Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-86 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 MAY 27, 1986 7:30 p.m. Meeting Convenes 1. Agenda 2. Minutes: April 28, 1986 May 12, 1986 7:35 p.m. 3. Charitable Gambling Ordinance 7:45 p.m. 4. Comprehensive Plan Update (a) 1979 Goal and Policy Statements (b) 1990 Future Land Use Plan and Map (c) Select review items for 6-9-86 meeting. 5. Other 6. Adjourn APPAVED LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 Planning Commission Secretary Novak called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Present: Graves (arrived 7:42 p.m.), Novak, Moe, Schiltz, Williams, Raleigh, Bucheck, City Administrator Overby and City Attorney Knaak. Absent: Prince, Martens, Reuther, Haacke. 1. Agenda M/S/P Bucheck/Raleigh - to approve the May 12, 1986 Planning Commission Agenda as presented. (Motion carried 6-0). 2. Minutes: April 28, 1986 Don Moe questioned the policy statement regarding mobile homes being located "in mobile home parks (R-3 zones) where public services such as sanitary sewer can be provided for such high density developments or where allowed by statutes". His concern was that the policy states that mobile home parks will be allowed only where sanitary sewer can be provided and Lake Elmo doesn't have any intention to provide sanitary sewer. He suggested a clarification of the meaning of sanitary sewer. Moe added that as long as we keep this in mind when the Planning Commission gets to the point where they will be revising/updating the local code and ordinances, this non-comformity with state laws should be corrected by code amendment language. Commissioner Novak expressed a concern of how the motion regarding the elimination of the Industrial Area in the Comprehensive Plan was written in the April 28th minutes because it leaves unanswered questions; for example, what are we going to do with the list of acceptable light industrial uses and where are you going to put them. He proposed the following wordage: M/S/P Novak/Bucheck - to recommend eliminating the Industrial Area from the Comprehensive Plan and to review and consolidate a list of acceptable and appropriate industrial uses into General Business or Commercial. (Motion carried 6-1<Schiltz: I feel that Prince, who voted against the original motion, should, be in attendance to vote again on this motion›). Commissionmember Bucheck stated the reason for her request to eliminate the words "unique and endangered" was because if you left them in, it was narrowing the category. The more inclusive category would restrict development from all areas containing any form of vegetation and wildlife. This would affect all of Lake Elmo and it was suggested that no action be taken on this policy statement. Chairman Graves suggested that the paragraph regarding the change in chairmanship be made a separate paragraph since it is dealing with a separate issue. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 PAGE 2 M/S/P Williams/Moe - to table these minutes for approval until the May 27, 1986 meeting. (Motion carried 6-1<Novak: felt that the corrections of the minutes were not that in-depth that we would have to review them›). Commissionmember Novak brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that on the approved April 14, 1986 minutes on page 6 the word "prohibited" had not been crossed out by the designated code of broken lines to reflect deletion. M/S/P Novak/Moe - to reconsider the minutes of the April 14, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. (Motion carried 7-0). M/S/P Novak/Moe - to revise page 6 of the April 14, 1986 Planning Commission minutes by crossing out the word "prohibited" with broken lines in the statement "Commercial strip development shall be pnch rbi-t:ed- controlled by zoning°. (Motion carried 6-0-1<Willlams2). 3. Procedural Guidelines - City Attorney City Attorney Knaak presented a Clarification of Procedures in the Case of a Variance Denial dated May 12, 1986. This clarification was well -received by the Planning Commission and will be on file in the City Policy Book. In a related issue, Commission member Novak asked City Attorney Knaak if as a Planning Commission do they have the authority to legislate other people's property. The example given was the policy statement in the Comprehensive Plan that states "we wish to preserve agricultural land" and if they have the authority to zone for current use if its consistent with the policy statement and in the City's best interest. City Attoney Knaak responded that the Council has the authority to "down zone", but you can create an argument that by doing this you have devalued that property in some way. Commercial property is considered more valuable. If you restrict the use of the property by down zoning, you would get an inverse condemnation argument, where by zoning you are in essence condemning the use of a certain portion of value of that property. Tom Armstrong added that what you are taking is something that has been artificially created by zoning in the first place. There is no case law in Minnesota that states you cannot do this and no one is entitled to a zoning higher than the actual use of the property. He further added that the whole City was rezoned in 1979 or 1980 and they downzoned a tremendous amount of the City. 4. PUBLIC HEARING : Proposed Charitable Gambling Ordinance Chairman Graves openedup the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 PAGE 3 The Lake Elmo Jaycees have requested a license to operate charitable gambling in the Twin Point Tavern. The Twin Point is a city -licensed liquor establishment and the current city code prohibits charitable gambling on the premises of a city -licensed liquor establishment. City Attorney Knaak proposed the following charitable gambling ordinance language. 1104 CHARITABLE GAMBLING 1104.010 Purpose . The purpose of this ordinance is to permit, under very limited conditions and circumstances, charitable gambling in certain licensed establishments within the City of Lake Elmo. 1104.020 Charitable Gambling Permitted . Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 1101.010, 1102.610, 1201.070D and 1202.120C of this Code, and subject to such additional restrictions as are provided in this chapter, charitable gambling by licensed organizations within the meaning of Chapter 349 of Minnesota Statutes shall be permitted in the City of Lake Elmo. 1104.030 Permitted Charitable Gambling Devices . Pulltabs and paddlewheels shall be permitted gambling devices within the meaning of this chapter. No other form of charitable gambling will be permitted. 1104.040 Permitted Locations . No charitable gambling shall be permitted in any establishment licensed by the City without that licensee first obtaining permission to conduct such charitable gambling on the premises. Permission to allow charitable gambling in any licensed facility within the City shall be by affirmative vote of a majority of all council members. The City may refuse to permit charitable gambling in any licensed establishment when it finds such a refusal to be in the interest of the health or safety of its citizens. Knaak informed the commission that the permitted charitable gambling devices listed in the state statutes are as follows: pulltabs, paddlewheels, tipboards, raffles. Bingo is not considered charitable gambling. The City of Lake Elmo is allowed to regulate the type of gambling. Knaak recommended to specifically state what you want permitted in the code. Williams asked what is meant by any "licensed establishment". Knaak responded that any facility requiring some form of liquor license by the City would be allowed to have charitable gambling if they get permission from the City Council. He further added that anyone who wants to get revenue from gambling has to be licensed and regulated by the State. Mike Steinbach, Ed Slinde, and Leonard Feeley from the Lake Elmo VFW asked why wasn't the VFW asked if there were any other gambling devices that they would be interested in incorporating in LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 PAGE 4 this proposed charitable gambling ordinance. They would be interested in raffles as well as pulltabs, paddlewheels, and tipboards. City Attorney Knaak stated that right now charitable gambling is not allowed in Lake Elmo. If a gambling ordinance is passed that will allow charitable gambling in Lake Elmo, then any charitable organization could go to the State and request a license. The state would then return this to the City which is the authorizing authority and have the Mayor or appropriate person's signature. Mike Steinbach stated that the VFW organization was given a license by the state allowing charitable gambling and this license will be coming up for renewal for their second year. This license for Bingo and Charitable gambling had to be approved by the City Council and signed in order for the VFW to allow this because the State had to have approached the City. Terrance Needham, Lake Elmo Jaycees, stated that they could buy a combination charitable gambling license for $100 and they suggested not limiting the permitted gambling devices to pulltabs and paddlewheels, but to permit all four of the gambling devices that are allowed by state statutes. City Administrator Overby responded that the language was developed based on what he thought the Jaycees were asking for. Knaak added that an organization is allowed one raffle per year without any license at all. Williams asked if the City is allowed to restrict the time span. Knaak stated that, as he reads the code, you can limit and create greater restrictions on gambling. For example, it can be stated that charitable gambling shall only be allowed in the City of Lake Elmo in certain specified restrictive time periods. Tom Armstrong added that we could be restrictive by tieing charitable gambling with a liquor license and you are allowed only one charitable organization per establishment. There are five liquor licenses in the City: Lake Elmo Inn, VFW, Twin Points, Tartan Park and Cimarron. The question raised was whether should this exclude the temporary licenses, such as for Huff n' Puff days and Guardian Angels Church Festival, or should it include these temporary licenses. Terry Needham further added that, if for any reason the charitable organization operating in the liquor establishment was jeopardizing their liquor license, the establishment can lock them out. Chairman Graves closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Graves - I suggest that the ordinance specify the location for the use of this money and time limits -either hours or days of the week. I have no problem with the ordinance in general, but would like to see it tightened up by restricting it to licensed liquor establishments and to allow the four allowed gambling devices. He also brought up the point that the Lake Elmo Jaycees turn their LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1986 PAGE 5 profits around into activities that are primarily used within the City. Williams - I would not be in favor of the gambling ordinance. I am concerned about the long term non -benefits to the City that I cannot predict at this time. Moe - I would go along with the recommendation of control through the liquor establishments and the four permitted gambling devices allowed by state statute. I question who will be policing the hours and times of service if we put in all these restrictions. I suggest tightening it up to protect us and am in favor of this proposed gambling ordinance. Bucheck - I would like to see restrictions on the ordinance; such as limiting it to the five licensed liquor establisments, specify what gambling devices are allowed and time limits and where the money is to be spent. I suggest securing more information from other cities with charitable gambling ordinances and how it is written and what affect it has on the City. Novak - I am against making a more liberal gambling ordinance. Raleigh - I feel it should be limited to liquor licenses,and the city should not participate in the the financial arrangements. I would be in favor of some form of chairtable gambling ordinance. Schiltz - I believe that the State has drawn up a good law pertaining to charitable gambling and in the four gambling devices that are allowed by the State statutes. I feel that setting time limits could be governed by the business and would not be 24 hours, 7 days a week. M/S/P Novak/Raleigh - to table the proposed charitable gambling ordinances until more information such as a copy of Oakdale's ordinance, State statutes and rules, the definition, classes and number of liquor licenses available in Lake Elmo until the May 27th Planning Commission meeting. (Motion carried 4-3<Schiltz, Graves, Moe>) 5. Chairman Graves announced that because of a coaching committment he will be approximately 45 minutes late for the Planning Commission meetings until July 14, 1986. M/S/P Moe/Bucheck - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10::30 p.m. (Motion carried 7-0).