Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-82 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Commissioners present: Gifford, Lundquist, Prince, Lyall, Dreher, Mazzara (7:45), and Moe (8:20). Absent Nazarian and Peterson. Also present, Building Inspector Jim McNamara. 1. MINUTES - OCTOBER 11, 1982: M/S/P Dreher/Lyall to approve the minutes of October 11, 1982, Carried 6-0. 6. CALL PUBLIC HEARING FOR LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: M/S/P Prince/Lyall to call a public hearing on Landscape Standards for November 22, 1982, at 7:45 p.m. Carried 6-0, 2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORCHARD/SINCLAIR SIMPLE LOT DIVISION AT 8170 HILL TR. N.: Chairman Michels opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. The Chairman asked Mr. Sinclair to explain his proposal. --Pat Sinclair - -want to take three parcels that make up .83A and combine them into one building site. These parcels were never platted as an individual lot. Property is owned by Betty Orchard which Sinclair''s are purchasing on a contract. -this lot will be .83A - adjoining lots average .61A, making this the 3rd largest lot of the surrounding 8-10 lots. -average lot size minus the Butzer lot (Lots 1&2, J. L. Cohn Subdivision), Orchard lot (1.2A in Lanes Demontreville Country Club) and Sinclair lot (.83A in Lanes Demontreville Country Club) is .43-for the surrounding lots, making the Sinclair lot double what any of the other lots are. -averaging lots north and south of the Sinclair lot, including all the lots in the J. L. Cohn Subdivision. -distributed a copy of the properties, ownersr and average lot sizes of the neighboring parcels as prepared by Lake Elmo Land Surveyors. --Elizabeth Orchard, 8170 Hill Tr. - -lot where her home is will be 1.2A, after the lot division. -the house and property which the house is on was purchased in 1968. The property in question (Sinclair lot) was not purchased until 1972 - this was a separate purchase, for investment purposes and at that time it was considered a buildable lot. Even though it is adjoining and abutting her property and in her name it was two separate purchases make four years apart. Orchard home is south of the proposed lot. --Pat Sinclair answered Commissioner Prince's question concerning the variances that will be needed: -1."Lot .,size from 1 1/2A to .83A 2. Frontage on a public street from 125' to 120' 3. Setback of the home from the lake (deck from the house *ill be 824 from the lake - Ordinance requires 100' from the high water mark - DNR requires 75') --Michels - questioned the requirement regarding the size of an existing lot in a neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 -2- 2. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR HEARING - CONTINUED: --Jim McNamara - the problem with this division is that they are proposing to split off from adjacent property, which makes two non -conforming lots. --Michels - clarified - even though the property was purchased as two different times, the code change in 1979 required adjacent property owned. by the same individual must meet the 1 1/2 A minimum with available property. --McNamara - read a letter from City Attorney relating to the 60% Rule - "if the same owner holds two abutting lots which were platted before the effective date of the Ordinance, he may not take advantage of the 60% rule if the two lots used together would meet the full area requirement of the Ordinance." (1 1/2A) Mrs. Orchard presently has approximately 2acres. The split would leave her 1.2A and Sinclair .83A. Engineertarecammendation And report have not come back to the City. - --Michels.- personally does not think the Council will have a great-deal.of problem with the variances; but, do believe they will have a problem with the lot split. Code is very explicit that this is not allowed. --Gifford - this is a unique situation in that the property was purchased at two different times, --Lundquist - purchase dates do not make it unique - the unique situation is the neighboring lot sizes. --Pat Sinclair - what is unique in this Ordinance is that if the parcel in question had been owned by any one other than Betty Orchard the stipulation about_adjoining property owner making hers less than 1 1/2 A would not apply. Why should there be a differential made with her having two separate pieces of property, --Lundquist - there are many lots in the City where a house is on more than one lot or has a substandard adjacent lot, If the total lot area barely meets the minimum requirements, the owner is not permitted to sell any of it off, Does not matter whether they buy the lots one at a time or all at once. --Pat Sinclair - what does not understand is