Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-83 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1983 Chairperson Prince called the meeting to order at 7:35.p,m. at the City Hall. Commissioners Presdent: Gifford, Lyall, Nazarian, Graves, Michels, Dreher, Lundquist, (Absent: Moe, Peterson, Ryberg) 1. MINUTES: Consensus was to table approval of the 8-22-83 Planning Commission Minutes. Prince turned in notes for corrections and Gifford asked that the tapes be checked regarding her comments at meeting. To be turned over to Ilene Johnson for revision. Consensus was to table approval of the 9-12-83 Planning Commission Minutes. Statements made by Dorothy Lyons -will be rechecked and any pertinent statements will be included in the minutes. To be turned over to Kathy Crombie for revision. 2. Public Hearing, Large Lot Subdivision.- Steve Pott and Jed Weir: Pt E1/2 of SE1/4, Section 11, Lake'Elmo, Minnesota. The following review was made by Larry Bohrer, P.E., of TKDA. "The existing zoning on this parcel is Rural Residential. In that regard, the proposed subdivision meets the requirements for minimum lot size of 10 acres,. minimum frontage of 300 feet, and minimum frontage along a public road. The plan does lack topographic and soils info Ovation :to.determine if the property is suitable for development: The subdivision ordinance requires that top- ographic information, including 2 foot contours, be submitted. A review of the Washington County Soil Survey indicates two areas of wet soils close to 43rd Street but soil farther south of the road should be suitable for septic systems". Mr. Pott pointed out the wet spot on the land and also stated that he and Mr. Weir had taken their own perc tests before purchasing the land. Larry Whittaker suggested waiver of. the 2 foot contours because of the size of the lots. He stated that it would cost a fortune and really wasn't necessary to determine if there will be additional run-off. Pero tests will be required when application for building permit is made. M/S/P/ Michels/Nazarian: To recommend approval of a large lot subdivision waiving the 2 foot contours and perc tests. The reason for the perc test waiver is that when they apply for the building permit they will be required to have them. Motion carried 8-0. Will be on October 4, 1983 City Council Agenda. I-94 Discussion: Gifford asked for clarification of the fire and police protection discussion from the September 12, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION 9-26-83 Page 2 Larry Whittaker emphasized that mutual aid is not desinged to be first service. They are backup. If our department gets to the point where they have more than 300 fire/rescue calls a year, we're looking at another station and the manpower for it. Mutual Aid is not a solution. We may be able to contract with Woodbury, Oakdale or East County Line. Prince - What's the difference between Mutual Aid and Contract? Whittaker - Mutual Aid is voluntary backup and if your city is not the primary source of fire protection then be it Woodbury. or East County Line, you would have to contract it. They aren't going to do that for nothing. Right now, we probably respond more often than we ask for mutual aid. If we were to build a significant amount of commercial/residential along I-94, not only would we have poor response time, but we would also have to contract for some kind of protection or put up a fire hall ourselves. Prince - With Section 32 developing, have we ever talked about a fire station in this area? Whittaker - There would be no people to man it. So we are probably talking about a contract or paid fire department, and I don't think we even want to think about paid. fire department if we can avoid it. Tri-Lakes is considered the only viable alternate for a second station because we have people there. So we have to build a significant population in Section 32 or around there in order to support a volunteer fire department. Prince - That would have to be more out of residential than business. Whittaker - Right, typically, although the business' would have to support the day fire department. And that would depend on what kind of business you had. If you have an office, those people are not going to run out and go to a fire call. Lyall - But I can't imagine Tri-Lakes supporting one unless you had a bunch of retired people living up there. Whittaker - Tri-Lakes would be tough because of their working patterns, but also because of their income pattern. There is a lot less interest on the part of that kind of person, most certainly in a volunteer fire department. When the family is working two jobs and works a lot of evenings or goes out of town a lot, those kind of things make it difficult to set up a volunteer fire department. Short debate on which fire department could best serve the Section 32 area. Woodbury or East County Line. Consensus is that it is something to look in to. Discussion of the sprinkler system requirement. Suggestion made that a mandatory sprinkler system be added to the building code in Lake Elmo. As it stands now, it is only required if the building is more than three stories. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9-26-83 Page 3 Discussion on the comments made by Mr. Klein, a representative of Eagan, from the last Planning Commission. meeting.. Whittaker - Mr. Klein had a lot of misinformation. About the tax rates, about no residential development along inter -state high- ways, about how they balanced everything out, Take a look at Eagan's Comp. Plan, their tax rate compared to other communities. Prince - Do you think he made some good points? Whittaker - He compared himself to Mendota Heights and said Eagan had done so much better. Actually, Mendota Heights' tax rate is lower. - - Prince - How does our tax base work? Does commercial property increase the tax base? Whittaker - The net impact depends on what is built. If you built a three story building, it would be.a benefit to your tax base. Although, you share any commercial tax base with the rest of the metropolitan area. You don't get 100% of that benefit. Commercial business is taxed at a higher rate but you -don't get all that. I think when ydu think commercial tax base, you think there are going to be buildings like Western Life out there. If they built 400 pole barns, that's.going to add absolutely nothing to your tax --base, -except -liabilities for -fire -protect-ion,- police protection and street maintenance. Prince - That's why I asked the question. That seems to be a principle argument that has been used all long for making sure we have enough commercial area in Lake Elmo. That it will in- crease the tax base and I would like to know if it really will. Whittaker - I am not sure that there is a hugh benefit to the City, but there is a'benefit to the City taxpayer because it tends to spread the cost of providing schools and that's the biggest part of your taxes. Gene Peltier - (Landowner in Lake Elmo) I happen to own a piece of commercial property here in Lake Elmo and on a per -footage basis, I pay a lot more taxes than does residential. I don't know the breakdown, what the City gets out of it, but I also provide employment for seven or eight people which you are not doing in a residential area. Whittaker - If you have intense commercial development, are you talking about the corner of 17 and Highway 5, where you have a very big building on a very small piece of property. Gene Peltier - We have to start planning now for I-94. We can't wait until 1990 and then start. Michels - I think the consensus of what we heard at the last meeting was the people felt that the way it was presently planned was appropriate in that we would look at how we could control that development. I concur with that. I think it is a good idea that the intersections develop first. The thing I have a problem with is what kind of controls can we put in there? LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9-26-83 Page 4 Prince - Can we take a consensus that we would leave it as is in the present plan and to once again contact our planner and have him make any other suggestions about an interim holding plan or anything else he can suggest? Dreher - I believe we have heard from all of the property owners and they want to keep it in the holding pattern. They own the land, they are paying the taxes, I would say we keep it in the holding pattern. Lundquist - I think we should leave it the way it is. If the land is going to be commercial, it should be shown as commercial on our Comp. Plan. The vast majority of the property owners along 12 want the land to remain commercial. Prince - We are talking about the Comp. Plan, not the zoning. Lundquist - If we don't indicate that we believe the land will be ultimately commercial, then the landowners will become discouraged. They are willing to wait. Gene Peltier - I'm getting a little concerned that we're going to be sitting here not doing any planning. Now is the time we should be at least thinking about opening the doors someplace. I feel that whole strip should be red. It should be all commercial and then have your .controls on it. Nazarian - I'll go along with the landowners; leave it as it is right now, but still get an opinion from Rob. See if we can come up with an acceptable interim highway business type zoning, as well as seeing what kind of controls we can have in the way of ordinances so we can have the control of what kind of development goesin, assuming it is going to be commercial development, so we can get the best quality. Lyall - I've always thought it should be commercial property, and in addition to getting Rob, he could probably research some of the other areas that have done a decent job and .find out what they put in to their plan. Gifford - Concurs with Nazarian, belong there. Discussion and review the plan submitted by the map. Folz - Call the Cities ordinances and it will that you forsee. Suggestion was made that Klaers get copies of the Ordinances and the Commission go thru them. but feels that housing