Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-91 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 AUGUST 26, 1991 MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: August 12, 1991 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. MUSA EXTENSION B. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE C. OTHER 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT: ROLLING HILLS 5. CONCEPT REVIEW: LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION RONNY GJERSTAD, 11311 50TH STREET 6. REVIEW OF BUILDING TO BE MOVED INTO CITY 7. OTHER 8. ADJOURN Date Approved: 9-23-91 Date Issued: 10-25-91 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1991 Chairman Wyn John called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: John, Mcleod, Stevens, Bucheck, DeLapp, Schubert, Thomas, Enes, Weeks, Johnston (arrived 7:55 p.m.). Absent: Conlin. 1. AGENDA Add: 7. Discussion on Width of Driveways --Tom Jasicki M/S/P John/Enes - to approve the August 26, 1991 Planning Commission agenda as amended. (Motion carried 9-0). 2. MINUTES: August 12, 1991 The Commission pointed out that Chris White's name was not deleted from the MUSA petition as per PZ direction. M/S/P Enes/DeLapp - to approve the August 12, 1991 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 9-0). 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. MUSA EXTENSION The Planning Commission received handouts from Wyn John, Steve DeLapp and Ann Bucheck. Discussion followed on the questions listed by Wyn John. Steve DeLapp offered the following motion: M/5/ DeLapp/Enes - See motion submitted by Steve DeLapp Discussion followed on whether the standards described in this motion should be stated in an ordinance rather than indicated in the motion. In order to guide this discussion and obtain some direction from the PZ for the City Council, Chairman John asked the question, "Does Lake Elmo want a MUSA Extension?" Therefore, the following motion was made. M/S/F Mcleod/Enes - the City of Lake Elmo should have a MUSA Line Extension. (Motion Failed 2-6-1: Bucheck, Thomas, Stevens, DeLapp Johnston, Thomas, Abstain: John: His policy has been to only vote when there is a tie vote). Several members indicated their preference, because of the time (9:30 pm.), that this item should be postponed and discussion continue until such time as all questions submitted on the MUSA had been answered, but no motion was made. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1991 2 M/S/P DeLapp/Enes - to amend the previous motion to read as follows: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council revision of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to show the designation of an area of the City, indicated below, on the Future Land Use Map to be within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area providing that use of such area be limited to Office Park based on the Findings of Fact stated in Mike Black's memo dated August 21, 1991. The area to be included within the MUSA will be 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile at the northeast corner of Washington County Road 13 and easterly along the 1/4 section line paralleling I-94 and extending to 1/4 mile east of County Road 19. The bulge of County 13 acknowledges the significant intrusion of the Greenway access road and the adjacent frontage road into this intersection. (Motion carried 7-1-1: Bucheck: disagrees with the Findings of Fact because some of the findings condradict the motion, Abstain: John.) M/S/P DeLapp/Bucheck - the Planning Commission premises its recommendation on the following related requirements: 1. City funds may be used to benefit development if on a cost pass- thru basis. 2. Public services will be sized to accommodate development within the designated area without the capability of extension into any areas currently shown in the Future Land Use Map as residential. 3. Direct and indirect public cost subsidies will not be provided by the City to benefit a developer. 4. All land surrounding this area will be rezoned RE either in response to current requests or at the instigation of the Planning Commission. (Motion carried 7-1-1: Mcleod: Disagrees with Item #4 and believes RAD a better zoning, Abstain: John). M/S/F Stevens/Bucheck - the proposal to sewer 640 acres comprising a 1/2 mile wide strip along the North side of I-94 involves a substantial change in the land use of Lake Elmo, as defined in the most recent comprehensive plan. While it would seem desirable to develop this area slowly from the West, the threat of loosing this area to Woodbury makes it necessary to proceed faster than desired. At the same time P&Z wants to see all other areas of Lake Elmo remain at a density of not more than 6 lots per 20 acres. In order to achieve both these aims, P&Z recommends that the City Council combine the proposed '640 acre business zone (or any smaller zone) with the application for Stonegate Development to the North of the proposed business zone. Without Stonegate as a barrier, a future City Council may decide to enlarge the business zone indefinitely. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1991 3 P&Z therefore recommends to the City Council approval of the sewer business district along I-94 only if the Council has first approved Stonegate development. (Motion failed: 3-4-2: Enes, Mcleod, John, Johnston, Abstain: Thomas, Weeks - reason: the PZ had already voted to rezone the Stonegate property). B. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Commission member, Ann Bucheck, pointed out under the Model Flood Plain Management Ordinance you are allowed to fill within a floodway under a Conditional Use Permit. Ann raised this issue with Mike Black and based on their discussion, the DNR had no problem with the City not allowing fill in a floodway. The Commission concurred with this decision and directed Mike Black to make the necessary revisions in this ordinance and then bring these revisions back to the Planning Commission. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Rezoning & Preliminary Plat of Rolling Hills The public hearing notice was published in the August 14, 1991 St. Croix Valley Press and property owners within 350 feet were notified. Chairman John opened up the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. in the City Council chambers. This is a public hearing to consider the application for a rezoning from Agricultural to RE and preliminary plat approval for the 12-lot subdivision known as Rolling Hills. The Commission reviewed Mike Black's report, dated August 20, 1991, on rezoning and preliminary plat of Rolling Hills. Ruben Lauseng, 9591 60the St. N., stated he realizes this gives him a road out of his property, he would like to build a house there some day, but hates to have to pay taxes on 300' of an 80' wide street right of way road. Carl Brogren, 9376 55th Street, would like to see this development and Fox Fire Manor development go in because now he has a long unapproved driveway. Larry Liles, Fox Fire Manor Developer, stated this plat is a necessity for road alignment. Steve Korhel, 5540 Keats Avenue, indicated he would like to see this land designation, Agricultural, stay the same. Chairman John closed the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Roger Kolstad explained he wants the outlot attached to adjoining property owner to the south, Korhel. The street is 80' wide in the northwest corner because of 4:1 slopes. Soil borings are done and all lots perk out. The DNR or Corps of Engineers will not be involved. The developer has worked with VBWD to establish the 100 year flood plain. Kolstad indicated they have opt to pay cash in lieu of park land because he would loose 2 lots; consequently, the project would not be feasible. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1991 4 M/S/P DeLapp/Johnston - to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning request of Rolling Hills from Agricultural to Residential Estates based on the Findings of Fact dated in Mike Black's memo dated August 20, 1991. (Motion carried 7-1-1: Bucheck, Abstain:John) M/S/P Thomas/Johnston - to postpone consideration of the Rolling Hills preliminary plat to be consistent with past practice and to give the developer an opportunity to provide the information needed to address the (9) concerns regarding this plat listed in Mike Black's memo of August 20, 1991 (includes concern of no park land shown in the plat per the Parks Commission request), and to address the City Engineer's concern on the wetland issue listed in his August 21, 1991 memo. (Motion carried 7-0-2 Abstain: John, Bucheck). Several commission members noted they did not see any use for a street light as was recommended by the City Engineer. 5. CONCEPT REVIEW: Large Lot Subdivision Ronny Gjerstad, 11311 50th Street M/S/P Thomas/Johnston - to table the request of Ronny Gjerstad for a large lot subdivision until such time as he brings this item before them. (Motion carried 9-0) 6. Review of building to be moved into City Dennis Geffre, 9140 10th St. N., has applied for a permit to move a 57' x 24' x 14' high building onto their property consisting of approximately 21 acres. This building will be used as a barn for horses and hay. Mr. Geffre presented pictures of the building to the Commission. M/S/P DeLapp/Enes - to recommend to the City Council to grant Dennis Geffre, 9140 10the St. N., a permit to move a 57' x 24' building to be used for horses and hay onto their 21 acres based upon: there are no other out buildings on the property, the size of the accessory building does not exceed the 2,000 sq.ft. size allowed in RR Zoning, and the building placement is 600' from 10th St. (Motion carried 7-0-2: Abstain: Thomas, John) 7. Width of Driveway in Residential Zoning Tom Jasicki, 5221 Isle Avenue N. Tom Jasicki, 5221 Isle Avenue N., appeared before the Commission with pictures of driveways in the area that exceed the allowed 24 foot maximum. Mr. Jasicki explained if his contractor, Mike Muellner & Sons, had come in for the required permit he would have been advised of the driveway standard. Mr. Jasicki asked the Commission to consider the size of the homes being built in the city which have three stall garages. This request was the result of a letter the Building Official wrote to Mr. Jasicki who paved his driveway more than the allowed 24 feet. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1991 5 The Planning Commission indicated they would leave the ordinance "as is", but as a future work plan item, they would consider the width of a driveway for a 3-stall car garage. M/S/P John/DeLapp - in this particular case, the Planning Commission passed this request onto the City Council for resolution recognizing there is not a driveway design description in our code, and as a future work plan item consider the driveway design required for 3-car garage. (Motion carried 8- 0-1: Abstain: John). M/S/P Stevens/Johnston - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. (Motion carried 9-0). MOTION SUBMITTED BY EVE DELAPP (August 26, 19y.) The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council revision of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to show the designation of an area of the City on the Future Land Use Map to be within the MetropolitanUrban Services Area providing that the. size and land Uses -and, standards are limited to those indicated below and provided these standards are..`furt'her described as part of the revised Comprehensive Plan:=teflr 1. )The area to 'be included within the MUSA will be 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile at the northeast corner of Washington County Road 13 and north to the 1/4 section line paralleling 1-94 and extending to 1/4 mile east of County Road 19. The bulge at County 13 acknowledges the significant intrusion of the Greenway access road and the adjacent frontage road into this intersection. 2. Only suburban .,corporate office park facilities will be permitted with a minimum subdivision size of 40 acres. As part of an office building, internal small retail shops and restaurants designed to serve the subdivision may in included. 3. Maximum impervious surface coverage of 80% is acceptable. Quality landscaping requirements will be created for the remaining 20%. 4. The park dedication requirement will be partially fulfilled with development of a 100 foot wide pedestrian nature/recreational corridor connecting this area with adjacent residential land uses. 5. Outdoor lighting must be designed to minimize light pollution and eliminate off -site glare. 6. Signage within each subdivision must be regulated by City ordinance and covenant to conform to very high quality design standards for corporate identification. Outdoor advertising will be prohibited as the Comprehensive Plan currently indicates. 7. Private roads will be permitted within subdivisions. 8. Minimum lot size to be 4 acres. 9. Minimum building size to be 20,000 s.f. 10. Buildings to be fully sprinklered. 11. Building exteriors to be brick or equivalent. 12. Anticipated traffic will not be acceptable if public improvements are required to existing roads 13. The maximum building height will be 60 feet, or less if necessary to • minimize the effect on adjacent residentially zoned property. In addition to the previous items included in the text, the Planning Commission premises its recommendation on the following related requirements: 1. City funds may be used to benefit development if on a cost pass-thru basis. 2. Public services will b e sized to accommodate development within the designated area without the capability of extension into any areas currently shown in the Future Land Use Map as residential . 3. Direct and indirect public post subsidies will not be provided by the City. 4. All land surrounding this area will be rezoned to RE either in response to current requests ort instigation of the Planning Commission. The following is the basis for the proposed change: 1. The area shown in the Comprehensive Plan with MUSA designation has been detached from the City. 2. The City can reasonably expect significant development within the newly designated area is public utilities can be made available. ( 12. Anticipated traffic will not be acceptable if public improvements are required to existing roads 13. The maximum building height will be 60 feet, or less if necessary to • minimize the effect on adjacent residentially zoned property. In addition to the previous items included in the text, the Planning Commission premises its recommendation on the following related requirements: 1. City funds may be used to benefit development if on a cost pass-thru basis. 2. Public services will b e sized to accommodate development within the designated areawithout the capability of extension into any areas currently shown in the Future Land Use Map as residential . 3. Direct and indirect public cost subsidies will not be provided by the City. 4. All land surrounding this area will be rezoned to RE either in response to current requests oknstigation of the Planning Commission. The following is the basis for the proposed change: 1. The area shown in the Comprehensive Plan with MUSA designation has been detached from the City. 2. The City can reasonably expect significant development within the newly designated area is public utilities can be made available. 3. The majority of the area designated for inclusion within the MUSA is currently shown with a Limited Business land use. The types of businesses proposed to be acceptable within this district will require public sewer under regulations being proposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 4. The rate of development can be expected to be slow enough to permit accommodation of the new businesses and to allow adjustment if currently unforeseen problems or negative changes in applicable laws occur. 5..The allowable• uses will operate primary on weekdays from 7 am to 5 pm and will have a limited effect on residential life. 6. A number of residents believe that development of business within the MUSA will reduce their City taxes. The Planning Commission however recognizes the following: 1. If the proposed new Stillwater bridge is completed, we may have thousands of additional trips per day thru the City among the many thousands of additional trips to the generated by the new businesses. 