HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-88 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988
Chairman DeLapp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at.
7:35 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: DeLapp, Hunt,
Haacke, Kunde, Williams (arrived 7:45 p.m.), Johnson (arrived 8:18
p.m.), Enes (arrived 8:55), Bucheck (arrived 9:20), and City
Administrator Morrison. Absent: Stevens, Johnston.
1. Agenda
Because of public interest Item 6c. Residential. Estates Ordinance will
be discussed before Item 6a. Landscape Requirements.
M/S/P Haacke/Kunde - to approve the September 26, 1988 Planning
Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 6-0).
2. Minutes: September 12, 1988
M/S/P Haacke/Kunde - to approve the September 12, 1988 Planning
Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 4-0-2<Abstain: Hunt,
Johnson›).
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Large Lot Subdivision
Lawrence Kleis, 9241 60th St. N.
Chairman DeLapp called the public hearing to order at 8:05 p.m. in the
City Council chambers.
Gordon G. Johnson, 9265 60th St. submitted a letter stating his
objection based on past history with the Kleis family.
Lawrence and Florence Kleis are requesting a large lot subdivision and
a variance to the 300 foot road frontage required in the Rural
Residential (RR) Zoning District to sell off 40 acres.
The Planning Commission reviewed this lot split and variance in
concept at its September 12th meeting.
The staff had no major concerns with this request and concurs with the
findings of the Planning Commission. It was noted that the 55th
Street cul-de-sac, from which access to this property will be gained
(only one driveway from cul-de-sac), is already at almost the maximum
800 ft. length. Therefore, if the purchaser of this property would
ever consider development of this property, an improved road, meeting
City standards, would have to be constructed so that it would become a
through street, not just a continuation of 55th Street.
Chairman DeLapp closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Commission member Williams wanted it clearly understood that by
recommending this property be subdivided from the Kleis farm, this is
not a statement of the possibility of any future development. It is
merely a subdivision of land. By this action it doesn't mean that the
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 PAGE 2
PZ is saying that it can be subdivided any particular way or with any
particular density. Under current code this land is essentially
landlocked, except for the one driveway.
Lee Hunt added the current zoning is Rural Residential for this area.
Even if the road could be put through, it would only allow 4 houses on
this 40 acre tract.
Normally Hunt's preference is to wait and see if any new information
is uncovered after a public hearing, but because he found the
information to be clear (no question on zoning or ownership), he made
the following motion based on the current zoning.
M/S/P Hunt/Williams - to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Large Lot Subdivision of Lawrence Kleis, 9241 60th St. N.; contingent
on:
1) park dedication of $250.00 for the newly created lot;
2) the applicant providing a survey showing a legal description for
the newly created lot and a legal description for the remaining Kleis
property which should not include any exceptions, but an up-to-date
legal;
3) the purchaser working with the Building Official when the driveway
is put in so that it can be determined if and where a culvert should
be placed;
and to recommend to the Council approval of a variance to the 300 foot
road frontage required in RR Zoning based on the hardship being the
lay of the land, the road is already there and more contiguous land
cannot be purchased by the applicant to make this road frontage, and
with said property there would be no alternative. (Motion carried
4-0-1<Abstain: Haacke: She was not against the subdivision, but felt
she should abstain from voting since she was a property owner close to
this subdivision.›).
4. FINAL PLAT: Firefly
Tony Maistrovich, Lake Jane Road
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat
of a one -lot subdivision known as "Firefly". The Commission
unanimously approved this preliminary plat known as Firefly for Tony
and Alice Maistrovich at 8880 Jane Road North.
City Engineer Larry Bohrer has reviewed this final plat and has no
problems or concerns with it. Since no improvements are needed for
this one -lot subdivision, there is no need for a developer's
agreement. Therefore, the staff recommended the PZ recommend the City
Council grant final plat approval of Firefly contingent upon the
applicant paying a park dedication fee of $250 for the residue parcel.
M/S/P Haacke/Hunt - to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Final Plat, as presented, of a one -lot subdivision known as "Firefly"
for Tony and Alice Maistrovich, 8880 Jane Road North; contingent on
the applicant paying a park dedication fee of $250 for the residue
lot. (Motion carried 6-0).
