HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-87 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 1987
Vice -Chairperson Haacke called the Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Present:
Haacke, DeLapp, Bucheck, Novak, Williams, Johnson, Hunt, City
Attorney Knaak and City Administrator Overby. Absent: Reuther,
Raleigh
1. Election of New Officers
Nominations were made for Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and
Secretary and the vote was taken. The new Planning Commission
officers are: Chairman: Steve DeLapp, Vice -Chairperson: Marge
Williams and Secretary: Ann Bucheck
2. Agenda
Add: 10. General Discussion
M/S/P Williams/Haacke - to approve the January 12, 1987 Planning
Commission agenda as amended. (Motion carried 7-0).
3. Minutes: December 22, 1986
M/S/P Williams/Johnson - to approve the December 22, 1986 minutes
as amended. (Motion carried 6-0-1<Abstain: Bucheck>).
4. Resignation of Dan Novak
Dan Novak submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission
effective January 14th, 1987. Dan will be moving over to fight
the proposed landfill in Lake Elmo and will be meeting with
Senator Laidig and Representative Harriet McPherson to try to pass
legislation to keep the landfill out.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Application for amendment to an existing
Conditional Use Permit: Leonard Hanson, 10824 Hudson Blvd.
Chairman DeLapp called the public hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. in
the City Council chambers.
Mr. Leonard Hanson is requesting
Use Permit to allow construction
proposed building is intended to
his trailer units. The property
west of Co. Rd. 17 on Hudson Boulevard.
an amendment to his Conditional
of a 40' x 60' building. The
provide a work space to service
is located about one -eighth mile
Mr. Pat Farrell, attorney representing Leonard Hanson, explained
that the history of this property is unusual and presented old
pictures of the property. The Hanson's bought the property in
1979. At the time the property was acquired the Planning
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 2
Commission and City of Lake Elmo approved the rezoning of the
property to General Business (Ordinance 7808). At the same time
there was an agreement that the Hanson's would be bound by
whatever Future Land Use would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The 1979 plan shows it as Highway Commercial
after 1990 and the 1986 Future Land Use shows it as Agricultural.
After the Hansons received the General Business zoning, they
proceeded to apply for a Conditional Use Permit which was granted.
The Hansons are requesting an amendment to this Conditional Use
Permit to permit the construction of a 40' x 60' building.
Farrell added, that the building application was for an office,
small showroom, parts area and workshop, but the Hansons were
deleting the request for an office and small showroom. Assuming
that the property is zoned Agricultural and the request is for a
building, it is going to require some variances. The first
variance would be a variance to allow more than one principal
structure on the Hanson property. The second variance would be
the number and size of accessory buildings. The third variance
would be the front lot line setback for the building location.
Mr. Farrell stated that there are some precedents in the City
where larger buildings have been granted on smaller tracts and
cited the Animal Inn case. Hanson's building is a passive use
compared to a heavy commercial use and is an improvement to the
surroundings.
City Administrator Overby stated the following in his review:
1. Zoning District
The proposed building is located on agriculturally zoned property
where the allowed uses are goverened by a CUP.
2. Type of Building Being Proposed
The CUP application is to allow a 40' x 60' building. The building
will contain a parts area and a work shop. All personal tractor
equipment presently laying in view from the frontage road would be
housed in the building.
If the building is defined as a commercial building for the
purpose of business uses, then there is a conflict with Section
301.130 B.1. which states: "There shall be no more than one
principal building on any one parcel of land. "Section 301.040
114 defines Principal Structure or Use as follows: "One which
determines the predominant use as contrasted to accessory use or
structure". A variance to allow more than one principal structure
on the Hanson property would be required, if this definition
applies. Also, a Site and Building Plan Review would be required.
3. Building Size and Number
The total area of the 40' x 60' building would be 2,400 square
feet. Section 301.130 C. of the City Code provides design and
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 3
performance standards for accessory buildings and structures.
Sub -section C-14 indicates that: "For parcels under (10) acres,
two buildings with a total area not to exceed one thousand (1,000)
square feet..." would be allowed. The Hanson property is 7.91
acres in total area. Therefore, only two accessory buildings
would be allowed; although there already exist a 50' x 22' machine
shed, a 22' x 16' granary and a 12' x 18' garage on the north. A
variance to the number and size of accessory buildings would be
required, if it is determined that the proposed building is
actually an accessory building.
4. Lot Size
The existing parcel of land is 7.91 acres in size and does not
meet the minimum lot size of 40 acres for the agricultural zone.
It is a previously platted parcel of record; therefore, no
variance is required.
5. Setbacks
The building would meet the front, rear and sideyard setbacks
required in the Agricultural zoning district. However, the
design and performance standard for accessory buildings and
structure (301.130 C.9.) states: "No detached garages or other
accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located
nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that
lot...". A variance to this setback requirement would be
required, if the proposed structure is considered to be an
accessory structure.
Steve DeLapp asked if the structure was in support of the open
sales lot. City Attorney Knaak answered that any type of
structure put up could be argued as being in support of an open
sales lot. If the CUP was amended as the plans are proposed, then
this provision would be deleted or amended.
Dan Novak asked the Hansons if the llamas were pets or ?jbusiness.
Mr. Hanson answered that they are pets, but are used as a
business. Therefore, there are two businesses, selling llamas as
pets and the Rocking L trailer sales.
Steve DeLapp asked the Hansons if Mr. Gene Peltier would be
willing to sell them enough land to bring them into compliance
with the code. The Hansons answered he would be willing to sell
at commercial prices.
Novak asked if the CUP could be revised to eliminate the need for
variances?. Attorney Knaak answered the CUP has to do with the
use and variances have to do with the structure. Novak asked what
the applicant's hardship was. Mr. Hanson replied that he has an
arthritic problem and has been doctoring for back problems. He
cannot be outside working and cannot afford to hire people to work
for him.
David Johnson felt that a light commercial operation is ideal for
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 4
the overlay area. Johnson added, that this particular kind of use
and the building in this area is a great idea and we should make
variances for this.
Chairman DeLapp closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Barb Haacke stated that this type of building they are asking for
is an accessory building and requires two variances which should
be granted, considering that the engineering report for
drainfields work out. Barb felt this fits into what we would like
to see along I-94.
Dan Novak stated he was in favor of the proposal. The variances
that are needed are: front yard setback, building size and number
of buildings.
According to the Overlay District, Item #13, the proposed use has
to be consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. Also a
variance is needed for the minimum lot size of ten acres.
M/S/P Haacke/Johnson - to recommend granting a CUP amendment based
on the following Findings of Fact: (Motion carried 7-0).
1. Variance needed for front yard setback.
2. Variance needed for size of building.
3. Variance needed for number of buildings.
4. Variance needed for minimum lot size in the
Overlay District.
5. The proposed building is ag-related.
6. Adequate drainage system to City Engineer's satisfaction.
7. Hardship: configuration of lot.
6. Site and Building Plan Review: Retail Sales & Service
Building at 11227 Stillwater Blvd.; Richard Kosman
Mr. Kosman proposes to operate a retail floor covering and
installation business from the former Pepin Engineering property
at the southeast corner of TH5 and Laverne Avenue. A rezoning
from Industrial to General Business would be required to permit
the planned use. In addition, some slight exterior remodeling in
the form of an added entryway on the east side of the building is
proposed. Because of the change in zoning, change in use, and
change in exterior dimension, a site plan review is required.
City Engineer's Bohrer site plan review is stated in his letter to
the Planning Commission dated January 8, 1987.
The proposed building remodeling consists of dimensional changes
(a covered entry way on the Laverne Avenue side) and
non -dimensional changes (replacement windows, roof treatment, and
elimination of overhead garage door). The covered entryway will
increase the non-conformance of the side (corner) setback. Ann
Bucheck hated to see this added to make it more non -conforming and
asked if Kosman could do without a covered entryway (comes out 5 x
6 feet). Kosman answered he could do without a side entryway, but
it is a nice feature and improves the energy efficiency.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 5
Barb Haacke would like the requirement of the off-street parking
be asphalt or concrete rather than gravel.
A buffer strip of 35 feet is required along the south property
line where the existing building is as close as 10 feet to the
property line. The Buffer Strip requirement cannot be complied
with in this case.
Ann Bucheck voiced a concern about what happens with the parking
spaces if another more intensive use moves in when this building
is sold. Rosman only needs 5 to 7 parking spaces at the most.
Marge Williams added that when a building is sold and expanded
they don't automatically come into the City for a site review.
City Administrator Overby stated that we have to send a public
hearing notice to the Oakdale Transportation office to see if they
want to comment on the parking or setbacks and the impact on their
road right--of-way.
M/S/P Williams/Haacke - to recommend rescinding the action taken
on 12-22-86 to have this parcel in Industrial zoning based on new
information, but to rezone it to General Business with the
provision that the variances listed by City Engineer Bohrer must
be granted to allow 10 parking spaces due to a lot size hardship.
(Motion carried 6-1<Novak: He is opposed to this for safety
reasons.>)
7. Simple Lot Subdivision: LeRoy Howell,
2119 Lake Elmo Avenue N.
Mr. Howell wants to subdivide an existing lot located in the R-1
zoning district and in the Shoreland District. Mr. Howell was not
present for the meeting.
1. A variance would be needed for lot size, as each of the two
proposed lots would be substandard.
2. A variance would be needed for the septic system area, as the
new lot would have 0.60 acre where 1.0 acre is required.
3. The existing driveway should be relocated.
4. The 60% Rule does not apply in this case.
Jim White, 11130 20th St. Ct. N., felt this subdivision does not
fit with the other lots along Lake Elmo Avenue or with 20th Street
Court because most of them have one acre to an acre and a half.
James Burns, 11140 20th St. Court, felt it was crowded around
their lot by later homes. Howell has bought this land knowing
full well that it was undivided and he is trying to sneak out two
lots.
Don Wright, 2869 Lake Elmo Avenue, neighbor on the south,
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 6
preferred that this subdivision not be allowed.
Barb Haacke stated there was no hardship shown here and she has a
concern on the area for the proposed septic system.
Ann Bucheck felt it was a steep lot and questions where the
existing drainfield is located.
Marge Williams would be against it because no hardship has been
shown and it would create two non -conforming lots.
M/S/P Williams/Bucheck - to recommend denial of the request for
the simple lot subdivision by Leroy Howell at 2119 Lake Elmo
Avenue based on (a.) it creates two non -conforming lots; (b) area
for the proposed septic system is substandard in size; (c) it does
not conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan; (d) there would be a
problem with the setback of the existing house from the new lot
line. (Motion carried 7-0).
8. Final Plat Approval: Ken Sovereign, 4415 Olson Lake Trail
The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat for Olson Lake
Addition at its meeting of November 18, 1986 which included
granting variances for lot size and lake frontage requirements.
The City Engineer has recommended approval of the final plat,
subject to payment of any outstanding pass-•thru costs or park
donation.
The Planning Commission wanted to make it clear that we cannot
continue to entertain and allow more non -conforming lots. The
following motion was made based on the reasons the Commission felt
the City Council should deny the Final Plat.
M/S/P Williams/Bucheck - to recommend to the City Council denial
of Final Plat Approval for Ken Sovereign at 4415 Olson Lake Trail
based on the facts that Lot 1 is substandard in size, that Lot 2
does not have the required 150 foot lake frontage, and that the
plat does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan. (Motion
carried 7-0).
9. Discuss Amendments to I-94 Overlay District
At the December 22, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission requested that the staff comments and ideas be
presented to them for discussion and input in turn to the City
staff. An outline of the staff proposals from December 1986 were
handed out for their review.
In #1 it was recommended to change the year. The 1986
Comprehensive Plan allows General Business and Highway Business
uses within the Metro Urban Service Area (MUSA) prior to i99B--
2000 .
In #2 Marge Williams did not feel the changes were substantially
different. Under the Comprehensive Plan the Camm??vion tried to
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 PAGE 7
get rid of "interim" uses. If someone were to buy property along
I-94 and use the term "interim use", then their concept would be
buying the property based on the fact that whatever they are
buying it for now is only an interim. They are really planning
for denser development. The Planning Commission decided to strike
"interim" and "long term" use throughout the document.
Dave Johnson did not see the purpose of interim uses or long term
uses. If someday a sewer goes through, then we are going to have
to go along with more intense development. In the next 5 or 10
years, it is would be all right to have a safe sanitary sewer.
Johnson felt we should go more aggressively for what we would like
to see and forestall what we don't want to see.
The Planning Commission suggested writing down
continue this discussion at the next meeting.
M/S/P Haacke/Bucheck — to adjourn the Planning
at 10:40 p.m. (Motion carried 7-0).
their comments and
Commission meeting
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
JANUARY 12, 1987
7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. Election of New Officers
2. Agenda
3. Minutes: December 22, 1986
4. Resignation of Dan Novak
7:45 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Application for amendment to
an existng Conditional Use Permit;
Leonard Hanson, 10824 Hudson Blvd.
6. Site and Building Plan Review: Retail Sales
& Service Building at 11227 Stillwater Blvd.;
Richard Kosman
7. Simple Lot Subdivision: LeRoy Howell,
2119 Lake Elmo Avenue N.
BREAK
8. Final Plat Approval: Ken Sovereign,
4415 Olson Lake 'frail
9. Discuss Amendments to I-94 Overlay District
10. Adjourn