Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-86 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 25, 1986 7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. Agenda 7:45 p.m. 8:30 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 2. Minutes: July 28, 1986 August 11, 1986 August 18, 1986 3. Meeting Starting Time 4. John Schiltz Resignation 5. Requests for Variance to the Development Moratorium A. Joe Rogers: Rezoning from RR to Industrial B. Ken Sovereign: Simple Lot Subdivision and Preliminary Plat in an R-1 Zone C. Richard & Jackie McNamara: Variance to Size of Accessory Building in the RR Zone 6. Site and Building Plan Review -Misty Inn 7. Comprehensive Plan Update A. Discuss Proposed Future Land Use Map B. Decision on New Future Land Use Map 8. Zoning Ordinance Revisions A. Rezoning Needs B. Draft Amendment to the Agricultural District for "Alternative Agricultural Uses" 9. Adjourn NNW LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 Chairman Graves called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Graves, Haacke, Moe, Novak, DeLapp, Bucheck, Williams, Raleigh, Reuther, City Attorney Knaak and City Administrator Overby. 1. Agenda M/S/P Novak/Raleigh - to approve the August 25, 1986 Planning Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 9-0). 2. Minutes: July 28, 1986 August 11, 1986 August 18, 1986 M/S/P Novak/DeLapp - to approve the July 28, 1986 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Motion carried 7-0-2<Graves,Moe>). M/S/P Reuther/Raleigh - to approve the August 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. (Motion carried 6-0-3<Graves, Moe, Williams›). M/S/P Raleigh/DeLapp - to approve the August 18, 1986 Planning Commission meeting draft minutes as presented for reference purposes because there wasn't a quorum. (Motion carried 9-0). 3. Meeting Starting Time Chairman Graves suggested that whenever there is an additional meeting, some advance notice should be sent out the day after the decision has been made. City Attorney Knaak had advised the Planning Commission to stay with 7:30 p.m. as specified in the City code for the regular meetings and to avoid confusion by the public and commission members it was recommended to hold any additional meetings at 7:30 p.m. also. M/S/P Reuther/DeLapp - to hold an additional Planning Commission meeting on Monday, September 29,1986 starting at 7:30 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0). 4. John Schiltz Resignation Chairman Graves expressed his disappointment in seeing that John Schiltz had decided he can no longer serve on the commission. Graves added that John had valid reasons for quitting, primarily his business. He had a valid idea that the commission should represent a good cross-section of the City in terms of geographic areas and individual attitudes. Also, that the Planning LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 2 Commission should be in communication with our neighbors and other people in the community to ascertain what they want to see in the City today or in the future. Even though there are a difference of opinions, try to express these concepts in as understandable fashion as possible. Once these are done, then the Commission can come to a consensus as to what the best course of action is. Graves encouraged all of the commission members to try and consider the other person's viewpoint and work together for the betterment of the City. Bucheck suggested when we advertise in the newsletter for Planning Commission vacancies, we could encourage large landowners and business owners to apply in order to round out the commission. 5. Requests for Variance to the Development Moratorium A. Joe Rogers: Rezoning from RR to Industrial Attorney Don Raleigh, representing Joe Rogers, presented Mr. Rogers' request for a variance from the Development Moratorium to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to consider his proposal to rezone a 17 acre tract of land located west of the junction of State Highway 5 and Stillwater Road. A rezoning would permit Brockman Trucking, Inc. to use the property as a storage site for up to 50 truck trailers and to permit construction of a repair garage building thereon, at some future date, to be used in servicing such trailers. Attorney Raleigh felt this was an appropriate and reasonable use for this property, since; it is not suited for Residential because it is between the railroad tracks, dog kennel and crematorium. The land was zoned Limited Industry in 1978, then downzoned to Rural Residential when the present zoning map was adopted in 1979. The 1979 (current) Future Land Use map shows that site as suitable for Limited Industry uses. The proposed Future Land Use map under discussion now would change the designation from Limited Industry to Rural Residential. This change would be consistent with current (and proposed) zoning for that area. Attorney Raleigh added that Brockman Trucking has a time limit where their trailers are parked now and they have a contract to purchase this property from Mr. Rogers, with the closing date being September 30, 1986. If there is a delay, Mr. Rogers will not be able to sell this land. Mr. Brockman explained that they would eventually move up closer to the Animal Inn and would be using only 5 acres or less. Commission member Novak informed the applicant that the Planning Commission has eliminated the "Industrial" zoning category from the revised Comprehensive Plan. Novak had visited the site and found that the homes directly across Jamaca would have a clear view of the entire property. He expressed the concern of noise and traffic impacts on adjacent R-1 areas. Another concern was access to the site, which would only be off Stillwater Blvd. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 3 Mr. Brockman explained that the land is 20 feet below the tracks, surrounded by hills and he does have plans to put up a berm so the trailers would not be seen or heard. Steve Raleigh voiced his concern about available area for ponding storage of runoff from the site, especially in the Beutel Pond area. Attorney Raleigh informed the Commission that the VBWD is now acquiring an easement on this land for the 509 Project. Marge Williams mentioned her concern about the limited amount of time left during the moratorium for the Planning Commission to finish its work. Chairman Graves added that the concern here was that meeting time spent in review of this rezoning request would take away from the work schedule and deadline for planning -zoning revisions. M/S/P Raleigh/Novak - to recommend to the City Council denial of a variance to the Development Moratorium due to the Planning Commission finding that the proposed rezoning would not be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan's future land use for that site. (Motion carried 8-0-1<Haacke>). B. Ken Sovereign: Simple Lot Subdivision and Preliminary Plat in an R-1 Zone. Ken Sovereign is requesting a variance from the Development Moratorium to allow the City Council to consider his proposal for a Single Lot Subdivision and Preliminary Plat. The land in question is 2.65 acres in size and located on the south shore of Lake Olson. Note the March 10, 1986 Planning Commission minutes where the variance was denied by a unanimous 9-0 vote. At that time Mr. Sovereign was willing to wait for the Development Moratorium deadline of October 2, 1986 even though he felt legally he should not be affected by the moratorium because of his application date. Now that the proposed deadline is December 2, 1986 and due to the capital gains tax law being thrown out in 1987, he cannot live with this extension. Chairman Graves agreed that the proposal was brought in before the moratorium took effect, and the discussion for further consideration was postponed until after the moratorium which was scheduled to end October 2, 1986. Graves also informed Mr. Sovereign that an economic hardship is not a justification for granting a variance. Don Moe felt this request for a variance to the Development Moratorium Ordinance would have no effect on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 4 Marge Williams suggested that the City Council read the March 10, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. Particularly, the comment by Chuck Surface that subdividing in the future and granting a variance would start a precedent. M/S/P Haacke/Reuther - to recommend to the City Council that Ken Sovereign's request for a variance to the Development Moratorium Ordinance would have no impact on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. (Motion carried 7-1-1<Novak>< Abstain:DeLapp>). Novak: In a minor way it would affect the Comprehensive Plan in that it would make available more lots for residential use when we already have 6 times more than we need. A primary concern is when the Planning Commission moves to grant a variance for a subdivision that was unanimously rejected because it does not conform to our code regarding acreage and frontage. C. Richard and Jackie McNamara: Variance to Size of Accessory Building in the RR Zone. Richard and Jackie McNamara want to build a 144 foot by 54 foot addition to their existing barn. The size of the existing barn (45x35) is 1,575 square feet. The new addition would increase the total building size by 7,776 square feet to 9,351 square feet. The building would be used for a horse arena and hay and machinery storage. They have 23 horses that need shelter for the winter. In order to operate an Agricultural business, Steve Raleigh explained that this building may seem excessively large, but it is not that large when working with horses. The size of the pole barn in Section 2 that his father built was in excess of 9,000 sq.ft and he is boarding horses. Marge Williams was not in favor of a variance at this time because she felt the Planning Commission has to go forward with the moratorium. After the moratorium, the applicant can come in with their request and then discuss the merits. Barbara Haacke felt since we are suggesting Ag in the proposed Future Land Use Map and if this building would fit better in Ag land then Ag zoning should be recommended. Tom Armstrong suggested that, since the proposed Future Land Use Map shows Ag and the McNamaras were interested in rezoning to Ag, why not recommend a variance be granted to the RR zoning to build a larger building, on the basis that they submit an application for rezoning to Ag at the time that the plan is approved. The building would be in compliance on the day the matter is rezoned. The hardship being the horses would freeze to death if they had no shelter. M/S/P Moe/Reuther - to recommend to the City Council granting a variance to the Development Moratorium as the proposed variance LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 5 for building size would be consistent with the future Ag zoning. (Motion carried 9-0). M/S/P Moe/Reuther - to amend the motion to add that the Planning Commission recommends support of both variances contingent on the McNamaras making application for rezoning their property from RR to Ag after the Development Moratorium expires on December 2, 1986. (Motion carried 9-0). 6. Site and Building Plan Review - Misty Inn Bob and Carol Clark are interested in purchasing the Misty Inn Motel from its present owners. The new owners would continue to operate the motel business. However, they are proposing to build a 30 x 90 foot addition to the present structure. The new addition would be occupied by a ceramics business, with retail sales and ceramics classes. This application was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting and no new information had been added. Dan Novak asked what can we do to accommodate this since there is no provision in the City code that would accommodate this situation relative to a secondary business. City Attorney Knaak answered that in the zoning ordinance itself you have the option to allow a secondary business and list certain businesses such as crafts. There is a danger as to what kind of craft might be anticipated five years from now. An example used was video stores. A CUP could be used to make it more restrictive, but there is the annual maintenance issue. Chairman Graves added that a CUP may not be viewed favorably by the property owner because it could be pulled at any time. Graves would reject the application based on it being a non -conforming property and advise the people it might be in their best interest to purchase extra land so the business would be a conforming application. Dan Novak explained he would not be in favor of expanding this business because the City has recognized Section 32 and 33 for proliferating business activities. Another concern was making a non -conforming use to an already existing use without input from the City Engineer. Marge Williams stated she does not like varying from the existing lot size of 0.9 acres because this could start a precedent. M/S/P Delapp/Raleigh - to disapprove the application based on making an already non -conforming use more non -conforming. (Motion carried 9-0). Mr. & Mrs. Clark stated that they have the opportunity to buy five acres, but cannot afford it. Because their building will be demolished and they have a time limit there, they will have to look elsewhere. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 6 7. Comprehensive Plan Update A. Discuss Proposed Future Land Use Map Chairman Graves commented he was not at the meeting where they voted to repeal the 1-94 Overlay District and felt the decision was ill-advised for the following reasons: 1. He considers the district as it exists a red flag to potential residents in the area. They would see that a concept does exist for controlling any development of a business nature that would move in there at some time. 2. Although business already exists along there, it does not encourage development in RR or R-1. Agricultural uses or a business type of development are appropriate. 3. It offers controls that don't exist elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan for the development of this corridor, if and when development occurs. It also states that the focus of development on the part of the City is being encouraged in Section 32 and 33 rather than along the highway. 4. It provides a legal, denfensible position to accept or reject development plans on the basis that this would show the City recognizes that this will be a target area for development, and as such have put in some criteria to protect the City and residents for future development. 5. He feels that the Overlay District does not go far enough and does not say what we want as an overall plan. Don Moe expressed the same feelings and added that the commission was asked not to make any important decisions until input could be given from all commission members. Moe asked what we paid Rob Chelseth to work on an Overlay District that we no longer need and recommended that a professional planner for the City is not needed. City Administrator Overby answered that the cost for the time Rob Chelseth spent on the Overlay Ordinance in '83, '84, '85 was over $2,100. Ann Bucheck would not like taken away because she has to see the professional services being no experience as a planner. City Attorney Knaak explained the City to have some kind of that it makes sense for protecting Overlay Plan if it is drafted right and defends the City and it doesn't necessarily promote development. An immediate concern, being there was some discussion on downgrading and looking at protecting the Agricultural character of the City, that some people will say that is not good, much less the best use of the land and will argue the LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 7 point. The more you can do to show that you have considered those arguements including even showing the use of a professional planner can be stated when asked for reasons. Marge Williams asked why isn't there an overlay district, as an hypothetical arguement, for the rest of the community. When we zone a particular parcel, we do not have to prove that our planner thought it was a good idea in order to make it defensible. We should not have to prove zoning along the highway any differently than an R-1 area in the middle of the community. The problem with the Overlay District, as it is written, allows for a greater discussion "for the highest and best use for land" rather than having a stated policy "this is what the land is zoned for". Attorney Knaak stated that the City does have a shoreland district ordinance that recognizes certain conditions and needs in the City. So you don't get caught in binds, you could have a Highway Industrial Zone. Tom Armstrong explained that nobody is entitled to a use other than what they are presently using. Zoning is a legislative decision. In a legislative capacity when the Council acts, a court is not going to overturn them unless it is blatant. This has never occurred in this community and is rare in the state. Armstrong pointed out that at the Joint Meeting, four councilmembers were against the Overlay District and not one councilmember spoke in favor of it. He also added that the City Council was never given a copy of the I-94 Overlay District. Yet at the same time, Graves responded, the very same City Council passed the Overlay District one year ago. Don Moe said we have faith in our planner and respect his judgement and recommendations, but yet we do not follow them. It doesn't make sense to waste anymore money for planning. M/S/F Moe/Williams - to recommend to the City Council that we no longer request the services of Rob Chelseth or any planning consultant. (Motion failed <2-6-1<Novak, Bucheck, Raleigh, Reuther, Graves, Haacke>(Abstain: DeLapp). Marge Williams gave the following reasons for supporting this motion. A paid consultant is there to give supporting advice on a particular issue. However, we live in the community and pay the taxes so we have to make some of our own decisions. If we feel the planner is giving some information that is not in the direction we want to take, it is our perogative to say we appreciate the advice, but do not agree with it. Barb Haacke stated that we do need a planner because we need input, even if we don't agree with his advice. She felt that Don Moe was trying to prove a point by making this motion. Steve Raleigh voted against the motion because he felt a planner LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 8 is necessary, but added that the document created was intentionally vague and contrary to the Future Land use Map. Walley Ebertz) who is a landowner on I-94,stated that his land was zoned General Business in '76 or '77 and it should not be Ag because he has never farmed it or had it in Green Acres. City Administrator Overby stated that in 1976 the land was General Business, but in 1979 it had been rezoned to RR because it wasn't being used for General Business purposes. Future Street Right-of-way A letter received from MnDot District 9 Right-of-way Engineer advised the City tht MnDot will begin offering for sale the old I-94 Northern Route right-of-way between County Road 13 and CSAH 15. The letter also advises that some of this right-of-way can be given to the City for roadway purposes at no cost. Novak did not see a need for it and asked that are we anticipating. Other points brought up were: who's going to buy that land if the City has a road right-of-way easement through it; if somebody buys it, it goes back on the tax roll; if somebody wants to develop down there, they are going to have to dedicate the roads free of charge; and does the City really need a collector street? Attorney Knaak responded that there are platted roadways in the City .thatare not being used. M/S/F Haacke/Graves - to recommend approval to the City Council for obtaining an easement for the right-of-way given to the City by MnDOT for roadway purposes at no cost. (Motion failed 4-5<DeLapp, Novak, Williams, Raleigh, Bucheck>). B. Decision on New Future Land Use Map Tom Armstrong handed out a model ordinance for Soil Erosion for consideration of an ordinance change. Barb Haacke felt the general concept was fine. Her main objection was the Ag along I-94 and has a problem with downzoning, but doesn't necessarily want to promote development. Graves stated that this is a proposed Future Land Use map. It doesn't mean that its ever going to be rezoned this way, but it has the intent. He is concerned about a comment that the City code and comprehensive plan should be consistent. If we are going to make the actual zoning consistent with the proposed future land use, we will be downzoning certain areas in the City that are already used as RR. We do not want to do that to the people. The following were discussed as additional changes to RR zoning on the Future Land Use Map: Linda Larson's development, Jessies Hideaway, Arvold Acres, Christ Church Cementery and K-Oil. Amended 9-8-86 Chairman Graves stated that this could be an opportunity for the City to acquire at no expense to itself a future right-of-way through that area. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1986 PAGE 9 Steve Raleigh mentioned by making the NE corner Ag, anyone looking at the map is being told that this is the last place we want development. Dan Novak handed out an updated version of the Lake Elmo Acreage Comparison. It represents approximately 400 more acres going into R-1 zoning. (See Appendix A). He added that this proposed Future Land Use map does not remove from anyone any land that is platted, whether it be RR or R-1, remains as it was zoned for platting. Dan also mentioned that Planner Rob Chelseth had stated that the comprehensive plan should have 4 to 5 times more Residential and this proposal includes six times as much acreage for residential units. Chairman Graves asked if there are any areas for proposed downzoning that are currently zoned R-1? The proposed areas for downzoning from R-1 to RR are: Jamaca Avenue, south of Kenridge Addition; Springborn property west of Foxfire Estates; and 40 acres west of Tartan Meadows, Intersection of Co. 17 and Co. 70. M/S/P DeLapp/Reuther - to recommend approval by the City Council of the proposed Future Land Use Map which should include the additional changes to--r-that were discussed. (Motion carried 9-0) . (Amended 9-8-86) Kathy Crombie, 8120 DeMontreville Trail, explained that she counted, according to the Future Land Use Map, 132 potential or existing lots versus the 364 available platted and undeveloped lots that were counted in the Lake Elmo Acreage Inventory. She had talked to two people from the Met Council regarding the projected population estimate and found that the numbers are coming from Lake Elmo's building permits. They're projecting a 30% decrease in the Region's population because of the baby boom decline. They added that this is not a hard fast number and not meant to be used as a direction from the Council. She hoped that the zoning is not based on the population projections. 8. Zoning Ordinance Revisions A. Rezoning Needs This will be discussed at the September 8, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. B. Draft Amendment to the Agricultural District for "Alternative Agricutural Uses" This will be discussed at the September 8, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. M/S/P Moe/Haacke - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0). Amended 9-8-86 City Attorney Knaak stated that if you have justification and a reasonable basis for what you are doing, then you would have a defensible plan. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1986 There was no quorum for this meeting, but the meeting was opened at 7:25 p.m. for discussion purposes. Present: Novak, Raleigh, Reuther, DeLapp, City Administrator Overby and City Attorney Knaak. Absent: Graves, Moe, Haacke, Bucheck, Williams. 2. Minutes: July 28, 1986 August 11, 1986 The minutes will be approved at the August 25, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Commissionmember Novak requested that the Lake Elmo Acreage Comparison table and Inventory and a summary of his presentation be included with the official August 11, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. An additional Planning Commission meeting is proposed for September 29, 1986, but this has not been finalized. A. Site and Building Plan Review: Proposed Addition to the Misty Inn for a Ceramics Business Bob and Carol Clark are interested in purchasing the Misty Inn Motel from its present owners and would live there and operate the motel business. However, they are proposing to build a 30 x 90 foot addition to the present structure. The new addition would be occupied by a ceramics business, with retail sales and ceramics classes being the main activities. They have been operating a ceramics business in St. Paul, so trade has been established. The property is currently zoned Highway Business. This zoning is proper for the motel, but the ceramics business would have to be considered as a "secondary business" if it is going to be allowed. City Administrator Overby and City Attorney Knaak could find no provision in the City code which specifically allows or prohibits a second business operation on the same site as an existing business. The following were concerns of the commissionmembers: 1. Lot Size : The existing property is approximately 0.9 acre in size. This is acceptable as a non -conforming use under the present code. A concern raised was by allowing the proposed addition, would this make the existing non -conforming use more non -conforming with the proposed new business use. Issuing a Conditional Use Permit was considered. LAKE ELMO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1986 Page 2 2. Primary or Accessory Building : The City Code specifies that only one primary structure is allowed on a single lot. The proposed addition would be considered part of the primary structure, so this concern appears to be resolved. 3. Septic System and Drainfield : The greatest concern was whether the existing system can handle the additional demand. There were other questions as to how large the ceramics classes would be and also if adequate parking would be provided. A related concern was whether the property has enough area to provide for an alternate drainfield site, in case the primary system failed. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to have the City Engineer review and analyze this application to address these concerns. Commissonmember Novak enlightened the applicants that this business area was in the I-94 Overlay District. This Overlay District was repealed in total at the last Planning Commission meeting in order to discourage business in this area and try to funnel it into Sections 32 and 33 which will have sewer and water. 3. Comprehensive Plan Update City Administrator Overby summarized the presentation of the Inventory of Existing Land Use in Lake ELmo which was presented by himself and Dan Novak at the last Planning Commission meeting. Steve DeLapp questioned the tax structure and if it was wise to encourage maintaining farms in the City and if this was properly addressed in the Green Acres and Ag Preserve. City Administrator Overby suggested thst the Commission return to discussing the proposed Future Land Use map, and not try to solve the local property tax situation. Larry Berg is an attorney representing Erickson Diversified Corporation which owns land that adjoins 1-94 that is proposed for a freeway service center (motel, truck stop, restaurant). He further added that some developments have been planned in such a way that they would not require urban services, but be appropriate for the area. He suggests setting up a program where certain requirements are met or where a CUP for freeway services are permitted upon the showing of no undue burden to city services and meeting objective standards. Greg Erickson, who accompanied Mr. Berg, stated that their proposed development would employ many people, bring in tax revenue and that they never expected to hook up with urban services. Gene Peltier and other landowners in Lake Elmo made comments about the need for the Planning Commission to consider and allow them a reasonable use of their land. LAKE ELMO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1986 Page 3 Steve DeLapp responded. that gas stations off I-94 are for people that do not live in Lake Elmo. The question that needs to be answered is do we want to take a chunk of our land for this purpose. 4. Zoning Ordinance Update A. Draft Amendment to the Agricultural District for "Alternative Agricultural Uses" Planning Commission member Novak stated that there is a concensus to support the creation of alternative ag uses, but where and how do you do it. Do we put the alternative ag uses in the ag zoning district or do we create another ag alternative district with an itemized list of uses? Should we do this in some form of a contract with the city? Tom Armstrong handed out a proposed list of uses that could be permitted by contract in Agricultural Preserve Zones for the Planning Commissions consideration. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. (Motion carried 4-0).