Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-91 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. AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: August 26 & September 9, 1991 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Large Lot Subdivision & Variance: Everett Beaubien 4. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN 5. JOINT MEETING WITH THE COUNCIL SET TIME & DATE. 6. RECOMMENDATION FROM SUBCOMMITTEE ON DRIVEWAYS 7. OTHER - "(Ott/AJ 6- Hitt. .5' 8. ADJOURN Date Approved: 9-23-91 Date Issued: 10-25-91 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 Vice Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the city council chambers. Present: Enes, Johnston, McLeod, Stevens, Bucheck (arrived 7:40), DeLapp, Schubert (arrived 7:50) Conlin, Weeks (arrived 7:40), City Planner Black, Administrator Kueffner. Absent: Thomas, John. 1. AGENDA Add - 8. Other - Discussion of Woodbury & Oakdale letters to the City regarding MUSA. M/S/P DeLapp/Conlin - to approve the agenda as amended. (Motion carried 6-0). 2. MINUTES: August 26, 1991 M/S/P McLeod/Bucheck - to table the August 26, 1991 minutes until the next meeting that Chairman John is present. (Motion carried 9-0). 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Large Lot Subdivision: Ron Gjerstad, 11311 50th Street Notice of the public hearing was published in the St. Croix Valley Press on August 8, 1991, and adjoining property owners were notified. This is a public hearing to consider the request of Ronny D. Gjerstad, 11311 50th Street N., for a large lot subdivision of the property legally described in part as the N 1/2 of the W 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, Twp 29, R 21. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 20 acre parcel into two (2) 10 acre lots which require a variance for the frontage required and a variance to the lot ratio requirement in the Rural Residential Zoning district. Vice Chairman Enes opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. in the city council chambers. Mr. Gjerstad stated he would rather have the 300 foot frontage brought down to 150 feet because this would make the lot configuration less odd shaped. Mr. Gjerstad stated he would like to build a home on the back parcel for himself and has the existing house sold contingent on the decision of the Planning Commission tonight. Mr. Gjerstad stated he would gladly grant the city drainage easements, and dedicate the pond on his property as DNR protected wetland. Mr. & Mrs. Dalluge, 11330 50th St. N., stated they are in support of the proposal. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 2 As part of the public hearing process, a letter submitted by Reid Gilbertson and Laurel Drevlow, 11421 50th St. N., was made part of the minutes by reference. Vice Chairman Enes closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. The commission discussed basis for hardship for recommending the variances. City Planner Black reported his recommendations that the applicant should show a dedicated easement around the DNR protected wetland for the pond for both parcels, and show dedicated easements to the City for drainage from the West - Day Property, and this may restrict access to the property, and the planning commission react to what's before them or the applicant re -draw the subdivision as to what the applicant is really requesting and bring this back to the commission. Also, if the City is concerned about flag lots - this is indeed a flag lot and the commission would be setting a precedent by approving this proposal. It's up to the applicant to demonstrate a hardship. M/S/F DeLapp/Johnston - to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision with the 350' frontage be changed to 150' frontage, both lots be 10 acre minimum, and contingent on the owner re -draw the survey showing the continuing D.U.E. lines and grant the City easement rights and the DNR protected wet land. (Motion failed 3-6, against: Bucheck, Conlin, Stevens, Schubert, McLeod, Weeks - all agree with City Planner Blacks recommendations.) M/S/P Conlin/DeLapp - to table the discussion until the September 23rd meeting and the applicant should at that time present a new drawing which addresses the city planner's recommendations. (DNR easement and city drainage easements shown, flag lot issue, lot ratio issue, frontage issue). (Motion carried 9-0). 