does not of map and changes for the statements in Rob. Discussed possible alterations to of Bloomington and Edina and get their tell you how to correct all the problems C LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9-26-83 Page 5 Dorothy Lyons - The people from 1-94 Investment are working on a plan and you will get some letters regarding 15. The points.I mentioned at the last meeting regarding police and fire protection were that you have the one and only access to the regional park which is one mile north of I-94. You are talking 1/2 mile difference between the access to the 2200 acres and the Regional Park and from Cimmaron which you have to service now. Whittaker - I think Dorothy's point is that we are going to have to extend the services down there anyway, and this is only an additional 1/2 mile from where we already have to extend the service. Lyons - What I'm saying is that you are saying that you can't provide the police and fire protection when you are coming down here anyway. Also, I've always been told that the day after it is built, Lake Elmo takes care of the frontage. roads. Whittaker - We didn't agree to take care of it. We don't have to volunteer for that. It can be taken care of by MN/DOT. The point on police and fire is not only the distance, it's service volume. The County is going to provide the police protection in the regional park and the fire demand isn't going to be any- thing like you would have in a commercial development. And once you get to a certain point, the demand will create the need for a new fire station. Klaers -.Consensus is then that you want to leave it in some type of commercial with the type of control ordinances that Edina and Bloomington have. Prince - We do want this on the agenda again because we need to do something with the map. (P1it—on agenda one month from tonight). Dorothy Lyons asked the Commission what kind of sewer system was going to be put in the park. Commission has seen no plans for this system. Lyons asked the Commission to investigate what the ultimate plans are. 4. FINAL PLAT: LAKE JANE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION (TEAL PASS ESTATES) Klaers stated he did not receive a report but the Commission was to review the construction plan which will be presented to the City Council on the 4th of October. Review of the final plat will come at a later date. Commission reviewed letter from Mr, and Mrs. Neudahl, and heard comments from Mr. Folz regarding construction and grading plans. The City Engineer has to review the construction plans and recommend to the Council what should be changed. A development agreement will then be made with the City Administrator. M/S (Dreher/Graves) Motion to approve final plat depending on meeting all City requirements. (Motion carried 7-1) Lyall voting no. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9-26-83 Page 6 5. GRADING PERMIT FOR 'ST, PAUL SUBURBAN BUS COMPANY:- Request rading'peimit"to grade ponding area, parking lot and driveway for proposed. school bus storage area and future building. Presentation by Bruce Folz as to the proposed plans of Mr. Regan and subsequent discussion by Commission. Discussion focused on an approximate 2 acre site for storage area. The building would be either concrete or Butler type metal, the size being 110' x 165'. The building will have four bay doors in the front and five bay doors in the back.., The purpose of the bus storage area is for the maintenance of buses. There will be one office of some type for dispatcher and one employee working within the building. They will have two 10,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tanks. The present plans are to store about 12 buses there on an overnight basis that would be outside. They would be parked along the east side of this building. Mr. Folz further explained their proposal to grade the ponding area. The land area generally runs in an even gradient to the east and it runs into the drive-in theatre. There is already a water problem as the gradient of the drive-in is very flat. When it rains the water stands there and takes a long time to come out. It runs out to the north back in thru a ponding area. By increas- ing the intensity of the runoff,, there will be a problem, so suggestion was made for a berm along the east line of that property to stop the water and pond it in the back. They would then put a pipe overflow from that down to the highway ditch and let it run into the system. Gifford - Is Mr. Regan concerned with the aesthetics of his proposed building? Folz - If you want to control the types of buildings, you have to get down to detail performance standards. When you start doing that, you start getting in competition with other areas. There is tons of commercial land available where people encourage you to develop. To get good development you have to pursue it. There is a lot of competition. The price is what controls the quality of what you get. If the people hold the price up, people will spend more money and do a better