Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-88 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 MEETING JULY 11, 1988 6:30-7:30 p.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. Agenda 2. Minutes: June 13, 1988 June 27, 1988 3. A. Preliminary Plat --Brookfield 3rd Addition (Continued from 6/27) B. Preliminary Plat--F.J. Crombie, 2nd Addition (Public Hearing Continued from 6/27) C. Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit from RR to Ag for Greenhouses (Continued from 6/27) 4. Discussion: Residential Development; Co. Rd. 5 & Jamaca; Will Stenzel 5. Update --Residential Estates 6. Adjourn ;VIA LAKE ELM•O PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1988 APPROVED Chairman Steve DeLapp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: DeLapp, Williams, Bucheck, Hunt, Johnson, Stevens, Kunde, Enes. Absent: Haacke, Simpson, Johnston 1. Agenda M/S/P Stevens/Hunt - to approve the July 11, 1988 Planning Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 8-0). 2. Minutes: June 13, 1988 M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to approve the June 13, 1988 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Motion carried 6-0-2<Abstain: Williams, Johnson>). Minutes: June 27, 1988 M/S/P Enes/Johnson - to approve the June 27, 1988 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Motion carried 7-0-1<Kunde>). 3. A. Preliminary Plat--Brookman 3rd Addition This preliminary plat was continued from the June 27th meeting for further drainage information from the City Engineer. Bruce Folz stated there should be minutes in the file when the Brookman 2nd Addition was done regarding the dedication of 39th Street. It was approved by the highway department at that time subject to the application. Bruce and City Engineer Bohrer went through the calculations for the ponding areas in the Brookman Addition; based on their calculations they could achieve about 14 acre feet of ponding. City Engineer Bohrer stated there was more than adequate ponding in the already dedicated easements based on his computations. When this was initially designed, 10 years ago, the ponding calculations were 12.67 acre feet of temporary storage. They will enlarge the pond to the original size they proposed to do over a period of two years. The City requires a commercial street to be 36' wide with a 7 or 9 ton road and 2 inches more of bituminous surface than a standard residential street. (Standard street is 32' wide and between a 5-7 ton road). City Administrator Morrison had talked to City Engineer Bohrer and the basis for the 67 percent was on the previous two additions and advised if the Council wants to amend the existing code that would require a variance by council action. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1988 PAGE 2 M/S/P Johnson/Hunt - to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Brookfield 3rd Addition; subject to the confirmation of road access to State Hwy 5; and with a comment on the ponding being three times more than what the code requires for this Addition. (Motion carried 8-0). B. Preliminary Plat--F.J. Crombie, 2nd Addition M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to reopen the public hearing on the preliminary plat for F.J. Crombie 2nd Addition. (Motion carried 8-0). Chairman DeLapp reopened the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m. in the City Council chambers. John Stibbe, Attorney for Brian Crombie, confirmed that a purchase agreement for a 23.9 acre tract has been executed with Veronica Crombie and all they have to do is close on it. Bruce Folz submitted a preliminary plat with revisions from the June 27th PZ discussion. The applicants have agreed to attach 150 feet to Lot 1, the next 150' will be attached to Lot 9, and the next 200' attached to Lot 8 (the existing house) and the remaining portion will go to Lot 10 and Lot 11. There will be no lake access to Lots 2-7. Bruce had talked to City Engineer Rohrer and they have come up with three ponding options which will meet the criteria of the ordinance and would not involve that much excavation. Folz suggested that they will get the VBWD comments. In regard to erosion control, VBWD wants on the slopes on the road to have netting around to eliminate erosion. Folz stated they have asked for a variance to ponding which would allow them to eliminate the ponding areas. Folz also talked to Larry Bohrer about the length of the cul-de-sac; Larry had no problem with the length of the cul-de-sac and the PZ should make a determination that this proposed 830' cul-de-sac either meets the code or define the ordinance so this issue is resolved. Lance Crombie asked for a 6 month delay on a decision for