Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-85 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 APRIL 22, 1985 7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes 1. Introduction of new Planning Commission member Daniel Novak, 8520 Ironwood Trail (2nd alternate) 2. Minutes: April 8, 1985 3. Sue Ayde from Bellaire Sanitation to discuss a recycling program with a monthly pickup location in Lake Elmo. 4. Final Plat for Teal Pass Estates 3rd Addition 5. Simple lot subdivision and zoning code variances on parcel of land east of Lake Elmo Avenue and south of RR tracks: Applicant: Bill Eder 6. Planning Commission 1985 Work Plan I LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE ( APRIL 8, 1985 PROl Chairwoman Prince called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the council chambers. Present: Graves, Johnston, Kuettner, Lang, Lundquist, Lyall. Absent: Moe, Nazarian, Schiltz. 1. Introduction of new Planning Commissioners David Land, full voting member and Dean Johnston, first alternate. 2. Minutes: 3-11-85 and 3-25-85 M/S/P Kuettner/Graves - To approve the minutes of the March 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as presented. (Motion carried 4-0-3 <Johnston, Lang, Lyall>) M/S/P Kuettner/Lundquist - To approve the minutes of the March 25, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as presented. (Motion carried 4-0-3 <Graves, Johnston, Lang>) 3. Application for simple lot subdivision and zoning code variances on parcel of land east of Lake Elmo Avenue and south of RR tracks: Application by Bill Eder. Mr. Willard Eder owns Lot 42 and the remainder of Lot 41 in Auditor's Subdivision No. 8. Lot 41 had been subdivided in the past. Bill Eder (Willard Eder's son) proposes to subdivide the remainder of Lot 41. The land is located behind the Moris Antique Shop and Willard Eder's home at 3405 Lake Elmo Avenue. Presently, there are two homes located in this area, which is adjacent to the CNW railroad tracks. Willard Eder subdivided three lots in this area several years ago. Jerome Eder, 3415 LakeElmo Avenue (Parcel 5100) and Chung Kuo, 3409 Lake Elmo Avenue (Parcel 5000) occupy homes on these lots; and John Schultz owns Lot 5050 which is vacant land. Access to this area is gained via Mr. Eder's driveway which is located on the north side of his home (he lives on Parcel 5150). Mr. Eder has granted an easement to the property owners for access to their homes. Richard Moris owns the antique shop on Parcel 4900, north of Willard Eder's home, and Mr. Eder, the applicant, contends there is an easement or right-of-way between the north property line of the Moris property and the CNW right-of-way, although there is no record of this. There is no frontage on a public street to this proposed subdivision. The 50 foot strip of Lot 41 adjacent to the railroad property serves as the access easement, but this does not go through to Lake Elmo Avenue because of the Moris property. Another factor in this subdivision is that Willard Eder's proposed septic system replacement under the 201 program is located on the westerly 50 feet of Lot 41. No suitable soil was found on Lot 42 and since Willard Eder owns Lot 41, suitable soil was found there. The simple lot subdivision would require a lot size variance for the westerly 1.3 acre lot, road frontage variances for both newly created lots, and some type of private road agreement. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4-8-85 PAGE 2 The City Engineer has indicated that according to the Washington County Soil Survey, both lots appear to have adequate soils for septic systems. This subdivision would create a total of five parcels with no public access. The present dirt driveway which serves the Kuo and J. Eder residences is in poor condition and is only about 10-12 feet wider. Any public or private road considered recently has been a minimum of 22 feet wide, blacktopped and had provisions for turning vehicles around. The Engineer recommended that this subdivision be denied because the lots do not have any frontage on a public street. If the applicant can work out the access problem, the subdivision could be reconsidered. The question was brought up whether the survey done in 1953 was ever recorded and accepted by the County showing individual parcel of records. The City has no record of this survey, and the easement does not show in any of the legal descriptions. The applicant was instructed to check with the County to verify this information. Regarding the lot size, it was pointed out that even though the lot would not be 1-1/2 acres, it would be reasonably close to what is in the neighborhood. Graves stated that it would be in the best interest of the City to have the applicant provide proof that there is suitable sites on both parcels (if the subdivision is granted) for septic systems, including the required alternate drainfield sites. Kuettner feels that the most important issue to be addressed is the 12 foot access to the property. Graves stated that as long as there is some kind of a private road, he has no a provision for an easement for problem with the application. Johnston feels that the City (taxpayers) would ultimately end up with the burden of putting in and maintaining a standard road, strictly for the benefit of those living at this site. Unless the people requesting the variance are willing to bear the cost to put in the street improvement, they are not entitled to