HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1983
Chairman Prince called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Lyall, Nazarian, Michels, Dreher, Lundquist,
Peterson, Moe (8:25) and Alternate Graves. Absent: Gifford & Alt. Ryberg.
1. MINUTES: April 11, 1983 -
M/S/P Michels/Graves to accept the minutes of April 11, 1983, as
written. Carried 7-0-1. Prince abstained.
2. TODD WILLIAMS & CHUCK TAYLOR - VBWS SURVEY FROM CITIZENS ADVISORY:
Mr. Williams distributed a survey prepared by the Valley Branch
Watershed District Advisory Committee for completion by non -elected
officials within the Watershed District. The survey will serve as
a forerunner in establishing an over-all Watershed Plan pursuant
to the Levi Bill that calls for a Surface Water Management Organization
for every district in the Twin City area. Mr. Williams further
explained the operation and responsibilities of the Citizens
Committee .
Mr. Taylor distributed a chart outlining water levels of City
lakes from 1979 to April:, 1923; and invited the Commission to
contact him whenever they have any questions or comments on the
lake levels. He and Mr. Williams also encouraged the Commission
to contact the Citizens Advisory Committee with questions or
concerns.
3. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
Administrator Whittaker referred the Commission to his memo of
February 22, 1983 - AMENDMENTS to Subdivision Ordinance clarifying
requirements for MINOR SUBDIVISIONS. The Commission reviewed the
amendments item by item.
Page
400-5 Section 401.040 - Simple Lot Subdivision -
Present definition provides for simple lot division only on
platted property. This limits the number of people who want
to subdivide a lot. Good provision - no amendment. -
'80ction 401-.1)4.0 A. Line 4 '- recommend adding -
"or to create more than two lots." This amendment would
limit the number of lots that Bari be created to two (2) and
eliminate subdividing property without going through the
subdivision process.
The Commission offered no recommendation on applying this
to unplatted property.
400-6 No Change - copy on back of 400-5
400-9 Section 401.240A - recommend amenddng section to require
20 copies of a plan be required.
400-10 No Change - copy( on back of 400-9.
400-15 Section 401.260 -,recommended amendments -
A. 1. a. Filing - Twenty (20) copies.... Line 7...information
required Ey this Ordinance.is-submitted with the application
"and the fee is paid".
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1983 -2-
3. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: Continued -
Page
400-16 Section 401,260 -.Recommended amendments.
2. a. Submission Requirements - Delete 'drawing or" Line 1.
ADD 2. c."Dedication-and deeds to"'all street right -'of -way."
2. d."P'ark'ded'ic'ation as provided in' Section 401.400 of
this Code".
2. e."An overall plan for property contiguous to the parcel
Which' is under the same ownership".
DELETE 5.-A-Eert4E eate-a€-Survey-bp-a-Reg}etered-Rand-Barveyer
w“1-be-required-prier-te-granting-et-nay-ebAld4mg-perm.it.
This is required in 2. a. above.
400-17 Section 401.260 B. Large Lot Subdivisions - Amendments:
Delete 1, ....on filing by"the owner e€ a -draw4 g er Certificate
of Survey Delete "of, drawing or"
2. b. Filing --F ve-{S* Twenty (20) copies
400-18 No Change
400-21 Section 401.260 B. 4. c. Add -"Park Dedication as provided in
Section 401.400 of this Code".
400-22 No Change
400-37 Section 401.520 Fees - The City Council shall by Reselutsea
"Ordinance" establish' fees....
400-38 to 400-45 Delete - Manfactured Housing in Zoning Ordinance
400-46 - renumber to 403-1
400-47 - renumber to 403-2
As noted in the Memo - Once passed, the Ordinance will delete all
the pages above and replace them with: 400-5, 400-6, 400-0, 400-10,
400-15, 400-16, 400-17, 400-18, 400-21, 400-22, 400-37 and 402-1,
403-1 and 403-2.
M/S/P Nazarian/Dreher to recommend approval of the amendments to
the Subdivision Ordinance as outlined above. Carried 9-0.
CHICAGO/NOR'THWESTERN REZONING ACTION BY COUNCIL:
Commissioner Prince and Michels asked the Administrator to review
the Council action taken at their April 19 meeting.
Whittaker reported that the Council voted 3-2 to rescind their action
of April 5 and seek a second legal opinion of their action on
April 5 based on a purported deficiency of legal notification to
residents within 350'.
