Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-79 PZM(5 4 of!take 7Einto P.O. Box J Thirty-third and Laverne Avenue Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 777-5510 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 1979 Please Note: Due to the Veteran's Day Holiday, Monday, November 12, the Planning Commission will meet on Tuesday, November 13, 1979. 7:30 P.M. -- Meeting convenes Minutes, October 22 ¢� Thompson Variance 8:15 P•M. -- Street Map 8:30 P.M. Conservancy Regulations 9:00 P.M. Midland Meadows CITY OF LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVii8ER 13, 1979 Chairman Novak convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Prince, Lundquist, Dreher, Curran, Michels and Crombie (7:32) MINUTES: Lundquist moved., deconded by Curran, to approve the minutes of October 22, 1979, as written. Motion carried 5-0. THOMPSON VARIANCE: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Thompson are requesting a variance to build a house on an unimproved street (Dempsey Avenue) and. also a, variance for insufficient lot size. The lot is .55 acres (21t, 000 sq. ft.), They have a letter from Mark LaMotte, the current lot owner., stating this is a buildable lot. A Piblic Hearing on this variance will be held by the City Council on November. 20, 1979, at F p.m. The Thompsons reviewed their request and stated the hard- ship in their case is the inability to purchase additional property in order to meet the ordinance. The Planning Com mission questiond if there would be room on the filet: for two drainfied sites; and what the pere test results were. The pert tests are not completed. The drainfield question will depend on where the house is placed;_. and, placement is contingent upon whether. Mack and/or. Argyle Streete are vacated. The street vacation question is being considered by the Council. They will have 60% of the 125 ft. frontage if Argale is vacated. Also questioned was emergency access to the property. In the past the City has required a signed agreement with property owners whose homes are on an unimproved street. Michels said he..is more concerned with the lot meeting the pert test and drainfield standards than with the unimproved street. Prince agreed, as the City Council approved two previous variances for building permits on this unimproved street. Lundquist said the Code has been changed,=and the new ordinance does not provide for lots that are less than 60% of the new 1 A minimum. He recalled in• the township of Past Oakdale a number of plats were accepted with minimum lot size of 18,750 sq. ft. (150 x 125 feet), and 135 feet of street frontage. In our codified regulations, adopted in the early 1970's page 28, which were in effect until the current new zoning regulations were adopted (October 1979) it was required: 1) that new lots platted for .residential purposes after October 3, 1968 with no public water or sewer had to be at least one acre in size. 2) lots platted prior to October 1968 with no public water and sewer had to be 18,750 sq. ft. in area and 125 feet win width to get a building permit The 60% rule was also in effect (see p. 28 of green hook) but was not generally applied, altho one lot in Tablyn Park 100 ft. wide and 400 feet deep was considered buildable because both adjacent lots were already built on. When the above regulations were adopted the Planning Commission reviewed all existing .lots, except the Tri-Lakes and the Old Village, not built on, so that they could decide on the status of each all at once in a consistent way without pressure of a single decision. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1979 TIIOMPSON VARIANCE -CONTINUED; The new zoning regulations adopted October 16, 1979, by the City of Lake Elmo require 13- acre lots at least 125 feet wide in all new plats (see 300-33). Existing platted lots must be at .least 60% of the area and width of the above to be buildable (see 300-66), There are also other requirements. Thus an existing lot must be at least .9 acres to be buildable, by this 60% requirement. If something different from this is desired, the Zoning Ordinance should he changed. STREET MAP; CONSERVANCY Michels moved, seconded by Lundquist, to recommend approval of a variance for Thomas Thompson for a substandard lot area, a building permit on an unimproved street and a septic tank on less than 1A. This recommendation is subject to the lot having two adequate drainfield sites, and is recommended due to the hardship of the property owners inability to purchase additional property in order to meet the ordinances, thus making the lot unbuildable as it is. Motion carried 6a1. Crombie opposed. Crombie is opposed because he "anticipates septic problems with this lot and he is opposed to % of the variance. This lot meets only 37% of the requirements and this is too large an amount to vary. '1'he Thompeons were advised. that Dempsey could be upgraded at anytime. The Planning Commission requests lhe City Council consider the improvement of Dempsey due to the number of residents on it or require an agreement from the property owners stating they will maintain Dempsey for emergency vehicle use. The Planning Commission wants the City Council aware that by granting this variance they are establishing a preoedence and request the Council set some guidelines and state the reasons for approval or disapproval on this variance, The Planning Commission reviewed the map and made revisions where necessary. REGULATIONS; The Administrator reviewed the areas to be oonsidered in an overlay map. He said these regulations can he adopted under local ordinances, rather than through the Met Council. Woodland Preservation — The Planning Commission agreed woodland preservation should be deleted. Slopes — regulations governing this are in the code. The Administrator will review all regulations on slopes and develop a uniform standard for development on steep elopes. He said once these areas are identified a map would "red flag" lb° areas where the City should be cautious. Presently a county map on steep slopes is available. Prince said she would rather see the control written into the regulations rather then on an overlay map. CITY O.F.' LAKE ELMO PLANING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 13, 1979 -3- Utility Companies — Hruce Folz said there is an on going problem with the way the utility companies leave property after installations. The City must be the enforcing agency when utility companies come in and tear up the area and do not return it to its previous condition. Developers try to satisify the City's requirements, and often times end up paying for restoring property that should be done by the utility company. Also, the utility company is often respon— sible for knocking out lot irons. Mr. Folz feels the City can force the utility companies to he more careful by regulations within their ,permit. He does not feel it is fair that the developer should bear the burden of correcting the problems caused by the utility companies. Wetland Preservation — The Administrator said the City should protect its wetlands, especially water storage areas. The Planning Commission agreed. The map would indicate where the problem areas are. Slopes, wetlands and questionable soil areas must be detailed in order to be effective. The standards will be in the ordinance and the map in the comp plan. A draft of the regulations concerning soils will be available for the Planning Commission at the next meeting. This should help the comniseion catch problems that could otherwise been overlooked. Land Iteclaimation — The Administrator feels these regulations are too loose. It does not define what the redevelopment must look like once present use stops; it just statee there must he a plan. Regulations in the County Code will be reviewed. Curran suggested ground water regulations be included with wetlands. The Administrator will check the County Code to see how ground water is defined. MIDLAND MEADOWS: TKDA Report — Bruce Folz expressed the following ob— jections to the report: 1) .the difference between 5ft. for snow storage and the suggested 2% graded slope is 14 ft. He feels this is excessive. 2) the cul—de—sac radius has been increased from 46 ft. to 50 ft. 3) Lots 9 & 10, Block 4., are listed as marginal lots. The soils here are good and a high one acre area can he provided for septic and meet:'the code, 4) Feels requesting the outlet for the ponds located west of CRR 17, he constructed at 906 is imposing a restr'iotioh beyond City standards. The natural outlet is 906. They have set the outlet at 902. By raising the flood elevation -four feet lot 9 will be eliminated. This will be reviewed with the engineer when the grading and elevation studies are oomplete; also, the Planning Commission feels the volume as well'ae the rate of water £lowing• toward'Cimarron is critical. The Engineer and Mr. Folz will review this also. 5) the design standards for storm sewer was questioned. The design standards are written for urban use and with the lz acre lots the developer feels the criteria should be different according to the density of the land use. 6) grading and filling — the engineer indi— cates four lots in Blocks 2, 3, and 4 should be 1 £t., above street level. The developer understands this to mean the -entire lot'wil]• need to be filled' in' order to oonptruet a,bq.ilding_ped 1 ft. -above fstleet level. Prince was excused at 10:00 p.m. CITY OF LAICE ELMO, PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 13, 1979 MIDLAND MEADOWS: The primary concern was the drainage and the water flowing toward Cimarron. CODE: Curran moved, seconded by Novak, to table any action on Midland Meadows until questions on drainage, outlet elevations, grading and filling lots 2, 3 10, and 15 in Blocks 2, 3, and 4, to 1 ft, above street elevation, liability towards Cimarron, and Valley Branch policy on plat review, are reso1 ed",'" Also,. a decision on the -street name for Kirk should he made, Discussion - Dreher,-Miehels and Oromb,ie approve of'.the preliminary plan. The Planning Commission requests this time to .resolve these questions and plan to have a recommendation on the preliminaary plat on November 26, 1979, Motion carried 5-2. Dreher and Crombie voting nay. The Planning Commission received the new reviesed City Code. There is no sign ordinance included. The Planning Commission will review the new proposed ordinance before the Council adopts it. THOMPSON VARIANCE: Lundquist moved., seconded by Crombie, to reconsider the action taken on the `ihompson variance. Motion carried 6-0. Lundquist feels the Council should make a decision if they desire something different than what is in the new Zoning Orddnance as concerns sub -standard lots. This decision should be made before deciding on the Thomson variance. If the Council grants a 40yn variance in this case then this same percentage should be allowed elsewhere in the City. A variance should be a small X). What; is the Ciiteria:for a -variance. The Planning Commission feels a decision Should be made on all such lots before a decision can be made on this one. Lundquist moved, seconded by Crombie, to tablecthe,:Thompson . vai:ifnetrrequest.;pending adopting a policy for handling' existing :like 'lots. Motion carried 5-0 Novak abstained ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.