that with a lot that meets, within a hares breath, 60% of the 1 1/2A requirement, 60% would be .9A.this is .83A, and if you go around Lake Demontreville probably 80% of the lots are .5A or less. Larry Whittaker stated at the last meeting that the average lot size throughout the whole Lake Demontreville, assuming this includes the Jesuit Retreat House, is .61A. Many lots are less than .61 A and this one is .83. --Dreher - this is creating two more non -conforming lots which will hasten the time sewer will be needed in that area. --Pat Sinclair - wish the City would force the sewer in here. The reason being that the reason these Ordinances come up is that with lakes have septic tanks and consequently trying to eliminate any problems down the road - if this is the problem then force feed the establishment into having to put in sewer and eliminate the problems. --Prince - explained the City's position on sewer - establishment is the residents of Lake Elmo - at the time the sewer issue was discussed the overwhelming majority of the residents in Lake Elmo oppossed sewer. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 -3- 2. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR HEARING - Continued: --Dreher - would like to know the distance of the drainfield from the well on the Orchard property and the proposed new home. Have 119 ft. frontage F. looks -close - squeezing the figures pretty tight,- may need additional variances. --Jim McNamara - before any building permit could be issued a definite drainfield design would be required and exact locations staked off. --Pat Sinclair - as indicated on the phone, Larry Schlomka has done 85% of the septic tanks in Lake Demontreville area, he will be designing this one. --Lyall - how far is the well off the end of the house? No diminsions indicated on the plan. --Pat Sinclair - not sure --Dreher - where would a second drainfield site go? --Pat Sinclair - indicated an area on the plan. --Dreher - field will have to be 75' from the high water mark, so the area indicated may not be acceptable. --Gifford - why was the proposed house sited at 75' above the high water mark. -Pat Sinclair - because wanted a variance - this was intentional. Can reposition the house, but the high water mark is 6' more than what the lake was set at on August 18. Aware the lake will rise at times due to rainfall, but this was put in because a variance is requested for it. The basement floor will be at 938.5. --Howard Michels - if the high water mark is 934 the Ordinance requires that the septic system has to be 3' above this or 937 - this is 1 1/2' below the basement floor which means they cannot run the drainfield toward the lake to any extent at all. --Dreher - do not think the drainfield can go on the lakeside at all; and soil on the other side is unsuitable (per Mr. Sinclair) --Lyall - only way this can go in is with a lift pump and a mound out front. Big question is where could_the second drainfield site be located. --Pat Sinclair - cannot answer this question - up to the septic designer. Aren't these questions that the Council will address - shouldn't the Planning Commission be just addressing the simple lot division. --Michels - concurred with Mr. Sinclair's statement that the Planning Commission is only to act on the Simple Lot Division, yet, these questions are preparation for the questions that will have to be answered for the City Council.- not trying to harass. --Dreher - sympathize with the situation, but the Ordinance was written to prevent problems in the area, due to the fact there is no sewer or possiblility of sewer in the future - have to protect the other residents in the area. --Michels - want to think that in the last few years have done a better job of monitoring and not creating additional problems for future Council to try and resolve. There were no residents in the audience for the hearing. Chairman Michels_closed the hearing at 8:15 p.m. POLL: --Prince - if followed the advise of the City Attorney, appears the lot division cannot be approved, per Sec. 301.090 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. --Gifford - no problem with them building on the lot, but have a problem with the septic question - very difficult to make a decision not knowing that the septic will not cause a problem later on to either the neighbors or yourself. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1983 -4- 2. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR HEARING - Continued: --Gifford - Until the Engineer's recommendation is received and some to the questions raised are resolved, would be hesitant to approve the lot division. --Pat Sinclair - do not know why the Engineer's report is not in, but made sure that this request went by the timetable of the Code - he has had it at least. three weeks, thinks the Code requires 10 days. Had his report been in the Commission could have probably made a logical decision and shod3..d not be penalized because of the Engineer's report. As far as the second drainfield site, very confident that by repositioning the house two suitable drainfield sites can be designed. According to the perc tests the soil is very suitable for a drop -box type system. --Dreher - the Ordinance has been written and accepted to not create a problem in the area and would have to vote to deny. --Mazzara - feels basically the same way, although, regarding -the septic/drainfield question, within the last month approval was give to aalot'and septic system in this same area. The design provided for two systems on top of each other. Basically, it is easy to -design two septic systems within the requirements of the Ordinance. Have passed Ordinances trying to alleviate the problem of high water- have to face the fact that there will not be sewer for many years. Feel strongly about the distance requirements between the lake, high water mark and the home. Have reservations about approving the request. --Pat Sinclair - confused - led to believe during the last three weeks that the PZC would decide on the simple lot division and that alone. Seems to be getting off track, what kind of septic system will be put in, where the house will be positioned, etc. this is not whit is being asked for. Just asking for a simple lot division. Can appreciate the points being brought, but all asking for is a simple lot division. --Mazzara - in just addressing the lot division issue, looking back to what the City's legal counsel has advised the request would have to be denied based on the Ordinance. M/St Prince/Dreher to recommend that the Simple Lot Division for Patrict Sinclair and Betty Orchard be denied based on the reason that it is in violation of Section 301.090 A. and B. of the Municipal Code of the City of Lake Elmo. Discussion: --Lundquist - asked the Council's current postion on lot sizes in Lanes Demontreville. This will be clarified with the Administrator --Michels - Ordinance is very clear in stating that lots cannot be subdivided where the combined acreage meets the 1 1/2A minimum. Would have to have good reason to recommend approval of such a subdivision. --Pat Sinclair - can appreciate that the Commission has to go by book, however, within the last 1 1/2 years two similar requests were approved - the Larson property cannot be more than 30 ft. from the lake and is .47A; the Johnston property has the septic system on top of another system, this is a good two blocks from this property and is also less acreage; this parcel is the third largest parcel after Butzer's and Orchard's and twice the size of Johnston's and Larson's cannot understand why have to go the City Council and fight them when all that is being asked for is a recommendation. One way or another will get approval, even if have to take it to court, because it has been done. Prior precedences have been set. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 -5- 2. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR HEARING - Continued --Gifford - was a disappointment that these lots were approved. Those requests did not come before the Planning Commission, they went right to the Council. - -Michels - the Commission would not have seen this request had it been owned by two separate individuals. Planning Commission has to make its recommendation based on what the Ordinance says. Motion carried 5-0-1. Lundquist abstained This will be sent to the Council for the November 3 meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING C. R. ENRIGHT - REZONING AND HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Chairman Michels opened the hearing at 8:30 p.m. Lee Annettwas present at the hearing to represent Mr. Enright, who was unabletoattend, -- --Lee Annett, explained Mr. Enrights proposal. -Enright has a .9A triangular parcel of land south of the new service road. -The-parcel was created when the new service road for I-94 was constructed, pplitting this piece off from Enright's property -north of the service road. -Would like to move a house from another location on his property to this .9A parcel. - No other property owned by Mr. Enright abuts this .9A parcel. - Requesting:- Rezoning from RR to R-1. Variance from 1 1/2A lot size House moving permit -Property is planned Mixed Urban Uses in Comp Plan --Prince - why couldn't Mr. Enright place the house on some other piece of property he owns that meets the zoning requirement. --Lee Annett - other property is too far east and