Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-8-82 PZMCITY OF LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 8, 1982 Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Commissioners present: Mazzara, Nazarian, Lundquist, Lyall and Moe(8P,M.) Absent: Dreher, Prince, Gifford and Peterson Also present, Administrator Whittaker 1. MINUTES: October 25, 1982 - --Correction - Page 6, Item 4 - Chairman. Michels opened the hearing at 9-49 8:47 p.m.- Approval deferred until quorum was present. PLANNING SEMINAR - Whittaker urged Commissioners to attend the up coming Land Use Planning Workshop being held November 30, 1982. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR GEORGE KRUEGER, 11491 50TH ST. N. - EAST 1/2 of NW 1/4 of SECTION 12. Chairman Michels opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Krueger is proposing to subdivide a "L" shaped 59.71_Acre parcel into two parcels containing 12.0 acres and 47.71 acres respectively. He would retain the 12,0 acre piece and plans to sell the 47.71 acre parcel. The property is located east of County 17 on 50th Street. The only access for this property is off of 50th Street. --Whittaker - there is adequate road access for both parcels, and because of the depth of the two parcels did not anticipate future subdivision, therefore, would not oppose Mr. Kruegers request to waive the requirement for a future subdivision plan. Noted that the soils east of the pond on the 47 acre parcel are bad and may require some excavation if this parcel is further subdivided in the future. --Lundquist - the 47A piece would be difficult to develop - owner of Parcel B (47 A) could not sell back portion of the parcel and retain front portion which has frontage and access on 50th Street as this would landlock the back portion. - -Lyall - noted it is approximately 1/5 mile back to the wide portion of Parcel B. Informed Mr. Krueger that this may be a problem with future subdivision of Parcel B. - -George Krueger - would give the owner of Parcel B an easement along the west edge of his property (along the pine trees) for access to the back of the parcel. --Whittaker - the proposed subdivision would not;vmake future subdivision mare difficult than it is today because 50th Street is presently the only access. May have to build 44th or 45th Streets in the future. 45th Street would go along the south boundary of this property. There were no residents in the audience for the hearing. Chairman Michels closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. M/S/P Mazzara/Nazarian to recommend approval of a large lot sub- division for George Krueger to create two parcels 12.0 A and 47.71 acres in size located in the E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Section 12. Carried 5-0-1. Moe abstained. Further subdivision of either parcel would require review and approval by the Planning Commission and Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 8, 1982 -2- 1. MINUTES: M/S/P Lyall/Mazzara to approve the minutes of October 25, 1982, as corrected. Carried 5-0-1 Nazarian abstained, 8. COUNCIL ACTION REPORT: A. Emerson Rezoning - Whittaker reported that the Council denied Mr. Emerson's request for rezoning and determined, per the City Attorney's conclusion, that a:'variance to_ permit -an additional accessory building would not meet the legal requirements of a variance thereby violating the City Ordinance requirements for accessory buildings in RR. The limit of the non -conforming use will now be identified, and it was felt there is adequate storage in existing buildings that are now being used for non -business related vehicles. 4. SITE AND BUILDING PLANS - WHITE HAT EXPANSION - ED GORMAN: The Commission reviewed Mr. Gorman's expansion plans, The Council approved the plans contingent on Planning Commission review and approval. Gorman explained the design lay -out. Whittaker asked about providing a 10ft landscape buffer around the perimeter, as required in the proposed landscape standards. As the present Ordinance requires a 5 ft. buffer -with -interior landscape islands needed for. every six parking spaces, the new standard would require_moving the parking area in 10 ft. but would not necessitate .construction and removal of interior islands when expansion is initiated to the west, Mr. Gorman agreed to move-the'proposed parking area in 10' to provider .10! buffer, M/S/P Lundquist/Lyall to support the Council site and building plans for expansion of the with revision that a 10' landscape buffer be west and south perimeter_ of the property. approval of Ed Gormans White Hat Restaurant provided around the Carried 6-0, 3. SIMPLE LOT DIVISION - LAVONNE RICHERT, 3812 JAMACA AVENUE: The,Commission reviewed Mrs. Richert's proposal to subdivide her 3 acre parcel, located in the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec. 16, into two 1 1/2 acre lots, excluding right-of-way. The site is zoned R-1. Access to both parcels would be off Jamaca Avenue. No other access would be available until the Shafer Mining property would develop behind her property. M/S/P Nazarian/Mazzara to recommend approval of a Simple Lot Division for Lavonne Richert to create two 1 1/2 A parcels, out of a -three acre parcel because both parcels meet the 1/1/2 acre minium lot size required by Ordinance. Carried 6-0. 