Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-89 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. 7:30 P.M. AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1989 MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: APRIL 10, 3.989 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Apostolic Bible 4. PUBLIC BEARING: Robert, Dorothy LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION Church LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION & Steve Ziertman 5. SITE PLAN REVIEW; STATE BANK OF LAKE ELMO 6. PETITION FOR CONCURRENT DETACHMENT/ANNEXATION: Sunburrow Subdivision 7. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST: Study of R-1 Districts 8. DISCUSS PROPOSED RULES FOR PZ MEETINGS: Ed Stevens 9. DISTRIBUTION METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS STATEMENT AMENDMENTS 10. OTHER 11. ADJOURN ''•yx�.,.,v .. :;j P,'... .:.Y.ly°it,'''n n•; •.�,� rt JOINT MEETING OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1989 Mayor Dunn called the Joint Meeting with the Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Council to order at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: City Council:Dunn, Hunt, Moe, Graves. Absent: Williams. Planning Commission:Enes, DeLapp, Bucheck, Stevens, Kunde, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, Haacke, Conlin, John. Absent: Johnston The City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission met to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Williams was unable to attend this meeting, but provided his written comments. Councilman Hunt supported the draft Comp Plan as presented and submitted minor notes on the draft. There was some discussion on the following: Page 4., 2. PRESENT POPULATION Hunt indicated he would like to see wording added "although there seems to be a slight increase in the rate of the population, it is felt that this is due to market conditions. It is not the policy of Lake Elmo to stimulate population growth, rather it is the policy to let market demands dictate the growth." Page 45: GOALS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: The goal of commercial is mainly to provide needed services to the resident, while recognizing nearby communities provide competing services. Lake Elmo is after high quality development to enhance the community. Councilman Moe felt the plan, with the gathering of documentation, was very informative. He could not support the Draft Comp Plan because it lacked long range planning. All he could see the plan addressing was the large rural lot. It was not realistic in addressing provided services other than what will be maintained until year 2000. Even though he voted for the Future Land Use Map and directed the PZ to bring the data current for the '86 Plan, Moe recommended the PZ take the 1979 Comp Plan and update it. Moe did not compare the two plans and come in with noted differences. Councilman Graves appreciated the effort that went into the preparation of this Comp Plan, but felt there was not a complete enough look into where we expect the City to be in the year 2000. Page 44.(b) should we restrict higher density development. Page 55: Concern we don't make an open minded, more realistic statement for the 1-94 Overlay. The Municipal Board could look at this as, the City will not look at anything for the 1-94 Overlay. Page 75: Subdividing may have worked for us in the past, but we are running out of the growth mode we enjoy now. When this is no longer available to use then what do we do? Graves added we should take into account the City relies on residential growth in order to underwrite the LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 2 increase cost of services. We should seek options of commercial development at Section 32 and along I-94 and not depend on housing development. Homes/families are the highest source of requiring services. Page 60: He agreed with Page 60. Is this appropriate utilization from the planners view, feels it is appropriate for Comp Plan. E. of 13B only referenced. Argument for no potential commercial development. Hunt referred to page 46, Sect. c.. Graves responded, in order to be consistent delete Section 3, page 55 because of a possible conflict. Steve DeLapp answered that if we rezone this area to commercial, we are going against the Met Council. Ten Findings of Fact have to be met to address the question if Woodbury can build better commercial development. He asked how does this improve existing services in Woodbury? Page 76: paragraph C: He Doesn't agree with this or support it. It doesn't tell where we are going to be in the year 2000. Councilman Graves added the PZ did what the City Council directed them to do. From the very beginning he would have liked to see RE wrapped into the plan, but then he realized how long this would project would take the Commission to complete. It would be easier to approve a plan if it really was a plan based on completeness. The Plan has a very good base, but should include longer range plans. Councilman Hunt advised the Council that when the Council was asked to vote on options for PZ direction on the Comp Plan, he was the only one in favor of Option 3, which was to include RE Zoning in the Plan. Hunt saw no problem to get the Comp Plan done now and later on get an amendment to change this. Dick Johnson agreed there was not a whole lot of planning in the document and without some direction from a professional planner based on the philosophy indicated, this would be difficult job to do. Dave Johnson found the draft a dull document with no meat into it. It doesn't address what if the "pipe" comes into the City. The Committee that worked on the 1979 Plan knew what the issues were facing the City and addressed them in the Plan. The '79 Plan had a flow to it. Steve DeLapp stated the Future Land Use Map was approved by the PZ Commission. They discussed what they liked or disliked on the RE Zoning, and if there is enough support, it can be added into the Plan. RE Zoning will then be shown in th plan, paremeters spelled out, draft direction of ordinance and indicate areas of RE. Steve submitted zoning district conditions for amendment to the 1986 Comp Plan. Councilmen Graves and Hunt suggested building more planning issues, floating zones, and consider spotzoning as a buffer zone. Dick Johnson asked for formal direction from the Council at their April 18th meeting since recommendations of some of the Councilmembers have changed. The Council adjourned the joint meeting at 8:45 p.m. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 3 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1989 Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Enes, Stevens, Haacke, Bucheck, DeLapp, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, John, Conlin, Deputy Clerk Mary Kueffner. Absent: Johnston. 1. AGENDA According to the March 27th minutes, Road Widths were supposed to be on the agenda. Add: MN Pipeline Co. M/S/P Stevens/Haacke - to approve the April loth Planning Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 9-0). 2. Minutes: March 13, 1989 M/S/P Stevens/Kunde - to approve the March 13, 1989 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 9-0). Minutes: March 27, 1989 Steve DeLapp contacted the City of Woodbury and Stillwater regarding their method for amending minutes. M/S/F DeLapp/Bucheck - to request policy change for amending minutes; to delete words or statements requested and replace with amended words for approved minutes to be mailed, but to include an attached sheet on the back of the minutes for PZ & CC member listing what was deleted. (Motion failed 2-7: Enes, Stevens, Kunde, Haacke, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, Conlin). Ann Bucheck requested the following insertion on Page 3: Ann Bucheck presented an ML listing of available R-1 lots in the City to Chairman Rob Enes, who has been working on the inventory of R-1 lots with Jim McNamara. There were lots on this list that were in addition to the lots already counted. M/S/P Dick Johnson/John - to approve the March 27, 1989 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 8-0-1 Abstain: Stevens). LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 4 3. Review of Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Don Garofalo and Bob Baker, representing the Sunburrow Citizens Group, asked for support in opposing a Comp Plan Amendment that would allow for extenson of the MUSA Line to allow for development of Olson Lakes Estates (NE quadrant of Oakdale. They advised the Commission that the City of Oakdale has changed their Comp Plan to accomodate the developer for this proposed development which will bring 200 homes on 112 acres. There are plans for millions of yards of dirt to be brought in to hold back the water, no parks planned for recreations, and would create traffic, estimated 800 2-way trips a day through Sunburrow, with no plan of extension into 40th Street. Steve DeLapp provided two resolutions, for PZ consideration, for opposition to this Comp Plan amendment. The Commission made a few changes in wording which are reflected in Resolution 89-B and asked that this Resolution be distributed to the Metropolitan Council on April I.3th. Due to time constraints of meeting this date, the Commission approved the Resolution and asked that the Resolution be brought before the Council for their approval at their April 18th meeting. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Stevens - to approve Resolution 89-B as referenced in Appendix A and request this resolution be sent to the Metropolitan Council on April 13th with a copy sent to the City Administrator in Oakdale. The Commission recommended City Council approval of Resolution 89-B as referenced in Appendix A. (Motion carried 9-•0). Don Garofalo stated they have a petition, signed by all but two Sunburrow residents, for detachment from Oakdale and annexation to Lake Elmo, that will be presented to the City. 4. MN Pipeline Co. Mary Kueffner handed out the application from MN Pipeline Co. for pipeline routing permit pursuant to partial exemption from pipeline route selection procedures, but the PZ chose not to comment on the application. 5. R1 Zoning Districts At the March 7th City Council meeting, the Council directed the PZ to review, on a city-wide basis appropriate future R-1 placement, and within that a review inclusion and consideration of The Forest as an R-1 site and to include review of the Packard Park 3rd Addition, for consequent amendment of the Comp Plan and return with their rerommendation for the April 4th Council meeting. Steve DeLapp conducted a telephone survey of the PZ members on where in the City they would find appropriate R-1 Zoning. Steve DeLapp submitted his zoning district conditions for amendment to the 1986 Comp Plan as referenced in Appendix B. M/S/ Bucheck/fIaacke - to recommend no R-1 Zoning until we have finished the Comprehensive Plan. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 5 Mary Kueffner advised the Commission theta we cannot stop in mid -stream of a proposal and change our requirements. Bucheck and Haacke withdrew their motion. M/No Second/ DeLapp - to recommend City Council approval to allow the Engstrom Development and the majority of the Packard Park 3rd Addition be rezoned to R-1; contingent on the section of Packard Park 3rd Addition that is in the Downs Lake Sub -Watershed not be affected by this construction. Ann Bucheck felt we should not be looking at rezoning now because of the lack of time and should be conservative when looking at R-1 Zoning in the Comp Plan. M/S/F Bucheck/DeLapp - the PZ does not see any need for R-1 Zoning now except for Section 32. (Motion failed 4-5: Haacke, Kunde, Johnson, Enes, Conlin). Barb Haacke would like to have more time to consider the R-1 floating zone Steve DeLapp submitted. Mary Kueffner advised the Commission the City has to take action on the Engstrom application because it is past the deadline which the code allows. Mary explained, once again, the City Council directed them to look at these two developments (The Forest and Packard Park 3rd Addn.) when then review the entire City for future R-1 zoning areas in the Comp Plan. Mary repeated that the Engstrom application is an R-1 application because RE Zoning does not exist in the City. M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend to the City Council that "The Forest" and "Packard Park 3rd Addition" be rezoned to Rl based on the idea that this rezoning will have inconsequential impact on the Comp Plan and the PZ indicated they will consider other areas at a future date for R-1 Zoning. (Motion carried 6-3: Dave Johnson: Packard Park 3rd Addn. is already adjacent to R-1 Zoning and should be rezoned to R-1. Be. considered the Engstrom application as spotzoning; Ann Bucheck: voted for denial based on the water problem in the area; Steve DeLapp: submitted his recommendations as referenced in Appendix B). 