HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983
Chairman Prince called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Commissioners present: Lyall, Gifford, Peterson, Dreher (8:05),
Alternate Graves and Alternate Rygerg. Absent: Michels, Lundquist,
Moe and Nazarian,
1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS:
Chairman Prince introduced newly appointed alternates Chuck Graves
and Paul Ryberg to the Commission,. The:Alternates were then
placed in service and notified that they had authority to vote
in the absence of the_four -full members.
2. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1983: Deferred until March 14, pending a
quorum of full members.
3. PUBLIC HEARING FOR FRANK MEYERS TO REZONE PROPERTY ON KEATS AVENUE
FROM RR TO AG; FOR AG PRESERVES:
Chairman Prince opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Ron Kane, representing Frank Meyer, presented Mr. Meyer's proposal
to rezone 53.4 acres, presently zoned RR, to Agriculture in order
to qualify for Ag Preserves. The property is located at 5055 Keats
Avenue. The property is presently being farmed and there are no
structures on the property.
There being no audience comments, Chairman Prince closed the hearing
at 8:00 p.m.
M/S/P Gifford/Rygerg recommending approval of the rezoning request
of Frank Meyer to rezone 53.4 Acres to AG from RR, described as
follows: SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Sec. 3, T 29N, R21, Lake Elmo, Mn.
lying southerly of the N 91.30 ft. thereof, except therefrom the
east 333.00 ft of the north 750 ft. and the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of Sec. 3, T 29N, R 21W, City of Lake Elmo, lying southerly of the
north 300.00 ft, thereof, except there from the west 430.00 ft of
the north 750.00 ft thereof and also excepting the south 330.00
feet of the east 660.00 feet. Motion carried 6-0. This item will
be placed on the February 23 Council Agenda.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF THE NELSON/HAGEMAN PROPERTY ON 10TH
ST. - NEXT TO OAKDALE GUN CLUB - FROM RR TO R1 AND REVIEW OF SKETCH
PLAN:
Chairman Prince opened the hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Tom Loucks, representing Mr. Nelson and Mr, Hageman, distributed
sketch plans and explained the proposal. The total acreage of the
proposal is 32 acres with Mr. Nelson being the contract purchaser
of the east 10 acres and Mr. Hageman being the contract purchaser
of the west 22 acres. The applicants are requesting R-1 zoning
which permits 1 1/2 A parcels, and would allow 22 lots. Mr. Loucks
stated his clients are proposing only 14 lots and that this zoning
is consistent with the Comp Plan for future use in this area.
The developers hope to attract earth sheltered and passive solar
type homes based on the terrain of the property. On -site septic
systems will be used. Loucks presented a soils map for the area
and indicated the soils necessary for on -site disposal. He noted
two areas on the site that are not good for an on -site system
specific home sites have been designed around these.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983 -2-
4. NELSON/EAGEMAN PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED:
Loucks referred the Commission to the slopes analysis as outlined
on the sketch plan. This outlines the 14 sites - nearly all of them
are adaptable utilizing the topography and orientation of the site
for either earth shelter or passive solar type structures. Mr.
Loucks reitterated this proposal is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is_a reasonable and equitable use_ fot this
property.
Audience and Commission Comments:
--Al Borsheim, representing Oakdale Gun Club - gave his credentials
in the fields of building, septic'end soils inspection.
Gun Club objects to development adjacent to their property lines
without any fore thought to protecting the dewllings or lots from
the impact of the Gun Club, Club spend alot of money on noise to
protect people outside the boundaries of the Club - development
of this type, going in next door, should have the same consideration
for the homes that they plan to build. Passive solar and earth
shelter are 'buzz' words - the developers do not know what type of
homes the lot purchasers will build. The soil type in this area
is basically sand - the D classification means it has excessive
slopes, over 13%,this is the only limitation on a 49D-slope-. The
120, this parcels has a large section of this running through the
middle, is high water table, 3-5 foot. This soil is unsuitable
for basements, septic and in -ground earth sheltered structures. Do
have a soil problem with this piece of property slopes and high
water table. Did not mention drainage plans, road plans and cul-de-
sacs. Appears that the proposed cul-de-sacs exceed the 900 ft.
