HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-86 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
AUGUST 18, 1986
*********************** NOTE EARLY STARTING
7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: July 28, 1986
August 11, 1986
3. Comprehensive Plan Update
TIME *******************
A. Future Land Use Map
(1) Review Land Use Inventory Data
(2) Discuss Proposed New Map
(3) Action to Recommend New Map for Inclusion
in the Updated Comprehensive Plan
B. Other
4. Zoning Ordinance Update
A. Draft Amendment to the Agricultural District
for "Alternative Agricultural Uses"
B. Other
5. Resignation by John Schiltz
g. Adjourn
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.
7:30
p.m.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 11, 1986
Meeting Convenes
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: July 28, 1986
(Will be handed out at the meeting)
3. Comprehensive Plan Update
A. Development Moratorium Extension
Public Hearing, September 16, 1986
B. Future Land Use Map
(1) Land Use Inventory a-, be dexi )
a. Purposes
b. Methodology
c. Data Analysis
d. Future Land Use Map Proposals
e. Select a proposed new Future
Land Use map.
C. Other
4. Adjourn
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 1986
Vice -Chairman Haacke called the Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present:
Haacke, Novak, DeLapp, Reuther, Bucheck, Raleigh, City
Administrator Overby. Absent: Graves, Williams, Schiltz, Moe
1. Agenda
Add: I-94 Overlay (if time permits)
M/S/P Bucheck/Reuther - to approve the August 11, 1986 Planning
Commission agenda as amended. (Motion carried 6-0).
2. Minutes:
The July 28, 1986 ,minutes were tabled until the August 18, 1986
Planning Commission meeting.
3. Comprehensive Plan Update
A. Development Moratorium Extension -Public Hearing, September
16, 1986
Based on the discussion at the last meeting, the City Council has
agreed to extend the Development Moratorium until December 2,
1986. Additional Planning Commission meetings were discussed in
order to meet their work schedule.
M/S/P Reuther/Bucheck - to meet at 7:00 p.m. for all remaining
Planning Commission meetings that are within the Development
Moratorium period. (Motion carried 6-0).
M/S/P Reuther/Bucheck - to add an August 18, 1986 Planning
Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. (Motion carried 6-0).
B. Future Land Use Map
City Administrator Overby and Planning Commissionmember Novak
presented an inventory of existing land use. The purpose was to
obtain up-to-date information to help answer the following five
questions.
1. What is the exisitng land use pattern for the City of Lake
Elmo in 1986?
2. How may residential building sites are currently available
(platted) or potentially available (unplatted and undeveloped) in
Lake Elmo?
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Page 2
3. Are there enough platted lots in the R-1 and R-R zoning
districts to accomodate new housing demand over the next 15 years
(1986 to 2000)7
4. Develop a Future Land Use Map, based on the previous analysis
and discussion. Some questions here include:
a. Should the Highway Commercial future land use designation
between County Roads 13B and 15 be removed and replaced
with either residential or agricultural designations?
b. Should undeveloped and unplatted property in the R-1 and
R-R zoning districts be changed to agricultural future
land use?
5. Decide what zoning changes or additions are necessary, based
on the new Future Land Use Map.
Methodology
The existing land use pattern was analyzed based on the current
zoning in all 25 sections of the City, since all land in Lake Elmo
is zoned for its current use. The amount of acreage in each
zoning district was calculated for every half -section and by
full -section and citywide. Also calculated was the amount of
acreage used for highways, water, railroads, and state-owned land.
To anticipate the new zoning district for Public Facilities,
county and state-owned land was put into this category. Acreage
in the Agricultural district was put into farm, non -farm or
Agricultural Preserve. The amount of acreage in Green Acres was
also calculated.
Special emphasis was placed on calculating the acreage that is
used for existing homes, acreage platted but not developed, and
acreage not yet platted nor developed. The latter two figures
provide the basis for determining the existing and potential
supply of home sites available for new residents. In the
undeveloped areas, the minimum acreage for lot size (1.5 or 10
acres) was arbitrarily subtracted from the balance of the property
and placed in the category of "platted with a home". The number
of remaining acres would theoretically be available for new home
development, based on minimum lot size and the owner's willingness
to sell or develop the land.