2. We will have an increase in pressure to expand the Lake Elmo Airport if we significantly increase business in the City. 3. We will need to increase staff to monitor the new development and keep it from causing a significant negative effect on the rural lifestyle we expect. 4. A number of residents in .the City believe that as the current tax rates are among the lowest in the Metropolitan Area, the financial and environmental risks to the City by having a MUSA area are not worth the possible small tax decrease when compared with the same development occurring in Oakdale or Woodbury. 5. Two of the major business within the proposed area have written their opposition and a third declined to support a petition to be annexed by Woodbury which would have presumed public services. 6. The City does not need to create jobs and is not planning to provide housing for more than a small percentage of the new business employees. MUSA LINE EXTENSION Questions to be Addressed 1. DO WE APPLY FOR A MUSA LINE EXTENSION? a) Why do we need a MUSA line extension? b) What are the advantages of having a MUSA defined area? c) What are the disadvantages of having a MUSA defined area d) What is the cost of applying for an extension of the MUSA area? - e) What is the affect of applying, on neighboring areas? f) What is the affect on landowners in the area? g) What is the affect on other Lake Elmo residents? h) Does Lake Elmo want a MUSA? i) What area should be included? 2. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO NOT APPLY? 3 . WHAT SECONDARY CONDITIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AFTER APPLYING? WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS? a) What is the cost of the sewering system? b) What financing services would be available? c) What Ordinances are applicable? d) What happens to the Limited Business District Ordinance? e) What is the impact on Roads and services? Wyn John. HANDOUT Sl‘,s,,„ 16k \\ 1°4 $A.c."2GC. QUESTIONS REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE MUSA 1. On 7-22-91 at the public hearing councilman Williams asked 3 questions that need to be addressed. a)What are the specific_ circumstances under which Oakdale and Woodbury are willing to work with Lake ELmo on this proposal? b)What will happen in the year 2010 when there is no more sewer capacity? c)What will be the city's policy regarding payment -will the city put in the sewer or will the city wait for development proposals? 2. Does extension of the MUSA infer that the city will be • providing city water to the area? 3. If a "deal" needs to be struck with Woodbury and Oakdale is that done before or after Met. council gives their approval? 4. What are the benefits of going 1/2 mile north of the expressway? If the city has limited sac units would it be better to go 1/4 mile north, have quality deveopment, and give all landowners equal opportunity to make their fortune? 5. Could we get a copy of the financial consultants study of the costs of services to the city of Plymouth which Mike Black referred to in his letter dated 8-21-91? E. Page 33 of the Lake Elmo/Oakdale lawsuit refers to the 5 year capital improvement program. It stated that our city did not include a.ny entries for either municipal central sewer or water --if we extend the MUSA will we need to do that in order to avoid detachment/annexation? August 23, 1991 To: Members of Lake Elmo-P & 2 The proposal to sewer 640 acres comprising a 1/2 mile wide strip along the North side of I 94 involves a substantial change in the land use of Lake Elmo, as defined in the most recent comprehensive plan. While it would seem desirable to develop this area slowly from the Weal, the threat of ,loosing this area to Woodbury makes it necessary to proceed faster than desired. At the same time P & 2 wants to see all other areas of Lke Elmo remain at a density of not more than 6 lots per 20 acres. In order to achieve both these aims, P & 2 recommends that the City Council combine the proposed 640 acre business zone ( or any smaller zone) with the application for Stonegate Development to the North of the proposed business zone. Without Stonegate as a barrier, a future City Council may decide to enlarge the business zone indefinitely. P & 2 therefore recommends to the City Council approval of the sewered business district along I 94 only if the council has first approved Stonegate development. Date Approved: August 26, 1991 Date Issued: September 6, 1991 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1991 Chairman John called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. in the city council chambers. Present: John, Johnston, McLeod, Stevens, Bucheck, DeLapp, Schubert, Thomas, Conlin, Weeks (departed 9:55), Enes (arrived 8:30), City Planner Black, City Auditor Tautges, Administrator Kueffner. 1. AGENDA Add - 2b. Meeting Date; Move - item 3. after item 5. M/S/P Stevens/Weeks - to approve the agenda as amended. 9-0). 2. MINUTES: July 22, 1991 (Motion carried M/S/P Johnston/Thomas - to approve the July 22, 1991 minutes as amended. (Motion carried 9-0). Chairman John submitted that Chris White requested her name be withdrawn from the petition in favor of the MUSA. She explained to Chairman John that she did not understand the purpose of the petition when she signed it. 2b. MEETING DATE M/S/Withdrawn - DeLapp/Stevens - to request the city council consider changing the Planning Commission meetings from Mondays to Tuesdays in order to have more time to read the packets. The motion was withdrawn due to conflicting schedules. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to request, from now on, that they receive their planning commission packets by Thursday evening, before a regular Monday planning commission meeting. 3. SITE & PLAN REVIEW: CARMELITE MONASTERY Reverend John Burns, Carmelite Monastery, has applied for a site and plan review for construction of additional monastery buildings for a mens community on the property at 8251 DeMontreville Trail N. City Engineer Tom Prew has submitted his report with recommendations, and City Planner Mike Black has submitted his report with recommendations. Scott Miller, M S & R Architects, presented the site plan and building plan for the new monastery and requested approval of the complete concept and building of Phase I at this time. Reverend Burns stated the brothers have leased 30 acres for their monastery from the Carmelite sisters (who own 90 acres). The lease is for one dollar a year for 99 years, at the end of 99 years if the brothers wish to stay the land will then be deeded to them from the sisters. There are presently fourteen brothers, and currently they are residing at the Carmelite sisters monastery in a separate area which has become rather cramped. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page # Reverend Burns anticipates starting the building this year. Phase I would consist of the common area with a kitchen, dining area and living space, Phase II would consist of hermitages (next spring), Phase III would be the Reception Hall and for public visitors (approx. 3 to 5 years), Phase IV would be a church (approx. 7 to 10 years). The Soil perc. tests are acceptable, and the septic system for Phase III will be separate from Phase I. Valley Branch Watershed District has granted a permit. M/S/P Thomas/McLeod - to recommend approval of the Site & Building Plan Concept and the construction of Phase I subject to the conditions stated in City Engineer Tom Prew's report dated July 18, 1991 and subject to the conditions in City Planner Mike Black's report dated August 6, 1991. Findings of Fact: proposed use is a permitted use in the PF zoning district. (Motion carried 8-0-1, abstain: Enes - was not present for discussion). 