minimum, Unless can show some marketability for these lots, rezoning
may be premature for the development that is about to occur in
this area - the four lane up -grade of Minnehaha, the entrance to
the regional park, and development of Midland Meadows to the south,
whether this land will or will not be developed. Also appears to
be a spot rezoning - it is between two agriculturally zoned parcels,
does adjoin R-1 to the south, but is separated by 10th Street, which
will be a four lane highway in the future.
--Prince - referred the Commission and Mr. Loucks and his clients to
the letter from Robert Lockyear, County Planner, dated February 22,
which comments on the rezoning, Prince noted Mr. Lockyear also
commented on high ground water on the site.
--Gifford - views expressed by Mr. Borsheim about the Gun Club is a
factor that has continually been taken into consideration. Asked
for the developers reply - they must have anticipated this problem
in trying to develop next to the Gun Club also how marketable they
feel their lots would be adjacent to the Gun Club.
--Prince - discussed this at the last meeting with members that are
absent - they expressed concern about developing problems next to
the Club. Do not want to be in a position of protecting the interest
of the Club too much, yet, we want to protect the interests of the
possible owners in the proposed development,
--Loucks - this definitely is an issue that has been dealt with in
developing this property. Do not think that by the very nature of
the Gun Club's location development around the Club can be precluded.
Would suggest that the Club's position might be that the highest
and best use for any property around them is nothing so that they
can continue their operation. In terms of community development
and transition that occurs in a community, would suggest that 10,
12, 15 years down the line the Gun Club would not be an adequate
land use and a good neighbor, In future, Midland Meadows will
have a significant number Of homes, plus these 14 home sites,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983 -3-
,4. NELSON/HAGEMAN PUBLIC HEARING -• CONTINUED:
Audience & Commission Comments
--Loucks - Are definite interface problems with the Gun Club,
particularly on the western boundary. Initial intent of the
developers is to develop the.:easterly six lots, which are less
impacted . by the potential of errant rounds - know the Club
has done considerable work to alleviate this.problem. No doubt
there is a staccato noise that comes out of the Club until about
9 p.m. - these are conditions the City may have to deal with as
being reasonable by the Gun Club in the future.
Soils and disposal systems - very much aware of what some of the
soil problems are for on -site disposal, this is why the maximum
density was not developed - proposed density allows one unit for
every 2.25...acres. Designed actual building sites around some
of the soil limitations. Aware of the high water table -sunder
the Waste Disposal Regulation only need to be 4 ft. above motled
soil - confident will find sites on the large tracts to locate
an approved system; amd, within the framework of the regulation
this is not possible there are alternatives such as mound systems.
Marketability - Mr. Nelson is a developer. He has the potential
of getting two sites going this ,spring - has the clients and
the plans for building the type of homes suggested earlier. Can
say there will be some sites that will not be earth shelter or
passive solar. There is an existing house on the site that is
going to be remodeled.
--David Nelson, Developer - hope to develp three to five sites
this summer in a passive or earth sheltered way.
--Prince - Not sure who should be protected - the future home owners
or the Gun Club - still question development of the west portion
of the property.
- -Glen Hageman, developer - plan to build his residence on the west
side - been before the Commission before regarding the CUP for
the Gun Club, Problem in establishing his residence is the Gun
Club.- share the same concern as to who has predominance or over
the next few years.What is it that we are after in this area -
preservation of the Gun Club or residential development?
- -Prince - they are property owners also.
--Hageman - they are renewed each year and this proposal is a longer
permanent use. Immediate concern is not resale of property, but
to build a residence there. Purchased the property four'years ago.
- -Gifford - confirmed that the Club was there when the property was
purchased. Asked about considering berming or buffering the west
lots from the Club that would increase protection.