6. Historical District - Old Village Chairman Enes reminded the Commission that a a Sub -committee was formed to set guidelines for an historical district for the Old Village. M/S/P Stevens/Johnson - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0). APPENDIX A. RESOLUTION NO. 89-B CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION OPPOSING A PROPOSED ADDITION OF METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES TO THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF OAKDALE WHEREAS, the established development in the area is large lot residential, and WHEREAS, the available nearby recreational facilities needed to serve the proposed area are all in Lake Elmo and are at capacity, and WHEREAS, the highway infrastructure in the area is not adequate for a significant increase in additional traffic, and WHEREAS, the 100 year storm damage would be aggrevated by additional overflow into Lake Olson, and WHEREAS, wildlife habitat that is part of the Tri-lakes ecosystem, wetlands, would be damaged, and WHEREAS, the City of Oakdale is proposing to provide sewer service to the area with a temporary lift station, which could be replaced only with a gravity flow system only by unwanted, unplanned extension of the MUSA line into the north western side of Lake Elmo, and WHEREAS, the quality of life for current residents of the surrounding area will be lowered, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo strongly opposes the addition of the Northeast quadrant of Oakdale into the Metropolitan Urban Services Area this day of April, 1989. Signed: Susan Dunn, Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Morrison, City Administrator 11 APPENDIX B. ZONING DISTRICT CONDITIONS FOR AMENDMENT TO 1906 COMP PLAN 1 1 /2,ACRE LOTS By floating zone 1. Minimum one acre of impervious surface suitable for septic room for two separate drainfields. 2. Written approval by 75 % of voting residents within 1/4 voting residents of the nearest 20 houses, whichever is less. 3. Net overall density of 1.9 acres minimum including 10% dedication and roads. 4. Minimum one acre outside 100 year floodplain. 5. Land able to comply with 1% Rule. 6. Minimum 10 acre development. - 7. Outside any airport safety zone or well advisory district. —8..--N[ct adgorittoany-l-a zo�redgricul=ture' 9. One or more of the following: a. Land currently in General Business Zoning District b. Land immediately adjacent to land zoned GB to a depth maximum. c. Land that will permit lakeshore lots on lakes with meandered shoreline. d. Land with 50% minimum woodland canopy and 70 Z understory. RURAL ESTATES 2 1/2 Where permitted on Future Land Use Map and meeting the following criteria: system and mile or the open space of 600 feet 1. Minimum of one acre of impervious surface suitable for septic system and room for two separate drain fields. 2. One and one-half acre minimum with minimum overall density of 2.9 acres per lot including 10% open space dedication and roads if in a P.U.D. 3. No more than 33% of lots in a subdivision permitted to have less than 2 acres in a P.U.D. 4. Lanimust be outside the Airport Safety Zone. 5. Land must be outside any well advisory district. 6. Minimum 20 acre development. 7. Land must have 1 1/2 acres minimum outside of any 100 year floodplain. 8. Land must be able to comply with the 1% Rule. RUR.SL ESTATES 5 Where permitted on Future Land Use Map and meeting the following criteria: 1. Minimum of one acre of impervious surface suitable for septic system and room for two separate drain fields. 2. Three and one-half acre minimum acre minimun lot size with minimum overall density of 5.0 acres including roads for P.U.D. Park dedication fee to be taken in lieu of 10% open space dedication. 3. Outside any well advisory district. 4. Minimum 20 acre development 5. Land must have 1 1/2 acres minimum outside of any 100 year floodplain. 6. Land must be able to comply with the 1% Rule. March 18, 1989 PF PUBLIC FFICILITIES FIND ODUSI-PUBLIC USES --BY FLOUTING ZONE 1. Must be approved by 75 % of voting residents within 1/4 mile or voting residents of nearest 20 housing units. 2. Must be designed to provide, upon maturation, a rural appearance from offsite. Parking areas to be screened from adjacent zones with minimum 3 ft. high berms and dense foliage. 3. :Must not have an adverse effect on existing roads. 4. Buildings, parking areas, and impervious surfaces must meet the require- ments of the GB zoning district. 5. Must have provision of suitable on -site septic system. 6. Must be at least 10 acres unless located in existing GB zoning district. 7. Must meet all requirements of the 1% rule. APPLICATIONS OF R-1 FLOATING ZONE REQUIREMENTS TO THE FOREST AND PACKARD PARK: The Forest: Of the 51 acres in this proposal, 30+ meet or exceed the woodland requirement for the R-1 Floating Zone. PROPOSAL: Permit an R-1/R-R P.U.D. with the density of 30+ acres permitted to be one housing unit per 1 1/2 acres plus roads and park dedication, and 21- acres to be one housing units per 10 acres nominal. The requirement for 75 % neighborhood approval waived. This will allow 18 housing units total for a net density of 2.05 acres per unit including roads and park dedication. Packard Park: 720 feet of this proposal for rezoning to R-1 includes, or could include Lakeshore on Lake Elmo. This meets the lakeshore requirement for the R-1 Floating Zone. Each lot must be 150 feet wide by Statute, and 436 feet deep. Because of the intervention of Lake Elmo Avenue, a variance would be in order to permit 1 1/2 acres of each lot to be entirely on the east side of the road. This would suggest reason to rezone a portion of this land to R-1 for a depth from the lake of an additional 120 ft. The total land to be rezoned R-1 is therefore 400,032 s.f. or 9.18 acres. The total to remain RR would be 444,000 or 10.19 acres. The proposed Packard Park Third Addition already includes about 5.3 acres of R-1 zoned land. With an additional 9.18, there would be 14. 