HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 1983
Chairman Prince convened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Councillors present: Dreher, Michels, Nazarian, Lyall, Peterson,
Gifford, Lundquist, Alternate Graves and Moe (7:50 p.m,) Absent:
Alternate Ryberg. Also present Administrator Whittaker.
1. MINUTES: Februaryk7, 1983 & February 22, 1983-
M/S/P Gifford/Dreher to accept the minutes of February 7, 1983,
Carried 6o0-3, Dreher, Nazarian and Lyall abstained.
M/S/P Gifford/Lyall to accept the minutes of February 22, 1983.
Carried 7-0-2. Michels and Nazarian abstained,
2. MIKE HANSEL AND LYLE DOERR:
Mr. Hansel, PCA Engineer,+.and Mr. Doerr, County Planning Official,
were invited to speak to the Commission about Lot size minimums
for on -site sewers.
Mr. Hansel introduced himself and stated he was previously in -
charge of the Septic Tank Program with the State before his
position with the PCA in the Solid Hazardous Waste Division,
He is also a resident of Lake Elmo. He gave the following
breakdown of lot area:
--Septic System - State Standard WPC 40 does not address minimum
lot size needed for on -site sewer - only addresses the amount
of land area needed to install a septic system and drainfield.
Area needed for a septic system is a small portion of 1-1.1/2 acres-
500 to 1200 sq._f.t, depending -ion the soil type. Noted the Citys
two drainfield requirement is -excellent idea and should be maintained.
--Lot improvements - this includes the house, garage, driveway, etc.
In comparison -,to 1-1/2 acre this is a small portion of the lot.
--Set Backer this takes most of the lot Area.- both for dwelling
and sewer, and include set backs from property lines, lake shore,
water. supplies (well) and sewer system. Set backs take up a
larger area than the actual sewer system. Set backs are not
affected by soil types as are sewer systems and structures.
Setting a lot size does not answer the entire development question.
Can find -many parcels whether 1,5, or__20 acres -that -.are not suit-
able to build'llon. Some areas have imposed a required number of
square feet of good soil for sewer and home construction - Anoka
County require 15,000 sq. ft. of suitable soil for construction
of a home and two sewer systems - the amount of land needed to
obtain this 15,000 sa. ft. was dependent on where the line was
drawn on a piece of paper,- some areas had 5 acre lots because
3t took this amount of area to find the 15,000 sq. ft. of suitable
soil and lay out a reasonable subdivision.
PCA does not set a minimum lot size - 1 acre is a common lot size.
Suggested considering in addition to setting a lot size, a
requirement defining a minimum area of suitable soil for
structure and sewer (2 systems) construction.
--Whittaker - asked if a general soil map could be used to identify
suitable soil areas.
--Hansel - have found that the generalized soil maps ate too general -
even the specific soil maps for Wabhington County are too general.
Optimum method is to have the developer verify each lot for
septic capabilities.
Commissioner Moe arrived at 7:50 n.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 1983
2. MIKE HANSEL AND LYLE DOERR- CONTINUED:
--Lyle Doerr, Washington County Planning Official - County has
no answer to minimum lot size,;. Many areas through the County
where one acre is more than adequate and vise versa for septic
needs. Have found that smaller lots attract more accessory uses,
such -as swimming pools, accessory buildings, etc. When looking
at lot sizes should consider if or how many accessory uses can
be handled on -site. Beginning with the subdivision request, the
County requests proof of adequate soils for each lot, to support
maximum use, and 10,000 sq. ft. has to be identified for on -site
sewer. Important to dldentify more than one area for septic.
The smaller the lot the more responsibility the City has to
insure that soils, septic, and lot use are properly determined,
constructed and maintained.
Many communities have a mandatory pumping program - believes,
the biggest responsibility is continuing to educate the public
on proper installation and maintenance of their on -site systems.
County now requires that pumpers licensed in the County be
certified under PCA certification program.
Explained soil borings and septic installation and operation.
