Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 11, 1983 Acting Chairman Michels called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dreher, Gifford, Graves, Lindquist, and Peterson. (Absent: Lyall, Nazarian, Moe, Prince and Ryberg) 1. MINUTES - M/S/P Dreher/Gifford to approve the 6/27/83 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Carried 6-0) 2. PUBLIC HEARING, COLOSIMO PLAT - The hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Bruce Folz presented Grace Colosimo's plan to subdivide her. 5 acres on Isle Avenue into 3 lots--1.5, 1.5 and 2.06 acres each. Isle Avenue was approved to be extended as shown on plat when Springborne Green Acres plat was approved. Soil is sandy loam which is best drainfield material possible. Runoff will be increased by roofs and driveways -about L/7,r-acre = not significant. Folz will check with Watershed to see if these 3 lots were included in Springborne Green Acres Watershed study (ponding areas) and will get waiver from Watershed so that 100% water will not have to be stored on the 3 lots since ponding areas are to the east. Roads were discussed: • Howard Springborne was present and stated that he intends to deed Isle Avenue to the City. (This is unimproved street, along with Jane Road which abuts south lot and services 8 parcels to the south and one to the west, and there is also spur--Jamaca--which is unimproved.) (Whittaker - People have responded they don't want Jane Road improved by a ratio of 6 responses to 1.) ® Gifford - Are people on Jane Road aware that Isle Avenue would go through? (Folz - public hearing was held for Green Acres where this was indicated and Phases I and II were approved.) m Folz - Cost to bring Jane Road and Isle Avenue up to City standards would be $15,000-20,000 (500') and $25,000-30,000 (800'), respectively, which would mean 32' width with curbs. e Graves - now is the time to take action with Isle Avenue so that same mistake is not made as happened with Jane Road. ® Folz - has to be paid for now or later; advantage of now is that cost is included in 20-25 year mortgage and not 5-year assessment. m Tony Maistrovich, landowner to west of Colosimo property, is in favor of blacktopping but couldn't afford assessments so would have to subdivide his property. Feels City should at least be plowing and maintaining Isle Avenue even if unimproved. O Graves - Can we consider approving grading and graveling Isle Avenue now, and when Phase II goes in Isle Avenue and Jane Road would be blacktopped? (Folz - variance would have to be granted and put in development agreement. If City does it, Maistrovich and Colosimo would pay 50/50 for Isle; it's up to Council to blacktop or leave Jane Road as is.) The public hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. ® Michels - I feel we should resolve Jane Road before we do anything else (Gifford agrees) and see what Council is going to do. If Jane Road upgrading is approved, I see no problem with Colosimo plat. Also short stub (Jamaca) should be taken care of by City. LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 7/11/83 Page 2 e Dreher - feels benefiting property owners should pay for it. ® Peterson - would go with grading and graveling as blacktopping is too expensive. e Gifford - Council's position is to get rid of gravel roads because of high cost of maintenance. ® Whittaker - if not improved, owners would have to maintain as done previously. O Lundquist - plat itself appears consistent with neighborhood. e Colosimo - if paving is required, Tony and I are not in a position to pay for all of it. (Whittaker - however you can add cost to sale of lots as value would be increased. I recommend platting with improved streets.) (Dreher - cost would be split between all benefiting property owners.) M/S/P Graves/Dreher to recommend Council approval of Colosimo's plat with the condition that Isle Avenue be blacktopped and all of Jane Road and Jamaca be blacktopped as public projects. (Carried 6-0) Reasons motion included road improvements are as follows: (a) consistent with previous planning throughout entire City and surrounding area wherein precedent has been set (e.g. Springborne Green Acres, Foxfire, etc.). (b) safety factors have to be considered, i.e., paving and city maintenance make area more accessible to fire and emergency vehicles. (c) paving would make land more valuable, and particularly more saleable since mortgage lenders will sometimes not finance homes on unimproved streets. Would be cheaper to pave now than later. This item will be put on the City Council agenda, July 19. 