this application. Chairman DeLapp advised the PZ has to report back to the City Council within 30 days from the close of the public hearing. Chairman DeLapp closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. When Chairman DeLapp inspected the site, he found beautiful large walnut and maple trees. He felt putting in a 32' wide road to accommodate 9 houses was excessive and felt the roadway should be reduced to a 24' width. In his opinion, the applicants should ask for a variance based on the hardship being the fine character of trees. Ann Bucheck and Marge Williams also felt it was a beautiful area and thought it would be appropriate to ask for road width reductions. Bruce Folz explained to Bruce Johnson, whose property is next to the proposed berm, that the berm makes the .lots more desirable because it maintains seclusion of property, it diverts the drainage to the ponding area and there would be no trees lost. This was not a VBWD requirement. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1988 PAGE 3 Ann Bucheck was not in favor of the 830' long cul-de-sac because it did not meet our code which requires a cul-de-sac to be 800 feet. She stated a new development should meet the code and no variance should be granted. City Administrator Morrison recommended to leave the length of the cul-de-sac up to the City Council, but to recommend the 24' road width if this is what they wanted to see in this development. The Council would have the PZ recommendation and would be receiving the VBWD recommendations when they look at the plat. Bucheck and Williams did not like approving the plat with contingencies. The PZ does not comment on the the Final Plat. Lee Hunt responded because of the timeframe we should rely on our city staff for the plat to meet the contingencies. M/S/F Williams/Bucheck - to table a decision on the preliminary plat for Crombie 2nd Addition until additional ponding information is received from the VBWD and City Engineer Bohrer and based on the City Attorney's recommendation to wait two weeks after the close of a public hearing to make a decision. (Motion failed: 4-3-1<Johnson, Stevens, Hunt><Abstain: Kunde: he could not make a decision because he was not here for the public hearing>. M/S/P Enes/FIunt - to recommend approval of the revised preliminary plat for F.J. Crombie, 2nd Addition to the City Council: with the 5 outlots on the lake deeded to 5 noted properties across Cty State Aid Hwy 13; every effort be made to preserve the exceptional character of the land through the approval of a variance for a 24' wide road designed to save the greatest number of trees beyond the paved surface; and the length of the cul-de-sac be determined by the City Council; inclusion of the covenants provided in the Developers Agreement be filed with the Plat; and based on the City Staff and City Engineer's satisfaction of the plat meeting VBWD recommendations. (Motion carried f-2-1<Bucheck: in a new subdivision they should have to meet all the codes and variances should not be given where there are no hardships, Williams: we have a tradition of waiting two weeks before we make a decision and voting>).(Abstain: Kunde) M/S/F Bucheck/Williams - to ammend the above motion to recommend to the City Council not to grant a variance as requested for the 830' cul-de-sac, or for a variance to the 1% Rule. (Motion failed 2-6<DeLapp: hardship is the special nature of the terrain, Hunt: Some of the 1% Rule will be covered with comments from the VBWD, Enes, Johnson, Kunde, Stevens›). C. Rezoning and Conditional Use Pemit from RR to Ag for Greenhouses, Applicant: Linder Greenhouse Based on the City Attorney's recommendation, the Planning Commission delayed action on this application for two weeks. City Administrator Morrison had disussed with the Linders and reported that the Linder Greenhouse sign will be screened from the Lake Elmo Regional Park, that on the north and west side there will be three LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1988 PAGE 4 rows of staggered evergreen trees and the lighting will conform to code. A letter was received from Director John Perkovich of the Washington County Park System stating this application should be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Review Board to see if it needs an EAW or EIS. The City Administrator felt what the Linders are proposing, in the present staged formula, is not of subtance to receive an EIS. Rob Linder stated that they have provided a plan for proper screening to address the County's concern on the visability of the greenhouse from the Park. Dave Johnson felt this was an inappropriate use for this land, but would like to see this commercial development