5 acres of R- 1 land and 10.2 of R-R land. _By P.U.D., which has not been applied for, this would permit with an allowance for roads (park dedication waived), 10 housing units in the 24 + acres. The requirement for 75 Z neighborhood approval being waived. This provides a net overall density of one unit per 2.4 acres including roads. RE 5 ,,,%`iCt a ,'1 .32 "'— FUTURE LAND USE MAP r • • Syr ( '� -C. a . la 1 R-R P - %'G?:J.i i� t "P' : �.....��: r:r '. H13 G6 A I p -IA c, P t, I P CI 1 22 n- - '\l { 'z %ice r iIII .fhir cuP99 n R_a r. ( P. :.:...... .':It W. "' yam' • ...._.—.............. '.htWM— _ :I 'f y n.a.14• cebmJ/ r•IJenllal p,.4ap lrinwaV a,amev genera: huuneu 11-3 nana.uJ num. ppn. H-{7 luul re.�Jununl Ind InJa-111.1 Y: . . .1 t� anN11Y11., nlr pentad 14d1 Jpn:mlwn or.wnea 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 "Requet to Appear Before the Planning Commission" slip; or„ if you came late, raise your hand to be recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET IN JOINT SESSION WITH THE LAKE ELMO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989 AT 7:30 P.M. AT THE LAKE ELMO CITY HALL, 3800 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH, LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA. THE AGENDA SETFORTH FOR THIS JOINT MEETING IS AS FOLLOWS: 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Joint Meeting - City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the Comprehensive Plan 8:30 p.m. Regular Planning Commission meeting convenes 1. Agenda 2. Minutes - March 13 and March 27, 1989 3. Review of Oakdale Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. R1 zoning districts 5. Historical District - Old Village 6. Adjourn 1177 JOINT MEETING OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1989 Mayor Dunn called the Joint Meeting with the Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Council to order at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: City Council:Dunn, Hunt, Moe, Graves. Absent: Williams. Planning Commission:Enes, DeLapp, Bucheck, Stevens, Kunde, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, Haacke, Conlin, John. Absent: Johnston The City Council and Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Williams written comments. Planning and Zoning Commission met to discuss the was unable to attend this meeting, but provided his Councilman Hunt supported the draft Comp Plan as presented and submitted minor notes on the draft. There was some discussion on the following: Page 4., 2. PRESENT POPULATION Hunt indicated he would like to see wording added "although there seems to be a slight increase in the rate of the population, it is felt that this is due to market conditions. It is not the policy of Lake Elmo to stimulate population growth, rather it is the policy to let market demands dictate the growth." Page 45: GOALS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: The goal of commercial is mainly to provide needed services to the resident, while recognizing nearby communities provide competing services. Lake Elmo is after high quality development to enhance the community. Councilman Moe felt the plan, with the gathering of documentation, was very informative. He could not support the Draft Comp Plan because it lacked long range planning. All he could see the plan addressing was the large rural lot. It was not realistic in addressing provided services other than what will be maintained until year 2000. Even though he voted for the Future Land Use Map and directed the PZ bring the data current for the '86 Plan, Moe recommended the PZ take 1979 Comp Plan and update it. Moe did not compare the two plans and in with noted differences. to the come Councilman Graves appreciated the effort that went into the preparation of this Comp Plan, but felt there was not a complete enough look into where we expect the City to be in the year 2000. Page 44.(b) should we restrict higher density development. Page 55: Concern we don't make an open minded, more realistic statement for the I-94 Overlay. The Municipal Board could look at this as, the City will not look at anything for the I-94 Overlay. Page 75: Subdividing may have worked for us in the past, but we are running out of the growth mode we enjoy now. When this is no longer available to use then what do we do? Graves added we should take into account the City relies on residential growth in order to underwrite the LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 2 increase cost of services. We should seek options of commercial development at Section 32 and along I-94 and not depend on housing development. Homes/families are the highest source of requiring services. Page 60: He agreed with Page 60. Is this appropriate utilization from the planners view, feels it is appropriate for Comp Plan. E. of 13B only referenced. Argument for no potential commercial development. Hunt referred to page 46, Sect. c.. Graves responded, in order to be consistent delete Section 3, page 55 because of a possible conflict. Steve DeLapp answered that if we rezone this area to commercial, we are going against the Met Council. Ten Findings of Fact have to be met to address the question if Woodbury can build better commercial development. He asked how does this improve existing services in Woodbury? Page 76: paragraph C: He Doesn't agree with this or support it. It doesn't tell, where we are go ng to 4e in the hear 2000.