Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-85 PZMf 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 FEBRUARY 25, 1985 7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes 1. Minutes: February 11, 1985 2. Discussion on zoning workshop - material was previously distributed at the 2-11-85 meeting. 7:15 p.m. 3. Public Hearing to consider Code amendments: A. Section 205 - Fire Department B. Section 210 - Parks Commission C. Section 204 - Planning Commission D. Section 401.380 - Street Access E. Section 301.070 - Cluster Development Standards F. Section 301.070 - AG and RR Zone - Minimum District Requirements G. Section 301.070 and Section 301.130 - relating to Accessory Structures 4. Don Bishop/Clapp-Thommsen rezoning from RR to Ri application and platting preapplication sketch plan for 35 lots (11 in phase I) at the SW corner of Stillwater Blvd. and Inwood Avenue. 5. 1985 Planning Commission Work Plan 6. Other LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES';.g FEBRUARY 25, 1985 '` it �.4�.,:,v, Chairman Nazarian called the meeting to order at 7:05 in the council chambers. Present: Dreher, Graves, Lundquist, Michels, Moe, Prince, Administrator Klaers. Absent: Kuettner, Lyall, Schiltz. 1. Minutes: February 11, 1985 M/S/P Prince/Moe - To approve the minutes of the February 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as written. (Motion carried 7-0) 2. Discussion on Zoning Workshop. M/S/P Prince/Moe - To table disucssion on this Zoning Workshop until the March 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting or until Carol Kuettner (who attended this workshop) is present. (Motion carried 7-0) 3. Public Hearing to consider Code Amendments. Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 7.20 p.m. in the city council chambers. A. Section 205 - Fire Department This section of the code discusses the Fire Chief submitting all applications or resignations to the City Council for approval. The reality of the situation is that new people are on board and resignations have already taken place before anything gets to the City Council. A more appropriate method of notification to the Council would be for the Fire Chief to notify the City Administrator who would then notify the City Council. M/S/P Prince/Michels - To recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 205.020 Membership? to include the following: "The Fire Chief shall submit all applications or resignations from the Fire Department to the City Administrator. The City Administrator will then notify the City Council of any new applicants or resignations from the Fire Department". (Motion carried 7-0) B. Section 210.012 - Composition - Parks Commission C. Section 204.012 - Composition - Planning Commission The City Council will consider amending the sections of the code listed above which state "No member may serve more than two consecutive three year terms unless the average years of service for all commission members is less than four years. A member who has served two terms may be reappointed by the City Council after a one year absence". The Administrator stated there is a big difference between these two commissions. Cities are required to have a Planning Commission if they adopt a Comprehensive Plan, but they are not required to have a Parks Commission - it is strictly volunteer. He feels that it is a good provision for the Parks Commission because we want a turnover of ideas PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-25-85 PAGE 2 and the members do not have to have a knowledge of the City Code. However, it is a bad provision for the Planning Commission because we want people to understand the City Code - to understand the changes, and the history of the community. He further recommended that this section of the Code be removed from the Parks Commission, but not from the Planning Commission. M/S/P Moe/Graves - To recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Sections 210.012 and 204.012 deleting the phrases "No member may serve more than two consecutive three year terms unless the average years of service for all commission members is less than four years. A member who has served two terms may be reappointed by the City Council after a one year absence". (Motion carried 4-0-3 <Dreher, Lundquist, Michels>) Prince stated that with or without this section of the Code, the Council has the prerogative to appoint or not appoint members as they so desire. Michels feels that it is more important to have all areas of the City represented. D. Street Access - Section 401.380F The Commission reviewed the City Engineer's memo of February 11, 1985 regarding this proposed code amendment. M/S/P Prince/Graves - To recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 401.380 by adding: F. "Subdivisions Abutting Collector or Minor Arterial Streets. Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts or contains an existing or planned collector or minor arterial street as designated on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, the lots shall access onto local streets wherever possible. Local streets may be existing or provided with the subdivision"; and to reletter the following paragraphs F through Q to G through R. (Motion carried 7-0) E. Section 301.070 - Cluster Development Standards The Commission reviewed the City Engineer's memo of February 11, and the comments from City Administrator in his agenda memo dated 2-25-85 regarding this proposed code amendment. M/S/P Prince/Michels - To recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 301.070 D.2.e to include: 7. "Whenever a proposed Cluster Development abuts or contains an existing or planned collector or minor arterial street as designated. on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, the lots shall access onto local streets wherever possible. Local streets may be exisiting or may be required to be provided with the subdivision.° (Motion carried 7-0) F. Section 301.070 D.1.d 6. and, Section 301.070 D.2.c.6. - AG and RR Zoned Minimum District Requirements (Drainfields) The Council reviewed the Administrator's memo in which he stated that the phrase "Placement of the second required drainfield between the trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited" should be added to the l PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-25-85 PAGE 3 AG and RR Minimum District Requirements for the sake of consistancy as this has been added to most other zoning districts in the City Code. M/S/P Michels/Moe - To recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 301.070 D.1.d.6 and Section 301.070 .D.2.c.6 to include the following: "Placement of the second required drainfield between the trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited". (Motion carried 7-0) G. Section 301.070 and Section 301.130 - Accessory Structures. The Commission reviewed the memos from the Building Official and City Administrator, and the recently revised Washington County guidelines for accessory structures. M/S/P Graves/Moe - To recommend to the City Council adopting an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Sections: 301.070 D.2.b.2. Acreage Maximum Square Feet of Accessory Structure 10+ acres 2500 sq.ft. with maximum of 3 buildings. 