- -Hageman - no feel strongly the other way. Concern is for what is
falling on this property rather than what could happen to their
(Gun Club) property. This exists right now. The burden for safe
use is on them. Mr. Nelson purchased his property three years ago.
--Graves < questioned whether the issues of run-off and park donation
need to be addressed.
--Loucks - have two issues: one -rezoning, this is what is being
asked for. Sketch plan was prepared to show what the developers
intended to do. When rezoning is accomplished then will come in
with the Preliminary and Final Plat plans. Will likely make a.
cash park donation. As far as the actual development, are going
to suggest a'rural section for drainage, very low density, will
be the typical rural section 26 ft. wide roadway with water ditched
down to the County ditch. Are no storm sewer improvements in the
area. All these things must be defined at the time of final
platting. No plans for additional ponding because of the low coverage
on sites of this size that there will not be a tremendous amount
of run-off, What is generated will ao into a ditch system,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983 -4-
4. NELSON/HAGEMAN PUB-LIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
--Gifford - Questioned Lockyear's comment about seasonally high
ground water on site that may be a problem.
--Loucks this issue relates to the provisions for on -site septic
systems. Each:` site will be graded and .contoured to utilize
the ditch system. Identified a low area on the map that could
be a potential ponding area. Feel it would be inconsequential
to think that water will be draining in this area rather than
where the development will be. Will have to get into a detailed
drainage plan when the roads are engineered. With this type
of density do not suspect there will be a need for storm water
in place under the street with catch basin handling drainage system.
--Prince - would not want to plan a subdivision that would have to
plan ahead of time for mound septic systems.
--Al Borsheim - think the County addressed the ground water problem
not only because of on -site septic problems but because of road
construction problems. County soil analysis shows that there is
a ponding or water collection area within the 120 soil type.
- -Loucks - indicated the developers are aware of this situation.
- -Prince - agree that drainage, parks, roads, etc. can be addressed
at the time of reviewing the preliminary plat, but in tonsidering
this rezoning have to -keep in mind the problems involved by the
proximity of the development to the Gun Club and the up -grading
of 10th Street. Do not believe this plan, with five lots
exiting on Minnehaha, is appropriate. Assume these plans could
be changed to suit the interests of the City and County.
--Graves - when the Gun Club received their CUP it was with the
realization that this property was RR, 10 acre sites, which
cuts down the potential of errant bullets affecting a'homesite.
If this is rezoned and developed, does this mean the end of the
Gun Club at the present location.
--Whittaker - this would be premature. As long as the Club operates
within its permit, and there doesn't appear to be an overt danger
to health, safety and welfare, it will probably remain. Other
-Clubs have existed in residential areas-tr. Maplewood, Golden Valley.
--Al Borsheim - did not object to Hammes development because the
home sites were clusted to the front of the property in front
of the firing range. Objection to this plat is the house locations
are up tight against the boundary line and north of the firing
line - makes it almost impossible to protect the residents
from the impulse noise . With the berms and imbankments it is
impossible for a stray round getting out that will do any damage;
hut, it will be almost impossible to protect the house proposed
along the Clubs north east boundary to be protected against the
impulse noise.
--Gifford - asked Mr. Hageman if this is planned for his residence
and why this particular site - was_it a_chaylenge.
---Hageman - No, talked to the Club when he purchased the property
four years ago about locating a house on the site. They
discussed various protective' measures:.aubh--as-plexiglass. Was
and still is a friendly conversation - Hageman objects to their
being there, in a friendly way, and they,of course, object to this
plat. in response to Lyall's question concerning his attitude
about the Club when the property was purchased, Hageman responded
that he believes that over time the Club will relocate. If they
prove a good neighbor to the entire area, once developed, this
may not happen. Roaming of children from adjacent neighborhoods
is what will present the problem in the future.
--Gifford - Noise is the present issue( but as time goes on, safety
may be the problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 23, 1983 -5-
A. NELSON/HAGEMAN PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
--Borsheim - As adjoining property develops, fencing will be
provided, as needed, The range is totally supervised at, all times.