A major element of the discussion centered on the number of
existing platted lots and potentially available lots in
undeveloped land for both the R-1 and R-R zoning districts. The
analysis shows that there are 174 existing platted lots and 189
potential lots yet to be developed for a total of 363 lots in the
R-1 zoning district. There ae 530 potentially available
(undeveloped) and 83 existing platted lots, for a total of 613
lots in the R-R zoning district.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Page 3
The proposed future land use map has been prepared on the basis of
conclusions reached from the land use inventory. Th purpose of
the inventory was to compare the number of existing and
undeveloped housing sites (on lots) to the housing demand over the
next 15 years (1986-2000). The Planning Commission is using the
Metro Councils estimated population figures of 6,100 or 1990 and
6,4400 for 2000 as their reference figures.
City Administrator Overby explained that based on these population
"targets" 200 new homes would be needed between now and the year
2000 to accommodate 600 new persons in Lake Elmo (assumes average
of 3.09 persons per household). The land use inventory estimates
that there are 257 platted lots already available at this time.
This would theoretically be enough to handle the 15 year demand,
however, it would make sense to include the 189 potentially
available (undeveloped) lots in the R-1 zoning district. The new
total of 44447 housing sites would theoretically provide for a
population increase of 1,338 persons in the City. This is over
twice the projected rate of population growth (600 new persons in
15 years).
Lake Elmo resident Gene Peltier asked if the Metropolitan Council
dictates to the City. City Administrator Overby answered that
when the Met Council looks at a comprehensive plan of a City,
their concern is the impact of that plan on metro systems, such as
highways, sewers, parks, airports. Beyond that, it is up to the
given community.
Novak read the following quote out of the Metro Council Investment
Framework which should be considered, "The new figures, population
forecast, require those who plan for the area to adjust their
previous perceptions of growth."
Planningcommission member Novak handed out and explained the "Lake
Elmo Acreage Inventory" using Section 13 as an example. See Table
A and B. This summary comes directly from the Inventory and Green
Acres Maps.
Significant totals at the bottom include:
1. Green Acres-4,500 acres. a. By county definition, Green
Acres must be actively and exclusively used for Ag purposes.
b. There is significant incentive to get into Green Acres
and even more incentive to remain there since the "local
assessments are deferred with interest."
2. Undeveloped RR - over 5,600 acres of undeveloped RR, most of
which is farmed.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Page 4
3. The number of potential homesites is 447.
to see us to the year 2000. This does not
32 and 33 which, if developed as currently
includes another 882 homesites for a grand
units, 6 times more than we need.
We need only 200
include sections
proposed,
total of 1195
The Lake Elmo Acreage Comparison was handed out. See Table C.
Future Land Use Map:
Novak made significant comments on the proposed future land use
map.
1. The
the
map
good correlation in farm land between the inventory map,
prime Ag soils map and the proposed future land use
should be noted.
2. The northeast section is a 5 square mile rectangle, 53% of
which is green acres. If you add to this, land which is zoned
Ag, but for some reason is not in Green Acres, 63% of this
rectangle is farmed. This does not include undeveloped RR
acreage in this area. This proposal downzones this section
to its current use.
3. The northwest section remains with one exception. There is a
60 acre parcel which is currently unplatted R-1. This
proposal downzones it to RR because of too much residential
acreage.
4. The central part of the City has only two changes which both
are RR going to Ag because of the contaminated landfill and
the airport.
5. In the southern part of the City approximately 60-70% of
this land is currently farmed. The same situation as in the
northeast section. It would be a downzone to the current
use which is Ag. A number of changes affecting this area
have occurred since the future land use map was published
in 1979. The freeway is no longer coming through, Sections
32 and 33 concept plan has been approved by the City, the
population forecast is down from 13,000 in 1979 to 6,000.
Based on the above facts and the fact that we have so much
residential acreage, Novak suggests this area remain open.
Novak summarized that this proposal includes six times as much
acreage for residential units, and over 5 times as much business
acreage as we nded to meet the population forecast for the year
2000. It maintains our RR and Ag acreage at their present levels
and is consistent with the strategy outlined at the joint meeting
with the Council on July 28, 1986.