` , LAA �¢ �(!exd -A i ..vt to c� Psw At \1�.5 INN IN) C � r0 eN U7),13t t `2 UOP OA7 Councilman Graves added the PZ dra what the City Council directed them to ave liked to see RE wrapped into this would project would take the ier to approve a plan if it really Plan has a very good base, but do1A From the very beginning he would h the plan, but then he realized how long Commission to complete. It would be eas was a plan based on completeness. The should include longer range plans. _ Councilman Hunt advised the Council that when the Council was asked to vote on options for PZ direction on the Comp Plan, he was the only one in favor of Option 3, which was to include RE Zoning in the Plan. Hunt saw no problem to get the Comp Plan done now and later on get an amendment to change this. Dick Johnson agreed there was not a whole lot of planning in the document and without some direction from a professional planner based on the philosophy indicated, this would be difficult job to do. Dave Johnson found the draft a dull document with no meat into it. It doesn't address what if the "pipe" comes into the City. The Committee that worked on the 1979 Plan knew what the issues were facing the City and addressed them in the Plan. The '79 Plan had a flow to it. Steve DeLapp stated theAFuture Land Use Map was approved by the PZ Commission. They discussed what they liked or disliked on the RE Zoning, and if there is enough support, it can be added into the Plan. RE Zoning will then be shown in th plan, paremeters spelled out, draft direction of ordinance and indicate areas of RE. Steve submitted zoning district conditions for amendment to the 1986 Comp Plan. Councilmen Graves and Hunt suggested building more planning issues, floating zones, and consider spotzoning as a buffer zone. Dick Johnson asked for formal direction from the Council at their April 18th meeting since recommendations of some of the Councilmembers have changed. The Council adjourned the joint meeting at 8:45 p.m. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 3 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 10, 1989 Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Enes, Stevens, Haacke, Bucheck, DeLapp, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, John, Conlin, Deputy Clerk Mary Kueffner. Absent: Johnston. 1. AGENDA According to the March 27th minutes, the agenda. Add: MN Pipeline Co. M/S/P Stevens/Haacke - agenda as presented. 2. Minutes: March 13 Road Widths were supposed to be on to approve the April loth Planning Commission (Motion carried 9-0). , 1989 M/S/P Stevens/Kunde - to approve the minutes as amended. (Motion carried Minutes: March 27, 1989 March 13, 1989 Planning Commission 9-0). Steve DeLapp contacted the City of Woodbury and Stillwater regarding their method for amending minutes. M/S/F DeLapp/Bucheck - to request policy change for amending minutes; to delete words or statements requested and replace with amended words for approved minutes to be mailed, but to include an attached sheet on the back of the minutes for PZ & CC member listing what was deleted. (Motion failed 2-7: Enes, Stevens, Kunde, Haacke, Dick Johnson, Dave Johnson, Conlin). kz_ iN setj sttvs NIA?? `r0 SuJOte + pi Gi "` AJ ' Ann Bucheck requested the following insertion on Page 3: Ann Bucheck presented an ML5listing of available R-1 lots in the City to Chairman Rob Enes, who has been working on the inventory of R-1 lots with Jim McNamara. There were lots on this list that were in addition to the lots already counted. M/S/P Dick Johnson/John - to approve the March 27, 1989 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 8-0-1 Abstain: Stevens). LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 4 3. Review of Oakdale Comprehensive Plan' Amendment 0. M1G ‘ JDNIC. 46 14m0P wsS Don Garofalo and Bob Baker, rep),esenting the Sunburrow Gi- nsm-G.xcaup, asked for support in opposing a1Comp Plan Amendment that would allow for extenson of the MUSA Line to allow for development of Olson Lakes Estates (NE quadrant of Oakdale. They advised the Commission that the City of Oakdale has changed their Comp Plan to accomodate the developer for this proposed development which will bring 200 homes on 112 acres. There are plans for millions of yards of dirt to be brought in to hold back the water, no parks planned for recreations, and would create traffic, estimated 800 2-way trips a day through Sunburrow, with no plan of extension into 40th Street. K\R__ Q Qu-OtN(J 61A'ttc) Steve DeLapp provided two resolutions, for PZ consideration, for opposition to this Comp Plan amendment. The Commission made a few changes in wording which are reflected in Resolution 89-B and asked that this Resolution be distributed to the Metropolitan Council on April 13th. Due to time constraints of meeting this date, the Commission approved the Resolution and asked that the Resolution be brought before the Council for their approval at their April 18th meeting. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Stevens - to approve Resolution 89-B as referenced in Appendix A and request this resolution be sent to the Metropolitan Council on April 13th with a copy sent to the City Administrator in Oakdale. The Commission recommended City Council approval of Resolution 89-B as referenced in ,Appendix AtA. (Motion carried 9-0). J f' ' oQ r e- o u --"Cf - y n«11� Don Garo£al� stated they have a petition, signed by all but two Sunburrow (._ residents, for detachment from Oakdale and annexation to Lake Elmo, that will be presented to the City. 4. MN Pipeline Co. Mary Kueffner handed out the application from MN Pipeline Co. for pipeline routing permit pursuant to partial exemption from pipeline route selection procedures, but the PZ chose not to comment on the application. WING ND» P Uall ce ,r ra Ya r��leb J 1OL(r i� c� 0 eA i A I C? , E 5. R1 Zoning Districts At the March 7th City Council meeting, the Council directed the PZ to review, on a city-wide basis appropriate future R-1 placement, and within that a review inclusion and consideration of The Forest as an R-1 site and to include review of the Packard Park 3rd Addition, for consequent amendment of the Comp Plan and return with their rerommendation for the April 4th Council meeting. Steve DeLapp conducted a telephone survey of the PZ members on where in the City they would find appropriate R-1 Zoning. Steve DeLapp submitted his zoning district conditions for amendment to the 1986 Comp Plan as referenced in Appendix B. M/S/ Bucheck/Haacke - to recommend no R-1 Zoning until we have finished the Comprehensive Plan. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1989 PAGE 5 Mary Kueffner advised the Commission that we cannot stop in mid -stream of a proposal and change our requirements. Bucheck and Haacke withdrew their motion. M/No Second/ DeLapp - to recommend City Council approval to allow the Engstrom Development and the majority of the Packard Park 3rd Addition be rezoned to R-1; contingent on the section of Packard Park 3rd Addition that is in the Downs Lake Sub -Watershed not be affected by this construction. Ann Bucheck felt we should not be looking at rezoning now because of the lack of time and should be conservative when looking at R-1 Zoning in the Comp Plan. M/S/F Bucheck/DeLapp - the PZ does not see any need for R-1 Zoning now except for Section 32. (Motion failed 4-5: Haacke, Kunde, Johnson, Enes, Conlin). Barb Haacke would like to have more time to consider the R-1 floating zone Steve DeLapp submitted. Mary Kueffner advised the Commission the City has to take action on the Engstrom application because it is past the deadline which the code allows. Mary explained, once again, the City Council directed them to look at these two developments (The Forest and Packard Park 3rd Addn.) when then review the entire City for future R-1 zoning areas in the Comp Plan. Mary repeated that the Engstrom application is an R-1 application because RE Zoning does not exist in the City. M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend to the City Council that "The Forest" and "Packard Park 3rd Addition" be rezoned to R1 based on the idea that this rezoning will have inconsequential impact on the Comp Plan and the PZ,indicated they will consider other areas at a future date for R-1 Zoning. (Motion carried 6-3: Dave Johnson: Packard Park 3rd Addn. is already adjacent to R-1 Zoning and should be rezoned to R-1. He considered the Engstrom application as spotzoning; Ann Bucheck: voted for denial based on the water problem in the area; Steve DeLapp: submitted his recommendations as referenced in Appendix B). 6. Historical District - Old Village Chairman Enes reminded the Commission that a a Sub -committee was formed to set guidelines for an historical district for the Old Village. M/S/P Stevens/Johnson - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0). �b k(ne e Ci1N� . i� cJ 14-K-� "Y pn In.r QM n J (toe S /J /r�r ovv o N 1l -0iJ APPENDI`. A RESOLUTION NO. 89-B CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION OPPOSING A PROPOSED ADDITION OF METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES TO THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF OAKDALE WHEREAS, the established development in the area is large lot residential, and WHEREAS, the available nearby recreational facilities needed to serve the proposed area are all in Lake Elmo and are at capacity, and WHEREAS, the highway infrastructure in the area is not adequate for a significant increase in additional traffic, and WHEREAS, the 100 year storm damage would be aggrevated by additional overflow into Lake Olson, and WHEREAS, wildlife habitat that is part of the Tri-lakes ecosystem, wetlands, would be damaged, and WHEREAS, the City of Oakdale is proposing to provide sewer service to the area with a temporary lift station, which could be replaced only with a gravity flow system only by unwanted, unplanned extension of the MUSA line into the north western side of Lake Elmo, and WHEREAS, the quality of life for current residents of the surrounding area will be lowered, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo strongly opposes the addition of the Northeast quadrant of Oakdale into the Metropolitan Urban Services Area this day of April, 1989. Signed: Susan Dunn, Mayor ArrtST: Patricia MukLison, City Administrator APPROVCE LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1989 Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Enes, DeLapp, Bucheck, Kunde, Dick Johnson, Haacke, John, Conlin, and Deputy Clerk Kueffner. Absent: Dave Johnson, Johnston, Stevens. 1. Agenda Add: 8A. Water, 88. Written Recommendation for PZ to PF M/S/P Haacke/Bucheck - to approve the agenda for the March 27, 1989 Planning Commission agenda as amended. (Motion carried 8-0). 2. Minutes: March 13, 1989 M/S/P Bucheck/DeLapp - to table the March 13, 1989 Planning Commission minutes. (Motion carried 8-0). Minutes: March 27, 1989 At the meeting these minutes were approved, Steve DeLapp requested a statement be stricken from page 7, Item 7. RE Discussion. When Steve received the approved minutes, this statement was hashed out and not deleted as requested. A verbal opinion on this procedure was received from the Attorney General by Commission member Ann Bucheck. The staff requested the City receive this opinion in writing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Large Lot Subdivision Applicant: Steven Dahly Chairman Enes opened up the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Steven Dahly has made application for a large lot subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 20-acre parcel into two 10-acre parcels. Kirby Sampson owns 37 acres directly north of the site and asked what the reasons were for the subdivision. Steven Dahly responded that the land ended up costing more than he thought and with subdividing, he would have two 10-acre building sites and would sell one of them. Don Jeske likes the zoning "as is" and commented the soils might pose a problem for septic systems. Chairman Enes'stated this land is already zoned RR; therefore, the land use has not been changed. Mary Kueffner reported City Engineer Larry Bohrer gave the following verbal recommendations: request the usual 30' right-of-way dedication, a survey showing the dimension of the pipeline easement and a 100' setback LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1989 PAGE 2 for building from the pipeline. Dahly responded he has no problem meeting this setback. Chairman Enes closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Ann Bucheck stated the application requires no variances, it meets all the requirements and has no water problems. M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend approval by the City Council for a Large Lot Subdivision for Steven Dahly to subdivide a 20 acre parcel into two -ten acre parcels and suggest the City Council try and alert the landowner of a minimum setback of 100' from the pipeline; contingent on the applicant showing a 30' right-of-way on the survey and pay a park dedication fee of $450 for the newly created lot. (Motion carried 8-0). 