Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-84 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 23, 1984 The Meeting was called to the Council Chambers. Present were Commissioner Lyall, Lundquist, Dreher, City Administrator Klaers 1. Minutes: order by Chairperson Prince at 7:10 p.m. in Graves (amended 2-13-84) 's Yarusse, Gifford, Nazarian, Michels, Moe (arrived at 7:25). Also present was M/S/P - Graves/Lyall - To approve the Minutes of the January 9, 1984 meeting, subject to a review by Tom Armstrong regarding his comments on the VBWD 509 Plan; and subject to correcting the spelling of Bob Dreher's name. (Motion carried 8-0) 2. Update of Appointments: City Administrator Klaers stated that the City had received two applications for the alternate positions open on the Planning Commission. Also, the vacancy is advertised in the current newsletter, and the applications will be presented to the City Council at its February 7th meeting. Klaers also informed the Planning Commission that the City Council had officially moved Chuck Graves up to a full member of the Planning Commission from his previous alternate position. 3. Public Hearing - Application open sales lots for agricultural in the RR zone (with 10 acres of for zoning code amendment to permit and horticultural products with a CUP land as a minimum) by Ron Smith. Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m in the Council chambers. It was noted that the Planning Commission had previously heard Mr. Smith's request for a CUP for an open sales lot, but issuing a CUP for an open sales lot in a 10 acre RR zone is against City Code. However, the Planning Commission had responded favorably to Mr. Smith's plans that were presented at a previous meeting, but the commission also expressed some concerns on the conditions that needed to be included in the CUP (ie: landscaping, traffic signs, etc.) It was noted that Mr. Smith has owned this land for two years, at which time the existing zoning requirements were in effect. It was noted that there were no complaints on the sixteen OUP's issued by Lake Elmo in 1983. Mr. Smith reiterated his plans for an open sales lot; that he would be selling flowers, shrubs, trees, and possibly landscape timbers; and in the future the possible construction of a small greenhouse. City Administrator Klaers expressed the concerns of the City Staff, they being that there are a lot of areas zoned RR which have 10 acres Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of land where similar activities could be requested. The City does not want 15 or 10 or even 5 of these types of commercial operations located sporadically throughout the community. That this is exactly why this type of commercial activity is currently not allowed in the RR zone. This location may be an exception, as it is near the entrance to the Regional Park, but we must consider the entire City when considering a code amendment. Prince st?ted that she disagreed with City Planner, Rob Chelseth's statement that Mr. Smith's business would have a negative esthetic impact on the area. She further stated she would prefer a small business, such as this, as opposed to industrial development. Graves stated the would allow other buy 10 acres, and Council. major oposition would be in setting a precedent that people that own 10 acres, or who want to come in and then ramming something like this thru the City Lundquist stated most of the land in Lake Elmo is RR; and it was zoned that way because as far as can be perceived, it will never have sewer. He further stated that he had no problem with agricultural or horticultural products being rasied on the premises. Smith stated it would be economically infeasible to raise everything he would sell; that some of it would have to be brought in. Michels stated he was not in favor of this zoning amendment because the zoning code was in effect when Smith purchased the land. And because economics is not a fact to be considered, there is no justifiable reason to amend the code. Klaers stated that the City's control would be greatly limited with this code amendment. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. M/S/P Moe/Graves - The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Mr. Smith's application to amend the zoning code to permit open sales lots of horticultural products for landscaping ourposes; the size of the sales lot not to exceed 10,000 square feet (excluding parking area) with a CUP in the RR zone. (Motion carried 9-0) Consensus of the Commission was that their recommendation to approve this code amendment is not just for Mr. Smith; that they feel this ode amendment would benefit others in the future. Michels stated he that the Planning feel that issuing Dr welfare of the felt it was important to note to the City Council Commission read the CUP requirements and they do not this CUP would be detrimental to the health, safety, residents of Lake Elmo. 4. Timers Subdivision - Development Agreement from 1979 Subdivision. The Commission discussed the changes in City policy regarding private Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 ( roads in the late 1970's. The City favored private roads as a mechanism to limit the access on to major thoroughfares. Today, the City discourages private roads because of potential problems (maintenance, emergency vehicles access, disputes between property owners, etc.) M/S/P Moe/Gifford - To recommend to the City Council approval of one private road agreement on the Nly road access to Parcel A and Lot 16 would be off of the Nly private road making the road between Parcel A and Parcel B unnecessary; and the buyer for Parcel B can put his driveway wherever he wishes. The Planning Commission agrees with the rest of the Developer's Agreement. (Motion carried 9-0) 5. 