4. MUSA EXTENSION (Continuation) City Planner Mike Black addressed the commission regarding his memorandum, dated August 6, 1991, providing additional information regarding issues and/or questions raised at the July 22nd public hearing. City Engineer Tom Prew submitted a memorandum providing traffic estimates. City Auditor Rob Tautges gave a presentation addressing the request from the planning commission at their July 22nd meeting for examples of commercial development vs. residential development. As part of the public hearing process, the City of Oakdale responded to the MUSA proposal by memorandum (which was distributed to the commissioners at this meeting). The city administrator indicated Woodbury staff has verbally indicated that at that time they are in favor of the proposal. M/S/F Stevens/Enes - to recommend 3/8 of a mile north of I-94 for extension of the MUSA, or a 1/2 mile north if the City Council agrees to approve the rezoning for Stonegate development. (Motion failed 1-8). M/S/P Thomas/Enes - to recommend tabling this item until the next planning commission meeting to further study the information received from Mr. Tautges. (Motion carried 8-1, against: Conlin - as long as the commission isn't requesting anymore information, it should be able to come to a recommendation.). 5. SITE & PLAN REVIEW: KUNZ OIL The Kunz Oil Company is requesting through Dahl & Associates a building and site plan review for a temporary structure (approximately 5 years) to be located on their property at the corner of Highway 5 and County Road 15. This is a required contamination cleanup project through MPCA for cleanup of contaminants due to leaky fuel tanks while being operated as a gas station. City Planner Mike Black and City Engineer Tom Prew have submitted their review of this proposal. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page # Roger Akel of Dahl & Assoc. stated the structure will be 10' x 24' of concrete block and will be removed after the contaminants are removed from the soil (according to MPCA acceptance levels), and the site will be restored to its original state. There will be virtually no product recovery, but there will be a 50 gallon tank in the building if any products are recovered (60 gallons is the maximum). The building will be screened with landscape. All monitoring and testing is controlled by MPCA, and reports will be submitted to the City to keep updated. Kunz Oil Company is paying for this project. The Fire Marshall and City Building Official have been contacted, and all codes will be met. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE Chairman John opened the public hearing at 10:50 p.m. in the city council chambers. The public hearing notice was published in the St. Croix Valley Press on July 24, 1991. This public hearing is to consider the proposed Comprehensive Amendment to the Flood Plain Management Ordinance Section 304.010 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. The DNR has received a copy of this ordinance. There was no comment from the public. Chairman John closed the public hearing at 10:51 p.m. M/S/P Bucheck/Thomas - to table discussion of this ordinance to the next planning commission meeting due to time (almost 11:00 p.m.). (Motion carried 9-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Meeting Date: Auaust 26. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: OLD BUSINESS: MUSA EXTENSION ITEM NO. 3A. Mike Black has prepared another memo for you along with two suggested motions; one recommending approval of the MUSA extension and the other recommending denial. Mike has tried to answer some of the questions that you have had although as noted the impact of development on a community is a review in itself. If there is anything that you questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to give Mike a call. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Meeting Date: Auaust 26. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT ROLLING HILLS ITEM NO. 4. This is a public hearing to consider the application for a rezoning from Agricultural to RE, and preliminary plat approval for the 12 lot subdivision known as Rolling Hills. Notice has been published in our legal newspaper and property owners withing 350 feet (as required by code) have been notified. Mike Black has reviewed this application and his report is attached. The Parks Commission reviewed this concept at its April 15, 1991 meeting; its recommendation to the city council was that the city obtain 5.6 acres for park land all to be located in Rolling Hills. However, according to our newly adopted park dedication ordinance, the developer is required to dedicate 7% of the land which amounts to 2.8 acres. I believe it was the intention of the parks commission to recommend that the funds from the monetary dedication from Arabian Hills and Fox Fire Manor be used to purchase the additional land for the park. I have attached the minutes from the April 15 parks commission meeting and the minutes from the city council meetings where Fox Fire Manor was given preliminary plat approval and at which time park dedication was discussed. The action of the council was to take park fee dedication from both Arabian Hills and Fox Fire Manor, $16,844 and $11,550 respectively, for a total of $28,394. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes April 15, 1991 Page 2 Commissioner Knoblauch asked Mr. Vanlandschoot to explain the pictures he submitted. Mr. Vanlandschoot explained the existing entrances need improving and more identification. The Parks Commission clarified the easement was documented on Cusick's lot after Jungman bought his lot, and that Mr. Cusick was aware of the easement at the time he purchased his lot. Mr. Vanlandschoot stated a fence along the easement is against the covenants of the development. Administrator Kueffner stated the conditions of the easement is that it's not an easement until the written improvements are in place, which means the split rail fence and the gravel the full length. It cannot be without a fence or the gravel, it's all or nothing. Mark Rivard, 5290 Hill Top Ave., stated the easement doesn't have to be used just because it's there. Andy Shell, 5449 Highlands Tr., stated the neighbors are here tonight to show support for Mr. Jungman & Mr. Cusick. Mr. Shell stated he feels Mr. Derrick and his agents have cause many disputes regarding property lines, also parking near this easement will not be appreciated. Mr. Shell stated certain improvements were promised when the Park Referendum was voted on, and so far these improvements have not been completed. Mr. Shell stated he is getting tired of this easement being brought up continually and would like this resolved. Administrator Kueffner stated the City has accepted a petition to vacate the easement, and that a public hearing will be held and 50% of the neighbors must sign. M/S/F Knoblauch/Lee - to recommend the City Council abandon the Demontreville easement for a walkway into the park (between lots 13 & 14). (Motion failed 6-2-1, abstain: Lyall). 4. PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON FOX FIRE MANOR The Park Dedication for Fox Fire Manor will be based on the New Park Dedication ordinance, which is 2.8 acres of land or 7% of the fair market value to be determined at final plat time. Chairman Hansen suggested either taking the two lots of land on the north west side of the pond in the middle of Rolling Hills or take the three lots of land on the west end of the Rolling Hills development abutting Fox Fire Manor and Steve Korhel's property for Park Land Dedication for Fox Fire Manor and Rolling Hills. Then, if Steve Korhel develops the Commission can request park land from his back acreage and connect it to the Rolling Hills park land. Administrator Kueffner suggested fee's for park dedications will come in handy for purchasing park land after the Park Plan is completed. M/S/P Enes/Lyall - to recommend the City Council request 5.6 acres for Park Land Dedication all to be located in Rolling Hills (the three lots located at the west end common to Steve Korhel's west section.) ( (Motion carried 9-0) LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 16, 1991 PAGE 4 E. Status Report on Kraft Circle Drainage Tom Prew reported he had met with Mr. Rude to discuss the of acquiring a drainage easement along his north property Rude was not in favor of granting an easement for a ditch across his property. Prew recommended the City not pursue acquisition with Mr. Rude. possibility line. tir. or a culvert easement Prew added that the next most economical solution wouldbe to ask Mr. & Mrs. Hamer for an easement. Because the ground is slightly higher and because of the location of the garage, he recommended a pipe outlet be installed all the way across the Hamer property. This option would cost approx. $3500 to construct. The Council reviewed this concern and recommended several ways to resolve the problem. At the last meeting, Mr. Ziniel was asked if he would provide the materials, but was indicated he was not interested. The Mayor noted the City did not accept liability in this case because it was not created by any City action. The Council decided not to review this any further and requested the City Engineer stop looking into the matter. M/S/P Mottaz/Williams - to instruct the staff to write a letter indicating the City's position to Mr. Ziniel and Mr. Wichelman. (Motion carried 5-0). 6. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: A. Rezoning & Preliminary Plat Approval for Fox Fire Manor Mr. Larry Liles on behalf of Pacesetter Property Management, Inc. has requested the rezoning and Fox Fire Manor preliminary plat approval of 40.0 acres located in the northwest quarter of Section 3. The owner of the property is Carl E. Brogen, 9376 55th St., Lake Elmo. The applicants are requesting to rezone the land to Residential Estates and to subdivide the property into 12 single family lots. The subdivision plan calls for the extension of 55th Street North approximately 1800 feet north. The Council indicatedthe proposed rezoning does comply with the RED land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the following motion was made: M/S/ Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to adopt Ordinance 8043 amending Section 301.070C Zoning Distirct Map of the 1979 Municipal Code changing the zoning from RR to RE legal description M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to amend the motion to include a statement that this rezoning is in conformance with our Comp Plan. (Motion carried 5-0). M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to adopt Ordinance 8043 amending Section 301.070C Zoning District Map of the 1979 Municipal Code by amending the zoning from RR to RE as stated in the legal description, this rezoning is in conformance with our Comp Plan and this ordinance shall LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 16, 1991 PAGE 5 r, ( become effective upon it passage and publication. (Motion carried. 5-0). M/S/ Mottaz/Dave Johnson - to accept as park land dedication the 7% Fair Market value in lieu of park land in Fox Fire Manor. M/S/ Williams/Hunt - to postpone consideration of the Preliminary Plat approval and instruct the staff to meet with the owners of Fox Fire Manor and Rolling Hills and the issues concerning road alignment and. park land dedication be raised with those developers and that the City staff request a written agreement be signed by both owners that park land dedication for both plats be taken out of Rolling Hills and that the monetary amount be taken from Fox Fire Manor. Mayor Johnson considered the above motion null and void because he could not permit a motion over an existing motion. M/S/F Mottaz/Dave Johnson - to accept as park land dedication in Fox Fire Manor the 7% Fair Market Value of the development in lieu of park land. (Motion failed 2-3: Hunt, Dick Johnson, Williams). The following were issues andconcerns discussed by the Council: The City Attorney stated the City has to have the owners of Rolling Hills involved in this in order to deal with the park land dedication and road location. Councilman Johnson indicated this development cannot be done unless it is worked in conjunction with Rolling Hills, because there is a variance that is required for the length of cul-de-sac (approx 1800 ft. where 800 ft. is the maximum length of a cul-de-sac allowed by code) and there must be legal assurance that this road will be complete out to Keats. Councilmember Williams indicated there had to be an agreement between the owners of Fox Fire Manor and Rolling Hills concerning park land dedication and access to the Korhel property before this plat could be approved. Councilman Mottaz pointed out, according to our city attorney, this developer cannot guarantee a road going through in the location they have shown unless the City can get a guarantee from the current owner of Rolling Hills. The Attorney also pointed out the City has 120 days from the time the completed application was submitted to consider, accept, or reject the preliminary plat without consent of the developer. The date of the submitted application for rezoning and preliminary plat of Fox Fire Manor was November 30, 1990. Mayor Johnson asked Larry Liles for an extension so the City can be part of the meeting in order to come to an agreement for access to the Korhel property and road alignment. Larry Liles, developer of Fox Fire Manor, agreed to the performance requirements rather than set a specific time for postponement. The Council required a meeting between the owner of Fox Fire Manor, the LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 16, 1991 PAGE 6 owner of Rolling Hills and the City staff to come up with written documentation that the road alignment and access questions raised are addressed and acceptable to our City Attorney. M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to postpone further consideration of Fox Fire Manor preliminary plat approval and to instruct the staff to meet with the owners of Fox Fire Manor and Rolling Hills and raise the issues of road alignment, specifically concerned on the road connections out to Keats Avenue and access being provided to the western boundary of the Korhel property, approx. between lots 2 and 3 of Block 1 of Fox Fire Manor and to have city staff request a written agreement signed by both owners that park land dedication for both plats be taken out of Rolling Hills and the monetary amount be taken from Fox Fire Manor. (Motion carried 5-0). B. PUBLIC HEARING: Old Village Drainage and 33rd Street & Laverne Improvements Mayor Johnson opened up the Public Hearing at 9:38 p.m. in the City Council chambers. The public hearing notice was published in the St. Croix Valley Press on April 3 and April 10 and all affectedproperty owners were notified. Tom Prew, City Engineer, reviewed the Old Village Drainage and 33rd. Street and Laverne Improvement Feasibility Report. Prew reported Route C was discussed with Pete Schiltgen who was agreeable to the proposed easement on his property for this project. Mr. Schiltgen requested the digging in his fields be done after he harvests his crops. An easement is also required from the VFW ballfield and from Joe Rogers, who owns a storage shed along the south side of 33rd Street. Ed Gorman, White Hat Restaurant, asked where does all the water that is contributing to the problem come from. Prew responded there is a large area of Schiltgen's field which drains through the old village area. The City is not proposing to assess the Schiltgen property because it has always been an Ag area and the city consented to develop around the drainage area and never improved the drainage through there. Ed Gorman: In 1984 he gave the City a 20,000 sq.ft. easement for a waterway and walkway. He believed raising the grade over the 201 septic system drainfield caused a dike. He asked if the water problem started after this drainfield was installed. Gorman added, now the city needs an easement across the side of my property to help solve this problem. His property is being assessed. $26,000 and would decrease the value of his land. He is the only land owner within this entire 1.5 million sq.ft. that was required to put in a holding pond when he expanded his restaurant in 1984. He would not be in favor of giving the City an easement. Elmer Dittmann, 3624 Layton Avenue N., asked how could this waterway be changed from 150' to 10' and who allowedthe gas company building in the waterway? LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 1991 PAGE 3 8. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING: A. Park Dedication Ordinance The City Council reviewed the Ordinance for Park Dedication prepared by our City Planner and Attorney after receiving input from the Parks Commission and City Council. The City Attorney pointed out the Council should recognize there has to be a correlation between density and dedication requirements. This is why the state law allows cities to require this type of contribution to offset the demand on park services as a result of development. The correlation between the commercial development and park services are harder to determine. The City Administrator indicated her concern, where mentioned in the code for future park land, those sites should be shown on the Future Land Use Map. The correlation between future park land map and the Comp Plan should be specifically written in the ordinance (Item G). This would make it easier for staff to deal with the people that subdivide and plat. The Parks Commission has determined a sub -committee that will work with Mike Black to come up with a Comprehensive Park Plan. The consensus of the Council was to retain Section 401.400(G) into the ordinance. The Council discussed the justification for the different percentages of land dedication in the zoning district, but no final decision was made. When asked by the Council for her recommendation, the City Administrator recommended 6%, maximum of 7%, land dedication for R1, R2, R3, R4 zoning districts. Councilman Williams indicated his preference in the last draft for D. Contribution in Lieu of Land , including the words "cash, land or any combination thereof". The City Attorney did not feel the Council was ready for approving this ordinance without going thru the municipal code and identifying all the sections of the code which need to be amended. M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to postpone consideration of the Park Dedication Ordinance until the next City Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0). B. Fox Fire Manor Preliminary Plat (Continuation) At the April 16th, meeting, the Council postponed preliminary plat approval of Fox Fire Manor. The Council received a review of this plat as it relates to the Korhel property from Quentin K. Wood & Assoc. Inc, engineer for Fox Fie Manor. A draft of an agreement between the developer of Rolling Hills and Fox Fire Manor had been prepared by the City Attorney and submitted for Council review. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 1991 PAGE 4 M/S/ Hunt/Williams - to deny preliminary plat approval for Fox Fire Manor based on the fact we have only assurance of construction of a long cul-de-sac. However, the developer of Fox Fire Manor will be be allowed to reinstate, without penalty, his application after such time Rolling Hills preliminary plat has been approved by the City. Discussion followed: Councilman Hunt voiced his concern on landlocking the Korhel parcel. Councilman Johnson requested assurance that this road would go through to Keats Avenue. Councilman Williams explained it was not his intent to stop this development, but to co-ordinate the two developments, Fox Fire Manor and Rolling Hills. Therefore, the following motion was made: M/S/F Williams/Hunt - to amend the motion to include with the agreement of the developer of Fox Fire Manor to postpone consideration of the preliminary plat until such time that the preliminary plat of Rolling Hills and Fox Fire Manor can be considered simultaneously. (Motion failed 2-3: Dick Johnson, Mayor Johnson, Mottaz). M/S/F Williams/Hunt - to deny preliminary plat approval of Fox Fire Manor based on the fact we have only assurance of construction of a long cul-de-sac. However, the developer of Fox Fire Manor be allowed to reinstate, without penalty, his application after such time Rolling Hills preliminary plat has been approved by the City. (Motion failed 2-3: Dick Johnson, Mayor Johnson, Mottaz). M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to grant preliminary plat approval of Fox Fire Manor based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. The proposed lots in subdivision meet the minimum requirements for the Residential Estates (RE) Zoning District. 2. The proposed plat is consistent with the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant has provided soil borings and percolation tests as required by the Lake Elmo Municipal Code; subject to the conditions set forth in the City Planner's memo dated March 21, 1991, subject to the conditions of the VBWD memo dated March 22, 1991, subject to the conditions noted in the City Engineer's memo dated March 20, 1991, subject to a park dedication fee of 7% of the undeveloped value of the land to be determined no later than the time of final plat; contingent upon an agreement being reached by the developer of Rolling Hills, the developer of Fox Fire Manor and the City to provide an extension of 55th Street North thru to Keats Avenue and further that a performance bond for roads provided to the City by both developers prior to approval of final plat for Fox Fire Manor. (Motion carried 5-0). The City Attorney explained that prior to Final Plat approval of Fox Fire Manor we will have enuf engineering data to describe a road required, that it be dedicated, have sufficient performance bonds to construct the road by the city if the developer does not do so within a certain period of time approved by the City. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 7, 1991 PAGE 5 M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to reconsider the motion to approve preliminary plat of Fox Fire Manor for the sole purpose of dealing with the small cul-de-sac, which extends east west off the intersection of the roads. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilman Williams requested that the small cul-de-sac be made a private driveway rather than a public street for the following reasons: it serves only one property, it is a short cul-de-sac, and as shown does not provide a full turnaround radius for snowplows, etc., and does not serve the city purposes to make this a public street. M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to amend the motion to include the small cul-de-sac, showing as serving Lot 5, Block 3, be made into a private driveway. (Motion carried 5-0). C. Rezoning from RR to AG: Neil & Deb Krueger, 4452 Lake Elmo Avenue The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22, 1991 to consider the request of Neil & Deborah Krueger for a rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Agricultural (A) and recommended on a 7-0 vote that this rezoning be granted. Findings of Fact: A. The applicants have provided a statement of reasons for the rezoning request. B. The proposed land use (Ag) conforms to the future land use designation in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. 1. The soil map within the 1990 Comprehensive Plan indicates the property is Agriculturally suitable. 2. There is an existing tree farm on the site. C. Records at the City office and at Washington County indicate this property is owned by Neil & Deborah Krueger. D. The Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by Municipal Code and recommended on a 7-0 vote that this rezoning be granted. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to adopt Ordinance 8044 rezoning the property legally described in said ordinance from Rural Residential (RR) to Agricultural (Ag) based on the above referenced Findings of Fact and based on a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission. (Motion carried 5-0). Councilmam Johnson advised the applicants that when they come back for a CUP to allow an office and gift shop, they clearly understand what is required under the ordinance for Alternate Ag uses. AUG-21-'91 WED 14:47 ID:JAMES R HILL INC TEL NO:612 999-6244 nosJ PO6 JAMES R. HILL, INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120, RORNSV4IE, MINNESOTA 55337 (6121 890-6044 Fax 890.6244 PLANNING Rg,FQBT TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission and City Admintisirat Mary Kueffner FROM: Mike Black+ 1`..'