4. ROLLING HILLS - PRELIMINARY PLAT (CONT.) The City received a letter on August 9, 1991, from the applicant of Rolling Hills subdivision requesting the preliminary plat be tabled until the next planning commission meeting of September 23rd. The Planning Commission received copies of this letter at the meeting. The commission discussed the park dedication for this plat. M/S/PDeLapp/Bucheck - to recommend that the developer show on the preliminary plat a parkland dedication of 2.85 acres equal to 7% of the land plus another parcel of land adjoining this 2.85 acres to be purchased by the Parks Commission. (Motion carried 6-2-1, against: Conlin - the P&Z should not be deciding where land should be taken, the Parks Commission should make that recommendation, McLeod - the Parks Commission should make their recommendation to the City Council, abstain: Enes). LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 3 5. FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE The planning commission discussed the latest draft of the Floodplain Management Ordinance with City Planner Black. M/S/P Conlin/Stevens - to table discussion of this ordinance and to form a subcommittee of Ann Bucheck, Steve DeLapp and Mike Black for the purpose of reviewing and discussing this ordinance further, and for this subcommittee to report back to the Planning Commission with any recommendations. (Motion carried 9-0). 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS M/S/P DeLapp/Bucheck - to put an Economic Development Committee on the Planning Commission work plan for 1991. (Motion carried 9-0). 7. DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL ON DRIVEWAYS M/S/P Johnston/Bucheck - to form a subcommittee, consisting of Steve DeLapp, Jim McLeod and Rob Enes, to discuss the driveway ordinance and how it should now address homes with three car garages, and to report their recommendations at the September 23rd planning commission meeting. (Motion carried 9-0). The September 9, 1991 Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to:the Lake Elmo Planning Commission: attention: Mary Kueffner, City Administrator This letter regards the request by Mr. R.Gjerstad for lot subdivision and variances,related to it. About a year ago, when we were attempting to purchase the property ad- jacent to Mr. Gjerstad's, a certain builder/developer was also hoping to buy the property and obtain similar variances to the ones requested by Mr. Gjerstad to allow more than one home to be built on the acreage. Mr. Gjerstad was, at that time, strongly opposed to any such variances or subdivisions. To our great fortune the builder's requests were denied and we were able to obtain the entire property. It is surprising, then, at the very least, to find Mr. Gjerstad requesting the very kind of variances he had so forcefully opposed less than a year ago. Without addressing the obvious incongruity in these actions or his motivation for them, we would simply like the planning commission to support, with us, a "no exceptions" approach to the ban on such variances. in Lake Elmo and oppose this subdivision and the variances requested. The wish to maintain the relaxed, rural lifestyle around Lake Elmo may be incompatible with population growth in the next millenium. But for the present we should be able to enforce rules, regulations, and ordinances that promote that much sought after environment. Accepting this request for sub- division and variances would, in our opinion, be contrary to this intention. We therefore respectfully urge the planning commission to administer their governances equitably and deny this request for property subdivision and variances just as they have done in the past. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, R. Gilbertson L. Drevlow REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW MEETING DATE: September 23. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Large Lot Subdivision & Variance: Everett Beaubien. ITEM NO. 3. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Everett Beaubien for a large lot subdivision , and variance to the requirement for 300 feet of frontage on a public road and the 4:1 lot ration required in the Rural Residential zoning district. Notice of this hearing has been published in our legal newspaper and residents within 350' have been notified. Mike Black has reviewed this application, and his report is attached. Also attached is the minutes from the meeting at which the planning commission reviewed this application in concept. For those of you that have not had the opportunity to visit this site, I would encourage you to do so. JAMES R. HILL, INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 (612) 890-6044 Fax 890.6244 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mike B1 a DATE: September 17, 1991 RE: Everett Beaubien - Large Lot Subdivision cx Lake Elmo ,P1J1nn i g D mmission and City Administrator 1vA� 11.', ,1`✓ INTRODUCTION Mr. Everett Beaubien has submitted an application for a large lot division in order to create a new home site on the southwest side Sunfish Lake. The applicant actually owns three separate parcels are identified as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit "A" attached. sub - of which Parcel 1 is approximately 40 acres and is rented for cropland. The property has an existing metal pole building on the property. Along the northeast portion of this property, on the shore of Sunfish Lake, is where the applicant would like a new home site. This 40 acre tract of land currently has approximately 675 feet of frontage along Kelvin Avenue North. Parcel 2 consists of 5.22 acres and Mr. Beaubien has his home on this parcel. Access to the Beaubien property is from Kelvin Avenue and across a 33 foot private road easement over the 40 acre tract. Please refer to Exhibit "B". Approximately 50% of the parcel is below the ordinary high water level of Sunfish Lake. Parcel 3 consists of 11.23 acres and consists mainly of Lake bed area. A very small area of dry land is in the northeast corner of the property on the northeast shore of Sunfish Lake. The applicant's properties are all designated as Rural Agricultural Density (RAD) on the City's Future Land Use Map. All three parcels are currently zoned R-R Rural Residential. The R-R zoning standards include: Lot Size: Lot Width: Lot Ratio: Setbacks*: 10 Ac. (nominal) 300 feet 4 to 1 front - 30 feet side - 10 feet side street - 25 feet rear - 40 feet * Sunfish Lake is classified as a natural environment shoreland standards require a 200 foot setback from high water elevation. Sunfish Lake OHW - 896.4 100 yr. - 900.0 bldg. elev. - 903.0 lake and the the ordinary ( City of Lake Elmo September 17, 1991 Page 2 Attached as Exhibit "C-1" is a copy of the surveyor's certificate showing the proposed 11.37 acre parcel (2.6 acres plus 8.77 acres). Exhibit "C-2" further describes the proposed new parcel in relation to the existing three parcels owned by the applicant. Exhibit "D" shows the westerly portion of the proposed new parcel in relation to the existing private road easement to the Beaubien's homestead. It is assumed that this new parcel will also have access to Kelvin Avenue North via this same private roadway easement. STAFF COMMENTS My concerns and comments regarding this request for a large lot subdivision are as follows: 1. Subdivision Process. The applicant has requested a large lot sub- division. Large lot subdivisions are allowed as an exception to the platting requirements and procedures where conditions are "simple" or easily defined. This is not a simple division of one large parcel into two parcels meeting all code requirements. This request involves three existing parcels which will result in four parcels and this request may eventually involve a fifth parcel - the Harstad property. In this case, T question if a large lot subdivision is appropriate as opposed to a plat. 2. r.nt Cnnfiavration.. The proposed lot configuration is very unusual and appears only to be drawn to circumvent the minimum lot size of 10 acres in the R-R zone. The majority of the parcel is lake bed and the only buildable portion of the parcel is approximately the westerly 2.5 acres. 3. Lot Frontaae. Section 401.040 (p. 400-5)of the City Code requires 300 feet of frontage on a public street. The proposed new parcel would have no frontage on a public street. 