the variance. The Administrator entered into record a letter from the Chicago Northwestern Transportation Company which stated that they would have no objections to the application, except that no roadway be platted adjacent to its right-of-way or any assessments be made as a result of this subdivision. Lyall forsees somewhere down the line the existing antique shop possibly being removed or condemed and a street being put thru there. He suggested keeping the existing easement as it is and eventually a city street will go there in place of the antique shop. The Administrator stated at this point the staff is recommending denial of this application. However, if the application for a lot split was withdrawn, and a private road agreement was drafted, it would be more bearable, with the contingency that the septic systems are appropriate. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4-8-85 PAGE 3 M/S/P Graves/Lyall - To table the application from Bill Eder for a simple lot subdivision and zoning code variances until April 22, 1985 or until such time as the applicant provides the information regarding the survey as to whether or not it was ever registered with Washington County. (Motion carried 7-0) 4. Public Hearing for rezoning an 80 acre parcel from RR to AG south of 47th Street and on both the east and west side of Kimbro Avenue. Applicant: Lowell Rieks. Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 8:oo p.m. in the council chambers. It was noted that the required property owners were notified of this public hearing. The Administrator stated that the City Engineer has two comments regarding this application. 1. In the distant future (10 years or so) these roads will be upgraded with MSA funds and the benefiting property is assessed by potential buildable units. If we rezone this parcel from RR to AG, the potential buildable units is reduced to one per forty acres, rather than one per ten acres. 2. There is some type of trucking business being run from this site. The Administrator further stated that Ed Stevens, 10133 47th Street North, who received a public hearing notice, has indicated that he has no major concerns with this application. His only concern is that no activity take place that would lower his property value (such as the pole barn being located near his home, or that a large number of cattle or hogs would be raised). Mr. Rieks stated that he has two semis which come onto the property once or twice a week, but the business is not being run from the site. Mr. Rieks further stated that the property has always -been used for Agricultural purposes, and should probably have had the property rezoned when the Comp. Plan was revised a few years ago. He is not planning any great increase in livestock, but he does have twenty beef cows now. He would like to put up a pole barn (approximately 48 x 105 - 5040 square feet) to house the cattle and to store the farm machinery that he has. Regarding the City Engineer's comments about the future blacktopping of the road, Mr. Riekds stated that he does not want the road blacktopped. He likes the gravel road, and the serenity that goes with it. The pole building would be located between the existing barn and his house. There were no citizens presents to offer comments for or against this rezoning, and the public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. M/S/P Kuettner/Lang - To recommend to the City Council amending the Lake Elmo Municipal Code rezoning from RR to AG parcels 2500, 2502 and 2300 as requested by Lowel Rieks. (Motion carried 7-0) The consensus of the Commission is that as long as the land is going to be used for AG purposes, there is no reason not to grant a rezoning. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4-8-85 PAGE 4 5. Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a sign in the General Business zone and variances from the sign code along I-94 by the Vali-Hi Drive In. Applicant: Jamie Olson Pursuant to published notice this public hearing was opened at 8:19 p.m. in the council chambers. It was noted that the required property owners were notified of this public hearing. Ms. Olson made a presentation on the proposed advertising sign and the site on which it would be placed. The property consists of approximately one acre which is by City Code standards not suitable for a building. To make use of this land she would like to have constructed a 14' x 48' double faced advertising sign. The Commission reviewed the memo from the Building Official which explained that an advertising sign is permitted by a CUP in a commercial zone. Variances from sections 505.320 C.2. and 505.260 of the Sign Ordinance are required. Section 505.320 C.2. permits up to 200 square feet per sign side and the request is for 672 square feet. Section 505.260 requires 3,000 feet between signs and the proposed sign is approximately 1600 feet from the nearest sign. This proposed sign is between a portable business identification sign for the Vali-Hi Drive In anda business identification sign for Lehmann Mushroom. Neither of these signs are billboard sized signs, but the code does not differentiate between sign types for distance. Ms. Olson stated that the sign is a single pole type billboard, shaped like a'"V". The company constructing the sign is Signcrafters, Inc. There will be a maintenance contract from the sign company so that the sign is constantly maintained. There will be quite a bit of