Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-85 PZMThe 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 FEBRUARY 11, 1985 7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes 1. Minutes: January 28, 1985 2. Update from Carol Kuettner on recently attended Planning Workshop. 7:15 p.m. 8:15 p.m. 3. Animal Inn CUP amendment - application for simple lot subdivision and zoning code variance. (Application withdrawn) 4. Brief update on preliminary 1985 Planning Commission Work Plan. 5. Public Hearing for rezoning from RR to R1 application from Don Bishop, Clapp Thommsen and, platting pre -application (sketch Plan) review at SW corner of Stillwater Blvd. and Inwood Ave. 6. Final plat application by David Nelson for five lot development of Nelson Estates. BREAK 7. Conditional Use Permit amendment application by Howard Springborn at Green Acres Recreation Center. 8. Other To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission From: Pat Klaers, City Administrator Re: Agenda Memo and Informational Material for 2-11-85 Planning Commission Meeting City Engineer Larry Bohrer will be attending this 2-11-85 Planning Commission meeting. I have asked Larry to attend this meeting specifically for his input in the Don Bishop/Clapp Thommsen rezoning application and sketch plan, the David Nelson final plat, and possibly for input relating to the Springborn CUP application. Additionally, #8 "Other" on the agenda will provide the Planning Commission with an opportunity to ask the Engineer any specific questions which they have relating to planning items. 1. Attached for your review and consideration are the draft Planning Commission minutes from the 1-28-85 meeting. 2. Update from Carol Kuettner on recently attended Planning Workshop. Planning Commissioner, Carol Kuettner recently attended a planning and zoning related seminar. She would like to update the Planning Commission members on some of the issues that were discussed at this workshop. She has provided the staff with some material that will be copied and either distributed within this packet or at the Planning Commission meeting for your review later in the week. Providing these types of updates from members that attend workshops is a good method in providing information that was obtained by one member to all of the Commission. This way, the benefit of having one member attend workshops is spread to all of the Commission. 3. Animal Inn CUP amendment. Charles Anderson, from the Animal Inn has informed me that he has worked out other financial arrangements and no longer requests a simple lot subdivision or any zoning code variances. Therefore, he has withdrawn his application for the simple lot subdivision and will proceed with only his CUP amendment to construct a 50' x 138' building. The Planning Commission reommended approval of this CUP for the construction of this building at its last meeting and tabled consideration of the simple lot subdivision. Therefore, the Commission should adopt a motion accepting the withdrawal of this simple lot subdivision and zoning code variance application. This CUP amendment for the construction of a building will bean the City Council agenda on March 5, 1985. U. Brief update on Planning Commission 1985 Work Plan. Because of the time which some of the later agenda items will need, this item is on the agenda simply for you to review what took place at the last meeting. Further discussion on the 1985 Work Plan will be on 2-25-85 Planning Commission agenda. Please review the last Planning Commission minutes on this issue to verify that all of the items ( discussed were included in the preliminary Work Plan for 1985. 5. Public Hearing for rezoning (from RR to R1) application from Don Bishop/Clapp Thommsen and platting preapplication (sketch plan). LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO FOR 2-11-85 PAGE 2 Mr. Bishop has applied to rezone the land at the southwest corner of Stillwater Blvd. and Inwood Avenue from RR to Rl. Mr. Bishop is proposing to eventually seek a plat approval for single family residential development in this area. This is a public hearing scheduled for 7:15 p.m. Notice has been published in the legal City newspaper, and notice has been sent to the required neighboring property owners. Attached for your information is a large draft plan showing the proposed layout of the lots, the application, list of names who received public hearing notice, Larry Bohrer's report, Rob Chelseth's report, and a letter from a neighboring property owner expressing his objections to this proposal. As has been widely known, this area does not have the best soil conditions for residential development. However, as Larry Bohrer's report indicates, of all the soils in the area the best are located in the proposed phase 1 development. For the actual preliminary plat, additional drainage information will be required. Therefore, this should be considered a sketch plan or preplatting application. This material is offered to the Commission so that it can have a firm concept of what is being proposed, if the rezoning is approved. The rezoning section of the code is found on pages 301-25, 26 and 27, and the preplatting sketch requirements are found on pages 401-6, 7 and 8. I am not sure how many residents will be attending this pubic hearing, but I am sure there will be at least one (the indiviudal that submitted the letter, Mr. Novak) and he may have the support of some of his surrounding neighbors who could attend this meeting. This is a rather substantial development and proposal, and the Commission should not rush into any quick decision. You may want to wait for two weeks to think about