HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-88 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1 FEBRUARY 22, 1988
(
Chairman DeLapp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at
7:45 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: DeLapp, Bucheck,
Haacke, Hunt, Johnson, Simpson, Stevens, Kunde, Johnston and Acting
City Administrator Kueffner. Absent: Enes, Williams.
1. Agenda
M/S/P Stevens/Haacke - to approve the February 22, 1988 Planning
Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 9-0).
2. Minutes: December 14, 1987
M/S/P Stevens/Simpson - to approve the December 14, 1987 Planning
Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 5-0-4 <Abstain:Hunt,
Johnson, Bucheck, Johnston>)
Minutes: January 26, 1988
M/S/P Hunt/Simpson - to approve the January 26, 1988 Planning
Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 6-0-3 Abstain:
Bucheck, Haacke, Johnston)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Downs Lake Estates
Chairman DeLapp opened up the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. in the City
Council chambers.
Downs Lake Estates Preliminary Plat consists of a 2-lot subdivision.
1. The property is properly zoned R-1.
2. Both lots are at least 1.5 acres with at least one acre suitable
for septic purposes.
3. Both lots have at least 125 feet of frontage on a public street.
4. The Washington County Soil survey lists the soils in this plat
as 342C which may perc slowly. City Engineer Rohrer reported
this is the same soil classification as Eden Park 2nd Addition.
Actual tests taken in the Eden Park 2nd Addition were all
satisfactory.
5. City Engineer Bohrer reported that the north 1/2 of Lot 1 drains
towards Downs Lake. The south 1/2 of Lot 1 and all of Lot 2
drain south along the east line of Manning Trail. The drainage
then enters Horseshoe Acres in West Lakeland Township and into
ponds there.
6. The. public notice was duly sent and published.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 PAGE 2
City Engineer Bohrer reported in his letter to the Planning
Commission, dated February 19, 1988, that the developer does not
propose to provide any ponding. In the past, subdivisions which
created only one additional lot have been exempted from the ponding
requirements (i.e., Crombie Estates and Sovereign). In this case,
since only about 1/4 of the surface area drains towards Downs Lake, an
exemption to ponding could be granted. Bohrer felt the preliminary
plat met the requirements of the City Code except for ponding.
Jay Rechtiene, 2245 Legion Lane, was opposed to any water going into
Downs Lake. He felt the developer should pay for the water problem
now --not come in and make their money and leave the City with
problems.
Ann Bucheck was worried about every drop of water that goes into Downs
Lake. Ann gave examples of lawsuits and expressed her feelings on what
the City has done in the past --does not mean they have to follow that
procedure now. Ann suggested that the City of Lake Elmo and West
Lakeland should work together on this plat.
Bruce Folz suggested there could be written restrictions of the water
moving to the South and no increase drainage to the North. West
Lakeland has approved the preliminary plat.
Councilman Dick Johnson suggested the Commission could ask the Council
to direct the City Engineer to look into the drainage problem. Dick
asked Bruce Folz if he could bring in a map which covered a larger
area.
Chairman DeLapp closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Ed Stevens suggested radius maps of 2-3 miles should be submitted
showing the uses. He was annoyed at the little details the commission
takes time to discuss. The City Council passes these plats because
the developer has complied to the requirements of the code. Therefore,
the rules should be changed for them to be able to do something.
Tom Simpson agreed with Ed Stevens and felt the restrictions that
Bruce Folz suggested should be included when the Commission recommends
plat approval.
Lee Hunt was in favor of the overall plat and liked the restriction of
the water moving to the South. Hunt wanted the 1% Rule in effect for
1-lot subdivision. In regard to #4 soils may perk slowly, Hunt would
like to requireiperX,tests on both lots. (reported in Larry Bohrer's
report date
David Johnson agreed with Hunt and thought a 2 mile radius map was a
good idea and wanted the City Engineer to study the drainage.
Steve DeLapp asked how would Larry Bohrer look at this subdivision if
all of it was in Lake Elmo. DeLapp would like the City Engineer to
review the subdivision on how this would affect Lake Elmo.
M/S/ Johnson/Johnston - to recommend approval by the City Council of
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 PAGE 3
the Preliminary Plat of Downs Lakes Estates, contingent on the
requirement of the drainage going to the South, not as a detriment to
Downs Lake.
Ann Bachedkfelt the VBWD has already authorized a study of this area
and felt we should wait to think about this. Lee Hunt would like to
table for time to look at anything new that might come up --and only
look at the new information.
M/S/P Hunt/Stevens - to table the motion until the March 14th, 1988
Planning Commission meeting. (Motion carried 5-4<Johnston, Johnson,
Kunde, Haacke›).
M/S/P Johnson/Johnston - to have the City Council direct the City
Engineer review the Preliminary Plat of Downs Lake Estates for
drainage and economic means of drainage problems in the area. (Motion
carried 9-0).
B. Packard Park--3rd Addition (Rezoning)
Chairman DeLapp opened up the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. in the City
Council chambers.
Jeanne Novak, 2925 Klondike Avenue N., representing her father Earl
Goerss asked what was the future road plan for this area? Is Legion
still planning to go thru and what about Lansing Avenue? Jeanne felt
the City should take a look at the future road hookup. Water is
always a problem in Lake Elmo and this should be a consideration of
having R1 come in.
(2245 Legion Lane)
Jay Rechtiene asked where is the water going to go?
Bruce Folz responded this was a rezoning request before them --not a
subdivision or road plan.
Chairman DeLapp stated we are not dealing with a major R1 area, but
with an area in our Comprehensive Plan that is approved by the Met
Council who had indicated it to remain RR zoning. The developer has
to have a reason for suggesting rezoning. The commission doesn't set
a zoning category just to eliminate it.
Ann Bucheck felt it was not proper timing to propose rezoning for a
development because of the fact the VBWD will be doing a water problem
study in that area. Ann does not feel it is proper to rezone for a,
different use until the VBWD comes in with their report.
Ann felt the public hearing should be continued because Marge Williams
had a report on this application and was not able to present this to
the Commission because she was ill. Also the Durands wanted to attend
the public hearing, but could not make this meeting.
David Johnson wanted more comments from the adjacent landowners in
regard to the future road plan issue.
Barb Haacke felt the public hearing did not need to be continued, just
continue the discussion.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 PAGE 4
M/S/P Stevens/Bucheck - to continue the public hearing until the next
meeting 3-14-88 for Marge Williams' report and a future road plan be
provided. (Motion carried 6-3<Haacke, Simpson, Johnston›).
C. RE Residential Estates
This was a public hearing for a proposed amendment to incorporate a
new zoning district "Residential Estates" into the Lake Elmo Municipal
Code. A copy of DRAFT TWO of the specifications for this proposed
zoning district were made available.
Chariman DeLapp opened up the public hearing —at 9:30 p.m. in the City
Council chambers.
Mike Mazzara, 11259 30th St. N., questionned the 5 acre requirement
for 2 horses where 10 acres are required throughout the city for 1
horse. DeLapp answered the proposed RE zoning would allow 2 horses on
5 acres which is allowed within the State of MN and outside.
LuAnn Hansen, 10824 Hudson Boulevard, asked if the City would change
the ordinance for the rest of the City. DeLapp answered he couldn't
speak on what the City would or wouldn't do. LuAnn asked how can you
allow this on 10 acres in some areas and not in areas of 5 acres. She
felt 5 acres were sufficient for 2 horses and it should be permitted
overall.
Planning Commission member Tom Simpson felt there should be some areas
protected from this because if his neighbor had 5 acres and had horses
close to his propertyiine, he would not want a horse that close to his
house.
Jean Novak, 2925 Klondike Avenue N., asked if the purpose of changing
this zoning was to allow horses on 5 acres or to have a new zone size.
When she was on the Council 10 acres per horse was selected based on
input from the Minnesota Ag Dept. as to how much area can accommodate
horses --not just for feeding, but for waste and for the general health
of the horse. Jean asked the Commission if they have spoken to
someone other than a veternarian that had a personal interest in
having horses on a small lot.
,Roger Knutson, 4240 Irvin Ct. N., asked why the stipulation of a
maximum of two horses over the age of two years? DeLapp answered if
you wanted to have two horses and they happen to have a foal --you
couldn't have them grow up and have six horses.
Mike Mazzara asked what was the reason for Residential Estates Zoning?
Commission member Lee Hunt answered it was developed because they were
looking for a way to give people some flexibility in developing their
land. RR is financially hard to develop. After receiving input, the
Commission felt this was a reasonable lot size to develop in terms of
financeable to the developer. They looked at how this could be
squeezed ito the Cities Comprehensive Plan and still keep a rural
residential atomsphere in the town and give people flexibility to
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 PAGE 5
develop land that they couldn't develop.
Steve DeLapp stated that we have a cluster provision which allow lots
smaller than the current 10 acres. In the last years there has not
been a request for this so it is not very popular. Bruce Folz added
that there is not a market for 10 acre lots. DeLapp further stated
that the idea isn't to shut down development in Lake Elmo, but to
maintain slow growth the Met Council has indicated for us and 2 1/2
acres is around the line that development is economically viable. By
having 2 1/2 acre lots we would accept a 22 foot wide street which
would cut cost down for developers.
Mazzara stated the City has alot of RR land that was not shaded on the
map for RE zoning. DeLapp responded that one of the Comprehensive
Plan goals for the '79 Plan was to promote staged growth in the
City --they're talking about 50 new homes per year.
Lee Hunt explained that the underlying zoning is what you are hoping
to change someday --it's giving you an alternative now.
Don Raleigh, one of the owners of land zoned GB, commented that their
land is zoned General Business, and they expect to use it at that.
Don added that if this is an optional classification intended to help
somone out he has no objection to this.
The city received a letter, dated February 22, 1988, from John Stibbe
who is representing these owners stating that the land is now zoned
for general business use and they have the understanding the
residential estate zoning would be an option for this property. They
would like to be on record objecting to any change to the
comprehensive plan or the zoning regarding their Real Estate Parcel
No. 37013-3160.
Kelly Brookman, owner of above parcel, asked why did the Commission
include this parcel if they had no intention of changing the zoning of
this land, but planned on keeping it zoned GB. DeLapp asked for a
consensus of the Commission which was to keep this parcel of land
zoned GB. DeLapp answered the reason for this was only because we
weren't excluding anybody --it was a broad sweep of the pen. They also
included in RE zoning the Schiltgen and Holliday property. Brookman
would be more comfortable with the option of RE being eliminated and
leave it GB. Kelly gave an example of the City changing the zoning on
the Hutchinson property without notifying him.
(amended 3-14-88)
Lunt c-1-ar-if-ieck-t-ha-t--baoJ - _frcxp soJt artchr1 eR_ypu CAu1sL eaai-Ly
r-un -road -f-rom -I ay -5 -to--r-each.-these s _]ats rathe-u_t an frQat_an
5----same -fo-r Hwy -36. and- I-9-4 -and - Ad}aaent _ta h.1 _they. felt.xoa&s _c4.uLd
be -run -in-te. these- areas- without a. groat expense to _developer, laut
s•tr14--f-o-l-1 ri g--the.-s.ta-gsd. .r-awth...app o.aah.
Jean Novak asked if this is good planning putting 5 acre lots on I-94
where you planned for future businesses. Also the Commission should
make sure they find out what services might be needed.
Hunt, stated ,the, main int#nt, 1„s,.the arteri;es,- only, extend back a, certain
distance, 1%2 Mite under the current proposal)- & the reason for picking
that 1/2 mile stretch was that it woulc make a reasonable distance so you
didn't have to make all lots front on Lwy ib ec You could put road
back & 20 acre minimum & still have enuf land to develop it into lots.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 PAGE 6
Lee Hunt commented on the concern they had of putting big business
next to residential. Another concern was to met the demand for
development in Lake Elmo and help people get a reasonable use from
their land. They tried to make this a large enough development area
so it is worth a developer coming in and put in roads, houses, get a
reasonable return and set up a very nice area for people to live in
and, hopefully, propagate that off to the next one.
Mazzara felt you wouldn't want to see people building a house next to
a major interchange.
Hugh Madson asked if the Commission recreated the wheel or was this
taken from what has been done in other communities. DeLapp answered
that the 20 acre limit was taken from Minnetonka. Madson was more
concerned with cities around our boundaries. He suggestd we look
across the highway from 36 and 94 and see what they are zoned.
Madson also asked if there are some requirements in the zoning that
would eliminate the desirability. DeLapp stated that this came out of
another code. It was important to them to provide a high quality of
privacy (give the person some breathing space), and to simplify road
construction.
Mike Mazzara stated since when is it the role of the City Planning
Commission to help the developer make money.
Simpson felt they were trying to respond to large property owners to
do something with their land and earn money, while also trying to
maintain the surroundings and lifestyle the newcomers came here for.
It is not fair for those who came here expecting a pastoral atmosphere
to have it turned into a speedway or a circus.
Mazzara asked what happens to the R1 zoning through all this. DeLapp
answered we wouldn't change any zoning. Mazzara further stated in
1979 RR zoning was put in as a holding zone. Hunt clarified that no
where in our code or comprehensive plan does it say that RR was called
a holding zone. Why not allow anyone in RR to apply for the RE zoning
no matter where in the City asked Mazzara. Hunt answered because,
unfortunately, it doesn't follow the staged growth concept of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Bruce Folz explained the bulk of development that has been done in
Lake Elmo has been done by landowners who live in Lake
Elmo--Spingborn, Peltier. Lake Elmo is not getting in land developers.
You can create anything you want, but the market controls what is
going to happen. He cautioned the City in considering putting in
single family residential and horses there because they just don't
mix. From past experience he has found problems are created because
they are two different lifestyles. Another problem is the 5 acre lots
can be split in the future. Folz felt they check with the Building
Official or City Attorney if it is discriminatory limiting it to 1500
sq.ft. of housing.
Folz further explained when you start imposing more restrictions you
get into problems. You cannot impose landscaping standards on
residential. This should be done by covenants. Also, the 300' magic
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1988 PAGE 7
circle presents a problem. He gave the example of well placement
cannot be too close to a horse manure pile. Folz stated that
Washington County has adopted 2 grazeable acres per animal as a
standard and the Commission should also check with the PCA.
Another example Folz gave was with a 1 1/2 acre dot it is maintained
quite well, but with a 5 acre lot people tend to mow. 1 acre and leave
4 acres in weeds and 10 acre lots become much worse. Madson stated
just drive down County Road 17 in Lake Elmo where you will find
examples of this. In his opinion, this was not good land use.
Mary Kueffner explained that the code would have to be changed under
the Livestock Section, Hazardous and Nuisances, which states no
domestic animals or kennels should be placed on any site less than 10
acres. Mary asked what will the Future Land Use Map show? DeLapp
felt it would give the optional zoning permitting staged growth.
There might have to be two separate maps with separate language.
Roger Knutson asked the Commission to take caution planning for the
future and to look at the idea of planning in tiers on I-94.
Chairman DeLapp closed the public hearing at 10:50 p.m.
Discussion will continue on Residential Estate Zoning at the March
14th Planning Commission meeting.
D. One Percent Rule --set public hearing
By consensus of the Planning Commission, a public hearing was called
for formal adoption of the One Percent Rule on March 28, 1988 at 7:45
p.m.
4. Comprehensive Plan Discussion (if time allows)
A. Parks & Open Space --March 14, 1988
B. Discussion on Sign Ordinance --March 14, 1988
M/S/P Johnson/Hunt - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
10:50 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0).
L.
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
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1988
7:30 p.m. 1. Agenda
2. Minutes: December 14, 1987
January 26, 1988
(Draft copies in 2-9-88 packet)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7:45 p.m. P.H. A. Downs Lake Estates
8:30 p.m. P.H. B. Packard Park--3rd Addition (Rezoning)
9:15 p.m. Y.H. C. RE Residential Estates
D. One Percent Rule --set public hearing
4. Comprehensive Plan Discussion
(if time allows)
A. Parks & Open Space --March 14, 1988
B. Discussion on Sign Ordinance -March 14, 1988
5. Adjourn
NOTE: Section 32/33 Discussion is scheduled for March 14, 1988
Planning Commission Meeting