--Michels - feel strongly about the rezoning. One of our duties
as a Commission was to protect the City and preserve prime ag
land. Citelp-age 301-2 - to protect and preserve economically
viable agricultural land. This says what the PZC indicated on
the motion to deny this rezoning. Believe have a duty to protect
the traffic safety and still maintain that the railroad crossing
will cause a hazard. Think they did very little looking at the
efforts of trying to minimize this amount of traffic and do not
believe saving of money controls or has anything to do with the
saving of lives.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1983 -3-
CHICAGO/NORTHWESTERN REZONING ACTION:
--Michels - One other concern, cannot feel bad for Mr. Hutchinson
for buying this land. We do not profess to have any concern
over Dayton -Hudson and their taking their lumps as far as the
land they bought.
--Prince - these are about the same words used to express the
Commissions position at the Council meeting. Maynard stated
beforethe vote that he would like to farm the land and hated
to see it go another way, but could not find a reason not to
rezone - he was searching for reasons. It concerned me that
the PZC could find reasons and some Council members could not.
Two Council members felt strongly that it should be rezoned -
but other members were not sure and did not feel there were
strong reasons to not rezone it. Felt there were strong reasons
not to rezone - this is a concern.
WATERSHED QUESTIONS:
--Don Raleigh - asked about VB presentation. Stated that the
drainage system for the Brookfield Addition is in, yet water
from the fields to the north is still running in. Interested
in following the development of a surface water plan and want
to participate in it.
COMMISSIONER MOE ARRIVED AT 8:25 p.m.
4. SECTION 32 CONCEPT PLAN: Whittaker reviewed his memo of April
18, 1983, on the generalized land use plan for Section 32.
City Planner, Rob Chelseth, City Engineer, Larry Bohrer, and
Administrator Whittaker worked with the property owners in
developing this plan. Before additional planning is -done, the
group would like a reaction from the Commission.
Whittaker noted that the biggest concern is the amount of planned
Industrial use. Key concern is staging the construction of public
improvements so as not to financially over-burden_the property
owners0prematurely.
Ponding - Dreher noted that the wetland area west along 1-694
YE not as bad as it looks on the map. Also, when Helmo was
constructed the ditches were designed to handle the run-off
from this area. Water is presently stored in a pond behind Conn -
Co. A large culver.V, 6 ft. above grade, is located in front of
Conn Co. This, presently, does not take the run -tiff because of
its height.
PZC Reactions -
--Dreher - Residents have asked that the State Property between
the R-2 and R-4 zones be used as a park buffer.
Natural buffers be used to establish zoning district lines.
--Whittaker - if this general concept is agreeable, zoning
district lines will be refined using some of the natural ammenities
of the property. General Business or Light Industry would
be permitted in transition zones., He also noted that anEIS
for the Engergy Plant is being prepared based on locating the
plant on the Lake Elmo site. Have a good basis for continuing
planning for this area.
--Todd Williams, resident - cautioned the Commission to proceed
cautiously and not proceed with planning and or constructing
improvements prematurely. Cited what happened with Helmo Avenue
and Kroy Industries in Oakdale.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1983 -4-
4. SECTION 32 - CONCEPT PLAN: Continued
--Dreher - Preplanning will permit the City to control the route
the garbage trucks take to the plant. Route should be minimized
so that it can be patrolled and insure that clean-up is enforced.
--Dorothy Lyons - do not want to see alot of trucks on County 70
until it is up -graded.
--Mazzara - area around highway right-of-way could be used
for a park buffer. To date, there is little talk by the
Energy commission about improvements - mostly about getting
money and funding. EIS will be completed in duly, after
which more informational meetings will be scheduled.
--Whittaker - concerned that utilities will be put in and the
City will be "stuck" with something to maintain without benefit
of reimbursement.
GENE PELTIER - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT:
The Commission reviewed the Building Inspectors memo of April
25, 1983, outlining Mr. Peltier's request and his comments.
Mr. Peltier stated that the Highway Department notified him
three weeks ago that this house would have to be removed by
May 15. He is proposing to move the house to his property
located at County 17 and 1-94. The house will be set back
480' from Lake Elmo Avenue on the NE corner of the property.
There is no other residential development in the area.
The Building Inspector expressed no concern about the move.