3. I-94 ALTERNATIVES, ROB CHELSETH - City Planner, Rob Chelseth, was present to talk about planning and zoning strategies for I-94 corridor. Conflict has to be solved as to what uses would best fit I-94 four -mile strip and intersection areas: can attract on -site sewered types such as (a) local businesses to serve residents such as grocery stores, services shops, etc. or (b) large -acreage businesses such as open sales lots, lumber yards, etc. Intersection areas could be used for gas stations and motel -type businesses, with premiere industrial/ commercial uses being guided into the sewered and watered district west of MUSA line and where city services can be provided. When (b) type uses are permitted, they cast land use for future and investment of property is low. Mr. Chelseth explained Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 drawings regarding plan for urbanized commercial development in Section 32 and adjacent sewered areas from the present through the 1990's: Alternative 1 - Plan would be for low -density, rural development along I-94 east of sewered area and would be to keep area at low density until public utilities and services permit more intensive levels of urban commercial development --expected after 1990. LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 7/11/83 Page 3 Alternative 2 - Plan would be for "highway business" uses on a restricted basis centered around interchanges with 1-94. Remaining lands would be kept at low -density levels of development until sewer is available (after 1990) after which time more intensive levels of development can occur. Alternative 3 - Plan is for "highway business" uses on a restricted basis centered around interchanges with I-94, but with remaining land planned for less intensive forms of commercial and light industrial uses along the frontage road areas of I-94 that require more land area and make low demands for public services and utilities. * Gifford - can truck stops or motels be allowed without sewer on intersections? (Chelseth - you may want to permit these types of things requiring large drainfields as good planning but have to set boundaries. Problem is that it is not easy to control so you have to ensure capabilities of drainfields, etc. o Gifford - fire protection? (Whittaker - Section 32 may be contracted to Woodbury, but may be overextension of services further on down I-94.) ® Chelseth - basically, Alternatives 1 and 2 are more restrictive and 3 allows some leeway. Alternative 2 would hold business types to higher quality in Section 32. (Whittaker - you can get better quality businesses if more restrictive.) o Graves - do you have examples of ordinances that we can use as role models? (Chelseth - yes, I can come up with outline - it would not involve ordinances as much as it would be comp plan.) o Whittaker - plan may say low -density, on -site sewer and have to apply to rural character but strip along I-94 is commercial; however, I've seen nice residential along freeways and don't think you have to show this as urban. A big developer attracted to I-94 would be willing to put in sewer. o Whittaker - comp plan past 1990 shows commercial along I-94 as long as you don't need water and sewer and has rural orientation; I'd take out highway commercial strip and put in rural/residential and they would have to come in for rezoning; Met Council would favor that approach. Urban mixed use would be in Section 32 and we're projecting expansion of services by moving MUSA line so putting Met Council on notice we're expecting this to develop into maximum urban use by year 2000. Better to tell Met Council you expect water and sewer after Section 32 fills up and some type of gradual projection for remaining area. Recent businesses on I-94 have created no advantages to City and some problems. Investors will want to wait for water and sewer. o Michels - I'd like to see strip held until water and sewer are available along with fire and police protection. o Graves - like Whittaker's idea - take time, hold back, wait until services develop, and see what comes in. o Peterson - think intersection development will come first and development between should go slow. o Gifford - feels there will be push for development between 15 and 19 and we have to be prepared to answer to fire and police protection. LAKE ELMO PLAN. COM. MTG. - 7/11/83 Page 4 ® Whittaker - could use wording mixed urban uses (does not have to be commercial) for post 1990 or until sewer and water are available - don't want commercial strip along I-94 since we've had undesirable commercial up until now. 9 Chelseth - I see less or restricted development between Section 32 and 19, and limited development on intersections - problems with sewer and water and public services. You need a couple of policies to operate from; I could write descriptions of this and come up with land use policy. Consensus was that Chelseth and Whittaker would take Alternative 2 and look at policies that do or don't fit into comp plan and then draft appropriate policies for second meeting in August. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. (Reminder - meeting for July 25 is cancelled; next meeting will be held August 8.) Submitted by: Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary ( CITY OF LAKE ihiELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION July 11, 1983 7:30 P.M.-- Meeting convenes 1. Minutes - June 27 meeting 7:45 P.M.-- 2. Public Hearing --Preliminary Plat --Colosimo Plat -"The Meadows" 8:15 P.M.-- 3. Rob Chelseth, City Planner A. 1-94 alternatives B. Other 4. Administrator's Report: A. Klawitter rezoning B. Burrwood Estates C. Packard Park D. Comp. Plan Hearing; Notice/Newsletter