--Whittaker - City adopted the Washington County Model Code for
on -site sewer systems - City has the same minimum requirements.
Code presently requires 1 acre minimum suitable for septic -
this may be excessive since sewer ordinance requires 10,000 sq.
ft.- further explained City requirements - lot size is a policy
question - is 1 1/2 acre minimum excessive. May be existing
platted lots that cannothe built on - City will have to hold
a hard line and not permit construction.
--Doerr - review of soils during preliminary review can prevent
future problems lot lines can be redefined and/or septic
areas relocated, if deemed necessary, during the preliminary review
Many communities now require that soil conditions for the intended
use be documented before rezoning, change in use, etc.
1 or 1 1/2 acre lots not. a problem to be decided by septic systems.
Reitterated that no matter what the minimum land area there will
be a portion of the lots that will not be buildable.
--Michels - City's main concern His adequate area and soils
for on -site sewer systems whether it be one acre or three acres.
--Prince - hard to address the situation of a parcel containing
suitable soils that could be _divided into 1 acre lots and the
City requires 1 1/2 acres, which is an arbitrary size.
--Doerr - may be easier to defend if the zoning requirement were
larger with the provision that based on specific things that
a lesser lot area could be considereddown to an absolute minimum.
In conclusion, Mr. Doerr offered to present an educational seminar
on septic systems, installation and maintenance, whenever the
City would desire.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING MAP:
Chairman Prince opened the hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Administrator Whittaker reviewed the proposed new map and outlined
the areas of change. There being no questions from the audience
or the Commission, Prince closed the hearing at 8:35 p.m.
M/S/P Lyall/Nazarian to recommend the approval of the new zoning
map as presented. Carried 9-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 1983 -3-
8. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:...,....•
A. \Cburib'i'1\Abtibh'son`''HaK{emdnk\until-`sb"n`and‘ Meyer.
Whittaker reported that the Council'apprbved the Johnson (Alvin
Schaef_erT and Frank Meyer rezoning, per the recommendations
of the Planning Commission. He further reported that the
Council deferred action on the Nelson/Hageman rezoning request
pending review of the proposal by the full Council.
B. Oak'd'a'le P1an
Whittaker reported that Oakdale resubmitted its Comp Plan for
approval by the Met Council and that four areas of concern
previously noted by Lake Elmo have not been addressed in the
final plan. Whittaker reviewed his letter,previously sent
to Oakdalethatoutlined the City's concerns-, -
M/SI'P Michels/Dreher recommending that the City Administrator
draft a letter to the City of Oakdale and the Met Council
reitterating the concerns of the City of Lake Elmo as they
relate to the final draft of Oakdale's Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion:
Dorothy Lyons - questioned Oakdale's plans for the interchange
of I-694 and 10th Street by the proposed Waste/Energy Plant.
Believes both Oakdale and Lake Elmo should consider this area.
Motion carried 9-0.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE:
Chairman Prince opened the hearing at 8:47 pm.
Item 10-Administrator's Memo 3/1/83 State Statute Compliance -Attendant-
--Charles Clausen, 63 Cimarron -
1, opposes the recommendation to change the ex S ting ordinance,
regarding the attendent in the Manfactured Housing section,
and adopt the State Statute wording. Stated existing language
and the proposed State Statute.
2. opposed the stipulation that a manfactured home on a lot not
within a park be 20 ft. wide. Feels this is discrimination
against residents who live here and have homes of lesser width.
Whittaker noted that this restriction applies only in the R-1
District.
Clausen stated that there are many lots within the City that
are less than 1 1/2 acres that would be suitable for manfactured
units but would be restricted because of the 20 ft. minimum -
many of the units in Cimarron are 14 or 16 feet wide.
Prince - decided to follow the County Model - 20 ft. minimum is
the first step - consideration can be given in the future to
a lesser width requirement in R-1 if desired. Many residents
feel 20 feet is not wide enough.
Don Moe - is there an R-2 Zone included on the Zoning Map, since
this is the only zone that will permit units less than 20 ft.