A lake or swimming pool is dangerous and even more attractive
to children - this area will have a 6' barbed wire topped fence.
--Dreher the Gun Club is there and believe they have their rights.
Have to protect their rights as well as the neighbor's rights.
Developers were aware the Club was there when they purchased the
land,
--Hageman agreed, but also aware that the land was planned for
R-1 - here requesting the planned zoning.
--Borsheim - Gun Club does not oppose the development or the rezoning,
but believe a better job of laying out the sites in a cluster
development and moving some of the houses away from the Club's
property line and locating the residences where there is adequate
soils and protection from the Gun Club, The bad soil and low
areas are primarily along the Club's boundary line. If the three
houses along the west boundary were moved to a more central
location all concerned parties could benefit.
--Prince - suggested that the rezoning was acceptable, but that
the developers should -_ recons-ider the plan.
--Lyall - questioned the City's authority to dictate house and
lot locations if adequate septic areas can Abe found on the
proposed plan.
--Prince - believe can disapprove the proposed plan based on
potential noise problems,
---Loucks - agree there may be some need to create -_some buffer
zones from the Gun Club. Suggest that if the City would permit
clustering of sites less than 1 1/2 A in size on the easterly
portion of the site - this would be considered.by the developers.
Also,suggest;:that the City consider taking park land for use
as a buffer between this property and the Gun Club. Regulations
in R-1 very stringent. Do not see any flexibility that allows
clustering as su#:nested by Mr. Borsheim.
--Prince - many empty lots within the City. Asked -the developers
if they realistically feel these lots will sell.
--Nelson - proximity of this property to the Regional Park make
the property very desirable - topography very attractive.
--Graves - asked Al Borsheim if the Gun Club would have any objection
to the rezoning provided the preliminary plat is designed differently.
--Borsheimr, would rather see the RR zoning because of lower density.
Feel the layout could be reworked and resolve some of the problems
by relocating the three housing sites along the Gun Clubs east
boundary. The closestshooting point to this parcel would be
about parallel, straight west, of_ the home site in the NW corner -
this is 250"-300' from the property line. This area is all bermed.
--Prince - an issue the Commission will be discussing soon is review
of the land use planning map in the Comp Plan, as recommended
by the Met Council, to cut down on planned R-1 areas. This area
would be one of the areas to be reviewed.
--Loucks - Because the Met Council has recommended a review,this
should not preclude his clients from developing their land as
presently planned in the Comp Plan. Would not like to see a
negative recommendation based on what might be. Conclusions
should be based on what is presented planned and allowed.
Chairman Prince closed the hearing at 8:37 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983
-6�
4. NELSON/'HAGEMAN PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
Commission Discussion:
--Prince - concerned about the property location - qualms about who
we are or should be protecting- main concern is the Gun Club and
the noise, also feels the road system should be revised.
Prince conveyed Don Moes opinion, expressed at the last meeting.
Moe felt that if this property.iS rezoned and developed that
within 10 years or less residents would be in to complain about
the noise
--Whittaker - diffent subdivision concepts have been allowed in the
past to meet the best interests of all parties - believes there
may be a more practical and reasonable layout and development of
this parcel that could be worked out between the developers, Gun
Club and the Council,
--Loucks - there is more than one design solution - six concepts
were worked out - looped road would be more costly both to the
developer and the City, which would have to maintain this larger
area.
--Prince - City is against cul-de-sacs, especially long ones,
--Dreher - a looped road is the easiest to maintain.
--Loucks - believes__a good subdivision can be accomplished using
cul-de-sacs - no possibility of shifting the development to the
east and putting in a loop road - eliminated the loop concept
because ended up with four double frontage lots.
--Graves - the 1200 undeveloped -lots in.,the area may be -a factor
in that -roads within this development will have to be plowed
regardless of the number of occupied home sites - this increases
City expenses,
--Gifford - allowed the rezoning on the west side of the Gun Club
and feel it would be unfair to these owners not to be allowed
to develop - do not feel this is spot zoning - area is going to
be residential land useand not incongruous to anyting developing
in this -area. Concerned-about-theconfigurations on -the west
side of the property and have some balancing in the interest of
both parties,
--Whittaker - property to the west was not rezoned - still RR -
just permitted a cluster development.