301.130 C.1.c. Detached Rural Storage Building: A one-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment, workshop equipment, etc. Exterior materials shall match the principal structure in exterior color or be of an earthen tone. The gross area of said building shall not exceed one thousand (1000) square feet in gross area on a parcel of less than 5 acres and not more than 2000 square feet ingrossarea on parcels between 5 and 10 acres, and in the AG and RR zones only with the maximum of 3 buildings not more than 2500 square feet in gross area on parcels of more than 10 acres and less than 20 acres, and no restriction in the AO zone on parcels over 20 acres. 301.130 C.1.d. Detached Domesticated Farm Animal Building: A one story accessory building used or intended for the shelter of domestic farm animals and/or related feed or other farm animal supportive materials. Said building shall require a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Feedlot Permit and site and building plan approval and shall not exceed 2500 square feet in gross area on a parcel between 10 and 20 acres. 301.130 C.14.a. Agricultural -AG: For parcels under five acres, two buildings with a total area not to exceed one thousand square feet; or parcels of more than five acres to ten acres, two buildings with a total area not to exceed 2000 square feet; or parcels of more than ten acres to twenty acres, three buildings with a total area not to exceed 2500 square feet; for parcels over twenty acres, there shall be no limit on the size or number of accessory buildings so long as said buildings are agricultural buildings as defined in Section 301.130C.1.e. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-25-85 PAGE 4 301.130 C.14.b. Rural Residential -RR: For parcels under five acres, two buildings with a total area not to exceed 1000 square feet; for parcels more than five acres and under ten acres, two buildings with a total area not to exceed 2000 square feet; for parcels over ten acres, three buildings wtth a total area not to exceed 2500 square feet. 301.130 C.14.c. For all other Residential Districts: For parcels with 20,000 square feet or less in land area, one building not to exceed the size of the principal building, or 1000 square feet, whichever is less; for, parcels over 20,000 square feet in land area and less than five acres, one building with a total area not to exceed 1,000 square feet; and for parcels of more than five acres, two buildings with a total area not to exceed 2,000 square feet. (Motion carried 6-1 <Michels>) There were no residents present to offer comments for or against any of the proposed code amendments and the public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m Michels stated that the City is trying to maintain a rural atmosphere, • and disagrees with building restrictions that may not lend itself to staying that way. 4. Don Bishop/Clapp-ThommSet rezoning from RR to R1 application and platting preapplication sketch plan for 35 lots (11 in phase 1) at the SW corner of Stillwater Blvd. and Inwood Avenue. Bruce Folz reviewed the proposal, which has not changed from the last meeting. What Mr. Bishop is asking for is concept approval of the entire plan and preliminary plat approval and rezoning to R1 for the 11 C lots in phase 1. Prince stated her concerns are the driveways that come off of the County Roads, and wouldn't want to compound the problem by adding additional driveways. Folz stated the reason that a City is allowed to pass ordinances is strictly based on what the Legislature allows it to do. It is based on health, welfare and safety. If there is no health, safety or welfare problem, you cannot over -restrict the property. The County says they would like to have driveways on major County Roads at 300 foot intervals, and if possible farther, but 300 feet is the absolute minimum that the County feels is necessary for safety conditions. Rita Conlin, 2915 Inwood Avenue stated the speed limit on Inwood is 45 mph and cars are going off of the road all of the time. Trucks are constantly hauling on this road for the work being done on I-94. She would like to see the speed limit reduced to 30 mph. She also expressed concerns with the deterioration of this road from the heavy trucks. Folz stated the speed limit is controlled by Mn/DOT and a petition would have to be filed with the City to request a change. Graves asked if it would be possible to change the pattern of the streets in phase II and III so the two lots with the common driveway could be serviced other than off of the County Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-25-85 PAGE 5 Folz stated that based on the soils and the streets, it is his opinion that the design as presented is the best land use layout. Michels agrees with the concerns and condition of Highway 13. It is the worst road in the area. The Commission was reminded that if this rezoning was denied, the applicant would still be able to develop, thru cluster development, the lots in phase I and II. If it is rezoned to R1, the City is upgrading the use of the land to the best use. Folz further stated that it would be impossible to develop the west portion of the property because of the high water table (if drainfields had to be used). And, at this time, the owner of the property has no plans to develop this property. However, if an agreement could be made with Oakdale to provide sewer to this property, it could be feasible at some time to develop this property. Michels would rather see this property rezoned and controlled in the R1 zone as opposed to seeing it clustered. Moe feels that if it is clustered, the applicant would have to take care of the water problems in phase II right away. Right now, they only have to take care of phase I. The water is still going to run the way it has always run until phase II is taken into consideration. M/S/P Dreher/Graves - To recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 301.070 C Zoning District Map from RR to R1 for the eleven lots in Phase I of Lake Elmo Heights for Don Bishop/Clapp-Thommsen. (Motion carried 6-1 <Moe>) Dreher feels that the R1 zone is consistant with what is in the area. M/S/P Graves/Dreher - To recommend to the City Council approval of the concept plan for the thirty-five lots in three phases of Lake Elmo Heights for Don Bishop/Clapp-Thommsen. (Motion carried 5-1-1 <Moe> <Prince>). Prince would like it on record that due to the poor soils in phase II and III, the City Engineer will have to be especially diligent in keeping track of this application when it comes in. M/S/P Graves/Dreher - To recommendthat the City Council adopt a resolution for approval of the preliminary plat for the eleven lots in phase I of Lake Elmo Heights for Don Bishop/Clapp-Thommsen. (Motion carried 6-1 <Moe>). Michels is concerned with the water runoff and would like to see this problem thoroughly addressed before anything is finalized in this development. 