Whittaker noted that zoning is not predetermined it is considered
and approved or denied as it is requested.
Moe - R-2 zoning is not requested thereby this zoning is selectively
avoided,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 1983 -4-
4. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS. TO ZONING ORDINANCE: Continued
Moe - concerning on premise manager - questioned the legality
of voting a position before it is presented at A public hearing.
(PZC voted to recommend that the State Statute be adopted as
relates to "Attendent" at their last meeting.)
-^ Whittaker - yes, this is legal. PZC can vote on a position to
present to the people at a public hearing. This issue has had
a great deal of public discussion - PZC is free to change its
position - no recommendation has been made to the Council,
Prince - read the wording in the proposelordinance - majority felt
this meant . that ah.individual "attendent" was reachable by phone
same as City employees, after regular business hours.
Christine Moe, 61 Cimarron,- what does the new ordinance say.
Does not feel this will work - finds the present system, which
is similar to the proposed one, very unsuccessful.
Dreher - this is not a City issue, but one that should be
worked out between the homeowners and management. Documented
situations should be presented to the Council when nothing is
done by management.
Christine Moe - presenting opposition as a concerned resident -
do not feel that the residents are being well represented when
they have continually opposed the proposed change and the
Commission is not reacting to the wishes of the residents involved.
Why is this change being considered?
Whittaker - in the opinion of the City attorney, the present
Ordinance could not be enforced,
Moe - City Attorney would not know until it was considered in
court.
Christine Moe - attended the legislative sessions - believes
the legislature was looking for a 24 hour manager.- not what
the City is proposing.
Whittaker - complaints about non -response by the Sheriff's
Department should be brought to the attention of the City -
this is a violation= of City Ordinance - a park attendent
could not handle vandalism, animal control, speeding or other
similar violations these are police matters.and are handled
as they are in other areas of the City.
Moe - believes would have more clout if problems or complaints
were documented by a park manager when reporting to Sheriff.
Gifford - asked if Cimarron residents would be willing to pay
extra for the additional ditty time. Believes Cimarron is an
unique situation because of the number of residents in a small
area - do not feel it is unreasonable to have an on -site full-
time manager,
Graves - need to clarify the definition of what an attendent is.
Stated his parents live in a retirement community that has
an on -site resident manager - this has been beneficial - would
favor some type of on -site manager.
Chairman Prince closed the hearing at 9:25 p.m.
Whittaker - reitterated legal counsel's opinion that he did
not feel the present Ordinance would be enforceable if it were
challenged bCimarron park owners and was different from State
Statute. Also he did not feel he could adequately defend and
win the enforcement of the City Ordinance if a legal complaint
for non-compliance were filed with him.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 1983 -5-
4, PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE: Continued -
M/S Graves/Gifford to recommend amending the 1979 Zoning
Ordinance Section 302,11efining Attendant in a Manfacuted Housing
Park as an on -site resident who will be in attendance at the park
at all times,
Discussion -
The Commission and audience further discussed reasons for having
an attendant on duty at all times after which Graves and Gifford
withdrew their motion feeling the present ordinance covers what
the residents want and what they feel adequately protects the
residents,
M/S/ Moe/Gifford to recommend that Section 402.108 of the
existing City Ordinance be retained and incorporated in the
Manfactured Housing Section 302 of the amended code. Motion
failed with a tie vote of 4-4-1, Dreher, Mechels, Peterson and
Prince opposed; Nazarian abstained, Nazarian stated that he did
not think the recommended action would resolve anything - this
is an issue between Cimarron Park owners and residents and this
is where it should stay,
Item 5, a,' 2O\ie t StructbreE Wdth'.ior ME 'in R'-1 -
M/S/P Nazariah/Retersoh to recommend that" -the" tm nimum building width
for Manfactured Housing in R-1 be 20 ft,; but, permitting standard width
Manfactured Housing in all other residential districts.