8. COUNCIL ACTION REPORT - CONTINUED: B. Orchard/Sinclair - Whittaker reported on Mayor .Eder's.mot"On to grant a variancefromthe minimum lot size and approve the simple lot division provided each lot contained 1 acre of land and two drainfield sites. Motion failed 2-3. --Lyall - lot size should stipulate 1 acre of dry land above the high water mark. C. Enright Rezoning - Mr. Enright cancelled.. D. Comp Plan Amendment for CSAH 13 and 53rd St. - the Administrator is drafting a Resolution on the amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 8, 1982 -3- 6, NOVEMBER 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: If no other Agenda items come in the November 22 meeting will be cancelled and the Landscape Standards Hearing will be held in December, 7, MOBILE HOME CODE - PROPOSED CHANGES: The Commission reviewed the proposed changes as outlined in the Administrator's memo of November 5. The three_chhnges proposed by the City (Items 10. 11,and 12),that will apply to a new mobile home district were modeled after the Cottage Grove Ordinance, --Moe - finds the changes biased, unfair and discriminatory because mobile homes cannot be located in unsewered areas. Do not like identifying a place just for mobile homes. --Lundquist - County Ordinance permits manfactured homes any where within a community provided they are a minimum of 20 ft, wide, the units are placed lengthwise on the lot, and are put on permanent foundations, --Moe - not receptive to the Cottage Grove Ordinance, County Ordinance excludes mobile homes that are not double wide from being placed on a lot outside a park. None of the homes in Cimarron could be located outside the park. Does not feel R-1 zoning should restrict manfactured houses other than in areas where development covenants require minimum house sizes, Possibly Midland Meadows or Tartan Meadows should be considered as a manfactured housing zone, --Whittaker - possiblity - if the developers agreed.They would have to request a different zoning. --Lundquist - lot shape may change for this type of housing. --Michels - would not oppose 1A lot.size provided it is one acre of dry land above the high water mark and has two available drainfield sites. Manfactured homes should be close or contiguous to similar housing, --Lundquist - State has mandated that this type of housing be provided and included in a Single family district. --Whittaker - Councillor Mottaz recommended following the Cottage Grove Ordinance with this district being located in an area where sewer and:water are available. Whittaker stated this could be permitted in a rural district. It would not be permitted in R-1, but a special district could be set up to permit mobile homes on residential lots outside of a park. - -Lundquist - if a special district is designated with 1 acre lots the City could not permit different houses other than manfactured housing. Would even consider smaller lots to make them more affordable, The Commission generally agreed one acre of dry land above the high flood mark should be the minimum. - -Whittaker - will contact the developers of Tartan Meadows and Midland Meadows about a manfactured housing district, --Moe - does not like the Statute section relating.tnttendant" Asked if the City could be more restrictive. --Whittaker - there is no City Ordinance that requires a caretaker to be on duty 24hrs, a day,any where else. Thought it might discriminate against mobile home park owners. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 8, 1982 -4- 5. MOVING PERMIT FOR JOSEPH EDER, 3699 LAVERNE - The Commission reviewed Mr. Eder's request to move a garage onto his property. The structure is new and fully assembled. The Commission questioned the location of the new garage. --Whittaker - there is no other location, if it were placed behind the house it would interfere with the drainfield area, and there is no more distance on the other side of the house. The neighbor on the south has no objection to the location of the garage. Whittaker verified the lot width against the plat and determined the lot is 60' wide, not 80', thereby, making a - side yard distance of 6.ft.: on_either side of the garage. The siteplanis accurate if the 60' width is used. Commission action is needed for the house moving permit only. M/S/P Lyall/Moe to_recommend approval of a house moving permit for Joseph Eder to place a garage on his property at 3699 Laverne based on the hardship that there is no other location for the structure on the property and provided all the requirements of the Ordinance are met . Carried 6-0. ADJOURN 9:50 p.m. A CITY OF LAKE AELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North I Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 NOTICE TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS. The Planning Commission will not meet on Monday, November 22, 1982 There will be a Joint Meeting with the City Council on December 13, 1982 to consider the following: 1. Mobile Homes 2. Subdivision Regulations 3. Landscaping Standards H AP P Y THANK S G T V T N G CITY OF LAKE AELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION November 8, 1982 7:30 P.M.-- Meeting convenes 1. Minutes - October 25 meeting 7:45 P.M.-- 2. Public Hearing -George Krueger-11491-50th. St. No. Large Lot Subdivision- East �, NWT of Sec. 12 8 : 15 P.M.-- 3. Simple Lot Division-Lavonne Richert-3812 Jamaca Ave. NE4 of NE3 of Section 16 8:30 P.M -- 4. Site and Building Plan -White Hat Restaurant expansion -Ed Gorman 8:45 P.M.-- 5. Moving Pe mit-Joseph Eder--3699 Laverne Ave. Move garage onto the above address 9:00 P.M.