4. Heritage Development: (Residential Estates Concept) Dennis Johnston, Heritage Development, presented a Residential Estates concept plan for a development called "Fox Run" on 239 acres owned by Dayton Hudson. The total number of lots is 66 with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Additional features would include 32' wide curved streets, 3 temporary cul-de-sacs, entrance monuments, and restrictive covenants. They plan on subdividing this in 4 phases, with the first phase occuring west to east with the lots around the lake sold last. Heritage Development is a division of Gardner Brother homes, but this development has been purchased by Heritage Dev. Builders have not been selected, but these will be upper bracket homes and pictures were presented on style of homes. The timetable would be for building to start in July and have a model home built by September for the Parade of Homes. Rita Conlin asked if a park area would be put in because there is nothing available at the Regional Park which is located close to this development and residents from 66 homes could put a strees on other parks and tennis courts. Rita thought this was a very nice plan, but had a concern on supplying more rec areafor the people. Steve DeLapp suggested the Parks Commission might want a small park, such as Kleis Park, that is very well used. A trail could be made around the lake with placement of picnic tables. Steve had studied this area, has 2' contours of the area, was very pleased with the concept and felt it was reasonably laid out. Rob Enes was pleased with the concept. Wyn John stated there were only two entrances, would there be a prospect of making a loop. Wyn would like to see an internal pedestrian system. Johnston responded the reason for this was to make traffic difficult to eliminate cross -movement of traffic and keep the traffic residential. Barb Haacke and Dick Johnson felt this was a nice concept plan and would provide an incentive to get the RE Zoning District completed. Ann Bucheck felt it was important to maintain the natural habitat for the egrots. Ann had concerns on the width of the streets and would not like to see homes off of Keats. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1989 PAGE 3 Al Kunde thought this was a good looking concept and liked a development larger than 40 acres coming before the City. 5. Comprehensive Plan Dick Johnson reported that the Comp Plan has been typed into the City's wordprocessor and has been reviewed by him. When the Commission was polled, the majority of the members were satisfied with Steve DeLapp's map, which was submitted for RE, be used as the Future Land Use Map. The Subcommittee met and revised the map slightly. The City Council had directed the PZ not to include the RE at this time and to go back to the original map because of their concern on time in getting the Comp Plan done. A joint meeting has been set for April 10th for the CC and PZ to discuss the Comp Plan for one hour at the start of this meeting. The inventory data has been updated based on the best data available at this time. There was no objection by the PZ using this data.* M/S/P DeLapp/Bucheck - to accept the inventory of RR lots as interpreted by Dick Johnson. (Motion carried 8-0). M/S/P Buchec]c/DeLapp - to accept the inventory of R1 lots in the City which was derived by consensus of Dick Johnson, Rob Enes and Jim McNamara. (Motion carried 8-0). Dick Johnson reported the Revision No.2 of the Comp Plan will be sent to the City Council for the April 4th meeting. At the same time the PZ will receive their copies. There was discussion on if there would be an informal review by the Met Council of the plan before the City Council reviews the plan. The Met Council could comment on reformatting. It was brought up that the state would do this review, free of charge. M/S/P DeLapp/Haacke - to authorize Dick Johnson and Mary Kueffner, based on the most expeditious timeframe, decide when and who will review the comp plan. (Motion carried 7-1: Bucheck: no time limit was set to get this done. If the Met Council was able to review the Plan,dthd not approve it, the reasons could be passed onto the Council). 6. Residential Estates Steve DeLapp and Barb Haacke worked on the next phase of a draft and map for the Future Land Use Map to reflect RE Zoning. This map has two floating zones, Rl and PF, which have to be applied for, with written criteria established.. The future Land Use Map would be designating where the city would like to be in a number of years and the Comp Plan would provide for this. The ordinances would have to be brought into compliance with the Comp Plan. M/S/P Bucheck/John - to accept the Residential Estates map, submitted by the Comp Plan Committee, presented 3-27-89 to the PZ to be used as the Future Land Use Map regarding RE. (Motion carried 8-0). *Amended 4-10-89: Ann Bucheck presented an T?L listing of available r.-1 lots in the City to Chairman Rob Enes, who has been working on the inventory of R-1 lots with Jim rcNamara. There were lots on this list that were in addition to the lots already coup_ted LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1989 PAGE 4 7. Road Widths This was an informational item. Steve Delapp provided a proposal to the Commission on the Road Standards. (See proposal 3-27-89 by 5. DeLapp). Road widths were requested to be on the PZ agenda for the next meeting. 