job. You already have some problems with the quality. The things that you have there now are generating the quality that you are going to get. People are not going to invest money in planning a piece of property that is zoned Rural Residential. Gifford - If we wanted some control over what went in down there, here is an example of a developer coming in and saying he didn't have to put in anything better than what was already there. Folz - You have very little control over the types of buildings that are put in. The State £uilding Code determines the structure for the stability. You have some ability to have aesthetic screening and landscaping standards, safety standards, but there is a reason- able limit to what you can do. The type of building is really the choice of the landowner, if the building meets the codes in the State Building Code. LAM ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 26, 1983 Page 7 Gifford - Can we ask for berming on. the south side? Folz -'The reason for a berm is to be able to deflect the noise. If you are looking for screening to make it aestheticly pleasing, then ask for screening and landscaping. Discussion'on when sanitary sewer would.be available for this area, 'There will be'no sanitary sewer service beyond the MUSA-line until ,after the year 2000. The chances of .getting the MUSA line.moved into this area after the yeai 2000 'are remote because the compet- 'ition is.heavy. Gifford - Why weren't' the I-94 property owners in sooner asking for the MUSA line to be moved over? ,Folz - It was decided about three years ago, and it's too late now to change it. What you are 'going to get is low demand use; 'probably a lot of Butler type buildings -and a lot of large lots, Gifford-- Why have we spent the time talking about an I-94 concept then if this is reality? . Whittaker - Because ten acre. housing would he better than poor. commercial. It would net 'set a negative tone for the whole strip. Folz By looking at performance standards, you still have a reasonable chance to..clo some things. Lyall - You are still going to have to have services along that road; it is_ still..going to''be_ a major freeway and more important than what it'is today. Folz -• You won't get sewer of development you can get thing that requires a very need'a very good insurance might get some things that 'houses, etc. Gifford - If the landowner we have any controls as to and water, but there is sti.li.a lot in here, but you are limited to some - low water volume, something that doesn't rating for fire and protection. You also you don't want; truck terminals, ware - decided to sell part of his land, would what was put there? Folz - If 'come in with a plan and ask for a 'land use that meets the highway busines zoning, you have no choice. You set the rule down,'you set the ordinance and you have already made the decisi_ori, Everybody that is in that zoning district can -do what that'book says is allowable in that zoning district.. ThO people are investing money on that assumption. We can't demand something if we don't offer something. Consensus of the'Conimission was a meeting with'some of our surround- ing communities for education and guidance as to how they handled their community development problems. Michels - We aren't' going to get anyone in here. We are not offering any sewer or water, we're going to get what's left. We are,•living with the decisions thawere made twenty years ago. L2\Kfl E MO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9-26• 83 Page 8 n Folz - Lake Elmo should have been told that you will develop and you will develop under these standards and the services are going to be there. The Met. Council goofed when they allowed the people that wanted to push and wanted the utilities and develop- ment to get.it. We totally ignored the planning and, told them to go away. It is going to, take fortv,vears to correct this. Commission'and Folz dis'ciassed alternative sewage systems. Gifford - I would like to leave the Council with my opinion being that this bus garage is an example of what' we hoped wouldn't come in. Lyall - I don't agree with,Gifford that it is poor use. If it looks decent and it performs the furictions and it's along a high- way, why' do you say you don't, want it? There was no further objections to the plan. as presented..with the exception that the Commission is Particularly concerned.with the property owners conforming to our landscaping standards. 