--Lyall - concurs with Gifford - cannot see where 1200 vacant lots
in the County has any bearing on this development, Also finds
the requested review of planned development areas irrevelant to
this situation.
M/S/P Ryberg/Graves to recommend denial of the Nelson/Hageman
rezoning request for the following reasons:
1. Appears to be spot zoning,
2, Met Councils -recommendation that the City review and
delete planned R-1 zoning that is not considered "in
filling"
3. Based on the Washington County Planning Department
comments, that R-R zoning is more consistent with
the surrounding uses Regional Park and the Gun
Club and other RR zoning in the area.
4, ouestionable soil conditions
Motion carried 4-2-1. Gifford and Lyall opposed, Dreher abstained.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983 -7-
5, PUBLIC HEARING - ALVIN SHAEFER PROPERTY REZONING:
Chairman Prince opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Robert Engwer and Ronald Johnson, Real Estate Agents with Grant
Land ERA, presented _the proposal. They propose to purchase a
10 acre parcel, located at the intersection of 55th Street and
Demontreville Trai`1 N. This is a part of a IBA parcel owned by
Alvin Shaefer. Purchase of the property is contingent upon rezoning
from RR to,R-Land subdivision into residential 1 1/2 acre lots.
Preliminary soil work indicates there are four acceptable building
sites. Access to the lots would be from Demontreville Tr. ,N.
Mr,_Schaefer also owns a 40 acre parcel east of the 35 acre tract.
Audience Comments:
--Robert Olson, 8718 Demontreville Tr. - Feels the Comp Plan
Land Use Plan is not being adhered to when rezoning is done
here and there on a parcel 10 acres at a time.
--Prince - stated the Met Council recommendation to decrease future
R-1 zoning, as indicated in the Comp Plan, is a consideration
in this request as in the Nelson/Hageman proposal.
--Brian Crombie, 8120 Demontreville - asked if a sketch plan
of the proposal was available, Not opposed to the rezoning, but
feels Commission should have a preliminary idea of what the
development will look like and how it relates to the adjacent
property.
--Prince - referred the Commission to the February 7th minutes that
states " if five lots fronted on Demontreville Tr. N., access
should be platted to the back of the property." Would this be
a problem.
--Ronald Johnson - Mr. Schaefer will retain the property north
of this 10 acres up to Highway 36.
--Prince - future subdivision and access to the Schaefer property
may be 'tricky' if no access is planned with this parcel.
--Whittaker - talked to Johnson about providing access to the south
1/2 of the east part of Schaefer's property when a subdivision
plan is presented.». This would show an alternate access to avoid
a 900 ft. long cul-de-sac. County permits driveways at 150'
intervals, no problem with these four driveways.
--Crombie - questioned ponding on -site - this will affect the
configuration of the lots and/or the number of lots- how can
the number of lots be discussed without a preliminary sketch
plan showing the topography and proposed lot lines.
--Prince - clarified the proposal - want four lots, fronting on
Demontreville Tr. with lot lines running east to west.
--Joedy Salisbury, 8728 Demontreville - forsees problems with
the driveways exiting onto Demontreville - there is a high
embankment next to the road.
--Ryberg - uncomfortable with rezoning 'locacres at h'time, yet,
unsure would want to see the density if the 35 acres were developed.
--Whittaker - is-R-1 appropriate zoning for this area. Comp Plan
call for R-1 up to the east edge of Foxfire along Highway 36.
Left a corridor from the powerline to Highway 36 because future
use was uncertain.
--Prince - reittered the Met Council's recommendation - expressed
no strong objection to this proposal
Chairman Prince closed the hearing at 9:30 pm.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983 -8-
5. ALVIN SCHAEFER PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED:
--Gifford - questioned what the intent and goal of the Met Council
is concerning their recommendation to decrease R-1 development.
