Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-89 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. AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 1989 7:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes 1. Agenda 2. Minutes - July 24, 1989 3. Public Hearing Packard Park 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat 4. Concept: Golf Driving Range Scott Blasko 5. Road Standards/Residential Estates 6. Other 7., Adjourn L.fl :+L '.T.'J i1.:.:3NTuiC C311=SSION t'1 WORk<SR AUGUST 7, 1989 WoRNMM-10P •' Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission meet g to order at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Bucheck, Delapp, Enes (leaving at 3;50, returning at 9:20), Stevens,John. Absent: Conlin, Eaac::e,Jornson, Johnson, Johnston, and represenative from the city staff. 4PPR VED 1. Agenda The agenda had been agreed upon at the 7-24-89 PZC meeting Discussion and recommendation to the city council regarding the PC 1989 draft comprehensive plan, dated 7-23-89, beginning with page 33 under commercial. This draft was presented to the total PC after preparation by the comp. plan sub- committee, chairman Baacke. 2. 1989 Comprehensive Plan: Discussion/Recommendation to City Council Each page of the proposed plan was discussed and ammendments were made. DeLapp indicated that he spoke with Paul Balterson of the . Metropolitian Council on 8-4-89 who felt it would be desirable to include substantially more information regarding city capitol improvement programs in the comp. plan. This information is not mandatory, but would be desirable. A. letter was to be sent and received by the city in time for this evenings meeting regarding other information needed in the plan. MIS/P John/ Stevens- There is a deficiency of information under the section of capitol improvements. The PC requests the City Council provide more information to the PC in the areas of bonding, tax receipts, city budget, public works, streets, and parks so the plan may be more complete. (Motion carried 5-0). MIS/P Stevens/John- Pages 33-59 of the PZC 1989,comprehensive plan, dated 7-23-89, as amended be approved and recommended to the city council. (Motion carried 5-0). 3. MIS/P Bucheck/ John- fleeting adjourn at 10:08 p.m, (Motion carried 5-0). Respectfully submitted, Ann Bucheck, Secretary LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MIN JULY 24, 1989 Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Enes, Stevens, DeLapp, Bucheck, Haacke, Conlin, Dave Johnson, Dick Johnson, Wyn John. Absent: Johnston. 1. AGENDA Add: Packard Park, Delete: 4b. RE Ordinance M/S/P Bucheck/Stevens - to approve the July 24, 1989 Planning Commission agenda as amended. (Motion carried 8-1: Dave Johnson: he was opposed to adding anything to this agenda because time was needed to work on the Comp Plan) 2. MINUTES: July 10, 1989 M/S/P Johnson/DeLapp - to approve the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission Minutes as amended. (Motion carried 6-3-0: Abstain: John, Haacke, Dave Johnson). 3. Architectural Standards Ed Stevens asked for clarification from the PZ, if it was their intent to further discuss architectural standards or were these standards complete and to be sent to the City Council. M/S/P Haacke/Conlin - to not look further into architectural standards. (Motion carried 9-0). Mike Lynskey commented that he felt the cast -in -place concrete panels were reasonable and acceptable for buildings in a General Business Zone. (Added 8-14-89): Mr. Lynskey indicated that, for example, Brookfield II was a good-looking building. There was discussion about the merits of tilt -up panels and some disagreement among members of the PZ was expressed. 4. SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS a. I-94 Freeway Corridor Ordinance Rita Conlin reported a meeting was held, composed of committee members, Conlin, Dave Johnson, DeLapp, and an interested propertyowner, Will Stenzel. Discussion centered on business that would lower taxes and have a low impact to the residential area around it. The next I-94 Freeway Corridor Sub -Committee meeting was set for 6:30 before the PZ meeting. b. RE Ordinance This item was deleted. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 1989 2 c. Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission reviewed the first thirty-three pages of the Comprehensive Plan submitted by the Sub -Committee. The Commission found only a few minor word changes or typographical errors. Mayor Dunn complimented the Sub -Committee on doing a fantastic job; the plan had good ideas and represented all of our citizens. Rita Conlin noted her name (signature) was on the document attached to the Comp Plan, but indicated she was not in attendance at the second meeting and had only worked a couple of hours on this plan. Wyn Sohn provided verbage for clarification on Residential Estates Zoning (2 1/2 acresAvs. 5 acres). and M/S/P John/Stevens - to approve the verbage submitted by Wyn John on clarification of Residential Estates Zoning in the Comp Plan. (Motion carried 9-0). Dick Johnson suggested adding the Future Land Use Map on Section 32 & 33. The consensus of the PZ was to approve Pages 1-33 of the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Johnson had expressed his view that the Plan was all right, with the exception of RE, he does not support RE. (Amended 8-14-89) Chairman Rob Enes called a meeting for Monday, August 7th, to discuss the remaining pages of the Comprehensive Plan. OTHER: In regard to the Public Hearing scheduled, for Packard Park, Ann Bucheck made the following motion: M/No Second/ Bucheck/No Second - if the reports from the Engineer, VBWD, DNR on Packard Park are not received 10-days before the Public Hearing, it will be tabled until the reports are received. M/S/P Johnson/Haacke - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:15 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0). 