Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-01 CCMLAKi ..e:LMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Mayor Hunt called the workshop to discuss the Open Space Zoning Ordinance to order at 5:08 p.m. in the Council chambers. PRESENT: Siedow, Dunn, Hunt, Armstrong, DeLapp, City Planner Dillerud and Administrator Kueffner: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Bob Helwig, Rod Sessing, Valerie Brass and Kevin Herber. Developer of Fields of St.Croix I&II: Robert Engstrom, and Developer of Cardinal Ridge: Tom Wiener and Tim Freeman of Folz, Freeman and Dupay. Planner Dillerud handed out copies of the 2000 City Council minutes in order to provide an historical perspective on the OP ordinance. Planning Commission Draft — January 22, 2001 Page 10: K. Streets. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong — to change the road widths to 14-16 feet wide for one way streets; pavement shall be 24 feet wide for two way street Planning Commissioner Rod Sessing pointed out the Commission heard the Maintenance staff s concern with plowing, maintaining narrow roads and the ease of Fire Trucks to get in and out and suggested wider roads because of curbs. It's not so much the width of the road, but the curve of the road that is a concern. Council member DeLapp stated his idea of clustering development is to make this area a quiet place as can be and not have roads and impervious surface coverage the primary feature. If we have a problem plowing them, Dan Olinger gave a suggestion how to deal with this. Our job is to help the residents, not the plowing staff. They do a good job, but it's the residents we are here to serve not the staff. M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn — to amend the motion to change road widths to 14-16 feet wide for one-wa streets and 22-24 feet wide for two way street; and the pavement width shall be 22-24 feet for streets w homes are located on one side of the street. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong). The following were comments by Robert Engstrom: Streets: 24' wide works well with driveways and parking on both sides, 18' wide with parking o side works. 14' width with divided median works. You will not make a creative development if you are so stringent and want to retain some of the flexibility of the PUD ordinance. Conservation Easement: Never known an Assoc. to sell or develop a piece of property. Easements are owned either by the City or the Land Trust. Townhouse Section: Where do you get 8,000 sq.ft. lot area. What was the intent? DeLapp: negotiated by the Council, implication is 5.5 units per acre. It's 8,000 sq.ft. per unit. It would be best if all the extra space go into an easement. Side Yard Setback: Why was there a 30' side yard setback. 25' works fine for a front yard or 15'. This discourages creative use of garage placement. Entrance Markers: Don't need separate public hearings and should be able to submit location of entrance markers at time of preliminary plat. Planner Dillerud explained that the Planning Commission has recommended repeal of entrance markers and their recommendation will be coming to the Council on March 6". Differentiate between septic tank and communal drainfield and alternative treatment systems and drainfield: Don't need to have a 50' setback for recreational areas because with an alternative system you put treated water into the ground (no chance of contamination) compared to a communal drainfield where you put untreated water in the ground. Jurisdictional Wetlands should be stated instead of Protective Wetlands Page 9. Buffer Zones will make some areas undevelopable. Pathways lead to the Old Village: , ow would he initiate this? Planner Dillo, ad stated the Parks Commission would relook at the trail plan. Secretary of Interior Stds. for adaptive reuse of Ag buildings does NOT prevail. Tom Wiener asked what's the incentive anymore for doing a cluster development? He spent $50,000 on trees in Cardinal Ridge, From a developer standpoint, why wouldn't he just put in 2.5 ace lots? Planner Dillerud explained a developer could come in with a PUD application for an Open Space development. Tim Freeman made the following comments: 4/5ths variation for items in the ordinance is important and removes the hardship requirement. Doesn't see any reason to take it out. Elimination is hampering ordinance. Single Family Attached Housing violates the setback requirements. Wetland treatment systems and Alternative Treatment systems are not allowed by ordinance, your allowing them should be recognized by ordinance. The fact that you've been allowing them should be recognized in the ordinance. Individual septic tanks have not been used in a communal system 3 to 1 aspect ratio and minimum 40 acres site requirements would not have allowed developing of Tana