Kathy Crombie, 8120 DeMontreville Trail, questioned the validity
of their figures. She further added that this proposed Future
Land Use Map gave the people no options and could be considered
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1986 Page 5
confiscation of their property.
Lake Elmo Residents Dorothy Lyons and Paul Emerson voiced their
objections to the proposal. Basically, they felt that the
Planning Commission should be representing the people, but they
were doing them a disservice.
After much discussion, the Planning Commission took the following
action:
M/S/P Raleigh/Novak - to table for further consideration the
proposed Future Land Use Map and data until the next Planning
Commission meeting. (Motion carried 6-0).
I-94 Overlay District
Based on the City Council's recommendations at the Joint meeting
regarding the 1-94 Overlay, the following motion was made.
M/S/P Novak/Raleigh - to recommend the I-94 Overlay District be
repealedv in its entirity. (Motion carried 4-2<Bucheck: she
would like to have the other three members here to vote, Haacke:
she feels that I-94 is the best place to start with commercial>).
Hans Stocksted, Real Estate Broker in Stillwater, asked the
Commission to reconsider some form of an 1-94 Overlay District.
Gene Peltier objected to this area being rezoned Ag because it was
shutting the door on what the landowners could do with their
property.
Other considerations that were tabled were to make this district
RE or Ag and add the two criteria in the General Business
ordinance of mimimum lot size of 10 acres and no sewer discharge
exceeding 8 SAC units per 10 acres.
M/S/P Raleigh/Bucheck - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting
at 10:45 p.m. (Motion carried 6-0).
AuG.usT,t9S6
TABT F A
LAKE E_LM'0 ACREAGE INVENT,
RREEi'1
SECT ACRES
ACRES
2: OF NON- IN
SECT FARM FARM
IN AG USE
GREEN A-NF A-F
ACRES A iA
a Or-
PLATD PLATD PLATD
WITH W/O LOTS
AC UNDEV DWELL DWELL AVAIL UNDE'V
PRES RR RR RR RR R-1
PLATD FL'
WITH W.
DWELL DWI
R-1 R
1 440.4 '19... _. . 5 0.0 378.. 4
3.: .7 - 128.9 _ 304.1
3 253.5 41 127.4 43..9 184.7
4 132.5 21 0.0 0.0 42.9
5 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 0_n 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 388.2 610.0 0.0 0.0 334.6
14 351.3 55 0.0 107.0 65.4 273.3
12 292.5 46 0.0 437.1 0.0 413.5
13 355.3 56 0.0 50.0 0.0 227.3
14 257.9 40 0.0 173.2 0.0 96.2
15 224.1 35 0.0 16.0 0.0 474.9
16 105.2 16 84.4 0.0 0.0 267.8
21 460.0 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 247.0
22 0.0 0 0.7 65.0 0.0 0.0
23 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
24 198.6 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 239.9
25 -78.0 12 0.0 40.0 0.0 26.7
26 38.4 6 40.0 47.2 0.0 30.0
27 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 229.7
28 40.0 6 3.1 76.9 256.0 277.0
32 188.8 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 281.3
33 442.3 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 603.7
34 78.6 12 70.9 0.0 0.0 466.4
35 408.3 64 72.3 49.6 0.0 320.0
36 S9.2 34.6 0.0 0.0 231.1
13•6.5
134.7
99./.
rti. R
0.0
0.0
2.5
34.3
121.2
58.0
11.0
62.8
30.0
27.7
30.0
0.0
0.0
57.1
10.0
11.6
11.0
26.0
37.6
0.5
3.0
33.4
27.7
18.8 0.0
5.6 4 0.0
I3.8 . 86.3
0.0 0 0.0
0.0 0 0.0
0.0 0 39.1
0.0 0 40.2
32.9 4 0.0
0.0 0 0.0
60.4 5 0.0
29.2 2 0.0
25.2 ^c 0.0
68.3 4 18.3
63.9 26 0.0
0.0 0 0.0
9.0 1 0.0
48.0 2 38.3
Otq.O 0 63.0
31.2 - 9 0.0
36.9 -6 0.0
1.0 1 0.0
60.3 4 0.0
10.6 0 0.0
0.0 0 0.0
55.2 5 0.0
44.9 4 0.0
405., .