5. 1985 Planning Commission Work Plan The following items will be added to the 1985 Work Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-25-85 PAGE 6 #12 Speed sign, traffic light or some kind of traffic control on CSAH 5 and CR 17. #13 Procedure Sheet Development. #14 Cluster Developments in AG zone. #15 Restrictions (stronger) for accessory structures in the R1 zone. #16 Size and number of accessory structures in RR zone on parcels of 20 acres or more. 6. Other A. Recycling Center - Prince Prince stated that Scandia has made an effort to set up a recycling center. She would like to see one of the organizations in Lake Elmo start some kind of a recycling center. She will make inquiries on behalf of the City to determine how to go about this, and will bring this information back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. B. Springborn CUP Application - Moe and Michels Moe and Michels stated they will be out of town for the next Planning Commission meeting at which time this subject will again will be discussed, and offered the following comments regarding Mr. Springborn's proposed CUP amendment. Moe stated he is opposed to the construction of a water slide on Springborn's property as he does not believe it conforms to Commercial Recreation of a Rural Nature, and would vote to deny the request on that basis. Michels stated he does not believe the application can be denied on the basis of property devaluation because if the land was to be used as AG (which could mean a pig farm) the surrounding property would probably be devalued more with a pig farm than it would with a water slide. However, the Planning Commission ought to look at the use of this land and determine if AG is a proper use of this land, if this application is denied. C. Planning Work Shop Nazarian stated that there will be a Rezoning Workshop on March 7th, 1985 at the Earl Brown Center on the U of M campus, from 2:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m., and any Planning Commission member that desires to attend should advise the City Administrator. D. Slawson Large Lot Subdivision Nazarian reminded the Commission of the public hearing for this application to be held at 7:45 p.m. on Thursday, February 28, 1985 in the city council chambers. M/S/P Graves/Moe - To adjourn the meeting (9:30 p.m.) C C LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTEb FEBRUARY 11, 1985 APt1 r Chairman Nazarian called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the council chmabers. Present: Dreher, Graves, Kuettner, Lundquist (arrived 7:10), Lyall, Michels, Moe, Prince (arrived 7:15), Schiltz, Administrator Klaers, City Engineer Bohrer. 1. Minutes - January 28, 1985 M/S/P Michels/Schiltz - To approve the minutes of the January 28, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as written. (Motion carried 6-0-2 <Graves, Lyall›). 2. Update from Carol Kuettner on recently attended Planning Workshop. Kuettner handed out information received at the workshop. This information included data on public hearings, ambiguities in ordinances, the importance of the Comprehensive Plan and the importance of reviewing it every few years. It was strongly stressed that each person on a commission state their reasons for voting for or against something using the facts that are available and stating opinions, and this should all be part of the public record. The reason for this is if it is not a part of the minutes, and the subject went into court, only information from the minutes/public record would be admissible. It was also stressed that the role of the commission is to explain what and why, and to make recommendations to the city council using practical assistance; and the importance of keeping in contact with the news media and the community. This subject will be brought back to the commission table for further discussion. 3. Animal Inn CUP amendment - application for simple lot subdivision and zoning code variance. The Administrator advised the commission that Mr. Anderson has made' arrangements with the contract holder for the property which he made application to subdivide which will eliminate the need for the simple lot subdivision and variances. As the commission has already voted to recommend approval of the construction of the building, the subdivision and variance application has been withdrawn by Mr. Anderson. M/S/P Dreher/Graves - To accept the withdrawal of the application for a simple lot subdivision and zoning code variance from Chuck Anderson for the Animal Inn. (Motion carried 9-0). 4. Brief update on preliminary 1985 Planning Commission Work Plan. The Administrator advised the commission that a draft of the 1985 Work Plan was included in the packets for review. This subject will be more thoroughly discussed at the February 25, 1985 meeting. 5. Public Hearing for Don Bishop/Clapp Thompson for rezoning from RR to Rl, and platting preapplication (sketch plan) review at SW corner of Stillwater Blvd. and Inwood Avenue. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 2 Chairman Nazarian opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. in the council chambers and noted that notice of this hearing hadbeen sent to residents within 350' of the property and published in the legal newspaper. 6 Bruce Folz representing Mr. Bishop made a presentation on the proposal to rezone a parcel approximately 79 acres in size from RR, Rural Residential to R1, One Family Residential to permit development of 35 lots in three phases. The property is located at the intersection of Stillwater Blvd. and Inwood Ave. North. There is a low area in the north central portion that is subject to flooding in the spring of the year. The drainage way comes out of Oakdale, goes thru a large culvert back down to Eagle Point. In the northeast corner of the property, there is a natural ponding area (slow) that overflows to the north and then goes east to a culvert, then partially east and partially north. The intersection of the road was rebuilt about three years ago by Washington County. Turn lanes were put in and the grade, which had been steep, has been corrected. With that acquisition, the County acquired 75 feet of right-of-way on the north side, and will allow a minimum amount of driveways into the public streets. On the east boundary line, the street is Inwood Avenue (County Road 13B). The present right-of-way is 33 feet and the County has indicated they want a sixty foot half right-of-way off of the east side. East of Inwood Avenue is Tablyn Park which was platted several years ago into approximately 18,750 square foot lots. Immediately east of Tablyn Park is Tablyn Park 2nd Addition. These lots are all approximately 1-1/2 acres. Most of the lots in Tablyn Park and Tablyn Park 2nd Addition have been sold and built upon, so there is not much of an inventory left for sale in this area. The area to the north was platted about 20 years ago and contains eight houses. Those lots are approximately 18,750 square feet. Therefore, the density around this proposal is more intense than what Mr. Bishop is proposing, and this proposal is