industrial development is proposed fob that area. This is where he wants to place the house. Mr. Enright owns the home, but does not plan to live in it. --Prince - when theCompPlat was developed, it was the intent to keep R-i zoning adjacent to existing R-1 areas. Objects to this because this would be an R-1 zoning in the middle of nowhere and not adjacent to any other R-1 zone. --Dreher - have to take into consideration the proposed Waste/ Energy Plant that is proposed less than 1/4 mile from this parcel. --Lyall - this is similar to the Rygh situation. --Prince - to rezone it to R-1 would like it to fit with the Comp Plan and it doesn't, - -Lyall - even if rezoned, it would still not meet the required lot size. - -Dreher - questioned the soils - soil is fairly wet in this area. Chairman Michels closed the hearing at 8:40 p.m. There were no residents in the audience for the hearing. M/S/ Prince/Moe to recommend denial of the rezoning request of C.-R. Enright for the following reasons: 1. The -rezoning to R-1 is in conflict with the Contp Plan for use in Section 32, _- 2. The proposed R-1 zoning would not be_adjacent to any other R-1 zoning in the City,, thereby creating spot zoning. 3. The lot size would not meet the minimum requirement of 1 1/2A Motion carried 8-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 -6- 3. C. R. ENRIGHT PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED: ( This item will be placed on the November 3, Council agenda. --Lee Annett - asked what the Comp Plan call for in Section 32. --Dreher - Urban Mix --Mazzara - Industry and high density housing. --Lee Annett - asked about turning the house into a duplex. Would that have any effect on the recommendation. --Lyall - no - would not have any bearing at all. --Mazzara - this would still be spot zoning, as the surrounding area would still develop as anticipated in the Comp Plan. --Dreher - sewer could be brought to this lot to override the lot size requirement, but very conifident that there will be commercial development all around,othis parcel,- more valuable as a commercial piece. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMP PLAN AMENDMENT TO DELETE CO. ROAD 13 BY-PASS AND PUT IN 53RD STREET CONNECTION: *amended Chairman Michels opened the hearing at*9•�47- p.m.8:47 p.m. 11/8/82 Michels explained the amendment tode1ete proposed County 13 alignment around the Lake Jane area and include the extension of 53rd St. N, from Foxfire to Keats Avenue, --Don Marty, representing T. A. Schifsky, asked how the extension of 53rd Steet would affect Foxfire regarding assessments, etc. --Michels- explained the proposed change was precipitated:by the County's decision not to construct a new County 13 alignment, .east of Lake Jane. 53rd Street was intended to connect with Co. 13 as a -means of -providing an east/west-access. Since the County has decided not to build Co. 13, it should be deleted from the highway plan and the 53rd St. N. alignment extended to Keats. Not acting .on building153rd St. N., but including its alignment -in the Comp Plan for future planning purposes should development east of Foxfire occur. Mr. Marty reviewed the present highway/road map with the Commission. Chairman Michels closed the hearing at 8:58 p.m. M/S/P Dreher/Gifford to recommend amending the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan to delete reference to a collector street on the east side of Lake Jane, running from 45th St. N. to Highway 36, which was to be relocated County Road 13 and adding a street connection alignment from 53rd St. N. in Foxfire to Keats Avenue N. Carried 7-0-1. Prince abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - EMERSON REZONING: Chairman Michels opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Bruce Folz presented Paul Emerson's request to rezone 9.18 A on loth Street, the south 800' of the east 500' of Gov. Lot 4, Sec 25, from RR to Industrial Park. The reason for the request is that Mr. Emerson wants to add another storage building to house his equipment. This is not permitted under his present zoning. He would like the property zoned for its present use. Has used this site for over 20 years to operate E & H Earthmovers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 -7- 5. EMERSON REZONING - CONTINUED; - -Bruce Folz - property is located in the northwest corner of County 15 and loth Street. The property to the south is owned by School District 834(Oakland School is immediately south), there is one residential house to the southwest (Bill Mordick), the property to the west of the proposed rezoning tract is owned by Paul Emerson, land west of that is owned by 3M Tartan Park, land to the north is owned by 3M as is the land