4 CITY OF LAKE jiikELMO City of Lake Elmo September 28, 1989 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Pat Morrison, City Administrator As the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission (October 9th) falls on a legal Holiday, Chairman Rob Enes has advised, unless it becomes necessary to hold an interim PZ meeting, the Planning Commission will not meet until the next regular meeting of October 23rd. It is anticipated that the Public Hearing for the Large Lot Subdivision of Will Stenzel and the Public Hearing for Dr. Swanson's amended CUP will be scheduled for October 23rd. cc: Mayor Sue Dunn Mary Kueffner LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1989 Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Present: Enes, DeLapp, Dave Johnson, Dick Johnson, John, Conlin, City Administrator Morrison and Deputy Clerk Kueffner. Absent: Bucheck, Johnston, Stevens, Haacke. 1. AGENDA M/S/P Dave Johnson/Dick Johnson - to approve the August 28, 1989 Planning Commission agenda as presented. (Motion carried 6-0). 2, MINUTES: August 14, 1989 M/S/P Dick Johnson/DeLapp - to approve the August 14, 1989 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 4-0-2 Abstain: Conlin, Dave Johnson). Because there was not a quorum at the August 7th meeting, the Commission considered the meeting a Planning Commission Workshop, 3. Simple Lot Subdivision: John Hanner, 8151 Hill Trail N. John Hanner would like to proceed with a Simple Lot Subdivision at 8151 Hill Trail N. and submitted a preliminary survey showing the elevations and the area below the 932 Flood Zone elevation. Mr. Hanner had proposed a three lot subdivision in December of 1986 which the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended the application be denied based on the number of variances required. This application did not go to Council at the applicant's request. There are no variances required with this application, as it relates to the simple lot subdivision, and granting approval would not create a substandard lot, nor would it violate this Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has applied for a variance to the 100 foot setback requirement from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The reason for the variance request is becasue a house could be built on the property and meet the 100 foot setback. The applicant feels that the area he would like to put the house is the most desirable location for a house on the lot. Steve DeLapp visited the site and reported that the site the applicant proposes to put the house is the most desirable and practical place for a house as the lot is heavily wooded and a minimal amount of trees would have to be disturbed. It was noted that if the applicant was required to meet the setback, fill would have to be placed on the site, which in the opinion of the Planning Commission, would disturb and take away from the natural esthetically pleasing topography of the lot. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1989 PAGE 2 M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend approval of the Simple Lot Subdivision requested by John Hanner at 8151 Hill Trail N., conditioned on a favorable recommendation from the City Engineer and the Department of Natural Resources; contingent upon the applicant paying a park dedication fee of $450 for the newly created lot. Also, the variance requested for setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark be granted based on the topography of the land and the wooded lakeshore. (Motion carried 6-0). 4. Simple Lot Subdivision: James Palecek, 2798 Jamley Avenue N. James Palecek, 2798 Jamley Avenue N., would like to proceed with a Simple Lot Subdivision.. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan and Certificate of Survey for a two lot subdivision which would create one additional lot adjacent to the Palecek homestead on Jamley Avenue. All of the information submitted has been complete. The proposed subdivision meets all of the size requirements setbacks, frontage and easement dedication requirements. No variances are required. M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend to the City Council approval of the simple lot subdivision requested by James and Vivian Palecek at 2798 Jamley Avenue North, conditioned on a favorable recommendation from the City Engineer, and contingent upon the applicant paying a park dedication fee of $450 for the newly created lot. (Motion carried 6-0). 5. Large Lot Subdivision - Concept: Will Stenzel (50th Street) Will Stenzel has applied for a three -lot (large -lot) subdivision. Mr. Stenzel is proposing to buy the propertyjif the subdivision is granted from the current owner of the propety, George Krueger. Staff review indicated the following: Lot Area: Each proposed lot is at least 10 acres (as required in the RR zoning district). However, Parcel A exceeds the 4:1 ratio as required in Section 301.070 D.2.c.(2) of the code. Lot Frontage: None of the three proposed lots have the required 300 feet of frontage on a public road. Although Parcel A shows an overall width of 328.24feet, when you deduct the proposed 50 foot road easement, the frontage is reduced to approximately 278 feet. Streets: The property is currently zoned Rural Residential, and therefore, does not meet the criteria for a private road. Park Dedication: Since the current owner of the property will retain a parcel, three new lots would be created, each requiring a $450 per lot park dedication fee. Staff review indicated that there would be needed, at a minimum, three variances (1) Lot ratio for parcel A; (2) Road Frontage on a public road for all three parcels; (3) Private road. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1989 PAGE 3 Rita Conlin: The concept of a private road is nice, but in reality, we have to follow our ordinances. Steve DeLapp: We have to deal with what the code states now which states Mr. Stenzel cannot have a private road. Stenzel would have to convince the Council to change the road regulations in order to do what he has proposed. Wyn John: The road should follow our normal city standards. Circumstances change, private roads change to public roads and could create further expenditures. He suggested meeting with Mr. Day in regard to coming into the property from the west rather htan the north. Dave Johnson: We want an orderly City, maintain our street standards, and plan for the future through streets. He suggested getting in touch with the neighbor, Mr. Day. Rob Enes: We have to go by our Code, this application does not meet the code, so he was not in favor of the concept, particularly a private road. Dick Johnson: From a public safety standpoint, he was not in favor of a 1,900 foot cul-de-sac, whether it is private or public. No hardship was demonstrated by the applicant. There are other alternates to this proposal for developing this land. Dick encouraged the applicant to talk to the neighbor, (Mr.Day), to the west. 6. Subcommittee Reports 1. Residential Estates Ordinance. 2. I-94 Freeway Corridor Ordinance Rita Conlin, Chair. of the I-94 Freeway Ord., reported the committee (Conlin, Dave Johnson, DeLapp, Enes) met at 6:30 before the PZ meeting. The committee agreed that proper direction from the Council was needed and the following proposals were lack41441hA 4I/ discussed: a. that the PZ direct the City Staffto draw up a proposal for the I-94 Freeway Corridor Ord.; b. that the PZ make a request to the Council as for clarification of criteria and timeframe in which it would like to have the PZ act concerning the I-94 Freeway Ord. and the RE Ord.; c. that a referendum to the Council be drawn up by a third party concerning the RE and I-94 Ord.; d. that the PZ request from Council specific guidelines for Ord. dealing with RE and I-94; e. that the PZ request Council approval of Page 30, 31, Commercial Goals and Policies, of the PZ's Approved Comp Plan so the PZ can use this as guidelines. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 1989 PAGE 4 Steve DeLapp and Dave Johnson explained the PZ voted to not have a Freeway Business District and not to have RE. Then the Council, three months ago, imposed these provisions on the Comp Plan. When the Council makes up their minds as to what they want in those districts, then the PZ has a basis for describing how to accomodate those desires. Wyn John And Dick Johnson responded the PZ should be giving the Council some thoughts and philosophies for them to pick from and to comment on. M/S/P DeLapp/Dave Johnson - to request Council clarification of criteria and timeframe in which the they would like to have the Planning Commission act on the 1-94 Freeway Corridor Ordinance. (Motion carried 4-2: Wyn John: The PZ should be giving the Council some ideas or philosophies and have the CC determine which ideas to chose; Dick Johnson: The PZ should set up an ordinance so the Council could have something to comment on. He felt this was a "cop -out" --the Council might as well write the Ordinance.) M/S/P Dave Johnson/DeLapp - to send the Council pages of the Staff's and PZ's Comprehensive Plan regarding Residential Estates and request direction from the Council in order to proceed with specific guidelies. (Motion carried 5-1: Conlin: You should set standards in our zoning ordinance, not in the Comprehensive Plan.) M/S/P DeLapp/Dave Johnson - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:28 p.m. (Motion carried 6-) 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN PRIORITIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 16, 1989 1.A.Review all applications in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan, comment and make recommendations to the City Council. 2.11,Complete the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and update Ordinances to relate to the Plan. 3.8,Consider local responses to State of MN proposed revisions to Shoreland Management regulations. 4.\,Residential Estates Zoning a. Definition and Length of cul-de-sacs. b. Road Design c. Creation of a volunteer, City Forester Position 5.11qq .Review of Highway Business Zoning on I-94. 6.t Building height limitation --Eliminate the exception which allows broadcast transmission towers. 7.B.Stronger restrictions for accessory structures in the R1 Zone -- the size and number of parcels of less than 5 acres. Definition of garage and storage accessory structures. Size and number of accessory structures in RR Zone on parcels of 20 acres or more. (Check amended ordinances). B.c.Conditions or possible restrictions on residential subdivisions wherelarge accessory structures exist. 9.e.Meet with the county and adjacent community planners to discuss common issues on an "as -needed" basis. 10.tl,Future Road Plan (ties in with road design). 11.B,Retention of wildlife habitat and wetland areas --adequacy of wetland overlay district. 12.B:1-Recommend to the City Council a committee be established, comprising of PZ members, business owners, and interested residents (5-7 members) to study an Historic Building/Architectural Design Overlay District in the Old Village Area. 13.e,Adopt an ordinance for utility (pipeline and power lines) setbacks in the City's Subdivision and platting regulations. 14.e,Sign Ordinance 15.C.Review sideyard setbacks relative to lot size. 16.C.Amend the Subdivision Ordinances (Section 400-14, 400-15) requesting the signatures on the Certificate for approval by the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Commission. *A - TOP PRIORITY