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 PAGE 3
5. CONCEPT PLAN: Planned Residential Development
Lake Elmo Avenue, Robert Engstrom
Robert Engstrom presented a concept drawing for an 18-lot Residential
Planned Unit Development on 51 acres which is currently zoned
Agricultural. The road width would be 22' and the green center
islands would be low maintenance and maintained by an Association, as
provided for in the Developer's Agreement. The Commission will send
this concept drawing to the Parks Commission for their review of the
outlot. A walkway system was discussed within the utililty easement.
Lee Hunt stated this type of planned development would be beneficial
to the City and Marge Williams felt this kind of development is what
we wanted to see in the City.
Mr. Engstrom will be coming before the Planning Commission with an
application for rezoning and Concept Plan.
6. Recommendation:
a. Landscape Requirements/Architectural Standards:
General Business District
This will be discussed at the October 24th Planning Commission
meeting.
b. Park Dedication Fees --All Zoning Districts
A proposed Ordinance amendment as well as a proposed Resolution
relative to park dedication requirements at the time of subdivision of
properties were presented for the Commission's consideration.
The major amendments to the ordinance are:
1.) Deletion of provision for cash payment equivalent to market value;
this provision would be replaced by a flat fee per lot, set out by
Resolution; and
2.) Increase in land dedication (Section J) to 10% of appraised market
value of undeveloped land.
The Parks Commission has recommended the fee (in .lieu of land) be
increased from $250 to $450 per parcel.
The Planning Commission approved the 10% land contribution at their
September 12th meeting, but their recommendation as to the per lot fee
was not addressed.
M/S/P Haacke/Bucheck - resolved that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends amendment of Section 401.400, by increasing park dedication
land requirements to 10%, and by adoption of the proposed resolution
for an increase in the park dedication to $450 per unit. (Motion
carried 8-0) .
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 PAGE 4
c. Residential Estates Ordinance
The Committee, consisting of Councilmernbers Armstrong, Graves,
Planning Commission members Bucheck and Hunt, as well as staff
representatives, have met three times and submitted a draft ordinance
for the Planning Commission's consideration and review.
Lee Hunt had prepared additional terminology to be incorporated in the
Ordinance which addressed the overall density configuration for
acceptable ratio for number of lots at 2 1/2 versus 5 acres.
The Commission decided on the following Lot Size: Five acre nominal
(10% allowance for roads) minimum per unit, for subdivisions of 20
acres or more. Two and one-half acre minimum per unit for
subdivisions of 20 acres or more, or if subdivision is contiguous to
existing R-1, or denser zoning district. The changes the Commission
made are reflected in the revised RE Draft #6, dated 9-26-88.
Much discussion on where RE zoning was applicable in the City
followed. Well and septic system concerns were brought up in the Old
Village Area and if RE zoning should be in the upper NE corner of the
City where it is zoned Agriculture. Williams felt there were too many
lots and should limit by area. Haacke felt it was too widespread.
Hunt favored restricting RE by area. Johnson favored RE zoning
adjacent to existing R1 zoning or as RE lots are developed. A legal
opinion from our City Attorney was requested as to how to legally
limit RE annual development.
The following motions reflect their. discussion.
M/S/F Enes/Hunt - to limit the number to a maximum of 75 newly platted
lots in RE per year. (Motion failed 3-3-2<Kunde, DeLapp: voted
against it because it was a good ordinance and this motion would not
allow it to be used, Williams, Bucheck: RE zoning has gotten out of
hand, it is just a glorified R1 zoning> Abstain: Johnson, Haacke: RE
is a good idea, but she did not want it to be too widespread)
M/S/F Johnson/Bucheck - to allow RE Zoning only adjacent to existing
R1 Zoning or RE Zoning, as they develop. (Motion failed 2-5-1<DeLapp,
Hunt, Haacke, Bucheck, Enes; Abstain: Williams>)
M/S/P Bucheck/Haacke - to adopt the RE Zoning Ordinance that was
discussed by the PZ and recommend the Future Land Use Map of the City
correspond to the one previously voted for and to include 3 changes:
land excluded in the NE to remain RR be permitted to go to 5 acres,
but all the land has to be a minimum of 20 acre parcels unless they
are adjacent to R1 zoning. (Motion passed: 5-2-1<Williams, Johnson,
Abstain: Kunde>)
M/S/F Bucheck/Williams - to recommend to the Council that the City
limit the newly RE platted lots to 50 lots per year. (Motion failed
4-4<Kunde, DeLapp, Haacke, Hunt>)
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 PAGE 5
October loth Planning Couuui_ssion Meeting
As the first PZ meeting in October, October 10th, is a holiday
(Columbus Day), there will not be a Planning Commission meeting held,
but a Workshop will be held for those who wish to attend. The next
regular meeting will be held on October 24, 1988.