to the northeast, across County 15, in West Lakeland, Paul Emerson owns the tracts on the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection.. Understood when the Zoning Ordwas redone that all property was to be zoned for present use - this wasn't done in this case. The only way he can move the additional building onto his property is to rezone it for Industrial Use. Asking to rezone 9.18 A out of 25 acres he owns at this site. In the Comp Plan, future Land use, shows all surrounding land as being private or recreational park and open space. Surmised that this property was not rezoned at the time of the new ordinance because it was assumed 3M would purchase it(this possibility had been discussed in the past). --Gifford - asked the zoning across Co. 15 in West Lakeland. --Folz - Residential - 2 1/2 A minimum --Michels - questioned alternatives to rezoning. Feels best use still Park and Recreation. --Gifford - would rather see building permitted, rather than rezone. Would consider this spot zoning. - -Folz - Zoning Ordinance spot zoned by zoning property to present use. but this piece didn't get rezoned. --Michels - existing uses were permitted and identified as exisitng non -conforming uses. --Mazzara - these business' were permitted non -conforming uses, but were unable to expand and had to conform to present code requirements for any change in operation. - -Folz - one problem is that should buildings be destroy by fire, weather, etc. a non conforming use cannot be rebuilt. The suggestion that the-vbusiness be permitted by a, CUP -with the condition that should the property be sold the business will cease creates conflict in that the business that has been built up for 25 years diminishes to zero value if he cannot sell it as' a business. - -Gifford - what has been done to the land that makes it unique for its present use. --Folz - has built four buildings. --Lyall- essentially this is a storage area. Someone buying the business(the hardware). l ay not_want to locate -at this site. Would be buying the reputation and hardware of E & H. --Folz - should have the right to sell the building and the things that go with it with the business - leaving the.site choice up to the buyer. What good are the existing buildings if the business is required to be sold separately - owner ends up with a debt service to move or destroy the buildings making it an obligation rather than an asset. To say this has to be residential use shrinks the value of the existing site. As the Comp Plan identifies a portion of Emerson's property and surrounding property as parks and open space, assumes the only one who will purchase this property is 3M. This is agreeable to the cwner but it should happen on the free open market. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 1982 -8- 5. EMERSON REZONING - CONTINUED: --Mazzara - if the 9.18A is zoned Industrial Park and the remaining acreage around this site remains residential, creates two incompatible uses. --Folz - Emerson still owns 20 acres around the 9.18A. He would be the one to decide the loss or gain by what he decides tc do with his remaining property. Only asking for something to allow him to continue to operate the way he has been for 20 years. Time may come when the business would get moved - no problem with changing the zoning from Industrial to something else. Key is to make a decision on the Comp Plan - not sure it makes a difference what it is zoned today. Has a grandfather right to use the business. - -Gifford - main concern is if the property were sold and used for Industrial purposes. The CUP would give the City the option to redefine the use. As is presently identified, texisiting,permitted, non -conforming use, could sell the business, but the business cannot be expanded. --Folz,- not presently operating under a CUP - no restrictive permit - it is a granfathered right for the business, but cannot expand the number of buildings unless a" change in the zoningc,or a CUP (which gets to be a real mess) --Lyall - why can't a permit be issued to allow another building. --Folz - because it doesn't fit in the Ordinances - no provision to permit a non -conforming use to become more non -conforming. --Prince - mentioned discussion the Conuuission had on planned Industrial areas identified in the Comp Plan, and why an -i-nd-iv-idual--shou-ld- be -allowed-to- have -an Industrial area where it is not planned and possibly require location of such business in a planned Industrial area. Asked Mr, Emerson what his business needs are as regards City services.,"_ --Paul Emerson - no additional needs other than police and fire protection. --Mazzara - not in aposition to judge where the existing business should be