What should property owners do with their, property.
--Whittaker - their policy is to develop 10 acre lots.
--Gifford - this is contrary to- .their position of a few years ago.
--Howard Springborn,8989 55th Street - would like to see homes
in this area,
M/S/ Graves/Peterson to recommend approval of the Schaefer rezoning
from RR to R-1,
Discussion -
--Gifford - minutes should reflect that the Commission did not
feel it was necessary to review a sketch plan before making the
recommendation to approve the proposal.
--Prince - recommended some type of plan be prepared before
presenting the request to the Council.
Motion carried 6-1 Ryberg opposed. Ryberg does not favor "creeping"
rezoning,
6. MANFACTURED HOUSING PARKS:
A. Caretaker/Attendant - Administrator Whittaker informed the
Commission that the preseht_arrangement Cimarron uses would,
in the opinion of the City Attorney, meet the required Stated
Statute; hut, the_.City_could-elect-to make it more restrictive.
B. Dead Storage - Statute does- not regulate this - it is a matter
of City policy.
Commission comments: -
ATTENDANT/CARETAKER -
--Gifford .. believes having an attendant/caretaker on the premises
is reasonable - an on -site leasee who owns a trailer who could
take over for the weekend is reasonable. Do not think dead storage
is reasonable - this is imposing something on the park owners
that they do not need to supply - residents can go to a public
facility for storage.
--Whittaker - explained caretaker duties - would have the authority
to call the necessary maintenance people in case of emergency -
generally take care of the area.
--Lyall - have a prescribed amount of rent which covers certain
services if more is desired are residents willing to pay the
extra cost.
--Whittaker - residents will end up paying for both of these items
should they be required.
--Charles Clausen, V. P. Cimarron Homeowners Association -
1. Are paying for an attendant to be on the premises 24 hr. through
rent, yet, do not have such an attendant -any longer - homeowners
want this back. This was in the original advertisements for
Cimarron.
2. Dead Storage Area - this also was in the original advertisements
for Cimarron - this was an advantage residents were paying
for. This service is no longer available.
Pay $170 rent - residents pay a higher rent because, according
to management, Cimarron is a nicer place to live, therefore there
is a Cimarron value differential to pay on lot rents.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983
-9-
MANFACTURED HOME PARKS - CONTINUED:
--Lyall - if residents had a contract for a specified service for
a fee and this was not fulfilled this should be a negotiation
between the homeowners and the property owners.
--Clausen - City Ordinance requires an attendant be on duty - State
Ordinance only states there has to be someone in charge.
Homeowners want the City Ordinance to stay the same and then
have the City enforce this Ordinance. Homeowners cannot get
management to comply. HOA has reviewed the dead storage issue and
determined there is no need - can now park trailers and boats
on the lots.
--Prince - reviewed the State Statute -
--Clausen - caretaker services during the week is adequate -
problem is after work, late at night and weekends. Do not feel
its is reasonable to have to take time away from work to contact
management about a complaint - have no one to call if vandals are
seen Sheriff, when called, responds with that is private property.
By time sheriff arrives the individuals are gone.
--Prince -take exception to these statements - all City residents
call the sheriff for these types of problems - this isn't a caretakers
job, Calls to the=City Office -have to be made during business hours.
--Mike Ahrens, Cimarron Business Manager - Has not been an on -site
manager in the 13 years of Cimarron's existence - unfamiliar with
advertising when the park was initiated. Understand the law
is meant to address emergencies - presently have an effective
emergency procedure on the off -periods when management is not
on site. Believe the business hours are appropriate, similar
to City Hall hours, with the emergency method very similar to the
one used by the City. An on -site attendant would not be there,
24 hrs. 365 days a year - present system provides better coverage
and availability. Mr. Ahrens explained the emergency system.
There was one emergency call in 1982. Management would not handle
vandalism - this is sheriff's job.
--Clausen - feels someone should be on the premises in case of
fire to direct trucks and know where the water supply is.