106.9 4:
c
20.6
366.E 2:
50.S
0.0 (
0.0 {
84.9
35.8 42
44.1 2!
108.9 E
74.4
• 18.5
5.0
131.2 17
13.4 7
10.3 0
0.0 C
0.0 0
4.4 0
4.7 0
0.0 0
0.0 5S
0.0 0
TOT 4467.5 N/A 425.1 390.6.
1055.5
63 285.2
`6650.5 1330.2
781.2 JJL.7
rrn
2:175
T C
LAKE ELMO ACRI COMPARISON:
ACRES IN
CURRFNT
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN:
ACRES IN
CURRENT
ZONING '
DISTRICT
MAP:.
ACTUAL
CURRENT
:EXISTING
USAGE:
AGRICULTURAL 0 1,871 ' 7,427
(AG)
RURAL RESIDENTIAL 6,730 7,185 2,246
(R-R) 1(pen Rural Use)
RESIDENTIAL • 3,145 1,891 1,606
(R-1) (Residential) (447 units Ti 2.2x('
w/o Sects 32 & 33)
(1,329 units = 6.6x,
w/ sects 32 & 33)
HIGH DEN RESIDENTIAL
(R2, R3, R4)
BUSINESS
(GB, HB, CB)
INDUSTRIAL
(IND)
76o 195 : 195
(Cimarron) CCimarron)
745
(9.9x)
340
216 (2.9x;
w/o overlay and
Sects 32 and 33)
1,035 (13.8x;
with overlay)
509 (6.8x;
,w/ Sects 32 & 33)
8
ACRES NEEDED
10 MEET THE
PROPOSED
POP. FCST.
FOR THE YEAR
2000 - 6,400:
0
0
ACRES IN
PROPOSED
FUTURE
LAND USE
MAP:
8,443
ACRES IN
PROPOSED
ZONING
DISTRICT
MAP:
---7 , 500
1,902 ^-2,200
1,606 <<:- 1,338 ?---1,750
(313 units a 1.6x,
w/o Sects 32 & 33)
(1,195 units = 6.Ox,
w/ Sects 32 & 33)
195 372 195
(Cimarron) (Cimarron and
Sects 32 & 33)
216 75 97 (1.3x; '- 225
w/o Sects 32 & 33)
390 (5.2x:
w/ Sects 32 &
4
0
33)
0 4
TART F B
POTENTIAL HC IE.SITES' IN LAKE E MO _ - July, 1986 •
Sect. R-1 Zoning DistLict R=R'Za ing'District ' 'C tAND T TALS
UNDEV. PLATTED TOTAL UNDEV. PLATTED TOTAL UNDEV. 'PLATTED TOTAL
1 0 0 0 36 0 36 36 0 36
2 0 0 0 39 4 43 39 4 43
3 0 16 16 18 1 19 18 17 35
4 59 23 82 3 5 8 62 28 90
5 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 14 14
8 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
9 25 17 42 0 0 0 25 17 42
10 26 4 30 33 0 33 59 4 63
11 0 0 0 26 4 30 26 4 30
12 0 0 0 40 0 40 40 0 40
13 0 3 3 22 5 27 22 8 30
14 0 8 8 8 2 10 8 10 18
15 0 19 19 17 2 19 17 - 21 • 38
16 12 4 16 26 4 30 38 8 46
21 0 5 5 24 26 50 24 31 55
22 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
23 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 3 3
24 25 14 39 15 3 18 40 17 57
25 42 5 47 2 0 2 44 5 49
26 0 0 0 3 9 12 3 9 12
27 0 0 0 21 6 27 21 6 27
28 0 0 0 26 1 27 26 1 27
32 0 0 0 25 4 29 25 4 29
33 0 0 0 60 0 60 60 0 60
34 0 0 0 46 0 46 0 0 46
35 0 36 36 32 5 37 32 41 73
36 0 0 0 8 1 9 8 1 9
TOTALS 189 174 363 530 83 613 719 257 976