Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-89 CCMJOINT MEETING OF THE LAKE APPP. ELMO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1.0, 1989 Mayor Dunn called the Joint Meeting with the Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Council to order at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: City Council:Dunn, Hunt, Moe, Graves. Absent: Williams. Planning Commission:Enes, DeLapp, Bucheck, Stevens, Kunde, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, Haacke, Conlin, John. Absent: Johnston The City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission met to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Williams was unable to attend this meeting, but provided his written comments. Councilman Hunt supported the draft minor notes on the draft. There was Page 4., 2. PRESENT POPULATION Hunt indicated he would like to see be a slight increase in the rate of is due to market conditions. It is stimulate population growth, rather dictate the growth." Comp Plan as presented and submitted some discussion on the following: wording added "although there seems to the population, it is felt that this not the policy of Lake Elmo to it is the policy to let market demands Page 45: GOALS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: The goal of commercial is mainly to provide needed services to the resident, while recognizing nearby communities provide competing services. Lake Elmo is after high quality development to enhance the community. Councilman Moe felt the plan, with the gathering of documentation, was very informative. Ile could not support the Draft Comp Plan because it lacked long range planning. All he could see the plan addressing was the large rural lot. It was not realistic in addressing provided services other than what will be maintained until year 2000. Even though he voted for the Future Land Use Map and directed the PZ to bring the data. current for the '86 Plan, Moe recommended the PZ take the 1979 Comp Plan and update it. Moe did not compare the two plans and come in with noted differences. Councilman Graves appreciated the effort that went into the preparation of this Comp Plan, but felt there was not a complete enough look into where we expect the City to be in the year 2000. Page 44.(b) should we restrict higher density development. Page 55: Concern we don't make an open minded, more realistic statement for the I-94 Overlay. The Municipal Board could look at this as, the City will not look at anything for the I-94 Overlay. Page 75: Subdividing may have worked for us in the past, but we are running out of the growth mode we enjoy now. When this is no longer available to use then what do we do? Graves added we should take into LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 2 account the City relies on residential growth in order to underwrite the increase cost of services. We should seek options of commercial development at Section 32 and along I-94 and not depend on housing development. Homes/families are the highest source of requiring services. Page 60: He agreed with Page 60. Is this appropriate utilization from the planners view, feels it is appropriate for Comp Plan. E. of 13B only referenced. Argument for no potential commercial development. Hunt referred to page 46,.Sect. c.. Graves responded, in order to be consistent delete Section 3, page 55 because of a possible conflict. Steve DeLapp answered that if we rezone this area to commercial, we are going against the Met Council. Ten Findings of Fact have to be met to address the question if Woodbury can build better commercial development. He asked how does this improve existing services in Woodbury? Page 76: paragraph C: He Doesn't agree with this or support it. It doesn't tell where we are going to be in the year 2000. Councilman Graves added the PZ did what the City Council directed them to do. From the very beginning he would have liked to see RE wrapped into the plan, but then he realized how long this project would take the Commission to complete. It would be easier to approve a plan if it really was a plan based on completeness. The Plan has a very good base, but should include Longer range plans. Councilman Hunt advised the Council that when the Council was asked to vote on options for PZ direction on the Comp Plan, he was the only one in favor of Option 3, which was to include RE Zoning in the Plan. Hunt saw no problem to get the Comp Plan done now and later on get an amendment to change this. Dick Johnson agreed there was not a whole lot of planning in the document and without some direction from a professional planner based on the philosophy indicated, this would be difficult job to do. Dave Johnson found the draft a dull document with no meat into it. It doesn't address what if the "pipe" comes into the City. The Committee that worked on the 1979 Plan knew what the issues were facing the City and addressed them in the Plan. The '79 Plan had a flow to it. Steve DeLapp stated the alternative Res.identi.al. Estates Future Land Use Map was approved by the PZ Commission. They discussed what they liked or disliked on the RE Zoning, and if there is enough support, it can be added. into the Plan. RE Zoning will then be shown in th plan, paremeters spelled out, draft direction of ordinance and indicate areas of RE. Steve submitted zoning district conditions for amendment to the 1986 Comp Plan. Councilmen Graves and Hunt suggested building more planning issues, floating zones, and consider spotzoning as a buffer zone. Dick Johnson asked for formal direction from the Council at their April ( 18th meeting since recommendations of some of the Councilmembers have changed. The Council adjourned the joint meeting at 8:45 n,m, LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRII, 10, 1989 PAGE 3 The Council adjourned the joint meeting at 8:45 p.m. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1989 Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Enes, Stevens, Haacke, Bucheck, DeLapp, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, John, Conlin, Deputy Clerk Mary Kueffner. Absent: Johnston. 1. AGENDA According to the March 27th minutes, Road Widths were supposed to be on the agenda. Add: MN Pipeline Co. M/S/P Stevens/Haacke - to approve the April loth Planning Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 9-0). 2. Minutes: March 13, 1989 M/S/P Stevens/Kunde - to approve the March 13, 1989 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 9-0). Minutes: March 27, 1989 Steve DeLapp contacted the City of Woodbury and Stillwater regarding their method for amending minutes. The Planning Commission asked Steve DeLapp to submit his recommendations in writing. (Amended. 