-- 6. Nov. 22 Meeting --only item scheduled is hearing on Landscape Standards (7:45 P.M.) 7. Mobile Home Code --proposed changes 8. Report on Council Actions - A. Emerson B. Orchard/Sinclair C. Enright D. Comp Plan 10:00 P.M. Adjourn- L ' CITY Of LAKE ELMO MEMO City of Lake Elmo TO: The Planning Commission N'lti: Larry Whittaker DT: Nov. 5, 1982 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North I Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 RE: PROPOSED CHANGES IN MOBILE HOME ORDINANCES CC: Planning Commission, City Council, Press, Admin., Sec'y.,Atty.,Mike Ahrens Since the State law changed, our Ordinance has not complied with State Statute. Some minor changes are required — and are suggested in this Memo. In addition, City Councillor Jess Mottaz is recommending certain other changes in the Ordinance to make mobile home communities safer and more flexible. The attached Ordinance AMENDMENTS incorporate all of these proposed changes. I'll try to summarize them briefly in this cover Memo. This first thing the Amendments do is move the Mobile Home Code to SECTION 302 of the ZONING ORDINANCE. Most of the requirements in the Code relate to Zoning — not subdivision; so, this is a more logical place for the Code. STATE STATUTE requires we redefine "mobile home" to MANUFACTURE HOMES;so, this is changed throughout the Code — and the new State definition of Manufactured Home is used. In SECTION 302: 302.010 1. We added a "Purpose" — from the League of Cities model ordinance. Page 1 — 030 2. Put in the new definitions of Manufactured Home, Park, and Lot. Page 2 — 050 3. We added the more complete requirements for "Applications" from the League of Cities model ordinance, to our Code, to meet State law. Page 3 - 060 4. We changed the fee structure to keep it in line with other Zoning and Subdivision applications. A straight $ 100 fee plus pass —through. Page 4 — 080 E 5. We increased street width from 20 feet to the City standard for residential areas — 32 feet — to provide for off—street parking in the Park. Page 4 — 080 H 6. We added a provision requiring utility buildings, per State law. Page 4 — 080 E 7. We revised the speed limit to 20 mph. We have been debating 10 and 30 mph for years. We felt 20 mph was reasonable and safe. Page 4 — 080 8. We deleted Paragraphs K and L of old Section 402.080, in the design standards,because they are covered elsewhere in the Code. Page 5 — 080 M 9. We revised the Public Open space (302.080 M) to_ comply with the present Subdivision Ordinance. Page 5 — O8G 10. We included the new State requirements for foundations. Page 5 - 100 11. We added the Section on child —free areas. Page 5 — 120 12. "Attendant" was modified to comply with State law. Page 6 _ 140 13. The whole "Inspections" section was revised per the League model. Page 6 Basically, this Ordinance would require better foundations, shelters for bad weather, and a more readily available Attendant. It also clarifies requirements for public open space and streets. It is not a major change in the Code. MOBILE HOME MEMO Nov. 5, 1982 page two SECTION 301.070 D, present City Code: The next Section of the Amendments would provide for a mobile home Zoning District OUTSIDE of Manufactuiul Home Parks. Basically, the proposed amendment adopts the Cottage Grove Ordinance by adding 301.070 D. 5. a. (1) on page 300-35 of the present Zoning Ordinance. This amendment would permit the City to establish an area of single—family lots reserved for mobile homes, where there is public sanitary sewer and water. In other words, manufactured homes would not have to be put in a Manufactured Home Park. They could be placed on separate lots. The District also permits these neighborhoods to have regular single—family homes, zero —lot line homes, and the usual accessory uses. It does not permit a person to put a manufactured home in the present Single—family zoning Districts (RR, R1, and R2). It provides, per our suggested correction, that this Zoning District be permitted only in areas designated for URBAN densities on the Comp. Plan. At present, this would be Section 32, as it is the only area inside the MUSA line, with public sewer. Now, you may want to provide for this type of District in the Rural area, too. If you do' I suggest that these homes be required to have the same lot size as a Single— family home (12 acres), as they have the same sewer, parking, and other public service needs as a Single—family home. I would also suggest that, if you want Rural areas, this District be limited to areas of not less than 40 acres that are near other mobile home parks or areas where they would fit into the existing neighborhood — Where they would not depreciate property values of adjacent Single—family home areas. In short, it is probably adequate and better policy to restrict these Districts to Urban areas or very isolated Rural areas. This would provide ample area for this alternative type of housing — an alternative I think we will see and need much more often in the future. SECTION 301.030 Q AND R , present City Code: The definition of RECREATIONAL VEHICLES was improved in the new State Statute; so, we incorporated that new definition in these Amendments. With that, we also had to redefine "Recreational Camping Area", to comply with Statute. All of this is shown on page 16. The only other change in this Section is the requirement that such Recreational Camping Areas must be in the Mobile Home Zoning District AND you must secure a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to develop and operate one. The Ordinance now requires simple City approval. We did not think that was adequate. The only reason we copied the rest of the pages in this Section was to change the words'Recreational vehicle and trailer'to Recreational Vehicle...to comply with State Statute. All the the required Amendments are, therefore, together. I lsok forward to a heady discussion of these proposals on Monday. I hope you have a chance to read through them.