cement going into the ground to hold the sign. The hardship in this case is that the property as it exists now would not allow anything else to be done to it or with it. She further stated that she has received permission from the State for this sign. Also, the sign is not a permanent fixture. The signs are constructed so they will not fall down, but could be removed in the future and moved somewhere else and there would not be a loss, if the land could be put to a better use. Prince suggested that perhaps the sign ordinance should be rethought, especially with I-94 nearing completion. Mr. Harold Sheff, an attorney representing Bob O'Niel the owner of Vali-Hi Drive In stated that the Vali-Hi Drive In at present does not have a sign. This is because Mn/DOT acquired the property that the old sign was on and demolished it. They are in the middle of arbitrating what Mn/DOT will pay for the sign that was destroyed. The O'Niel's will not replace their sign until they know how much compensation they will receive from the State, or until I-94 is completed to the extent that they can understand how large and how high the new sign has to be. They are opposed to this request because: (1) Given the size of the proposed sign, anywhere that it is placed on the Olson property, it would obscure the Vali-Hi Drive In sign. (2) If the proposed sign is large, and lit, it will take attention away from the Vali-Hi sign. (3) The lights from the proposed sign would disturb the the movie watchers. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4-8-85 PAGE 5 Ms. Olson feels that her sign, since it will periodically change, will enhance the Vali-Hi sign rather than take away from it. Also, the sign could be placed such that the lights would not interfere with the movie watchers. Mr. Sheff stated that the O'Niel's investment is $650,000 for the drive in, and they are concerned that another sign in such close proximity would be detrimental to the Vali-Hi business. Lyall feels that there is no hardship shown, the sign exceeds what is allowed in the code, the distance between signs is asked to be cut in half, and this is a fragmented piece of property that came off of a good sale to the State. It was pointed out that Mn/DOT requires a 500 interval between signs. Mr. Sheff pointed out that Ms. Olson's property is not 500 feet long, so no matter where she would put her sign, it would be within 500 feet of the Vali-Hi sign. There were no other residents present to offer comments for or against this proposal and the public hearing was closed at 8:52 p.m. Kuettner feels that there is a hardship shown as there is nothing else that can be done with this property. The State took what they wanted of the original property, and left the owner with the remaining property. ***** See Below Johnston feels that the issue being addressed is the variance for the size of the sign. If we grant the variance on the size of the sign, we are setting a precedent to allow everyone else to do exactly the same thing. The question is should the City revise the ordinance for the signs along freeways and major thoroughfares; but at this point to avoid setting an undesirable precedent, there is no choice but to deny this application. Mr. Sheff clarified that every property owner has the right to severence damages, which means a property owner has the right to be paid for the reduced value of a leftover piece of property. M/S/P Johnston/Graves - To recommend to the City Council denial of the application for a Conditional Use Permit and sign code variances from Jamie Olson for lack of a hardship and to prevent setting an undesirable precedent for sign sizes. (Motion carried 6-1 <Kuettner>) The subject of signs will be added to the Planning Commission's 1985 Work Plan. 6. Discussion of 3-25-85 meeting; especially regarding accessory structures. The Commission discussed at length the size of accessory structures in various zones. As this issue is quite complex, the Commission feels that the City Planner should be asked for input as to how this situation is handled in other communities of a similar size as Lake Elmo. Questions to be answered are what would happen if an oversized accessory structure was constructed, and then the property owner * 4 See end of page 6 for additional comments from Graves as amended at 4-22-85 Planning Commission meeting. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4-8-85 PAGE 6 wanted to subdivide the property; what uses are to be permitted for these larger accessory structures; what uses are to be allowed in the buildings in the AG zone that may not be AG related. Relating to "other uses" for accessory structures in the AG zone, Kuettner suggested that something be put in the City Newsletter asking for input from the farmers. M/S/P Lyall/Lundquist - To ask the City Council for funds to prevail upon the Planning Consultant for direction on the issue of accessory structures in various zones within the City. (Motion carried 6-0-1 <Johnston>) 7. Other 1. Prince reminded the Commission of the appreciation dinner to be held on Friday, April 19, 1985 at 6:30 p.m. for the retiring City Council and Planning Commission members. M/S/P Graves/Johnston - To adjourn the meeting (9:42 p.m.) (Motion carried 7-0) ***** Add after paragraph 7 on page 5: Graves feels that it was up to the property owner to either negotiate a price or sue the State for loss of value for the piece of land that was left over.