4-24-89) M/S/F DeLapp/Bucheck - to request policy change for amending minutes; to delete words or statements requested and replace with amended words for approved minutes to be mailed, but to include an attached sheet on the back of the minutes for PZ & CC member listing what was deleted. (Motion failed 2-7: Enes, Stevens, Kunde, Haacke, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, Conlin). Ann Bucheck requested the following insertion on Page 3: Ann Bucheck presented an MLS listing of available R-1 lots in the City to Chairman Rob Enes, who has been working on the inventory of R-1 lots with Jim McNamara. There were lots on this list that were in addition to the lots already counted. M/S/P Dick Johnson/John - to approve the March 27, 1989 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 8-0-1 Abstain: Stevens). 3. Review of Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Don Garofalo and Bob Baker, representing the Sunburrow Homeowners' Assoc., asked for support in opposing the Oakdale Comp Plan Amendment that would allow for extension of the MUSA Line to allow for development of Olson Lakes Estates (NE quadrant of Oakdale. They advised the Commission that the City of Oakdale has changed their Comp Plan to accomodate the developer for this proposed development which will bring 200 homes on 112 acres. Mr. Garofalo stated there are plans for millions of yards of dirt LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 4 ( to be brought in to hold back the water, no parks planned for recreation, and the development would create traffic, estimated 800 2-way trips a day through Sunburrow, with no plan of extension into 40th Street. Steve DeLapp provided two resolutions, for PZ consideration, for opposition to this Comp Plan amendment. The Commission made a few changes in wording which are reflected in Resolution 89-B and asked that this Resolution be distributed to the Metropolitan Council on. April 13th. Due to time constraints of meeting this date, the Commission approved the Resolution and asked that the Resolution be brought before the Council for their approval at their April 18th meeting. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Stevens - to approve Resolution 89-B as referenced in Appendix A and request this resolution be sent to the Metropolitan Council on April. 13th with a copy sent to the City Administrator in Oakdale. The Commission recommended City Council approval of Resolution 89-B as referenced in Appendix A. (Motion carried 9-0). Don Garofalo stated they have a petition, signed by all but two Sunburrow residents that were out-of-town, for detachment from Oakdale and annexation to Lake Elmo, that will be presented to the City. 4. MN Pipeline Co. Mary Kuef.fner handed out the application from MN Pipeline Co. for pipeline routing permit pursuant to partial exemption from pipeline route selection procedures, but the PZ chose not to comment on the application. The PZ felt this was a worthy item to address, but the 20-page document was just handed to them at 10:00 p.m. and they did not have time to review it. (Amended 4-24-89) 5. Rl Zoning Districts At the March 7th City Council meeting, the Council directed the PZ to review, on. a city-wide basis appropriate future R-1 placement, and within that a review inclusion and consideration of The Forest as an R-1 site and to include review of the Packard Park 3rd Addition, for consequent amendment of the Comp Plan and return with their recommendation for the April 4th Council meeting. Steve DeLapp conducted a telephone survey of the PZ members on where in the City they would find appropriate R-1 Zoning. Steve DeLapp submitted his zoning district conditions for amendment to the 1986 Comp Plan as referenced in Appendix B. MIS/ Bucheck/Haacke - to recommend no R-1 Zoning until we have finished the Comprehensive Plan. Mary Kueffner advised the Commission that we cannot stop in mid -stream of a proposal and change our requirements. Bucheck and Haacke withdrew their motion. M/No Second/ DeLapp - to recommend City Council approval to allow the Engstrom Development and the majority of the Packard Park 3rd Addition be LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 5 l rezoned to R-1; contingent on the section of Packard Park 3rd Addition that is in the Downs Lake Sub -Watershed not be affected by this construction. Ann Bucheck felt we should not be looking at rezoning now because of the lack of time and should be conservative when looking at R-1 Zoning in the Comp Plan. M/S/F Bucheck/DeLapp - the PZ does not see any need for R-1 Zoning now except for Section 32. (.Motion failed 4-5: Haacke, Kunde, Johnson, Enes, Conlin). Barb Haacke would like to have more time to consider the R-1 floating zone Steve DeLapp submitted. Mary Kueffner advised the Commission the City has to take action on the Engstrom application because it is past the deadline which the code allows. Mary explained, once again, the City Council directed them to look at these two developments (The Forest and Packard Park 3rd Addn.) when then review the entire City for future R-1 zoning areas in the Comp Plan. Mary repeated that the Engstrom application is an R-1 application because RE Zoning does not exist in the City. M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend to the City Council that "The Forest" and "Packard Park 3rd Addition" be rezoned to R1 based on the idea that this rezoning will have inconsequential impact on the Camp Plan and the PZ indicated they will consider other areas at a future date for R-1 Zoning. (Motion carried 6-3: Dave Johnson: Packard Park 3rd Addn, is already adjacent to R-1 Zoning and should be rezoned to R-1. He considered the Engstrom application as spotzoning; Ann Bucheck: voted for denial based on the water problem in the area; Steve DeLapp: submitted his recommendations as referenced in Appendix B). 6. Historical District - Old Village Chairman Enes reminded the Commission that a a Sub -committee was formed to set guidelines for an historical district for the Old Village. M/S/P Stevens/Johnson - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 P.M. (Motion carried 9-0). The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. Lake Elmo Ordinances require that certain documents and information be included in applications. The Planning Commission may postpone consideration of an application that is incomplete and may for other reasons postpone final action on an application. For each item, the Commission will receive reports prepared by the City Staff, open the hearing to the public, and discuss and act on the application. If you are aware of information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Requet. to Appear Before the Planning Commission" slip; or,, if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET IN JOINT SESSION WITH THE LAKE ELMO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989 AT 7:30 P.M. AT THE LAKE ELMO CITY HALL, 3800 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH, LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA. THE AGENDA SETFORTH FOR THIS JOINT MEETING IS AS FOLLOWS: 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Joint Meeting - City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the Comprehensive Plan 8:30 p.m. Regular Planning Commission meeting convenes 1. Agenda 2. Minutes - March 13 and March 27, 1989 3. Review of Oakdale Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. R1 zoning districts 5. Historical District - Old Village 6. Adjourn