8. Other: Water Ann Bucheck brought up her concern on standing water.When looking at a development; lc the Commission should be aware of areas that have water problems that are not on the Flood Plain Map. Other: The Commission would like to have the PZ Chair be present at the Council meetings in ordshto give the pros and cons of their motions. B. Recommendation for Apostolic Bible Church Steve DeLapp asked to see the written recommendation that went to the City Council for Apostolic Bible Church for rezoning from RR to PF. M/S/P Haacke/John - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeeting at 10:30 p.m. (Motion carried 8-0). Submitted by the Comp Plan Subcommittee to the PZ on 3-27-89 D R A-F.T 0. CURRENT ZONING • RE 5 FUTURE LAND IJSE MAP r,. `^ F� .r, 1L, {' ...... _''. �1.:1_s i:Ywr-'�.�• ?_:L�. i ,. -'1 -- --.1 Orin �I .-,+ ix �v! �...:,' .::::: �.— _r _ I , 1iw I; :r.:..::::::.::•-Y• ............ r:_—_ c:_,.., i-`,- K': t- `�T'!' r7r-E 1 � 1 ::. , ......' e . _ � f • :;�ttE' RT!'R P 1• . ...:'1 A A I Ca Zoning I R -1 'I 1 H 4- wl iie • ' 23 j! h, `alp • C PQ 1 ,-11- - .27`' earlcutlure n,e tamd/ r,uldenl:al public tI3hway 6usln.es ❑crnral bus.neas +.....�.,,.,_ r..�. �... :y�.^,:'-mow ��••' •':y tF r�'•: :: 11 Rr1 �-s manur,clured home p:lrk rem -el r.�monllul ktdaslnel Canal Ilona) nee pat-mlt agllcultural pre urve1 I • "7:h-.:. • • C. MEMORANDUM To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission Members From: .A1 Kunde Date: March 12, 1989 Subject: R-E Residential Estates I. First,'I would like to state some of my personal goals of this zoning district. A. To enhance the QUALITY OF LIVING we enjoy as citizens of Lake Elmo today. B. Lot sizes that avoid the need for public sewer, water, and urban road systems - THE GRID. C. Developments of sufficient size to create a definable habitat with a planned road system that reduces the need of future cost to the city. D. Lot sizes so as not to exclude any future property owners that would contribute to our present quality of living. II. Comments on JAMES R. HILL, Inc. Study Please refer to the future land use map. "` A. Proposed area #1 My preference of this area would be R - E. B. Proposed area #2 In agreement with recomendation of Rl. C. Proposed area #3 In agreement with the recomendation but conditional on the solution of the flooding problems on Downs Lake and other lakes and ponds in the area. D. Proposed area #4 In agreement with recomendation. E. Proposed area #5 In agreement with recomendation but extended down to stillwater road on the south. F. Proposed area #6 My preference of this area would be of future R1. G. In addition, I would like to see the area near I-94 zoned future R-E.-From the MUSA line on the West to CR-15 on the East, from I-94 on the South to 15th Street on the North. H. Create a new I-94 overlay district which extends from 1-94 on the South to 1/2 mile North, from .the MUSA line on the West to CR-15 on the East. - I. Zoning amendment comments - Pg. 13. a. Delete item B-3, we do not need "Tacky" temporay structures in Lake Elmo. Let the developer build a model home to use as a sales office. b. Add item C-2a "Lots must be able to contain a full circle having a diameter of two hundred fifty feet (250 ft)." This is meant to prevent deep narrow lot's while allowing flexibility of their shape. blkt1/4)4 oct. pa .o1Y -_. _._._. nti_. ..state Etudy I am in favor of the concept of Residential Estates, however I am concerned that this zonins wi11 be in conflict with our Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitian Councilns approval. I belie'%r.a majority of those persons who make the final decisions for our city, the Lake Elmo City Council, appear to favor this zoning and therefore, hope "th'e-i::a-n establish the necessay criteria so that both they and the Mpoilitian Council can give their approval. As a member of a sub -committee that met during the summer and fall of 1988, I feel that a report completed by Mike Black did not mirror the sub -committee's views. There are many parts of his report which I and other members of the sub -committee disagree. Instead of reflecting on Mr. Black's report I will direct my comments toward the professional -appearing report completed by -Commission member Steve DeLapp, which more closely refleets_the -- sub -committee's discussions and,myviews: was pleased to -see that Mr DeLapp lacedTRE development along I-94.: The-originalintent`of'-this-concept'_ by' the PZC vas to give -another.alternative-to'those_'•land owners .wished to sell.or.develop'their,land and yet'enhance the;, rural resedentialcharacter,of the city. I--still--agree with- -the original intent. agree withthe zoning map, page.l5a;.as-drawn_by..Mr.` DeLapp except for section 24 andthe land which -is in the Downs Lake sub -watershed. -I feel this land should be designated as RE, but should, not be developed until the City Council and Valley Branch Watershed come to -a mutually agreed upon plan to solve the potential water problems. I would like to ammend the last paragraph on page 14 dealing with landscape guidelines to read as follows: The developer shall include in convants to buyers of each lot an agreement that shall upon implementation provide -a rural setting which should be coordinated to compliment the development snd serve as a unifying physical element. In addition, deciduous trees shall be planted 15' back from the road surface every 40 feet. No new shrubs shall be planted within _ of the roadway. _The homeowner is responsible for the maintence of the'boulevard. No more than 40,000 square feet of any lot"ehall be mowed lawn.'-' The remaining land to be planted as open field or left in r� „ cord nor , Submitted by the Comp_ Plan Subcommittee to the PZ on 3-27-89 D RAFT CURRENT ZONING RE 2 1/2 RE 5 FUTURE LAND USE MAP R-'R • A , lake zoning Jfl4&mo districts A R-t P HB G8 agrlcutlure one ramify residential public highway butanes* general business FI-3 N-R Ind [Clip] DE R-R •111 C -23— —r I [�, P L- lI manulynured home p:frk. rnra? residential indu_Irizl conditional use permit agricultural presurses