6. Discussion,r.egatkding Joint Planning ComMi.ssion'Meeting with Oakaaie on 'Thursaave Klaers - I -talked with Commissioner. Schaefer about what the.County was looking for from these two planning cominiss1ons. I mentioned some of the problems from the City's point of view recommending solutions- to the County and gave him my perspective that we shouldn't be doing -that and at best all -we -cot -Ed do would be recommend that the County consider this 'as an option. He said that was what the County was looking for; a statement from the two cities saying that they are not closed to the County considering joint water as an option; I talked to him regarding the amount of dollars we would have to spend just to have our consultant study this to consider it.as a.viable solution and I told him that we don't have the resources. to dethat and I don't think we should be forced to spend that money.. He said that the County has money and if they do consider that .joint water as a solution that they would he spending al.l.of.the.money and doing all the research to" determine whether or not is is feasible. The County°s main con- cern for getting these two groups. together is the water problem at the landfill, plus our -common concern of compatible land use, street system, sewer from the south going up and servicing some Oakdale residents. m. Concern was expressed by the Commission that the County is moving too slow. Klaers - I told Commissioner Schaefer that from my perspective, after being here only twomont.hs, I felt the squeeze from the residents and from the County laying the pressure.on the City to do something and.1 tried to clearly indicate to him that it is (. not a City problem, I said the best we could do was not close the door on that option.- at least leave it open for further considerations, but by.the County. He agreed that was the appropriate way to go. I am not sure whether or not the Planning Commission even LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9-26-83 Page 9 wants to go that far or if the City Council would go that far. I think if a recommendation comes from the Planning Commission and it gets passed by the City Council, part of the resolution or motion should be to hurry up and get something done. OTHER: Attendance of Commissioners at meetings. Discussed the possibility of replacement of Commissioner Ryberg. Sugges- tion was made to check current files for previous applicants that may be interested before posting the position, if Mr. Ryberg intends to submit his resignation. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. r CITY OF #. I LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1983 7:30 P.M. Meeting Convenes 1. Minutes: August 22, 1983 and September 12, 1983 7:45 P.M. 2. Public Hearing for Large Lot Subdivision Steve Pott 8:05 P.M. 3. 1-94 Discussion 8:40 P.M. 8:50 P.M. 9:10 P.M. NOTICE: 4. Final Plat: Lake Jane Estates 2nd Addition (only if report is received from City Engineer) 5. Grading Permit for St. Paul Suburban Bus Company (only if report is received from City Engineer) 6. Brief Discussion Regarding Joint Planning Commission Meeting with Oakdale on Thursday Joint Planning Commission Meeting with the City of Oakdale at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, September 29, 1983, at Oakdale City Hall, 1584 Hadley Avenue North CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North 1 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 MEMO TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Pat Klaers, City Administrator RE: September 26, 1983 Planning Commission Agenda and September 29, 1983 Joint Planning Commission Meeting with Oakdale. 1. Minutes: Attached are the minutes from the September 12, 1983, meeting, for your review. The minutes for August 22, 1983, are on the Agenda to remind everyone to bring their comments for corrections to this meeting. These 8-22-83 minutes may or may not be ready for approval, depending on the number of corrections received. 2. Public Hearing for Steve Pott Large Lot Subdivision: The application form and Certificate of Survey are attached for your review. Larry Whittaker has indicated that everything is in order. The exception is the required two (2) foot contours and Larry said that this was not needed in this case. The zoning for this area is RR - Rural Residential. Larry Whittaker will be at this meeting to help answer questions. A report from the City Engineer, Larry Bohrer, is expected to be handed out Monday evening and I also anticipate that Larry Bohrer will attend this meeting to help answer questions. 3. 1-94 Discussion: No background material is being provided for this agenda item in this packet as all of the pertinent materials have been previously distributed. It is hoped that a consensus can soon be reached by the Planning Commission so that this item can go on for City Council consideration. 4. Final Plat for Lake Jane Estates, 2nd Addition: Attached is the Final Plat for your review. I informed Mr. Folz that this item would be on the agenda only if the City Engineer has time to review it and prepare a report on the Final Plat. If Larry Rohrer has this report completed it will be handed out Monday and he should be at the meeting for this discussion. 5. Grading Permit for St. Paul Suburban Bus Company: This item also came to the City Office from Mr. Folz on Wednesday and is on the agenda only if Larry Bohrer has time to review it and prepare a report. Again, if this happens, Larry will hand out the report on Monday evening and will be available for the discussion. The Concept Plan is attached for your reference.