1-1/2 acre lot size requirement in Business Zones. Lyle Doerr information from County and general discussion. Klaers reviewed his comments as outlined in his agenda memo regarding his conversation with Lyle Doerr. Mr. Doerr has indicated that the guidelines set forth in the Lake Elmo Code are probably the best; but each application should be considered separately, on its individual merits; that soils is the key determining factor. An important factor should be if the lot would accept a traditional septic system. Consensus of the Planning Commission was that they will consider individual applications; and if an applicant wants to be considered for a smaller lot size, they would have to have proof that the soils would be able to handle a traditional septic system, that it meets the setback requirements, or restricting lot variances to lots that have City water. Consensus was to put this item on the Planning Commission's 1984 Work Plan (early in 1984). 6. Approach to solving I-94 Concept Plan dilemma - Fred Nazarian. Nazarian recommended the formation of a workshop with area planners, such as Woodbury, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Eagan, Edina, Brooklyn Park, etc., and have them present to the Planning Commission how they have resolved similar situations in their communities. And, having a meeting with all of the 1-94 property owners with recommendations as to what they can do, if they want to develop their property. He further suggested that if the property owners along I-94 wanted sewer, perhaps they should pay to have it put in, rather than leaving it up to the City. Klaers stated that planners, or community developers are not always willing to give up their time; that maybe instead of meeting these people collectively, it may be more appropriate for us, individually, to visit them at their work site. Consensus of the Commission was that until a site for the racetrack is decided upon, there is no great urgency to act quickly or hastily. However, this item is included on the the Planning Commission's 1984 Work Plan. 7. Per diem payments to Commission members. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 This item was tabled. 8. Preliminary discussion - Planning Commission 1984 Work Plan. The Planning Commission's 1984 Work Plan will include, but not be limited to the following items: (1) I-94 Corridor; (2) 1-1/2 acre lots for commercial development; (3) 1-1/2 acre lots for residential development; (4) Lake Jane water contamination problem (update); (5) Possibility of getting sewer for I-94 corridor (where it would come from, etc.; (6) Watershed 509 Plan (update); (7) Racetrack (update); (8) Regional Park (update); (9) Review, comment and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning and subdivision applications; (10) Any other suggestions from the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 January 19, 1984 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: PAT KLAERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR RE: AGENDA MEMO FOR 1/23/84 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLEASE NOTE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STARTING TIME 7:00 P.M. MINUTES: Attached are the minutes for your consideration from the last Planning Commission Meeting held on Janury 9, 1984. UP -DATE ON APPOINTMENTS:I wish to acknowledge and inform the Planning Commission that the City Council officially appointed Charles Graves as a regular Planning Commission member at its 1/17/84 meeting. There are currently two vacancies on the Planning Commission and both of these vacancies are for the two alternate positions. The City Council will be reviewing Planning Commission appointments at its 2/7/84 Council meeting. Planning Commission members should feel free to encourage concerned citizens, who are interested in the City, to apply for these vacant positions. One concern noted by Chairperson Nancy Prince at the last meeting was to obtain a member for the Commission who would represent the core village area. PUBLIC HEARING - RON SMITH APPLICATION FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENT As we discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Smith is not allowed to operate an open sales lot with a CUP in his existing RR zone. Therefore, Mr. Smith has applied for a Zoning Amendment that would permit open sales lots for agricultural and horticultural products with a CUP in the RR zone. Attached is material that was sumitted with his initial CUP application in December. Much of this material is relevant to current consideration of the zoning amendment. Additionally, a hand-out should be provided on Monday evening with comments from our City Planner, Rob Chelseth, on this application. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO FOR 1/23/84 MEETING PAGE 2 SMITH APPLICATION: (CONTINUED) The staff position on this zoning code amendment application is basically negative. There are a lot of areas zoned RR which have 10 acres of land where similar activities could be requested. The City does not want 15 or 10 or even 5 of these types of commercial operations located sporadically throughout the community. This is exactly why this type of commercial activity is currently not allowed in the RR zone. This location may be an exception, as it is near the entrance to the Regional Park, but we must consider the entire City when considering a code amendment. I believe that the report from Rob Chelseth will echo my concern. TIMMERS SUBDIVISION - 1979 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In 1979 Mr. Timmers was granted a subdivision of Lots 15 and 16 of the Three Lake Farm Addition. At that time, a number of conditions were placed on Mr. Timmers before selling the lots or before construction could take place. Please review the attached information for background on these conditions. Now, five years later, Mr. Timmers is ready to meet these conditions and to enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The City Attorney has indicated that the subdivision approval is still valid if Mr. Timmers meets the conditions originally established. The City Attorney also has indicated that Mr. Timmers has requested him to draft the Developers Agreement so that he may now proceed. This agreement, meeting the conditions set forth in the 1/16/79 Council minutes, should be ready on Monday and will then be handed out at the meeting. Mr. Timmers should also be present at this meeting. 1 1/2 ACRE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN BUSINESS ZONES - LYLE DOERR INFORMATION FROM THE COUNTY AND GENERAL DISCUSSION;. At the last Planning Commission meeting this topic was discussed in great detail and the Planning Commission asked foradditional information from Mr. Doerr. Also, attached is some information on sewers which was requested to be distributed at this meeting for discussion. Last week I discussed with Mr. Doerr alternate septic systems and, specifically, holding tanks. Mr. Doerr indicated that holding tanks are not allowed on newly created lots (this is a PCA rule). Holding tanks should be considered only as a last resort when other types of septic systems are not available. A mandatory pumping plan for holding tanks is very difficult to enforce (however, pumping holding tanks when it is needed is somewhat self -enforcing as the homeowner is the first to know when his system is not working). Once a holding tank is allowed in a zone for a specific use problems can arise if the use of the land changes. A problem can develop in the future regarding holding tanks when citizens look to the City for help on costs incurred for required pumping. ( PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO FOR 1/23/84 MEETING PAGE 3 LYLE DOERR INFORMATION: - (CONTINUED) Mr. Doerr also discussed the mound type of septic system and indicated that there is a wide difference of opinion on these systems. However, the bottom line is that this type of system is more expensive than the current drainfield/septic system required and that the same size area is needed for both types of systems. We further discussed a joint drainfield/septic system where two or more (maybe as many as 10 businesses) are connected to one system. This type of system can be an administrative nightmare. Some of the problems that can develop are: inspection of the system; determining how much each participant pays for the system; determining how much participants put into the system; determining who pays for repairs to the system; finding additional land should the system fail, etc. In the end, Mr. Doerer and I discussed that the standard drainfield/septic systems that we currently have are probably the best. He indicated that smaller lot size requests should be handled on an individual, case by case basis. The most important factor in small lots is the soil conditions and the City Engineer should make recommendations on whether the small lot can handle a drainfield system. Longer term problems with small lots is that they must all be selfsustaining and that if the system fails land is neded for an alternate site. ( This is just a little food for thought and I am looking forward to an interesting discussion on this topic. I might add that I concur with Mr. Doerr's position that our existing ordinance is the best and that each individual case should be determined on its individual merits. APPROACH TO SOLVING THE I-94 CONCEPT PLAN DILEMMA-FRED NAZARIAN: Fred. has obtained material from other cities on the approach to controlling development along major thoroghfares. He also has discussed this with our former consultant Larry Whittaker. We still have not changed anything in our Comprehensive Plan relating to concept plans for 1-94 development and Fred would like to address our approach to solving this dilemma at this meeting. I believe Fred will be talking abut some type of group meetings with planners from neighboring communities. As nothing has been done to date with changing our concept plan, I do not see an urgency in making any drastic changes without knowing what is going to happen regarding the racetrack site. Fred will present his thoughts on how the Planning Commission should solve our I-94 problems. PER DIEM PAYMENT TO COMMISSION MEMBERS - UP-DATE:I have