Motion carried 8-1, Moe opposed, Moe stated that is past discussion
on this that exceptions were discussed, He would like to. see this
further considered and discussed before making a recommendation,
BREAK
Item 5. b, Reduction'.'of' MinItum' L'ot' ;S'i.ze - Tabled pending further
discussion,
The Commission went through each proposed amendment and made the
following motion:
M/S/P Lundquist/Gifford to recommend approving the Administrator's
Memo of March 1, 1983, itemizing the proposed amendments to the
Zoining Ordinance, Manfactured Housing Code with the exception of
Item 5. b, Carried 9-0,
7, REVIEW APPLICATION AND CALL HEARING ON REZONING OF HUTCHINSON
PROPERTY FOR C &NW CAR UNLOADING FACILITY:
M/S/P Nazarian/Dreher to call a public hearing to consider the
rezoning of the Hutchinson property located at Highway 15 and
the C&NW railroad tracks for. March 28, 1983 at 7:45 p.m, Carried
9-0.
Pete Schiltgen spoke briefly to the Commission about the parcel.
He has farmed the property for many years and noted that the
property accepts water from two different areas - a large pondinq
area would be necessary for a facility this size. Mr. Schiltgen
owns the land west of this parcel and stated this is prime agri-
cultural property.
--Prince - noted that the goal of the City is to preserve prime
farm land,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 1983 -6-
7, HUTCHINSON REZONING: Continued -
-- Whittaker apprised the Commission that the Comp Plan indicates
Industrial Use for this property post 1990.
Pete Schiltgen - stated that there was a sewer system anticipated
for this property for industrial use. Questions the results
of the soil borings as this land has a high water holding
capacity. Stated that if the City has any thought of preserving
prime agricultural land, it should start here.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:45
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
March 14, 1983
7:30 P.M.-- Meeting convenes
1. Minutes --Feb. 7th & Feb. 22nd. Meetings
7:45 P.M.-- 2. Mike Hansel and Lyle Doerr --
Lot size and on -site sewers
8:15 P.M.-- 3. Public Hearing - New Zoning Map
8:45 P.M.-- 4. Public Hearing - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
9:15 P.M.-- 5. DeCoster/Leeman --Large Lot Subdiv.-Sketch Plan
9:30 P.M.-- 6. Review proposed amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance
10:00 P.M.-- 7. Review Application and call Hearing
on Rezoning of Hutchinson property for
C&NW car unloading facility (Hwy. 15, and
C&NW tracks) --7:45 p.m. -March 28.
10:15 P.M.-- 8. Administrator's Report:
A. Council actions on Hageman,Johnson,Meyer.
B. Oakdale Plan
, Planning Commission
1983 Work Plan
Proposed March 1, 1983/Larry Whittaker
1. Goal: To complete work begun on Zoning Map, Zoning
Ordinance and Manufactured Housing - to Codify
changes in Zoning Map and Ordinance and bring
MH rules into line with State Statute.
Tasks: A. March 14 - Public Hearing on Zoning Amendments
and Manuf. Housing Code.
B. Recommendation to the City Council on above.
2. Goal: To clarify requirements for Minor Subdivisions.
Tasks: A. March 14 - Public Hearing on Subdivision
Amendments.
B. Recommendation to City Council on Minor
Subdivisions.
3. Goal: To bring Comp. Plan into compliance with
Metropolitan Council guidelines.
Tasks: A. March 14 - Review lot sizes in light of on -site
sewer requirements
B. March 28 - Review areas planned for 12 acre
lot development - with eye towards
reducing area.
C. March 28 - 194 Strip
D. April - Recommendations to City Council on
A, B & C.
E. March 28 - Discuss affordable/moderate cost
housing goals
F. May - Recommendations on I-94 strip
G. May - Review plans for Section 32 development;
assist Council in developing Comprehensive
Sewer Plan for Section 32.
H. June - Review Metro guidelines for Solar access
and Airport safety zones.
I. July - Recommendation to City Council on G & H
4. Goal: Provide effective review, comment and recommendations
of pending Zoning & Subdivision applications.
Tasks: Review applications as made.
(