+S" DATE: August 20, 1991 RE: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat ROLLING HILLS Mr. Roger Kolstad representing the developer, Nelson Properties, Inc., has submitted applications for the rezoning and preliminary plat approval of 39.97 acres located in the northeast quarter of Section 3. A location map is attached. The applicant has requested to rezone the property from A -Agricultural to RE -Residential Estate and to subdivided the property into 12 single family lots. This report and recommendation is based upon the following exhibits r•.bmitted by the applicant: 1. Preliminary Plat dated July 30, 1991. 2. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan signed by Quentin K. Wood and dated August 5, 1991. 3. Preliminary Landscape Plan dated August 1, 1991. 4. Soils Map for Rolling Hills (no date). REZONIy The subject property is designated RED Residential Estate Density on the City's Future Land Use Map. The existing zoning is Agricultural. The applicants request to rezone the property to RE Residential Estate is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The subject property consists of a rolling terrain with a topographical difference of approximately 57 feet across the land. The high elevation is in the northwest and southwest corners of the property at 1004 elevation. The lowest area is the large pond partially on the, subject property and cal Lhe property to the north. The water elevation on the pond is 947. The existing large pond, Klawitter Pond, is a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected wetland (#369w). On the e'te there are five other existing low wetland areas. In addition to ( City of Lake Elmo, development of this site will require review and approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota DNR, and the Valley Branch Watershed District. Lake Elmo Planning Commission lgust 20, 1991 Mtge 2 The applicant has provided to the City a preliminary plat drawing with a soil map overlay. Over 50% of the site has soil types with severe limitations for on -site septic tank and soil absorption systems. Hence it is important for the applicant to provide soil tests and percolation tests for the following lots: Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1 Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 On all lots the applicant must show the location of land to be dedicated for septic systems in accordance with Section 301.070 C.(9) (p. 301-48c). The preliminary plat includes 12 single family lots ranging from 2.5 acres to 3.7 acres on size. The subdivision density and lot sizes do conform to the RE zoning standards. All lots also meet the requirement that they be configured to contain a circle with a diameter of 250 feet. The subdivision plan calls for the extension of 55th Street North out ur Llst Lutu5:c Pen Fire manor oubdivicinn and avtendinq masterly to Keats Avenue. A proposed street right of way is also provided for future coess into the Kohrel property to the south. The City's parkland dedication ordinance states that 7% of the land area (2.8 acres) may be required for parkland or cash in lieu of land. The developer is showing no parkland in the plat. The Planning Commission should seek a recommendation from the Parks Commission on this matter. A landscaping plan has been submitted which shows heavy screening along Keats Avenue. It appears that the applicant is proposing to plant the required amount of landscaping on either the east or west ends of the subdivision. Screening along Keats Avenue is desirable; however, I suggest that more landscaping be done along each front property line and outside the street right of way. The following is a list of concerns of questions that I have regarding this plat review: 1. Will Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 3, have 1.25 acres of land above drainage easement areas? 2. Soil borings and percolation tests must be provided for the following lots (demonstrating that on -site septic and drainfield systems are feasible): Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 3. Coptic drainfield locations met be .Shown en 4.1 lots in accordance with Section 301.070 C.(9)(a). IlLJLI G1 J1 INLL 1Y•YJ IL. J III ILJ IN I IL L.L. 41Y4r ILL 1G VJV Lake Elmo Planning Commission ( \gust 20, 1991 -age 3 4. Depending upon the interpretation of the 3:1 lot depth to lot width ratio - Lot 3, Block 1 may not meet the ordinance standard. 5. Lot 2, Block 2 is very peculiar in shape and has over 1400 feet of Street frontage. 6. The required house setback next to a collector street (Keats Avenue) is 150 feet. 7. The applicant is showing 80 feet of street right of way in the northwest corner where the road will Connect to Fox Fire Manor. Why 80 feet and why not 60 feet as shown throughout the plat? 8. what is the status of other agency reviews - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota DNB and Valley Branch watershed District? 9. Does the applicant intend to do additional landscaping than what is show on this plan? -wroMMF 4f A T T ON ( I recommend approval of the rezoning request from Agricultural to Residential Estates for the following reasons: 1, The proposed land use does conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The use will be compatible with other planned land uses in the area. 3. The use will not be detrimental to adjacent properties. At this time, however, I cannot recommend apprnval of the preliminary plat until the issue/questions in this report are addressed by the applicant. HUG-21—'91 WED 14:49 ID:JAMES R HILL INC TEL NO:612 890-6244 #090 P09 7 50 9510 0 140 25 noel 7 'cgin5 ey .7,50 �w 3190 1100,• • STATE ev ,a000, ROAD ,c nY p[W az• w4• m• 7020 59. 1 AL HIGHWAY 36 1Film- • Of ;30 z500 r 2405); 0 Lb'70 t-,_ :A_ • 4950 i 41100 6 6:0 •'900 \47;4 l ), I :nu! Inc .ram # 4- ` L 1 W x�e 2040 ' ' 0 ZIPS ATAIIMAS ' . ref-47 r.•• 0000 201r c T0Z0 • 39$0 A 471h ST State of Minnesota. City of Lake Elmo Sharon Lumby ,being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States citizen. over 18 years of age, and a resident of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota On August 14, 1991 , acting on behalf of the said city, I deposited in the United States post office at Lake Elmo, Minnesota, copies of the attached public hearing preliminary plat of Rolling Hills enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses appearing opposite their respective names: Name (See attached) Address There is delivery service by United States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. a Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this /S day of 6e 19 y( . G. ,X->_ Notary Public ' CITY OF LAKEAlik ELMO City of Lake Elmo August 14, 1991 Dear Resident/Property Owner: 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 The City has received an application for preliminary plat approval of a 12-lot subdivision to be known as Rolling Hills. A copy of the public hearing notice relative to this request is attached along with a map showing area of subdivided property. If you have any questions regarding this proposed subdivision prior to the August 26, 1991 public hearing, please don't hesitate in calling. Sincerely, Mary Ku ner City dm istrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO Notice of Public Hearing The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 26, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue N., Lake Elmo, Minnesota, to consider the request of Nelson Properties, Inc./Roger Kolstad for rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Residential Estates (RE) and preliminary plat approval of a 12-lot subdivision to be known as Rolling Hills. The property consists of approximately 40 acres and is legally described, in part, as follows: That part of the South half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 79, Range 21, lying Northerly of the South 655.93 feet thereof, as measured at a right angle to the South line of said Northeast Quarter. Subject to a roadway easement for existing Keats Avenue over the East 33.00 feet thereof. A11 in Washington County, Minnesota. All persons who wish to be heard. regarding this proposed rezoning and preliminary plat will he given that opportunity at this public hearing. Written comments will be accepted up until the time of the public hearing. Mary Kueffner City Administrator Published in the St. Croix Valley Press August 1a, 1991 Norcott Investments ATTN: Larry Liles 5926 Bass Lake Road Crystal, MN 55429 Carl E. Brogren 9376 55th Street Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Pederson, Morris & Donna 9585 60th Street N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Lauseng Ruben & Laudine 9591 60th St. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Richard Klawitter 9839 60th St. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Robert Ziertman 10193 60th St. N. Lake ELmo, MN 55042 Steve Ziertman 5699 Keats Avenue N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Diane yylashenberger 5761 Keats Avenue Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Richard Menz 5615 Keats Avenue N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Steve & Nancy Korhel 5540 Keats Avenue Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Roger Kolstad Nelson Properties, Inc. 6579 North Shore Trail Forest Lake, MN 55025 • • .• • R-R . • 1 a AM FOX FIRE MANOR mmoosm — . 0 • • • • 1 HIGHWAY 36 Y • •1•-.1♦ •.--_•••=••.•• ROLLING HILLS ARABIAN HILLS A . . AP R- • i z� ........... )11 w.•..•!o • 1 1 _R:) ▪ GP "10 • 1 2 ]me I CD 1 4 4111 r w• '4' crl W A4 ; — R-R siT AP i AIM - 0 ram ■ — • .001 01.11.•••• it::::)•• • • { • =•.." ......; .--- ... i a • • L -•} { REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Meeting Date: Auaust 26. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: CONCEPT REVIEW: LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION RONNY GJERSTAD, 11311 50TH STREET ITEM NO. 5. Attached is an sketch plan provided by Ronny Gjerstad for a large lot subdivision he is proposing at 11311 50th Street North. Mr. Gjerstad owns 20 acres and would like to make to 10 acre lots from this. There is, as you can see from the sketch plan, an existing house on the property. This creates a problem in that even though the property can theoretically be split into two parcels, both with the required 300 foot frontages, the configuration of the lot is somewhat odd. Before Mr. Gjerstad proceeds with applying for a subdivision, he would like a recommendation or concensus from the Commission as to whether it would grant a variance for the frontage required (similar to the George Krueger subdivision) or a variance to the lot ratio requirement. Sheet 3 of 4,Sheets SKETCH SHOWING GENERAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS of Part of Section 12, T29N, R21W, City of Lake Elmo, Wash. Co., Minn. Prepared for: Mr. and tars. George Krueger, 11491 North 50th St., Lake Elmo, Mn. 55042 Prepared by: Stack Land Surveying, 9090 Fairy Falls :wad No., Stillwater, Mn. 55082 tel: 612-439-5630 Notes: Sketch is based on a photo enlargement of a USGS Quadrangle Nap. 10 foot contour interval NGVD as shown thereon, have not been field checked by me as of Oct. 15, 1982. Pond area location is scaled from an aerial photograph and is approximate. Q -- ---+ Indicates approximate surface water drainage floes' per USGS Quadrangle Map. O c • A' I maw r e is AP 0 O 7 0 U A' U ottl — 0 R-R 1-1 a J •U 'A 11 - i REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Meeting Date: Auaust 26. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: ITEM REVIEW OF BUILDING TO BE MOVED INTO CITY NO. 6. The City has received an application from a property owner to move a building onto their property which consists of approximately 21 acres. Section 502.070 of the code states that before any house or structure is moved into a lot or parcel in the City, the owner shall apply for a building permit. The Building Official shall present the site plan, construction plans, and photos of the structure to the Planning Commission. We have attached a site plan of the parcel, and have pictures that will be ( made available at the meeting. A • - A 1 )0 i1 •---27•.` • 0 • o'ti�., e 1J 1 1 R�c�uassn, C[iP 1 t7 , 1 E..171 __ A 1.... ! ., 1 . = 1__!,./ "--...i4 fi a • i fa - 1 i / A. .' I agriculture, R-1 one family residential P public. .. ` HB highway business GB general business +; � i - -..� 4 0. + i 11~1 ^% a A- (CUPC1JP16 'i L 4, Cu; - , n ►.- ... E:1‘G8 is 3 :_afri., "......r :L.- R-3 manufactured home park R—R .' rural residential Ind {. Industrial KUA' ` conditional use permit agricultural preserves March 15, 1983 ni. no. wen 1.,_ • w 1..• :. M-+./ haw .• •111—. MAP 9 P.19A • --� s7Xa1 J30tI ,//O "/ sr AI Gigtx 0 /00 SCALE sIONNIS NORTH SOD /N FEET LEGEND Prooetty /Ina: surveyed erofterty Mae, not surreyeq' Aran p,oe icounar • /ran p'oe set COunty Section Monument ;® Completeness as to easements and Other matters of record affecting tit/e !s hat guaranteed: SW : o.P. t- Ni/No SW% SW% .71C.27 N 89'/0'17'E d6/. 6C'• - - �UndergroandT/. !v6/e Wong' ,I/ Line v, 20'ft ✓� OP E. 2 0.: 7CPt. DF W. ;i SW,. Sbv;.'y •- Sz-.S B9 °/G:$711 20170' S! fy SW Ste, 27-29-2/ E-S.6j,yr Swf. SW IF6.27 C07NTY ROAD A'G' 70 L EGA L De—SCR/PT/0N he rust X of cne fa✓tnwes: A. of t/.'e Soutnwes ,fa,. and the North 300.00/eat of the Ease 20/ 70/•eet afthe were jZ gf ca.' ScuthwestA:, of the fcvthwest Section 27 Tawnshio 29 Neren, .Pange 2/ West, Washington County, Aehnnesaca. This ,parse/ can to/ns 2/ Sf acres are? 009 :aeon /eed //ore or LAN DATA ASSOCIATES. I NC. 1300 SOO LINE BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55402 (61 21 333-8705 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. • OAT" '••- .1 REGISTRATION NO. o-,. 4 (This was inadvertently left off the agenda). REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Meeting Date: Auaust 26. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: DRIVEWAYS ITEM NO. 7. The City has received a request from a resident asking that the city review the rules and regulations it has for the width of driveways where it meets the road. This request was the result of a letter our building official wrote to a resident who paved more than the allowed 24 feet. I believe Mr. and Mrs. Jesecki will be showing you pictures of driveways in the area that exceed the allowed 24 foot maximum and I won't argue that this has indeed been a real problem in the city. The commission may wish to review this ordinance and make changes, but you should know that if Mr. and Mrs. Jesecki's contractor would have come in and got the required building permit (which he did after the fact) he would have been advised of the driveway standards. Please give this some careful thought, and look at the size of the homes that are being built in the city (most have three car garages), and if necessary postpone until your next meeting so it can be thoroughly discussed. CITYOF LAKE iiiELMO • August 26, 1991 City of Lake Elmo TO: Mayor..& _City -Council Plannips.Commission enter"este -"Residents FROM: Mary Kueffner City Administrator RE: 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 al Proposed State Rules Governing Content Requirements for Metropolitan Surface Water Management Plans At the informational meeting held Monday August 19, by VBWD, which included staff members from the DNR, MPCA and Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, Watershed Management Planning Rules (6th draft) was 1991, hosted Met. Council, the Metropolitan discussed° I have enclosed a copy of that draft for your review, and encourage anyone that is able to attend one of the public meetings listed to do so, enc. b August 16, 1991 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mary Kueffner Planning Commission Chairman, Wyn John has called a special Planning Commission meeting for Monday, August 19, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. The purpose of this meeting is to have an informal discussion with George Burkards from United Properties. United Properties is located on the east side of County Road 13 and I-94, and it is the property under consideration for a major commercial development (corporate office complex). This meeting will be limited to one hour as the Valley Branch Watershed District is holding an informational meeting at Tartan Park at 7:30 p.m. Representatives from the MPCA, DNR and Soils & Conservation will be at this meeting. Their focus will be the quality of lakes within the VBWD.