M/S/P Bucheck/Kunde - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
10:45 p.m. (Motion carried 8-0).
(
DELETE: ( ) REVISED DRAFT #6
ADD: PZ 9-26-88
)1.0700.(3) R.E.-RESIDENTIAL ESTATES (One Family Residential)
A. Permitted Uses and Structures:
1) One (1) family detached dwellings
B. Accessory Uses and Structures:
1) Uses and structures which are customarily accessory
and clearly incidental and subordinate to permitted
uses and structures, as set forth in Section 301.130.
2) Garages, carports, screenhouses, conservatories,
playhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, hobby
shops and storage buildings as allowed by code,
for private use only.
C. Zoning District Requirements:
1) Lot size:
(a) Five (5) acre nominal (ten percent (10%)
allowance for roads) minimum per unit,
for subdivisions of twenty (20) acres
or more.
(b).Two and one-half (2-1/2) acre (108,900
square feet) minimum per unit for subdivisions
of twenty (20) acres or more, or, if
subdivision is contiguous to existing R-1,
or denser zoning district.
Delete: (c) In computation of overall density, no lot
shall be less than 1 1/2 acres in size.
2) Configuration:
(a) Five (5) acre Lots must be able to contain a
full circle having a diameter of at least
three hundred fifty (350) feet.
(b) Two and one-half (2-1/2) acre lots must be able
to contain a full circle having a diameter of
at least two hundred fifty (250) feet.
3) Frontage/Setback:
(a) Roadway Frontage: 100 feet, except 70 feet
shall be allowed on cul-de-sacs;
(b) Lot width at setback: 125 feet
4) Building Setback from property lines:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Front:
Side (Interior)
Side (Corner)
80 feet (minimum)
40 feet (minimum)
80 feet (minimum)
(d) Rear
(e) Arterial Street
5) Building Height:
6) Living Area of
PrLmary Structure: above grade
7) Parking: Two (2) enclosed spaces (minimum)
100 feet (minimum)
100 feet (minimum)
35 feet (maximum)
1500 sq.ft. (minimum)
B) All lots must have at least one (1) acre of land
suitable for septic drainfields and area for two
(2) separate and distinct drainfields. Placement of
the second required drainfield between the trenches
of the first drainfield is prohibited.
9) Hardsurface Coverage:
(a) Fifteen percent (15%) maximum for up to
five (5) acres.
(b) Five percent (5%) maximum for area over
five (5) acres.
D. Special Conditions:
1) A lot size of five (5) nominal acres or more will
entitle property owner to a maximum of one
accessory structure totalling no more than 1,200
square feet, to be architectually compatible
with the main structure.
2) A lot size of two and one-half (2-1/2) acres or more
will entitle property owner to a maximum of one (1)
accessory structure with a maximum of 1000
square feet, to be architectually compatible with
the main structure.
3) Within the RE 5 acre parcels, a maximum of one
horse, is allowed except where the parcel abuts existing
R-1 land, in which case no horse will be allowed.
4) Roadway design:
a.) aesthetic design shall be encouraged, and speed
shall be discouraged, with(in) the use of roadways
of a serpentine nature, with a maximum of
(approximately) (500') 250' of straight roadway.
Roadway shall meet MnDOT design requirements for
a minimum 30 MPH design speed;
b.) roadways shall be constructed at City standards,
as outlined in the City's engineering satndards,
except that consideration will be given to
roadways having a minimum driving surface of
(24') 22' in width;
*Staff recommends: "Anv roadway having less than
the standarc 32' w_dtn snail be posted as no
parnnc zones on botn sides or the roan.
c.) roadways shall be publicly owned and dedicated
to the City unless deemed otherwise by the City
Council.