--Whittaker - this is a situation that should be resolved between
management and the Fire Department -a caretakers hould not be involved.
--Clausen - presently no one to complain to about junk cars, loose
dogs, etc. after business hours - have to take time from work
in order to register these types of complaints.
--Whittaker - Animal control is,.handied through the City Office -
This officer is on -call 24 hours - initially spent 50% of his
time in Cimarron. Vandalism is handled by the Sheriff's Office
as is done by the rest of the City residents. A caretaker would
still have to call someone on the existing call list for emergencies.
Would need 4-5 people to cover 24 hours a day and weekends - do
not believe can reasonably require this.
M/S/P Dreher/Graves to recommend that the State Statute regarding
an "Attendant/Caretaker" in Manfactured Home Parks be adopted by
the City of Lake Elmo. Motion carried 5-2 Gifford and Ryberg opposed.
Gifford reitterated her position that an on -site attendant is not
unreasonable -Statute obviously acknowledges Manf. Homes have unique
problems or w»ch a statute would not have been written.
--Dreher - this i-san_issue that should be resolved 13etween-management
--and the-homeowners.-
M/S/P Ryberg/Graves to recommend that all reference to "Dead Storage"
be deleted from the Manfactured Housing Regulation. Carried 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1983 r10-
6, MANFACTURED HOME PARKS - CONTINUED:
Lot Staking -
Mike Ahrens - referred to comments previously made by Commissioner
Lya'll concerning lot staking being intended for new parks only.
If this was the Commissions intent, Mr. Ahrens suggested this
be clearly spelled out in the new ordinance.
--Prince - voted for this provision with the understanding that
management would provide lot identification staking upon the
request of residents who want their boundaries identified.
Stephen Taylor, Cimarron Owner - suggested placing the intent
of staking lots in the ordinance - does not want to be required
to plat and stake the entire park - may have one to two requests
per year, but if this is a requirement feels residents may force
the issue simply because it is required.
--Whittaker - believes the present wording should be left in -
have the same requirement for platted lots in the City.
Speed Limits -
--Mike Ahrens - presently there are two speed zones within the
park - no consistency - Management recommends that 20 mph be
the posted speed for the entire. park.
Commission had no objection and supported the 20 mph speed limit.
7. SCHEDULE HEARING - REZONING FOR CIMARRON EXPANSION - Cancelled
8. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: Whittaker distributed a breakdown
of the proposed changes. The Commission will discuss these March-14.
9. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. Metro Council Program On Affordable Housing - The Commission
agreed to have the Administrator invite a representative from
the Met Council out to discuss affordable housing on March 28.
B. Metro Waste Control Commission - Comp Sewer Plan - Whittaker
referred the Commission to the MWCC letter. This will be
d.Idressed with discussion of Section 32 planning.
ADJOURN: 10:30 p.m.
CITY OF
LAKE
AELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
AGENDA
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
TUESDAY
February 22, 1983
7:30 P.M. --Meeting convenes
1. Introduce new alternate members -
A. Charles Graves-lst. Alternate
B. Paul Ryberg----2nd. Alternate
2. Minutes of February 7th., meeting
3. Public Hearing --Rezoning
Frank Meyer property on Keats Ave. to
AG from RR for AG Preserves
7:45 P.M.--4. Public Hearing --Rezoning
Nelson/Hageman property on 10th. St., next
to Oakdale Gun Club, to R1 from RR; and
review sketch plan for subdivision of same.
8:30 P.M.--5. Public Hearing -Rezoning
part of Alvin Schaefer property on
Demontreville Trail and 55th. Street No.
(North of Green Acres) for Ron Johnson,
from RR to R1
9:00 P.M.--6. Manufactured Housing Parks:
A. Attendant/Caretaker
B. Dead storage
7. Schedule hearing --Rezoning for Cimarron expansion
9:15 P.M.--8. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
9. Administrator's Report:
A. Metro Council program on
affordable house
B. Metro Waste Control Commission letter on
Comp Sewer Plan
C. Other
10:00 P.M. ADJOURN