4. Remnant Parcels. The applicant's existing homestead parcel (Parcel #2 on Exhibit A) consists of 5.22 acres in a zoning district where the minimum lot size is 10 acres. By approving the proposed large lot subdivision the existing homestead parcel will be reduced in size to approximately 4.8 acres. Also by approving the new 11.37 acre parcel a 100 foot wide remnant portion of the original Parcel 3 will be created. The applicant has talked about adding this land to his homestead and to the Harstad homestead. City of Lake Elmo September 17, 1991 Page 3 5. Ex,G ina Conditions. Section 401.260 B.3. (p. 400-17) state the submission requirements for a large lot subdivision. The survey submitted by the applicant (Exhibit "C-1"), which was prepared by Delmar H. Schwanz, has no topographical data (2 foot contours), it does not show the existing private easement and it'does not show all existing buildings. The topography is important relative to the City's Shoreland Standards. It is questionable if a new home could be built on the proposed parcel and still meet the 200 foot shoreland setback standard. It is also not known where the exact location of the existing pole barn is relative to the new proposed property lines. RECOMMENDATION At the July 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting a concept review of this subdivision was made. At that time a favorable review was made by the Planning Commission because it would be the last shoreland development along the lake in this area and there was discussion of the applicant granting parkland to the City. I do not recommend approval of this large lot subdivision; however, if the Planning Commission's wishes to give further consideration to this request, then I would recommend to table until: 1. The applicant demonstrates that a home can be constructed on the proposed lot and meet all setback requirements. 2. In addition to locating a proposed house on the property, the applicant should also show a primary and second drainfield location. 3. The location of all existing buildings should be shown. 4. The applicant and City should agree upon a parkland or cash in lieu of land dedication. 5. The applicant should clearly indicate his future intentions for all remnant parcels. My recommendation for denial of this large lot subdivision is for the following reasons: 1. The new parcel would not have frontage on a public roadway. 2. This large lot subdivision is not in an area easily defined or conditions are simple, hence platting procedures are more appropriate. City of Lake Elmo September 17, 1991 Page 4 3. The existing 40 acre parcel (Parcel #1 on Exhibit "A") is a buildable parcel. 4. A 10 acre parcel could be subdivided from the 40 acre parcel. 5. Although the proposed parcel is 11.37 acres, the parcel shape is unusual and more than 50% of the land is below the OHW of Sunfish Lake. 6. The subdivision would create a new land locked parcel which is also less than 10 acres. 7. The existing non -conforming homestead parcel will be reduced further in size. 8. It is not clear that a new home could be constructed on the new parcel and meet all setback standards including the 200 foot shoreland setback from the OHW of Sunfish Lake. IMO BOULEVARD 2050 t1111511 RE'W5I,"RE4 i 4NC wec 5✓ ✓tY 54 (3ICR' I 14100 5.22±AG. 2055 2O( (Ewusrr" 15" AS IS SCALE' I INCH • 50 FEET 0 N 0 0 0 z s4n y44 yo.Oy —Il 616U V 4Co6°ttE a F Dy rB e/ ^ 1211.55 425.06 N69°33'29"E ET 111101 ON LIME Eee r9 lL `WIPE a—r 426.06 FENCE TRACT 5.22 AC. N69°47'06"E O z I Lnrnly n rI IEy that Ilrin nii. vow.. 1'Lrn.. a Ir.I v •i 1'r•p.n...l Ny "WI or mrinr my Oil rn.I nnl"'ry l n I ton ."nI 1 W" I n er.1.0v xngl NLnrnrl In\nrl M1rlrvnynr �rnrinr Ilan lawn ell ^I nlr..rf Ili lrnnn.•r.r. nnlmer II. schwa nx Ilna. Nn., nNR n SEX NT ACIIFT SHEET FnN I.rnM, nEIPI1.1P rt. RAD >op^ 0 RAP arein 2050 • 0 UlatIKE LANb I ' 43rd STREET NUnin 2055 2050 0 1 \I -. �. / �. _ \_, J P R- R W I 2050 61at— 2460 w aloe or RE ✓5!! "Ctl 4'9: S,eYue * :a 0 loss r6•4. lax tax, I I I 3215 2360 2365 10t LJ Paso 5 CttkA50 PO h0l 2200 006) 140 1 0 2060 tOS DELMAR H. SCHWANZ LAND SURVEYOR% INC, Registered Under tin of The Slate of Minnesota 14750 SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL ROSEMOUNT• MINNESOTA 55060 E12/423-1750 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE N 0 L M Nri M a N CI'ID la ~ w tt+ 4 O N n t7 °+ M (+ N �4 N ZZ o y A O n+ 0R m £ N. .'7 O 'x N cn y 'OY u hi N It _ N �/ en N O 1 N ✓ c TT 0 M H r 250.90 SOUTH NORTH NO°06'41"E '92,71 f 33Pd1.6S M.2 LPo6e5 191 M 1\ • m w 0 1 H H. 0 0 0 H • f✓ M IMIREIRREsell sate 3450 t / ROAD EASEMENT N.:113:111, J, 6160 X66^+528 E 60 126.6! 