5) Landscape standards:
a) A landscape plan shall be submitted with the Concept
Plan, and shall be consistent with the Landscape
Guidelines, as set forth and adopted by the Council.
6) Newly developed property shall adopt restrictive
covenants.
7) Grading Plan:
A grading plan for site development shall be submitted
with the Concept Plan. The Plan shall indicate, but not
be limited to, demonstration of: "
—"a) existing and proposed final grades, utilizing two foot
contour intervals;
b) a survey showing location and elevation of all roads;
c) a survey of existing trees and vegetation;
d) 'a site restoration plan; e
e)
:a traffic analysis indicating how and when materials -
will be removed
This plan shall be subject to review by the City Engineer, who may impose
such conditions and modifications as may be in the best interest of the
City. The developer shall be responsible for full compliance with the
grading plan, as approved by the City Council.
8) Erosion Control Plan:
An erosion control plan, indicating the type and
location of erosion control measures to be
utilized, shall be submitted with the Concept Plan
indicating specific erosion control measures which
will be followed during and after construction of
improvements and construction of homes. This Plan
shall be subject to review by the City Engineer,
who may impose such conditions and modifications
as may be in the best interest of the City. The
developer shall be responsible for full compliance
with the erosion control plan, as approved by
the City Council.
E. Landscape (Guidelines:) Reauiremetts:
1) Existing Trees, significant vegetation.
Each lot shall be inspected and an inventory of trees,
by type and size, shall be made. When a house is built,
no mare than 30% of the sicni_`icant trees (evezareens
more than 3 ft. and deciduous more t.a_n 1.5' in trunk
diameter) sna ! oe removed for nouse, cr_veways,
accessary auilc.ncs , acc:.s, tennis courts, eta. Any.
trees may be removed for tne well or septic system
anove tne 30%. Attemocs snail be mace to relocate
e:c_stin_ sicnificant trees (tne budder snail be
recu:.rea to preserve as many existing trees as
possible, and when any mustberemoved they are to
be replaced with like kind or better. Replacement
ever^ -naps will be a minimum of 3 ft. tall,
deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 1.5" in
trunk diameter.)
2) Clear Lots (treeless)
The developer will be required to plant(30)trees of
various types, to be designated by City Forester
and approved in the olanninq process, on all
lots in the development. In order to insure these do
not interfere with the building of the home these
trees (will) could be placed on the area between
the lot and the setbacks_
F. General Statement •
The processing of applications for the Residential Estates
Zone shall be that process used for a Residential Planned
Unit development. ._The purpose of this process is to:
_ =1) provide for assurance of innovative, creative and
flexible residential development, 2) to preserve natural
amenities of the site, and 3) to preserve an open space
and rural atmosphere. The site shall be designed and
developed to harmonize with existing and proposed
development in the surrounding area and shall be in
accordance with the intent of the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan.
Areas, within the City, eligible for Residential Estates
Zoning are those areas designated, and approved, by the
Council, as indicated on the Residential Estates Zoning
Map, dated September 25, 1988.
The City Council shall set, from year-to-year, the total
number of parcels available for Residential Estates
development.
G. Residential Estates Man
The Residential Estates Zone shall be a floating zoning
district and snail be applicable to areas of tne Cit•r of
Lake Elmo as depicted on E:caibit A, being the man
approved and adopted by tne Council as cart of this_
Ordinance.
t
lake zoning
GimO districts
A
R=1
P
HB
GB
pr
agriculture
one family residential
public parks
highway business
general business
�nhlir- fari1ities
R-3 manufactured home park
R-R rural residential
/0///4j44 41/ (deleted)
L 11pj conditional use permit
rA19 agricultural preserves
mme,) dv\- aa�
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
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988
7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. Agenda
2. Minutes: September 12, 1988
3. PUBLIC BEARING: Large Lot Subdivision
Lawrence Kleis, 9241 60th St. N.
4. FINAL PLAT: Firefly
Tony Maistrovich, Lake Jane Road
5. CONCEPT PLAN: Planned Residential Development
Lake Elmo Avenue, Robert Engstrom
6. Recommendation:
a. Landscape Requirements/Architectural Standards:
General Business District
b. Park Dedication Fees --All Zoning Districts
c. Residential Estates Ordinance
7. Adjourn