pretty much an extension of the existing residential area. Under the present zoning ordinance, it would be possible to cluster develop the entire 144 acres. This would allow the development of phase 1 and phase 2 without benefit of rezoning. Mr. Folz further pointed out that the City Engineer has reviewed this plan. There are some bad soils within this property. About ten years ago, this property was proposed for development. However, one of the problems at that time was the development was proposed at one acre lots. The street grades were extremely steep, and the developer did not address the soils. After they found out all the problems, they chose not to go back and redo it, and just let it drop. It would be a problem to develop this property at one acre. As you get to 1-1/2 and 2 acres, it becomes less of a problem. The area in the center has a low area with temporary ponding in the spring. It is proposed to maintain that natural area and use that for LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 3 a ponding area. The soils in this area are pretty much a high water table type soil. Seasonally, the water table would be within two to three feet of the surface. This is not good for drainfields and not good for building. The property and the lots are laid out so as to be large enough to have the drainfields and building sites out of that wetland area. Several of the lots are in excess of the 1-1/2 acre requirement. Under the Planned Unit Developent (PUD) or cluster portion of the RR zoning district, the maximum allowable lot is 2 acres. So if that concept was used, variances for lot size would be required. The reason for the larger lots is because of the topography of the land. The proposed design works well with the soil test, which have all been tested in phase 1. Lots 7 and 9 may require some fill. The propsed phase 1 would have a street about 350' long coming pretty well off the crest of the hill. There would be a small cul-de-sac serving seven lots. There would be one lot on the west with the driveway off of the County Road, about 600 feet over the crest (so it has a good safety factor). There would be three additional lots fronting off of Inwood Avenue on the east side. A common driveway is shown between lots 9 and 10 as this was the County's preference. The soils in phase 1 have been verified based on the County's soil study which seems to be very accurate. Soil tests for phase 2 and 3 have not yet been completed. There will be no grading done where the drainfield sites are proposed to be located. The street would be graded and the boulevards would be graded to match the natural ground. The fill that would be needed for lots 7 and 9 would probably amount to one foot. The most significant granding that would have to be done would be for the ponding area. Mr. Folz further pointed out that the property west of the proposed phase 1 development (which is also owned by Clapp Thommsen) is adjacent to Oakdale. The City of Oakdale has talked to the City of Lake Elmo about providing sanitary sewer service to the land east of 694 and north of loth Street. The area west of the proposed phase 1 development has a lot of wet soil and some slow percing soils, and would not make sense to consider developing that property without sanitary sewer. The Chairman made reference to the Engineer's report of February 5, 1985 and the Planner's report of January 16, 1985 and instructed these reports be made a part of the public record. Daniel G. Novak, 8520 Ironwood Trail (a property owner within 350' of the proposed development that did receive notice of this public hearing) made reference to his letter of February 6, 1985 to the City Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Novak opposes this proposed rezoning and development as it represents a loss in the rural atmosphere of the area. It also represents a change to the Comprehensive Plan - another development within the City which the Met Council has cautioned the City on, and the City has agreed to do something about. He is also concerned with the cul-de-sac off of Stillwater Blvd. as there is a potential blind spot because of the crown on Stillwater Blvd. There is also evidence of a high water table on the property with an above ground spring (the spring is on the property west of the proposed rezoning). And, although this LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 4 property does not have city water and sewer presently, this is clearly another step in that direction. For the property owners in the area that have invested thousands of dollars in well and septic systems, they shouldn't be confronted with thousands more in assessments either next year or ten years down the road. Mr. Novak pointed out that his lot is 4/10 of an acre. Corrine Gerber, 2875 Inwood Avenue (presently renting her home with an option to buy who did not personally receive notice of this public hearing) pointed out the excessive amount of water ponded on the property could cause a hazzardous condition if it was not filled in. She does not want to look at houses as it will take away from the rural atmosphere of the area. Ms. Gerber pointed out that her lot is 1/3 of an acre. There were no further comments from the public regarding this proposed rezoning and the public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. In response to a question as to why some of the driveways would come off of the County Roads and not interior streets, Folz responded that the soils dictate what can be done with the property and the subdivision design is based on the soil. The restrictions that the County has for access onto this county road is that because the south 500 to 600 feet of this property would end up being blind because of the crest, the county recommended that no access be put in the south 500 feet. All the rest of it has good site visibility, and the County does not have a concern as long as it met adequate spacing. Lyall asked why the area couldn't be a more exclusive area and be a cluster development. It is not consistent with the surrounding property as the lots across the street are smaller. It really isn't a carry over - we are jumping from 1/3 to 4/10 of an acre to 1-1/2 acres and sees no reason why it couldn't be a nice area with a cluster development. Our job is not to help anyone with an economic problem, and looks at phase 1 as being strictly economics as far as the property owners. Dreher stated the landowner has the right to develop his property, and he is meeting the existing code to cluster this development. He can develop phase 1 and phase 2 in a cluster development under the ordinance the way it stands now. The question is whether it will be better for the City to change the zoning and accept a plat, or would it be better to cluster it?. Prince pointed out that when the maps were made, the areas planned for R1 that were not in the R1 zone, were infill and areas "adjacent to", but even the adjacent to's were intended to make more infill rather than just being beside something. That is why that area is still planned for RR and not R1 - it is strictly an adjacent to rather than an inbetween. Mr. Folz responded that it is the owners intention to proceed with phase 1 by either the rezoning or by clustering. The only agruement is if it is not rezoned, he does not want to have to come and ask for variances for the lots that are over two acres, and there are very good reasons that these lots exceed two acres. The hardship to the land is the soils. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 5 The Administrator pointed out that what Mr. Folz referred to regarding the soil limitations known over ten years ago was maybe one of the key factors in that this area was called RR in our future land use plans. Also, in 1983 when we received a letter from the Met Council about excessive R1 zonedland, we did rezone much of the vacant R1 land back to RR. M/S/P Prince/Lyall - To table the application from Clapp-Thommsen/Don Bishop until the February 25, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. (Motion carried 9-0) 6. Final plat application by David Nelson for five lot development of Nelson Estates. The City Engineer made reference to his memo of February 7, 1985 to the Planning Commission regarding this final plat approval. The concerns of the Engineer are: (1) Property Corners The City Code requires that property irons be located at every lot corner. The final plat should.be revised to show that a property iron will be placed at each corner. A remonumentation is required after all construction is complete to verify that all property irons are still in place. (2) Encumbrances upon the Title There may be a blanket easement across this property owned by AT&T for the location of a long distance cable between St. Paul and Baldwin, Wisconsin. If this cable is no longer in use or needed, the developer should contact AT&T and have the easement released. (3) The Washington County Surveyor has not completed his review of this plat. The Engineer recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the final plat for approves subject to the above three conditions. The Engineer further reminded the developer and his surveyor that the City's mylar copy of the final plat should have the lot acreages listed, to the nearest 1/100. M/S/P Graves/Moe - To recommend to the City Council adopting a resolution approving the final plat as submitted by David. Nelson for Nelson Estates subject to meeting the conditions set forth by the City Engineer in his memo of February 7, 1985; and subject to entering into a developer's agreement with the City of Lake Elmo. (Motion carried 9-0) 7. Conditional Use Permit amendment application by Howard Springborn at Green Acres Recreation Center. Howard and Gaylen Springborn provided a video presentation (from a manufacturer of water slides in Iowa). This presentation pointed out that these water slides are safe for children as the water in the pool at the bottom is three feet deep, and also that life jackets are provided for those that desire them. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 6 Bruce Folz made a presentation on this proposed water slide and pointed out the following: the physical location for the proposed slide, the water from the slide is treated with chlorine so it is chemically safe, the water is recycled, the owners of the water slide would be Howard and Gaylen Springborn, the total run of the slide is about 450', the proposed slide is a half -slide (as opposed to a totally enclosed slide), the expected age group is 7 to 17 years, there would be a lifeguard on duty at all times, the bulk of the traffic would be the same as is using the tube slide - church groups, scouting groups, school districts, 4H groups. In addressing the noise concerns, Mr. Folz stated that the individual voice in a normal tone drops down to where it is not legible to normal people at a 65 decibel beyond 25 feet. Therefore, the noise from the slide at its proposed location should not be a critical factor. With regards to the comments from the Jesuit Retreat concerning trespassing, Mr. Folz pointed out that Mr. Springborn proposes to construct a fence to prevent the slide users from straying onto the Jesuit property. The proposed hours that the water slide will be open are 12:00 noon until 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The Springborn's are willing to withdraw their request for the bumper boats if there is great concern and objection from the surrounding property owners. Gaylen Springborn gave a brief description of what a bumper car is. They are similar to a truck's intertube with a bottom in it and has a motor on it that allows the driver to go around in circles. Not much thought has been given to what kind of bumper car would be purchased as it has been indicated that the noise from the cars would be a problem, and this portion of the proposed expansion would be deleted. Mr. Folz stated regarding the traffic conditions, that most of the traffic comes from Highway 36 down DeMontreville Trail into the Green Acres area. The Springborn's project that the summer activities would generate approximately the same amount of traffic that the winter activities. Deputy Jim Fuhr from the Washington County Sheriff's Department was present and offered comments regarding traffic problems in the area. The County has checked its records on complaints filed against Green Acres in the past few years. In going back to January 1, 1978, there have been no complaints on record with the County (up until a couple of weeks go) on traffic, littering, etc., against Green Acres. Regarding the noise from the facility, Folz stated that if the FHA standards for housing say that 65 decibels is an acceptable level, it would be reasonable to set those levels. It would also be reasonable to monitor these levels - if the noise levels go beyond the acceptable standards, this problem would have to be addressed. Graves stated that living in the southeast corner of Fox Fire Estates, he is able to hear the noise from the tube slide, and this could be quite annoying in the summer. The soundboard effect of the hill, and carrying over the water could have a significant effect. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 7 The City Engineer asked Mr. Folz for information about the construction of the shoot, in particular, how it is elevated above the ground. Mr. Folz stated he has no design information. He did provide the manufacturer with two foot contours of the sloop. Based on what the manufacturer said initially, all that probably would be needed is some type of a footing to get the slide two to three feet off the ground. Gaylen Springborn stated that the design standards are on hold until permission from the City to install the slide is given. Mr. Springborn further stated that the only cost estimate that he has is that the slide itself (the material) would be about $40,000 per run, and this would not include the bottom pool, nor the pumps (about an 80 hoursepower electric pump). Mr. Springborn further stated that there would not be a third party involved in this venture. Mr. Folz stated that as there is already a commercial type business on the site, used both in the winter and summer months, he does not feel that the homes in the area would be devalued because of this water slide being added. Chairman Nazarian asked if there was any present to speak in favor of this proposal. There was none. Tom Simpson, 5270 Jamaca Blvd. N. (did not receive notice and does not live within 350' of the Springborn property) stated he had a petition with 74 names and is aware of the concerns of the residents. The 65 decibel level that Mr. Folz talked about is for damage to ears - not something that would just be irritating. No one is concerned about damage to their ears, but are concerned about the peace and quiet that they came to the area to achieve. He is able to hear the noise in the winter time as his backyard faces the the hill. Lots of the residents moved into the area because they wanted to get away from a urban environment, and they were told that Green Acres would never expand. Mr. Springborn has indicated to some people that he has planned this for five to eight years. He questioned whether that is ethical - to not tell people about a proposal such as this. He is also concerned with the amount of money to get this operation going. He also understands a CUP to be a privledge if this priviledge does not "do anything that is detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, morals, or general welfare of th community, nor will cause serious traffic conjestions nor hazzards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values". Neil Anderson, 5217 Jamaca Avenue North (did not receive notice and is not within 350' of the Springborn property) stated he as a great deal of experience in audio recording working with sound systems, and feels in his opinion that the body of water on the site will act to carry the noise across from the proposed water slide to his residential area. Although the winter noise is not much of a concern because much time is spent inside, in the summertime when more time is spent outside, the noise would definitely be a legitimate concern. He also expressed concern over an abundance of traffic "cruising" the neighborhoods. Mr. Anderson considers Gaylen Springborn a good neighbor - conscientious in running his business, but the point is the difference between winter and summer activities as they relate to LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 8 noise and increased traffic throughout the neighborhood. James Buggert, 9123 55th Street N. (did not receive notice and is not within 350' of the Springborn property) is concerned with the potential noise and the increased traffic in the neighborhood, along with the potential devaluation of property with this kind of activity in a residential area. Christopher Chow, 5129 Jamaca Avenue N. (does not live within 350' of the Springborn property and did not receive notice) pointed out, regarding the noise level, that in speaking with a local meteorologist he was advised that the prevailing wind flow thru this area is southeast in the summer, with the second highest probability being from the northwest. This is just the opposite in the winter. The point is that the wind would carry the noise to southeast residential area. He is also concerned with the excessive traffic that this summertime activity would bring to his neighborhood. Sharon Simspon, 5270 Jamaca Blvd. N (does not live within 350' of the Springborn property and did not receive notice) stated in regards to the statement from the Deputy that there has been no complaints against Green Acres since 1978 is because "Mr. Springborn is a good neighbor". Because of that good neighbor policy, people have not complained in the past. The area has been well developed, and would like to see residential growth continue that way. There is an abundance of childrens activities in the area and provided a list of such activities. Thomas H. Stark, 9287 53rd St N. (does not live with 350' of the Springborn property and did not receive notice) stated he has no agruement with the Springborn's nor how they conduct their activity at the present time. His concern is not whether or not a water slide is put in right now,but what will happen in the future to this area. Will the Springborn's forever own this property, or will other people buy it from them, and will other people seek other changes such as restaurants, etc. Lani Frick, 8810 55th Street N (does lives within 350' of the Springborn property, but did not receive notice) concurrs with all of the statements that have been made. Before moving into their present home, they visited the City Office and were told that Mr. Springborn was operating under a CUP, and that it would never be allowed to expand. Although they have had to clean up beer bottles and other debris, they have not made formal complaints to the City because they are neighbors of the Springborn's, they like them very much. Also, the presentation made by Gaylen Springborn is totally insufficient and wouldlike to see the exact cost, the footings that were mentioned, would like to talk about sewage problems, and would like to have the opportunity to have an appriasal done on her home, and have the same appraiser give some idea what her home would be worth after this amusement facilicty would come in. Thomas Huebsch, 6845 N. 8th St. (is in the process of purchasing a lot from Mr. Springborn and did not receive notice) stated if this water slide is allowed to be put in, or if the Springborn's are allowed to f increase their recreational facilities, they do not want any part of it and will back out of their purchase agreement. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 9 Ron Johnson, 8717 DeMontreville Trail N (does live within 350' of the Springborn property and did receive notice) stated that as a realtor, it is his opinion that the catagory of homes that are being built here are purchased by people who are very prudent buyers. Without a doubt, it is going to devalue the property if this water slide is allowed. Dean Johnson, 2102 E. Burke Ave (currently owns property adjacent to the Springborn's but not within 350' and did not receive notice) asked if the City Planner has rendered an opinion on this proposal, or if the commission would consider getting an independent planner to review this proposal to see if it is compatible with the community. Thomas Kernan, 5367 Jamaca Avenue N. (does not live within 350' of the Springborn's and did not receive notice) stated that he can plainly hear the noise from the tube slide, even with the windows closed. He further noted that "commercial recreation of a rural nature" is not defined in the City Code. He also could not find a definition of this in the state law nor case law. There is an opportunity now for the commission to make a definition of what exactly rural nature means. He would also like an opportunity to bring in appraisers and have more time to review this proposal; and if a decision is made, that the residents be allowed to introduce further testimony from registered appraisers. Laura Kiscaden, 5187 Jamaca, (not within 350' of the