of this development that was flooding across Lake Elmo Ave. Williams stated that he feels VBWD is able to evaluate and that is why finding is pending VBWD approval. M/S/P: Dodson/Lundquist, move to recommend a finding that the existing design of lots 12 & 13, the driveways are problematic in the cou rtyard and they are too close together, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval to amend the PUD agreement to allow driveway access to Sunflower Lane for lots #12 & #13, pending review and approval from engineering and public safety, and with the 4 conditions of approval in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to recommend approval to amend the PUD agreement to change the allowed impervious surface for the courtyard lots only from 50% to 55%, conditioned on VBWD approval, Vote: 3-4, motion fails. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-8-17 Dodson is nervous about increasing the impervious surface allowance since there have been issues in the past. Hartley stated that if it goes up, it won’t just be for 1 lot, but all of them will try to go right up to the limit. Williams stated that VBWD will model the whole area and if it won’t work, they won’t approve it. Dorschner stated that this development was designed and engineered as it was and there were concerns then. He feels it is a wet area and that is probably why there is more open area in this development. The developer spoke to the request of the reduction of the rear yard setback for lot 17 & 18. Fields is wondering what grounds they would have to deny a future request from a homeowner. Wensman stated that they could create a finding that states that for lot 17 & 18 there is a unique circumstance because it is 5 feet shorter than the rest of the Courtyard lots. Fields doesn’t feel that the depth makes that much difference if there was a design that was agreed to and this is inconsistent. M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to recommend a finding that lot 17 & 18 are 5 feet shorter east/west than the other similarly oriented lots on the corner of phase 4, Vote: 4-3, motion carried. Dorschner is concerned with that finding. If the house plan doesn’t work on this lot , why are they not building on one of the other lots that is larger? He feels this is arbitrary based on a buyer that wants to put a specific house on a specific lot, which is not a good reason to change the setback. He feels this is a slippery slope. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of a 15 ft. rear yard setback for lots 17 & 18, Vote: 4-3, motion carried. Business Item – Lake Elmo Library Williams started the discussion with a resolution that was passed out to the Commission. Williams is concerned that the resolution that was passed is very vague and confusing. He would like details clarifying the resolution. Williams feels that the City Council should reject the resolution as written until there are specific details given . Dorschner wasn’t sure that this falls under the Planning Commission’s pervue. He is not sure that capital decisions and finances fall under the Planning Commission. Williams feels that the details fall under what he considers a land use issue. He feels the library is a valuable land use to attract other land uses. Williams stated that the Planning Commission is required by law to comment on the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Larson feels that the library also brings people together and is a community builder. It brings people to downtown Lake Elmo. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-8-17 Fields does not feel that the Planning Commission is charged with the business details of the library. They are charged with the land use questions. Williams stated that the library is mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and if it is lost, the City is losing a component that is an important element of downtown. M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to recommend the resolution be presented to the City Council, Vote: 3-4, motion fails. Dorschner is concerned with the assumption that the library is going to go away. He has talked to County Commissioners about this and it is not their plan. Larson stated that it was closed 5 years ago because there was no community based programing with very few hours. City Council Updates – May 2, 2017 Meeting i) Royal Golf Preliminary Plat Discussion ii) Royal Golf Grading Permit – passed iii) Noise Ordinance – passed iv) Easton Village 2nd Addition Final Plat – passed v) VMX – Zoning Map Amendment – tabled vi) V-LDR/VMX Zoning Text Amendment - tabled Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. May 22, 2017 b. June 12, 2017 2. MAC CEP Report Commission Concerns Lundquist is concerned about the verbal requests from the developer for the Wildflower development. If they come back, she would like to see very specific details in writing about what they are requesting. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant