Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-88 PZM-vd UJLu rOI , LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. APRIL 11, 1988 Chairman DeLapp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: DeLapp, Williams, Bucheck, Haacke, Stevens, Hunt, Kunde, Enes (arrived 8:00). Absent: Johnson, Johnston, Simpson. 1. Agenda M/S/P Hunt - to approve the April 11, 1988 Planning Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 7-0). 2. Minutes: March 28, 1988 M/S/P Stevens/Kunde - to approve the March 28, 1988 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 6-0-1<Abstain: Haacke›). 3. Comprehensive Plan Review - Progress Update Planning Commission member Marjorie Williams gave the following update on the appendices. Approved appendices are: Natural Resources, Transportation Facilities, Recreation Facilities. Sewage Facilities was not updated. At the April 5th City Council meeting, Bruce Folz stated that the inventory of available R1 and RR lots were inadequate and suggested the City take a look and get a proper inventory in order to relate to reality. The Planning Commission felt the figures that Dan Novak and Bob Overby have stated in the Lake Elmo Acreage Inventory are true and correct. M/S/P Stevens/Bucheck - to ask Dan Novak to testify at the City Council meeting as to the accuracy of the numerical plat map to the City Council and to ask the Building Official not to redo this study except to update it. (Motion carried 8-0). M/S/P Bucheck/Hunt - to direct Marge Williams to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan assuming that the numbers we have for the Lake Elmo Acreage Inventory of 1986 are true and correct and for Marge to place these numbers into the Comprehensive Plan. (Motion carried 7-1<Haacke: would like to wait until the Council votes on it›). Marge asked if the Commission members would look to see if they had a copy of the revised Future Land Use Map dated 10-20-86 so she could incorporate this into the Plan. At this point, our Future Land Use Map, until it has been approved by the Metropolitan Council, is essentially the same Land Use Map as in 1979. Marge will be working the next two weekends on the Comp Plan and would appreciate any comments/criticism and help from the Commission members to finalize the Plan. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE 2 M/S/P Stevens/Haacke - to recommend that the Planning Commission send to the Metropolitan Council for their review our Comprehensive Plan, as they have put it together right after the next two City Council meetings, and to make adjustments for Residential Estates Zoning as part of the Plan if the City Council directs them to. (Motion carried 7-1<Bucheck: she wants to make sure the Comprehensive Plan gets approved without anything new added to it>). 4. Residential Estates - Fourth Draft Steve DeLapp asked if the Metropolitan Council considers Rural Residential a "holding zone" and Marge responded' she has never seen it in print or heard them mention it. Thereason for RE Zoning on Hwy 36, 5 and I-94 and not giving all RR landowners the RE zoning option is based on the "stage growth" rationale. Marge found there are a significant number of communities that are continuing to build houses closer to the Freeway than we would ever consider and we have a much wider corridor --easement of the slope --and a larger acreage allotment. A. Road & Tree Study Ed Stevens handed out the Landscape Policy from the City of Eagan and the Tree Replacement Policy from Eden Prairie. Ed called the Metropolitan Council library, and they had no listing of communities that had regulations compelling developers to put in shade trees in new developments. The information the American Planning Association had was at least ten years old. A copy of the Minnesota Statues Chapter 412, Subd 8. Parks, trees: (The Council shall have power to provide for, and by ordinance regulate, the setting out and protection of trees, shrubs, and flowers in the city or upon its property) was made available to the Commission. Ann Bucheck and Barb Haacke felt the people have the right to landscape to their own personal preference rather than have restrictions of what type of trees or where they should be planted. Ed felt what the PZ was trying to do with this ordinance is not to compel the homeowner to put the trees in, but to have the developer at the time he puts the streets in also put the trees in. Marge Williams jokingly stated that, as a Real Estate agent, she doesn't receive calls asking if she has some bare land without any trees for sale. The calls are usually for land with trees --which is highly desirable. Marge suggested we could have a developers agreement requiring a certain amount of trees when they bring the plat in. Two problems were brought up: If we can require landcaping in commercial areas, why cannot we require it in residential areas; and could we have directories on where to buy trees at a reasonable cost --not fair to require -tree -size. snecifv mature trees. Lee Hunt asked "how much regulation is too great" and "how much is really enforceable"? A reasonable landscape plan presented with the house would at least keep the neighborhood looking good. Ed Stevens LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE 3 expressed his problem with the word "reasonable" because it is up for interpretation and by putting down a certain minimum we could get out of the problem of interpretation. Rob Enes felt Willard Morton did a nice job on Tartan Meadows Third Addition by uniquely placing nice size trees. DeLapp felt in addition to a landscaping plan that has to be submitted with a development, he could provide for screening between buildings and require a developer to place a specified number and spacing of 6 foot high, 1 inch caliper trees inside the City's 60 foot easement. Councilman Johnson asked if any other City requires landscaping plans and he suggested asking the City Attorney if this requirement is defensible? Johnson suggested these requirements be put into convenants. Chairman DeLapp explained that the Maintenance Foreman wants the trees back 12 feet. If you have a 24 foot wide road and you go back 12 feet on either side, you have a total of 48 feet between trees. This would put them inside the City's easement and still leave plenty of room for plowing. Bucheck didn't feel Special Condition D3 was appropriate because we don't have any kind of landscaping guide to show the developer when they come in. Lee Hunt felt an acceptable landscaping plan could call out areas for sod, potential flower beds or trees ---something that would state that this is not going to be raw dirt for three years. This Special Condition is open for interpretation. any kind of requirement you have on Barb Haacke did not like the idea of an approved la lscaping plan for_ ccreed--bu448i g-s, questioned who is going to approve it, and how are you going to enforce it. placing trees. Minor corrections (Add wording of sq.ft, maximun, nominal) were made on the Residential Estates Zoning. M/S/P Stevens/Hunt - to approve the corrections as suggested made on Residential Estates (See Exhibit A). (Motion carried 6-2<Bucheck: she was in favor of Ed's changes, but since she did not vote in favor of the entire draft, she must vote against his changes; Haacke: since she was not at the meeting and didn't have the opportunity to vote against the zoning --which she would have voted against because she disagreed with Special Condition D3 >). Chairman DeLapp had talked to the County Engineer, a Professor of Transportation who was noted in an article in the New York Times last Thursday who happened to be in St. Cloud, and discussed with the former President of the North Oaks Homeowners Assoc. who is a Civil Engineer on the subject of road width. In North Oaks the original dead-end roads are 16 feet wide and the original windy/curvey roads that wrap around the lakes are 18 feet wide. The main arterial road is 28 feet wide. The roads that have a series of houses on it, but are just restricted to people that live there, are 20 feet wide with sloped edges for water. The general consensus of the people were the 16 foot were £-azreable, 18 foot wide are not safe because they have farcical LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE 4 trees and brush that cover the roads. The new rule in North Oaks is everybody has to cut all the brush for a height of 10 or 12 feet high within 5 feet of the road. North Oaks is not a City --it is a private organization that owns all their own roads and pay for their snowplowing and don't have to meet any State ordinances. DeLapp stated if we want to have roads that are exceptionally narrow or exceptionally slower than 30 mph, the only way this can be done is to call it an "alley". If the City goes below 22 foot roads, DeLapp felt we wouldn't be able to get our insurance companies to go along with this for new roads. The law has adopted 22 feet and whatever is necessary to take care of drainage on the sides. Lee Hunt felt as long as our policy and fire departments felt 22 feet would be a reasonable size with some form of shoulder area for pedestrians, he would support it. Ed Stevens stated this would be a 30 foot road bed with the center being 22 feet of blacktop. DeLapp explained that MSA roads are 24 feet wide and are designed for 55 mph. He would like to recommend to the City Council to allow 22 foot wide roads in RE zoning with 4 foot shoulders and drainage requirements that would provide adequate means to keep water off the roads. Ed Stevens suggested the Planning Commission recommend going with the minimum State approved standards. (They would like to have 22 feet of blacktop with as much shoulder as the City Engineer believes is necessary). Ed suggested the addition of no more than 200 feet shall be a complete straight line. Lee Hunt suggested passing on the RE Zoning to the City Council without the road change because he would like to consider further the curvy road effect. 5. Sign Ordinance Review The Planning Commission reviewed the sign ordinance and made the following comments. Lee Hunt felt they didn't want to eliminate all temporary signs, but wanted to limit them. Lee would like to see temporary business signs arc -allowed for a period of 30-days. Marge Williams explained that the county has a sign ordinance regarding putting political signs or garage sale signs on telephone poles. If the County comes by and sees these signs, they remove the signs immediately. Since she shops in downtown Lake Elmo, Marge felt at night Lake Elmo Avenue becomes almost dangerous because of the amount of little signs and lights. Marge has received complaints from people in the area of Hardwood Lumber and the Gerbitz Company because they feel the City lets these businesses expand and expand and nothing is ever done about it. They also felt downtown Lake Elmo has become so urbanized with all the lights and signs. The consensus of the Commission felt that under all zoning districts LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE 5 temporary signs are not permitted. (See Exhibit B) M/S/P Hunt/Enes - to forward the proposed 505 Sign Ordinance, which would replace the existing Sign Ordinance, to the City Council for their approval which includes the addition of Item E.4. No temporary signs are allowed in any zoning district. (Motion carried 8-0). 6. Other Lee Hunt and Steve DeLapp had put together information concerning Section 32 which included the Flood Plain Map, Findings of Fact on Tax Increment Financing and the PZ's recommendation together with the Planning Commission and City Council minutes and passed this information onto the Council so they would have the entire discussion to review. This will be discussed at the -ikAT t-Meeting on April 19th. City Council 7. Adjourn M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:30 p.m. (Motion carried 8-0). EXHIBIT B Approved 4-11-88 FOR REVIEW BY THE LAKE ELMO PLANNIN(' COMMISSION 3-28-88 Draft No. 1, March 26, 1988 505 SIGNS 505.010 The purpose of this Section is to protect and regain the natural and scenic beauty of the roadsides throughout the City. By the construction of public roads, the public has created views to which the public has a right, and it is the intent of these standards to prevent the taking of that right. 505.020 Limitation. No signs, signposts or structures displaying identification or other matter shall be erected, attached to or maintained on property within the City, except as permitted by the provisions of this Article. 505.030 Zoning districts and allowed signs. A. Public zoning districts: signs not exceeding four (4) square feet in area and not exceeding one (1) sign for each street frontage. B. Agricultural zoning district: signs not exceeding four (4) square feet in area and not exceeding one (1) sign for each street frontage. C. Residential zoning districts: 1. Professional signs: signs not exceeding one (1) square foot in area to identify permitted professions or home occupations. (1) 2. Lawn signs: signs not exceeding one (1) square foot bearing the name of the property and that of the owner or occupant. D. Business zoning districts: 1. No sign shall be erected, lettered or other- wise displayed in a business zone,or on any parcel in a residential zone that contains a legally nonconforming business or commercial use,unless unless a written application for a sign permit has been made and a sign permit issued by the City Council. 2. Each written application shall show the method of attaching the sign to the building or other support in detail, and the Building Official shall determine the adequacy and safety of said method before action by the City Council. 3. No sign shall be located more than four (4) feet above the top of the door or window on the ground floor of any building and no sign shall extend above the eave line on any building. This applies to signs attached or separate from the building. 4. No sign shall exceed twenty five (25) square feet. 5. All signs erected on a single platted lot, irrespective of the number of businesses conducted thereon shall not exceed a cumulative area of twenty five (25) square feet. (2) 4 1 6. Illuminated signs which are visible from a public space may be lit during normal business hours, directly or indirectly, by white lights only and no words, figures, characters or representations may be illuminated by any method involving the use of neon, argon og othe37 gees. 7. No signs which flash, move or give the impression of movement in any fashion shall be permitted. 8. Each nonconforming sign under 505.030.D shall be completely and totally removed at such time as the place of business which such sign identifies shall change in ownership or occupancy, subsequent to the effective date of these regulations. E. All zoning districts: 1. "For sale" or "for rent" signs not exceeding four (4) square feet in area and limited to one (1) sign per lot. Signs may not be located within street right-of-ways. Signs must be removed at the time further offers are not being accepted. 2. Political signs may be placed with permission of the Owner on private property that is not tax exempt in accordance with State Statutes. Signs may not be placed in view of the public until 45 days preceeding and election and must be removed within seven (7) days following and election. Signs not inaccordance with this regulation may be removed by the City at the expense of the responcible party. of -way. district. 3. Signs must be located behind the street right- 4. No temporary signs are allowed in any zoning (3 ) 505.040 Nonconforming signs A. The Building 0f£icalshall make a complete list of all nonconforming signs and shall update such list each January. B. No nonconforming sign under 505.shall be altered in any way by painting, lighting or any other manner which shall change the construction, design, wording or structure of such sign as the same exists at the effective date of these regulation, except as ordered by the Building Official for reasons of public safety. C. Each nonconforming sign under 505 shall be completely removed at such"time as the current ownership or occupancy changes. subsequent to the effective date of these regulations. 505.050 Street signs A. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed as limiting the ability of the City in the Placement of street signs by the City, County, or State. 505.060 Fees A. The City Council may determine and fix fees to be charged for the use of the City upon issuance'of a permit under 505.030.D of these regulations, the schedule of which fees shall be filed for public record in the Office of the City Administrator within a reason- able time after their adoption by the Council. (4) 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 APRIL 11, 1988 7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. Agenda 2. Minutes: March 28, 1988 3. Comprehensive Plan Review - Progress Update 4. Residential Estates - Fourth Draft A. Road & Tree Study 5. Sign Ordinance Review 6. Other 7. Adjourn