M/S/P Michels/Peterson to recommend approval of a house moving
permit to allow Gene Peltier to move a two story house from
Woodbury to Lake Elmo on a 10A + site located at County 17 and
I-94. Carried 9-0. This will be considered at the May 3 Council
meeting.
PERMIT SUMMARY: Whittaker presented the Council with a summary of
the requirement for permits and a flow chart for the process.
Like material is being developed for the subdivision process.
5, 1-94 STRIP:
The Commission reviewed the Comp Plan Land Use Map for post 1990
land use along I-94, as relates to depth of the proposed area;
area and interchanges along the highway; and staging.
Administrator's Comments:
-Existing commercial along the highway is identified on the Zoning
Map - realistically the plan should provide that existing uses remain.
-Not necessary to show a commercial strip for the entire highway,
-Interchanges should be taken into account - should development be
limited to just interchange areas and existing commercial.
-Do we want commercial on sewer, If so, may want to consider Co. 13
as the stopping point.
-County 19 will be constructed as a parkway drive up to Regional Park.
Prince indicated that she felt there is a need to reexamine this
I-94 area. Whittaker noted that property owners will be heard from on
what they want should any recommendation for changes be made.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 25, 1983 -5-
5. I-94 STRIP - Continued:
--Whittaker - suggested considering planning large business
areas at intersections with a 1/2 mile boundary depth rather
than the 1/8 mile strip presently proposed.
- -Prince - feel it would be smarter to take out areas not dneired
for commercial and direct commercial/business growth back
to the west so that growth will come from west to east.
If an appropriate request comes in, then, consider changing
the zoning. Recommended removing the proposed post 1990 commercial
strip from County 19 to the East.
--Michels - believe a 1/2 mile square at intersections may be
appropriate.
--Whittaker - Woodbury has sewered.business planned up to County
13 with unsewered planned between County 13 and County 17.
Feels it is preposterous to have a 15 mile commercial strip
from I-694 to the river. Suggested removing proposed commercial
development between County 19 and County 15.
--Prince - believe commercial development for this area will hot
happen because of the industrial area in Section 32.
--Graves - recommended keeping the east side of Co. 19 for commercial
- -Whittaker - Hanson, Rockin "L" Trailers" and Lehman Mushroom
should be zoned commercial.
Conmiercial zoning with no sewer creates a strip of tin pole buildings.
- -Moe - Woodbury plan indicates Highway Industrial, with no sewer,
between County 13 and County 17. This parallels Lake Elmo across
the highway - what do we want to do. An eye -sore is an eyesore
no matter what side of the highway it is on.
--Whittaker - non-commercial/industrial property would be zoned RR.
--Dreher - feels the whole thing should stay commercial. Can
envision commercial all the way to Hudson in years to come.
--Whittaker - do not anticipate a_lot of commercial without sewer/water.
--Moe - suggested planning commercial around the threeinterchanges
and zone remainder RR.
--Michels - concerned about changing zoning now. Would not like
to see a home(se)1.consttucted in an area surrounded by factories.
Office services are available will know if there is a demand for
commercial.
- -Lyall - businesses will be as close as possible to interchanges.
Believe this should be the areas designated for commercial development,
Moe, Lyall and Nazarian supported interchange development
suggestion between County 19 & 17.
--Peterson - services will limit the use from Co. 13 on. No sure
need to change present plan. Agree corners of Co. 13, 19, and 15
should be zoned commercial 1/2 mile square.
--Graves - supports interchange development at Co. 15 and remove
the area between Co. 15 and 17.
M/S/P Moe/Lyall to recommend changing the Comprehensive Plan to
indicate that the area along I-94 from County 19 through County 15
be changed from Highway Commercial to RR except at the interchanges
of County 13, County 15 and County 19 which will contain 1/4 mile
strip (square) for commercial development.
Motion carried 5-3-1. Nazarian, Dreher and Michels opposed. Lundquist
abstained.
6. INDUSTRIAL ZONES: The Commission tabled discussion on Industrial
Zones until their May 9 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: M/S/P Michels/Moe to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
s
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
3880 Laverne Avenue North 1 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
AGENDA
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
April 25, 1983
7:30 P.M. --Meeting convenes
1. Minutes, April 11 Meeting
2. Todd Willimas--Survey for VBWS
Citizens Advisory Committee
7:45 P.M.--3. Subdivision Ordinance
8:15 P.M.--4. Section 32 Concept Plan
9:00 P.M.--5. I-94 Strip
10:00 P.M.-- ADJOURN