property and did not receive notice) stated that when they built they anticipated rural country charm. She anticipates litter and noise to be a problem, along with the eyesore of the slide itself. She likened this proposal to what now exists in Somerset, Wisconsin and stated that according to articles she had read, these residents are living in a great deal of pain in putting up with this type of activity. Tom McGuire, 8800 55th Street N. (lives within 350' and did receive notice) stated the commission is working with the residents land values - they cannot pick up their homes and move out and would not like to be confined to his back yard during the summer months in an effort to get away from the noise. Jess Mottaz, 8770 DeMontreville Tr., (lives within 350' and did receive notice) stated that a comprehensive plan is a commitment by a city to the people investing money in that city. Lake Elmo has such a comprehensive plan in which the city, in effect, has said "yes, you go ahead and purchase a $30,000 lot and on it build your one or two hundred thousand dollar home because our comprehensive plan (or or commitment to you) is that your area of Lake Elmo will develop into a single family residntial neighborhood". The city goes on to say, by implication, "Let us caution you that there are two commercial businesses operating in the area designated as residential, however, we are not going to change the zoning or even change the comprehensive plan to commercial. Instead we will allow these two businesses to operate conditionally on a year to year basis until such time as the residential nature of the area becomes more fully developed". This is all seemingly well and good, but here is the problem. We allow businesses such as these, operating on a conditional use permit, to grow and they too soon are no longer the benign business that was to give way to the development originally designated by the land use plan. They are now deeply rooted by time and investment to the point where they have become a permanent part of the neighborhood. This is LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 10 then termed as zoning by conditional use permit, clearly one of the most undesirable methods of land use planning. If Lake Elmo allows Green Acres to invest the very large sum of money needed for this project, it will be creating a permanent irreversible land use situation and will be guilty of zoning by conditional use permit. He further asked the commission to protect the integrity and the property values of a very fine growing residential neighborhood by denying any and all requests for the expnsion of Green Acres. Larry Nelson, 5445 Jamaca Blvd. N. (does not live within 350' and did not receive notice) is concerned with vandalism, although he has not complained. He stated his wife drives by a water slide twice a day, and it is not buses or large groups that predominate this type of activity - it is single cars, so there would be a lot of traffic problems. He further stated that in this country we are in a democracy and in a democracy we do not allow all people to have little individual rights in their own domains. We live together as a society and as a group, and by votes it is the majority who rules. There is no question how the majority in this room feel about this proposal. The city council ran their campaign on the premise that they will "preserve the rural setting in Lake Elmo". This proposal is not preserving the rural setting in Lake Elmo. Robert Olson, 8718 DeMontreville receive notice) stated he lived any objection to one tubing hill two -hundred car parking lot, and grown - there is beer and liquor parties etc., and objects to any Trail N (lives within 350' and did here 11 years ago and did not voice , one ski hill, two tow lifts, a one building. Since then it has , summertime parties, night-time more expansion. Karen Olson, 8718 DeMontreville Trail N (lives within 350' and did receive notice) stated she recently saw a water slide while traveling, and although she is not sure if this is exactly what the Springborn's are proposing, it was very visible and is not a pleasent site. Sue Weyer, 8991 Jane Road North, (does not live within 350' and did not receive notice) is concerned with the traffic and the fact that there are no stop signs along the road. She does not feel you can compare the winter activities with the summer activities - they are each unique. There is a much greater potential for the children using the facility to wander in the summertime, where this isn't as likely to happen in the winter. She also questions the safety of the pool at the bottom of the slide. How is this three-foot deep pool going to be protected when the slide is not being used. She also asked what type of liquor license applied to Green Acres in the winter, and what type of liquor license is proposed during the summer. Drinking in itself, whether purchased on the site or brought in, could be detrimental to the small children in the area. It was pointed out that the Springborn's do not sell any non -intoxicating or intoxicating liquor on the premises. Private parties serve, but do not sell, non -intoxicating malt liquor. Lola Latuff, 5307 Jamaca Avenue N. (does not live within 350' and did not receive notice) stated the Springborn's do the best they can to make it a controlled area, but is still concerned over the potential devaluation of property in the area and the noise that this activity will cause in the summer. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 11 Prince feels that an opinion from the City Planner would be appropriate; and also addressing the definition of "commercial recreation of a rural nature". Lyall stated an opinion from some appraisers would also be appropriate, and would be good background information. Graves feels the burden of proof that there has been no damage done to property values falls upon the petitioner rather than the property owner. It may be appropriate for Mr. Springborn to underwrite the appraisals for some of the property out there and establish through this apprisal whether or not there is any impact on the property values. Michels has problems with this proposal and has not reached a decision, but is leaning towards denial and looking for reasons to do that. The Planner's opinion would be of some value in reaching this decision. Dreher feels we should get an opinion from the Planner. Moe feels we opinion from Graves feels valuable. need input from the Planner, and would also like an the attorney on the code definition. the opinion of the attorney and planner would be Lyall too would like to get the opinion of the planner, the attorney, and the appraisers. However, the largest concern is that the petitioner has come in so ill -prepared on what this project will cost, and at this point would like to table the application until more information is available. Lundquist stated he has not yet made up his mind. Prince stated she lives in Fox Fire, and although this proposal may not affect her, for two reasons she will abstain from the vote. First, she was the person who