this application. Therefore, a motion to table any final decision on this application until the next meeting may be appropriate. Larry Bohrer's report indicates that additional information is needed for the phase 2 and 3 development proposal, and is therefore recommending that if the Commission sees fit that this land is appropriate for R1 development, they only recommend approval of the rezoning from RR to R1 in the phase 1 area. Rob Chelseth's report addresses the Comp Plan and the cluster development concept. It should be noted that if the Commission recommends to the Council approval of this rezoning, and the Council in turn accepts this recommendation and rezones the requested land, the Comp Plan is automatically amended. It is interesting to note in Rob's report that this individual could develop all 14 lots in phase 1 without rezoning the property. There is one technical problem and that is that some of the lots are in excess of two acres, but this could be quickly amended. The attached letter also addresses some legitimate concerns, but the Commission should note that citizens complaints over an issue alone is not a valid basis to reject an application or proposal. The Met Council did request the City to do some work in its Ri area. The City responded and removed much of the R1 zoned land that was vacant in LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO FOR 2-11-85 PAGE 3 mid-1983. Currently, there are very few open areas of R1 land available for residential development. Also, you should note that the Comp Plan is just that; a plan for future developement, and this plan could easily be amended. The drainage issues discussed in this letter will be addressed later by the VBWD during the platting process. For information on the soils concerns listed in the letter, you should refer to Larry Bohrer's memo. The staff has very little problem with this concept for residential development as there are single family homes to the north and to the east and further toite west in Oakdale. The staff does not see this as a spot rezoning if the Commission and Council approve this application. I am not sure what the best method for approving single family development in this area would be, and the applicants may want to evaluate the Consulting Engineer and Planner reports, and reevaluate their request. Either a cluster development, and then a rezoning if the soil conditions are acceptable in phase 2 and 3 would be an acceptable course of action; or the Commission could simply recommend the rezoning of the area in phase 1. 6. Final plat application by David Nelson for five lot development of Nelson Estates. A report from the City Engineer, Larry Bohrer will either be attached in this packet or will be distributed at the table. The staff does not have any information on this application to date, but we anticipate receiving the large final plat maps and application shortly. The City Engineer does have this material and has been reviewing it the past few days. If the Planning Commission finds everything acceptable, it can recommend approval of the final plat with conditions. The conditions that will need to be included, if a recommendation for approval comes from the Planning Commission, will be bought to your attention by the City Engineer. I don't have much to add to this application as I have yet to see the material, but I do know that David Nelson has made every attempt to comply with the City Code, and that he has approval of the preliminary plat. The final plat approval will also require park donation fees and a developers agreement for the street and drainage improvements that are required. 7. Conditional Use Permit amendment application by Howard Springborn at Green Acres Recreational Center. Mr. Springborn requested that this item be tabled at the last meeting so that his representative, Bruce Folz, could be present to make a presentation. Since the applicant is making a presentation, it is only fair to allow the citizens that are in attendance to also voice their opinions about the application. While this is not a formal public hearing, as the official public hearing was closed at the 1-14-85 meeting, this is most certainly going to be an informal public hearing. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO FOR 2-11-85 PAGE 4 The Planning Commission chairman should require each citizen that desires to address the Commission to fill out a form, and when they speak to state their name, address and if they received a public hearing notice for the first review of this applicaion on 1-14-85. Attached for your information is: Application - Large map - 1984 Resolution 1985 Resolution Jesuit Retreat letter (previously distributed on 1-14-85) - Petition with 10 names that was submitted at the 1-14-85 meeting. - A letter from the Anderson's (not on the public hearing mailing list) - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Reese (not on the public hearing mailing list). - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Watne (are on the public hearing mailing list). A letter from Mr. Tom Kernan (not on the public hearing mailing list). - A letter from Tom McGuire (on the public hearing mailing list). - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nelson (not on the public hearing mailing list). - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. hearing mailing list). - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hamme (are on hearing mailing list). - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Olson (are on hearing mailing list). - A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Spoffond (not hearing mailing list). A second