along I-94 or Section 32. Rob Linder responded this was an agricultural business and only allowed in an Ag zone. It is a business that has crops and is of a low intensity use because the crops are harvested, and there is not truck traffic every day --It is not a commercial business by the City's Code definition. Marge Williams felt greenhouses are a commercial use and can exist in an Ag zone. The property is not currently Ag--it is Rural Residential and she sees this area as a residential zoning. Because it is adjacent to the park, she would rather see one house per ten acres with equistrian trails. Marge also felt that no signage should be allowed. Chairman DeLapp felt the way the CUP is intended to be written is in the flavor of the current comprehensive plan and would enhance it. If RE zoning was approved, he might look differently at this application. M/S/P Enes/Stevens - to recommend to the City Council rezoning 64 acres south of 15 Street N. for Linder's Greenhouse Inc. from Rural Residential to Agriculture zoning. (Motion carried 4-3-1<Johnson: there has to be some compelling reason for the rezoning of property that has been in the Comp Plan as RR and the Regional Park does not want that area as commercial development and that commercial development should remain along I-94 or Section 32, Williams: comments stated above, Bucheck><Abstain: Kunde>). The Commission recommended the following to be addressed in the CUP: landscape requirements, lighting as indicated by code, a 3'x6' sign (maximum), no retail allowed, limit square footage of building size, landowner maintain his remaining land in accordance with the required practice of the Soil and Water Conservation District, no use allowed under this CUP shall cause pollution nor shall any hazardous materials be stored on the site and it is expressly understood by the Landowner that any hazard to the health or welfare of the City could and would be grounds for immediate revocation of this permit. M/S/P Enes/Hunt - to direct the City Staff to turn the Planning Commission's recommendations into a CUP Resolution to be presented for the City Council's consideration on July 19th. (Motion carried 4-2-2<Bucheck: she voted against the rezoning, Williams: despite of their time constraint, Marge felt it would have been better to have LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1988 PAGE 5 the opportunity to actually write up the CUP and review it before sent to the CC.><Abstain:Johnson: because he doesn't agree with the rezoning, Kunde>). If the CUP is to be on the entire parcel, Lill Henderson questioned if she could have an accessory structure because she has a couple of horses. The Commission stated she could have one 2,000 sq.ft. structure besides the greenhouse and this could be stated in the CUP. 4. Discussion: Residential Development; Co. Rd. 5 & Jamaca; Will Stenzel Will Stenzel asked for the PZ's opinions on a residential development of approximately 33 acres of land on the northwest corner of Hwy 5 and Jamaca. D. Beutel currently owns this property; however, Mr. Stenzel advises he wil have ownership this week. The northern portion of the property (approx. 16 acres) is currently zoned R-1, and the southernly portion (approx. 14 acres) is an RR zone. The Commission was not in favor of rezoning the RR portion to R-1, but would consider an alternate of 2 1/2 acres and 1 1/2 acre development through a PUD. The Commission also recommended a landscaping berm along Co. Rd. 5 and that a grading and landscaping plan for the overall development, by PUD, be submitted. 5. Update on Residential Estates Zoning City Administrator Morrison reported on a working session between City Councilmembers Chuck Graves, Rose Armstrong and Planning Commission members Lee Hunt and Ann Bucheck. The Committee questioned the areas for RE zoning and they objected to gravel roads, having horses on 5 acres and requiring a landscaping plan. The Planning Commission felt by deleting these special Conditions, which made the RE zoning unique, would now be creating another option for R-1 zoning only on a larger lot. The Commission was in favor of development restrictions, minimum standards set for a landscape plan and have a Forester review it, and 24' wide serpentite roads and not straight for more than one block. 6. Other Planning Commission Ann Bucheck asked the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the City Engineer not be the designer for any project in the City because the City needs a person to be able to check and review another Engineer's plan. This will be discussed at another time. M/S/P Hunt/Johnson - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:00 p.m. (Motion carried 8-0).