invited the neighbors to come to the first meeting; and secondly if it will affect her property value there is a conflict of interest, and as stated in the code she should not vote. However, she feels that the proposal appears to be too much of an urban recreation type of structure, and it does not seem to fit with the increasing residential use of the area and the plan for increased residential use of land. She will strongly voice her opinion as a "no", even though she is not going to vote. Schiltz feels that since she lives in the area, it is important that she abstain from the vote as it should be an unbiased opinion, and if anyone else on the commission or on the council has a possible conflict of interest they should not vote. He also feels that the residents opposing this amendment have legitimate complaints as this proposal will affect the entire neighborhood. Kuettner stated although she is having a problem deciding how she feels about this application, she does not consider this to be recreation of a rural nature and feels the water slide would be an eyesore and an eyesore would be a detriment to the neighborhood. All LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 12 of the other problems expressed are perceived problems - you can find litter any place, and the increased traffic could be attributed to the access on Lake DeMontreville and could be argued on either side. Nazarian noted that eleven letters have been received from area property owners and asked that these letters be made a matter of our public record as information to be considered and acted upon. After hearing all of the facts that have been presented, what it comes down to is a definition of commercial recreation of a rural nature. His intuitive feeling based on no definition is that this proposal does not fit that definition, but would like to get both the City Planner's and City Attorney's views on that. M/ Graves - To recommend denial of a CUP amendment for Howard and Gaylen Springborn for a water slide and bumper boats. (Motion failed for lack of a second). Lyall/Moe - To table a decision on this application until such time as the Commission is provided with an opinion from the City Planner, and possible appraisals, along with a picture of a water slide in its natural setting. (Motion carried 8-i-0 <Schiltz>) Schiltz feels that everyone knows how they are going to vote, and we are putting this off just for some additional information. He would have probably seconded Graves motion for denial if the motion would have come from someone else as Graves lives close to the property and feels there is a potential conflict of interest. Michels stated again that he is not ready to vote on this proposal. One of the reasons he is not ready is that in the two meetings that this has been discussed the public has been very vocal. He would like to have more discussion between the commission members. Bohrer stated that the water slide application has to be separated into two separate issues. The question of whether it is an appropriate use and in accordance with the definition of the code1S a land use question. The other side of the question, the points that the property owners brought up regarding increased traffic, litter, noise, etc., we have to be careful to not presume that these are facts. If this proposal would be determined, even in a preliminary way to be in accordance with a compatible rural use, we would have to go into a phase of fact finding and have evidence to support or not support the claims we have before us. For example, if there was a similar facility that attracted a certain number of people each day, and if we had the information available to use on how many cars were in and out, we could analyze things like the capacity of the parking, the capacity of the showers and toilet facilities, and the capacity of the roads that are presently in place. That would be evidence that would support or not support the extension. This proposal would definitely require a thorough site plan and the site plan encompasses all of the physical features. Graves feels that his integrity has been challenged. He lives in the extreme southeast corner of Fox Fire Estates which is approximately 3/4 of a mile from the area proposed to be developed. He has no objection to Mr. Sringborn, but has examined the information that has been provided, drives by the area every day and is familiar with many of the problems that the residents have brought up. He discussed C E LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2-11-85 PAGE 13 possible conflict of interest with several people, and feels he has enough personal integrity and intelligence and good common sense to be able to objectively evaluate whether or not he can separate his own benefits or loss. He feels that he does not have any financial conflict of interest. Michels stated he understands what Schiltz was alluding to. For Graves to entertain the motion to deny the application, where there is some chance of doubt as to whether or not there is a potential conflict of interest may have been a problem. Lyall would like the commission to consider the following items before the subject is brought up again. The age of the children using the slide; if the proposal is approved, can it be torn down and reassembled somewhere else or is it a total loss; the hours that the slide will be open; a potential conflict of interest with the deputies as they are on Mr. Springborn's payroll when he has special parties; Mr. Springborn should provide figures on the cost of this investment; do we want another Somerset; what is the position of the liquor license; and what would happen if the venture was passed on to someone other than Howard and Gaylen Springborn (does a CUP go with the person or the land). Bohrer stated that the basic conflict is between the commercial use and the rural residential type use of low density residential. It seems unique that eleven years ago when Springborn's first began the tubing hill, the area was much more rural than it is today. They initiated the commercial use of a rural nature. They also initiated the residential use which is one of the closest (Springborn's Green Acres Addition), so they were allowed to have a commercial use established, they initiated a residential use and now they are asking to increase the commericl use. The concept plan for phase 2 and 3 included residential use south of the property. Since the same applicant is accelerating the two opposing sides, his activities are playing one against the other. 8. Other Bohrer stated that over the past few months, the commission has asked for some help in clearing up some of the language in the city code, such as restricting driveway access onto thoroughfares, providing some language in the code about cluster developments in the rural residential zone (providing for internal local streets - not just seven lots in a row on some existing road), etc., and informed the commission that he would be willing to work with the it to develop those type of plans. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.