located. Basic questions should address people around the proposed site, the area, and can it be serviced. --Gifford. - another issue is compatibility to land use. If the area in West Lakeland were zoned Industrial would have no concern - do not find thie uncompatible use adjoining the school - but since it is -zoned residential concerned. --Mazzara - thisis not our concern; also, Mr. Emerson owns the property across Co. 15 in West Lakeland. - -Gifford - realize Mr. Emersonhas-ad-his business here for 20 years and has the right to stay on that land, except, do not like to see it rezoned to Industrial because it will be industrial forever. --Lyall - would like to find some way to permit the building, as this is Mr. Emerson's main concern not the Industrial zoning. - -Folz - this type of equipment only fits in the Industrial Park zone. - -Dreher - 15 will have an interchange at I-94, and based on the way the County has upgraded Co. 15, can see some other type of development other than residential up 15. This is also the road to the airport. --Gifford - questioned considering the land south of Oakland Industrial. Should we look at the Comp Plan with Co. 15 and I-94 being an Industrial area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 15, 1982 -9- 5. EMERSON REZONING - CONTINUED: --Folz - Co. 15 is constructed/graded as a four lane divided all the way to Minnehaha. Only paved the south bound lane. The roadway is there and graded. 10th Street will be four lane urban. --Dreher - if rezoned, a buffer zone will have to be created. --Michels - referenced the October 11, 1982, PZC minutes, Item E. that states an alternative to rezoning would be to grant a variance to permit a building to house the equipment, Asked Emerson if this would be acceptable. Mr. Emerson indicated yes. This alternative will be verified with the City Administrator before the City Council meeting. Chairman Michels closed the hearing at 9:40. There were no - residents in the audience for the hearing. M/S/P Lyall/Moe to recommend a variance be granted to Paul Emerson to permit him to move a building onto his property at Co. 15 and 10th Street, for the following reasons: 1. to accomodate a business that has operated in the City for over 20 years and is grandfathered in under the present Ordinance. 2, to avoid spot zoning by rezoning the property to Industrial 3. to compensate for the fact that this business may have been overlookedandnot zoned for present use when the new ---- Zoning Ordinance and Comp Plan were drafted. This recommendation is based on the opinion of the City Attorney as to the legality of granting a variance. Carried 8-0, M/S/P Lyall/Mazzara to recommend approvingothe rezoning of 9.18A from RR to Industrial at the corner of County 15 and loth Street for Paul Emerson for the following reasons: 1, to accomodate a business that has operated in the City for over 20 years and is grandfathered in under the present Ordinance, 2. the possibility that this property was overlooked and not zonedforpresent use at the time the new Zoning Ordinance and Comp Plan were drafted. 3. the assumption that -County .15 will be upgraded to a four_ lane roadway, and the fact there will will an interchange at County 15 and I-94, this may be an applicable area for Industrial zoning. This recommendation to be considered as an alternate motion provided the variance recommendation is not acceptable. Carried 5-3. Gifford, Prince and Lundquist. Opposed. --Prince - opposed this recommendation because Industrial zoning conflicts with theComprehensive Plan, --Lundquist - question needs further study before prepared to make a decision. --Gifford - zoning conflicts with the Comp Plan. Lundquist recommended apprising the City Administrator and Council of the ±ecreattonal designation indicated in the Comp Plan for the Emerson property. This should be corrected. ADJOURN: 9:45 p.m. CITY OF LAKE jitELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North 1 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION October 25, 1982 7:30 P.M. -- Meeting Convenes 7:45 P.M. 1. Meeting Convenes 2. Betty Orchard & Pat Sinclair Simple Lot Subdivision at 8170 Hill Tr. N. To Council - Variances for: Setback from lake; Lot width/frontage on public street; and Lot size. 8:15 P.M. -- 3 C. R. Enright Rezoning that part of the NW 4 of SE 2 of Sec. 32 House Moving Permit 8:45 P.M. 4 Public Hearing Comp Plan Amendment to take Co. Road 13 By -Vass out, put in 53rd Street connection 9:00 P.M. - 5. Emerson. Rezoning Rezoning 9.18 acres on 10th Street the south 800' of east 500' of Gov. Lot 4, Sec. 25 from RR to Industrial Park 6 Call Public Hearing on Landscape Standards NOTE: Bring your Code Books for amendments