or Cardinal Ridge and the Siverson property next door. Parkland — Donated parkland should be considered part of the Open Space. Section 400: If there is a park designated on the park plan then you have to dedicate a park. If you put the land in then cannot count it as part of the open space. Planning Commissioner Sessing stated the PZ thought if they are not dedicating property you giving the rights to the park. Certain amount of money is dedicated if they are not giving the land. If they give the land they don't have to give the money. That land should be taken out of that, lakes etc, otherwise it is considered this double-dipping and not fair to count the land twice. Dillerud: Section 400 already makes accommodations for OP development where instead of 10% it is 7% park dedication requirements. What happens is some of the open space requirement was being used as park dedication requirements even the 7 percent. The way it is written is that an OP project has a 7% requirement be it land or money regardless of the original building space because they have already been given credit for Section 400. It is not right for a developer to count the same piece of ground toward his preserved open space and his park dedication. Freeman stated there is nothing in the ordinance the OP land belongs to the public. It's private property. A conservation easement is not used for public use. Open Space land does not belong to the public. Parkland cannot be considered open space. Bob Engstrom suggested a flat fee be paid per unit ($900-$1200). Lowering density from 18 to 15 is too drastic. Where's the incentive to place trails, trees, etc. to use OP ordinance when you can develop 2.5 acre lots. Village Greens: Don't take out Village Greens because people like them, for an example, Village Green in Tana Ridge. They need to be encouraged in the ordinance because they are expensive. Flexibiilty would be helpful. Council member Dunn stated there are some good Village Greens, but we are talking about skinny strips in the right-of-way. This is the first time he heard the Planner talk about a PUD as an option for an OP development. Creative developments draw people into Lake Elmo. People want to live in the development like the Open Space around them, but they want to live in the neighborhood. People cannot take care of 2.5 acres. When Heritage Farm was developed at the same time Terry Emerson did a 2.5 acre development in Baytown Township. Both developers had the same real estate agent and the prices were comparable. Terry did not sell a single lot until Heritage Farm was sold out. Planning Commissioner Valerie Brass responded Mr. Freeman just answered the question what is the incentive to develop an OP development. The ordinance works, people like the OP developments and are buying the lots. Buffer Zone Section: Remove requ ..ements for an intent statement. Trees: No allowance made for existing wooded site. Concept Plan: Too many public hearings making the process cumbersome. Planner Dillerud the concept plan that is so descriptive to be submitted. Administrator Kueffner added to accomplish Listen to the Land the PUD and OP are almost identical. Densities: Discussion on densities, but to no conclusion. Buffer zone section: enhanced by removing dimensional requirements in favor of an Intent statement. Trees: no allowance made for existing wooded sites. Process went overboard with public hearings. Technical: Concept Review:30 (60) days Page 13. Preliminary Plat, Requirements Item V, Chapter Chapter 505 MN Statutes refers to Final Plat and needs to be taken out. City Council reviews of Preliminary Plans — should drop 30 days. Dillerud would rather leave the way it is in the written ordinance, would give in for roads now and still forget the 4/5ths variance. Submittal requirement for Final Plat — Prior to issuance of any building permits Page 2: in red to Page 3e. shall be submitted to ..Insert "City Council' Page 5: typo of Dillerud M/S/P Dunn/DeLapp — to approve all motions all typos approved in all one motion. (Motion passed 4-0). M/S/P Hunt/Dunn — to delete g. (Motion passed 5-0). Councilmember DeLapp left the workshop. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong — leave in upon recommendation of the Planning Commission for bufferlines (2 remain As is) (Motion passed 2-1:Hunt against-lAbstain:Siedow) M/S/P Dunn/Siedow - Page 8, preexisting structure on site. Direct staff to have historic structure defined. (Motion passed 4-0). Spell out 15 densities Planner Dillerud reported there is no rehearing required on the amendment to the OP ordinances. The City Council will look at the OP Ordinance with the amendments in three weeks, as the Planner will be attending a conference in New Orleans. Copies of the Ordinance will be sent to Bob, Tim and Tom. Adjourn workshop at 6:55 p.m.