Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-81 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 11, 1981 Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Gifford, Lundquist, Prince and Moe. Also, Administrator Whittaker and City Planner, Rob Chelseth. MINUTES: April 13, 1981 - Prince moved, seconded by Gifford, to approve the minutes of April 13. Motion carried 4-0-1. April 27, 1981 - Prince moved, seconded by Gifford, to approve the minutes of April 27,. iMotion carried 4-0-1. Moe abstained. CONSERVANCY REGULATION PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Michels called the hearing to order at 8:13 p.m. The Administrator responded to the questions on the soil type listing, ordinance over -lap, and planned urban development areas. He stated that the areas where the soil type is not listed there are no limitations and are not regulated by the Ordinance. Rob Chelseth explained that only areas with severe restrictions are included. These are indicated in red on^=the-s®2rtmap-. --The- gold and, white areas are not regulated_. The red areas indicate possible building restrictions. Chelseth noted that both blue areas on the wetland map are covered under the wetland regulation. Whittaker said that when the two ordinances over -lap with shorland or flood plain regulations, the more restrictive ordinance will be enforced. A clause to this effect will be included in the ordinance. In areas where urban development is planned, the ordinance does not provide for less restrictive application. Modi- fication or adjustmest may be permitted after review of the restricted area. Gifford asked about the lack of restrictive area around Lake Elmo noting the large areas around the Tri-Lakes. Chelseth said the Lake Elmo area was taken from the Washington County Soil Survey Map. Urban areas, such as the area around Lake Elmo are classified general urban soil. Martin Ziebel Soil Conservation Service, explained how the soil characteristics are determined, and why the Old Village area is not included on the map. He said this does not mean there will not be problems in the Old Village area. Chelseth said that in existing zoned urbanized areas the City would have to rely on the septic system code to regulate areas like the Old Village. The mapping and the ordinance pertain more to undeveloped areas. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 11, 1981 -2- CONSERVENCY ORDINANCE: Mr, Zibel said the cost of an identification study has been reduced and recommended that the City reconsider classification mapping of the wetlands. This would be more specific and would identify the particular characteristics of each wetland. The cost of this clas- sification could be charged back to the property developers on a per acre basis. Michels restated concerns expressed by Bob Dreher on restricting wetland areas in planned urban areas, such as Section 32. Whittaker suggested possibly studying only Section 32 or just the urbanized areas indicated in the Comp Plan. The Administrator gave Prince a breakdown of procedure for a development request in Section 32. Prince feels it would be difficult for the Planning Commission or Council to make a determination on an areas significance or if it should be retained, unless an expertv.made a judgement. Mr.Ziebel advocated a study for the entire City, not just certain sections. Michaels asked if the study would recommend and designate ponding areas. Mr.Ziebel said the study would recommend areas that should be designated for ponding. Location of on -site ponding areas would be reviewed with requests for relocation or filling. Whittaker said the current ordinance does not adequately address protection of natural wetland areas. The proposed ordinance will provide for a review to determine the effect on the land and drainage. The ordinance is an intervening step between rezoning and subdivision. It,' will notify the developer that certain areas need review. Section 32 is, basically, a wetland area and additional engineering may be necessary for development of the area. Audience Comments: Dorothy Lyons asked about the advantages of this ordinance to the property owners and what the tax reduction on restricted property would be. .1.She also asked if swampy ponding areas can be restructured or cleaned out. To answer the tax question, Chelseth said the development on these soils is already restricted by its composition, the overlay will not blanketly prohibit development in these areas. Development may still occur; and filling may be permitted. This does not remove the rights of the property owners. The benefits to the property owners are to the benefit of the public by providing a system of evaluating and managing natural storm water systems so that they are not over- burdened or destroyed. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 11, 1981 -3- CONVERSENCY: Lyons agreed with retaining the ponding areas; but asked if the appearance of swampy areas could be improved, if desired. Chelseth said some ponding areas may be consolidated with other areas serving the ponding needs. Individual decisions will have to be made. Mr. Ziebelbriefly reviwed the County Tax Reduction Program for wetlands. Whittaker said tax reduction is not an at- traction for this ordinance. The ordinance is a necessity regardless of any tax break . Lyons asked about relief for property owners who have paid for sewer assessments. She feels this should be considered. Whittaker said this will be discussed and reviewed when a proposal comes in. Chairman Michels closed the hearing at 8:50 p.m. The Commission agreed to table making a recommendation until later in the meeting. RICHERT SIMPLE LOT DIVISION: Chairman Michels opened the hearing at 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reviewed the plan and Administrator Whittaker explained the proposal. Schaefer Mining is pur- chasing 66 acres from Mrs. Lydia Richert. The proposal is to legally divide out 10 acres for Lydia Richert and 4 acres for Mrs. Wilter Richert. Both Richert parcels are homesites. Audience comments were directed at future use of the Schaefer parcel. Chairman Michels closed the hearing at 9:07 p'.m. Prince moved, seconded by Moe, to recommend approving a Simple Lot Division of N _1/2 of NE c-1/-4". Sec 16, P.krceh A- conta-fining 66 acres, Parcel B. containing 10 acres, and Parcel C. containing 4 acres. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 11, 1981 -4- FRIEND VACATION OF SLOPE EASEMENT: Administrator Whittaker reviewed the request to vacate the slope easement along the north side of 45th Street at Jane Road. The easement was reserved when 45th Street was constructed. James Friend,9498 Jane Road, is proposing to construct a garage on the south side of his home within the easement. The City Engineer reviewed the area and determined that the easement is not needed for future improvement of 45th Street and recommended that the easement be vacated. Mr. Friend said placing the garage on the north side of the home would require removing sevaral mature oak trees and would, also require relocating and removing the present driveway at a substantial expense. Whittaker noted that because the lot is on a corner a variance from the side lot setback will be 'necessary. The Code requires a 25 ft. sidelot set back and the Friend garage will be 20 ft. This will still leave adequate land for road improvements. Gifford moved, seconded by Lundquist, to recommend approval of the slope easement vacation along Lot 2, Block 1, Dawcin Acres, for James Friend. Motion carried 5-0. The Council will review the variance request. KANOWITZ SIMPLE LOT DIVISION AND EASEMENT VACATION: John DeVries re- quested a simple lot division for Lot 6, Block 2, Demontreville Highlands 4th Addition and vacation of the drainage and utility easement on Lot 5and 6, Block 2, Demontreville Highlands 4th Addition. Mr. DeVries was the contractor for the house on Lot 5 where the garage encroaches onto Lot 6. The Commission reviewed the map indicating the proposed re- alignment of the property lines and discussed how the problem developed. Mr. DeVries indicated that this transaction is agreeable with both property owners. Lundquist asked if the drainage easement was part of the drainage plan for the development, and recommended it straddle the new property line, if necessary. The Administrator will have the Engineer look at the site and make a recommendation on the drainage easement. The Commission agreed that the easement question should be resolved if the Engineer determines it is a part of the developments drainage plan. Prince moved, seconded by Gifford, to recommend approval of a Simple Lot Division for Lot 6, Block 2, Demontreville Highlands 4th Additions and vacation of the utility and drainage -easement for Lot 5, Block 2, Demontreville Highlands 4th Addition subject to review and recommendation by the City Engineer. Motion carried 5-0. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 11, 1981 -5- CONSERVENCY REGULATION: The Administrator reviewed the additional changes recommended by Martin Ziebel. The Commission discussed delaying action on a recommendation until more Commission members were present; but, decided that it was too long an interim between meetings. Prince moved, seconded by Gifford, to recommend approval of the Conservency Ordinance, as amended, Section 305 and 306 of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. Lundquist moved, seconded by Prince, to recommend that the City Council evaluate the cost of a wetland study through Martin Ziebel, and, if deemed cost effective, initiate the study. Motion carried 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: A. Pepin Rezoning - The Administrator reported that the present use in the Pepin building would fall more under industial use rather than General Business, therefore, an Industrial zoning would be more appropriate. The Commission agreed that the building should be zoned for present use, Industrial. The hearing notice will indicate the zoning as Industrial. B. Sunfish Lake Flood Elevation Hearing- The Administrator reviewed the-Counc-i-1's-a-ction—to--amend—the—f-lood elevation on Sunfish Lake, changing the building elevation from 900 to 903; and requested the Commission' set a public hearing. Michels moved, seconded by Gifford, to hold a public hearing June 8, 1981, at 8 p.m. on the Sunfish Lake building elevation. Motion carried 5-0. C. Ag Zoning Problems - Number of Buildings, Size, Lot Size Tabled until June 8. D. Highway 36 Corridor - Lundquist feels it would be beneficial to clarify' what uses would be permitted along the corridors as long as the City has already permitted some. The Commission generally agreed to defer additional discussion or consideration of the 36 Corridor until there is a change in the Comp Plan. E. Other - Bergman's Greenhouse - The Building Inspector will check their Special Use Permit and verify if the use has expanded. Rossow Building - The City will initiate legal proceedings to have the structure removed. CLEAN-UP DAYS: Gifford reported on the volume of people utilizing Clean -Up Days, to the point that many Lake Elmo residents were unable to take advantage of the service. She said several North St. Paul residents took advantage of Lake Elmo's free service because their community charged a fee. She recommended a change in procedure or a possible fee for future Clean -Up Days. The Administrator said the Council is aware of the situation and will address the problem before the next clean-up. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 11, 1981 -6- KROY INDUSTRIES: Dorothy Lyons asked for an up -date on the Kroy Industry project. She feels the traffic problem is very critical to Lake Elmo and should be throughly reviewed. The Administrator said that the Engineer reviewed the traffic projections and had not found reason to raise questions about the freeway interchange. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m., ( 1 4„ ,. y CITY OF LAKE .14,ELMO - City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 P. 0. Box J / Thirty-third and Laverne Avenue / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA LakeElmo Planning Commission May 11, 1981 8:00 P.M. --Meeting convenes Minutes, April 13, April 27 Hearing --Conservancy regulations 8:45 P.M.--Hearing---Richert Simple Lot Division --Friend---Vacation of slope easement - -Kanowitz--Simple Lot and easement vacation - -Miscellaneous Business A. Pepin rezoning B. Problems Ag Zoning, limit f and size of buildings and/or redefine Ag C. Hwy. 36 corridor D. 0ther NOTICE: There will not be another Planning Commission Meeting in May as the next one falls on the Memorial Day Holiday. Next meeting will be June 8, 1981.