petition received Neisse (not on the public the public the public on the public Concerning this second petition, you should note that there are 74 names on the petition, but not all of the names are adults, and one of the individuals does not currently live in Lake Elmo but will be purchasing a lot from Mr. Springborn. Of the 74 names on the list, only 50 households are represented. Of these 50 households that signed the petition, 11 were on the public hearing mailing list, and 39 are from areas outside of the 350' mailing list requirement. The Commission should be keenly aware that they cannot recommend denial of an application simply based on the complaints of the neighbors. The Commission must have legal reasons to recommend denial of an application. The legal reasons could include whether or not the use of the land will be continued as a rural recreation center versus the application for the water slide moving towards an urban recreational nature. The applicant can still use his land as the 1985 CUP indicates, but the application is for a expansion of this use. The Commission must also consider the demand for City services in reviewing this application. If additional policing of the area is required by the City, this could be a legal reason to reject the application. However, if the Commission views this application in a favorable C LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO FOR 2-11-85 PAGE 5 manner, they should require Mr. Springborn to hire additional police personnel to be on the site during certain times during the summer months. The Commission could consider potential increased noise, litter and vandalism to the neighborhood as a factor, traffic and safety concerns are legitimate concerns, and a point that must be proven before it could be used as a legal defense to reject the proposal is that the land values in the neighborhood could be decreased by this type of activity. Other concerns that have been presented in the letters and petitions that relate to drainage would be reviewed by VBWD at a later stage, and if approval was given, this approval would be conditioned upon the applicant meeting VBWD requirements. Considering that new testimony is going to be presented by the applicant and by the citiznes, it may again be wise for the Commission to table consideration of this issue until the following meeting on 2-25-85. However, if the Commission has strong feelings on the application and feels that a consensus could be reached, they most certainly can move forward and make a recommendation to the City Council. The staff has serious concerns on whether or not this proposal would be moving the recreational center from a rural nature to an urban nature activity, and also has concerns over the safety issue with the increased traffic and the related demands for City servives (police) caused by this increased traffic. The Commission should also try to obtain economic information from the applicant as to its investment in this operation, prior to its deliberation on the application. 8. Other The City Engineer, Larry Rohrer will be attending this meeting. This will be a good opportunity for any Planning Commission member who has a planning related issue to bring it to the attention of the Engineer. **************** Me************************************************ OTHER INFORMATION 1. Attached for your information is the most recent City Newsletter dated 1-29-85. This edition highlights an article on the recommendation from the Council to the Counties on the best solution for the landfill groundwater contamination problem. 2. Attached for your information is yet another flyer for a rezoning conference/workshop. It seems that these workshops of various natures relating to planning items are offered on a monthly basis. Any Planning Commission member is more than welcome to attend these workshops, but one should be selective and attend only the workshops in which they have a sincere interest. The Council has always endorsed continued education and training of the Planning Commission members, but if they see one or two members going to workshops every other week, they may begin to raise some questions about this practice or request formal reports from the individuals attending such meetings. The above comments are not intended to discourage anyone from attending these workshops, but again everyone should be sincere LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO FOR 2-11-85 PAGE 6 about their interests when they register for such conferences. 3. Update on the 2-5-85 City Council meeting. A. Approved the Slawson large lot subdivision west of Keats Avenue 1/4 mile south of Highway 36 as recommended by the Planning Commission at its last meeting. B. Formally approved the resolution recommending the preferred solution to the ground water problem around the landfill which was discussed in the attached Newsletter. C. Further reviewed the office space committee guidelines and requested that an ad be placed in the City Newsletter requesting interested citizens to participate in this committee. Appointment to this committee will most likely take place at the March 5, 1985 meeting. D. Authorized the staff to hire a six week temporary employee to be added to the maintenance crew. The need for this individual is a result of the Maintenance Foreman, Dave Wisdorf resigning. Dave is going to the City of Mahtomedi to take a similar foreman position. Additionally, we will be placing advertisements in relevant newspapers and the League of Minnesota Cities magazine seeking applications for a Maintenance Foreman. Applications for the position will be accepted until March 22, 1985.