reviewed the City Ordinance and some State laws regarding payment to commission members. The only information I have found is that Park Commission members can be paid a per diem payment up to $100 per year, per person. The City Attorney is checking on whether or not Planning Commission members can also receive per diem payments. If the City Attorney has any information for me before this meeting, I will present it at the table. Otherwise discussion on the topic may need to be tabled until next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO FOR 1/23/84 MEETING PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 1984 WORK PLAN - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION: I understand every year the Planning Commission drafts a work schedule for items that they hope to accomplish in the current year. This work plan is then presented to the City Council sometime in early spring. I have not participated in this type of discussion in Lake Elmo, so I would like to get a feel as to what the Planning Commission will be looking at on this topic. I would simply like a review of what was done last year so that I can be of some assistance in putting the work plan together for the coming year. This can be a very brief discussion, but, I would appreciate any comments that will help me in helping you. OTHER INFORMATION: 1. Attached is the most recent City Newsletter dated 1/10/84. Please note the article on commission vacancies. 2. Attached is a notice for a Zoning Conference to be held on Friday, February 3, in Brooklyn Park. Some of the elements on the program look interesting and some commission members may want to attend this conference. The fee is $15 per person and I am sure that the City will pay for any member who is interested in attending. Please let me know if anyone is going to attend so that I can submit the registration. 3. Council Action from the January 17, 1984, Meeting: A. The Council accepted your recommendation for changes in the MUSA line. These changes will be sent to the Met Council this week. B. The Council recommended further study on Alternate B (pipes) to the VBWD. They did list additional concerns that Valley Branch should consider. These concerns include: enforcement of the 1% run-off requirement; concern over the manner in which water gets to Sunfish Lake once the down stream pipes are in place - they felt that pumping may be as economical as pipes in this last phase of the plan; the were concerned with what happens to the park land in Sunfish Lake in the next year or two before any plan gets implemented; and finally, they were concerned that all the other alternates were given due consideration. C. The Council accepted the State portion of the 201 grant money for Steps 2 & 3 in the amount of $48,429.00. This is reimbursement to the City for expenses already incurred. D. The City Council tabled any discussion on supporting Woodbury's efforts to obtain the Metro racetrack site. They are waiting for additional information from the Met Council on this site. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO FOR 1/23/84 MEETING PAGE 5 3. COUNCIL ACTION (Continued) E. The Hutchinson Lawsuit has been dismissed. Everything is back to where it was before the rezoning application was considered. F. The City suggested to the County that if a committee is formed to determine the best alternative for a public water supply system near the landfill site that this committee should be comprised of solely Lake Elmo Council members and Lake Elmo residents. The County is suggesting a committee of Lake Elmo residents, Lake Elmo Council members, Oakdale Council members, Washington County Board members and Ramsey County Board members. The Council felt that the best alternative for a solution has to be based on the area to be served and only Lake Elmo Council members and residents are in a position to make this decision. I The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. Lake Elmo Ordinances require that certain documents and information be included in applications. The Planning Commission may postpone consideration of an application that is incomplete and may for other reasons postpone final action on an application. For each item, the Commission will receive reports prepared by the City Staff, open the hearing to the public, and discuss and act on the application. If you are aware of information that hasn't been discussed, please fill out a "Request to Appear Before the Planning Commission" slip; or, if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1984 7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes 1. Minutes: January 9, 1984 2. Update on Appointments 7:15 p.m. 7:45 p.m. 8:15 p.m. 3. Public Hearing: Application for Zoning Code Amendment - To Permit Open Sales Lots for Agri- cultural and Horticultural Products With a CUP in the RR Zone (with 10 acres of land as a minimum) - for Ron Smith at the NW corner of loth Street and Keats Avenue (9999 10th Street N.) 4. Timmers Subdivision - Development Agreement from 1979 Subdivision 5. 1 1/2 Acre Lot Size Requirement in Business Zones - Lyle Doerr Information From County and General Discussion 8:35 p.m. 6. Approach to Solving I-94 Concept Plan Dilemma Fred Nazarian 8:50 p.m. 7. Per Diem Payments to Commissions Members Update 9:00 p.m. 8. Preliminary Discussion - Planning Commission 1984 Work Plan