1 x � 1 3 t'%H 113 r F fit, 425.06 N69"33'29"E %/Z Z/ w� TRACT C „SET IIIPRS .1 / 0101Ir1E 211 0 \ 5.22 AC. APPROX. SHORELINE N 69 ° 47'06"E 0 1 hereby ,-.rl1Iy nett rhl++mv.v. 1 l...,. en rq..rr v .1r^hr....l by we nr one,.. my .um,rI nu ✓., vIr lnu .nr1 I ...Ws . Snorliartred I..,ul Siirvf.ynt nixie(Ilr 1.,r., nl ,Iv. sine.- of Ill ni n...n, n. 44 r41 X (? mlm. N. Schwan?:Im.1. ih, r,1, nn1 ATT6f,ln, gun cm* 1ry nl .,r.,l,, ,1.m7 I). r.m1 des.- E° Sna, Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1991 Page 5 5. EVERETT BEAUBIEN CONCEPT Mr. Beaubien, 3691 Kelvin, has asked for a concept review of a proposed subdivision and variance to the required frontage on a city improved street. The Planning Commission received a drawing indicating Mr. Beaubien's request for another homesite allowed off of the private road, and all commissioner's were encouraged to visit the site to better understand the proposal. The consensus of the Planning Commission was approval of the 10 acre subdivision with no variance required. Commissioner Stevens did not approve of the subdivision as it creates a crazy lot shape. City Planner Black stated the strip of land between the Harstead property should be legally included in the plat and replat this piece or an RLS. M/S/P DeLapp/Conlin - to table the remaining agenda items until the next planning commission meeting. (Motion carried 9-0). 6. RECOMMENDATION ON PLANNER At the last city council meeting the council received a print out of the current budget - what was budgeted vs. what has been spent. This budget review showed the city has almost expended its funds for our Planner. However, escrow fees have been increased. M/S/P Johnston/DeLapp - recommend the City Council give until the end of the year to build the Planner Fund from escrows based on the finding of fact that the City is running more smoothly and in the long run will be saving money by using a professional planner. (Motion carried 9-0). The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. CITY OF LAKE ELMO REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OR PLANNING COMMISSION f you wish to address the City Council or Planning Commission, please follow the suggestions listed below: (Please Print) Name 20..A-NI G 1t eik,Y' VCk. V\ Date il20/9 Address 3 Coo h . k.Q.IOr 11 Au Phone 77 7 ©s 7 Z, Agenda Item or Subject you wish to address LonaC L.b"i SI.6 ulsn oVt t AtIA., e Battubie� Company or Individual Representing, if applicable V QAN,KJ NOTES: Please complete this form so that you may be recognized at the appropriate time on the Agenda. You are under no obligation to speak if you decide against it during the meeting. Please state your full name and address so that the record of your comments will be complete in the minutes of this meeting. SEP ? 131 15:11 I4ILLNEF' AHD AESOC. h1= P0: DON S. WILLNER ZACHARY ZABINSKY DRAW. J. DORSAY ROSEMARIE CORDELL° REBECCA E. SWANSON • Atsn Admitted in W adhingmn and New Mexmo FAX (?03) 22S 4261 Lake Elmo Village Hall 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 WILLNER, ZABINSKY, DORSAY & CORDELL° ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 303 111 S W. FRONT AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204•3500 (503✓) 28-4000 September 23, 1991 To the Mayor, Council Members and Members of the Planning Commission: This is a written comment in response to the notice for public hearing on the application of Everett Beaubien for a subdivision of his property at 3691 Kelvin Avenue North and a request for two variances for road frontage and exceeding the anspect ratio for a Rural Residential Zoning District. This comment is directed to the issue of the resulting housing density should the variance be granted, and the feasibility of alternative platting to achieve the placement of one more home site. History of Area The impact of the current request for a variance can only be 1 aal SEF 13 ' ?1 15: 33 W I LL IEP AHD R=Sn;.. E11 PO3 understood in the context of the history of the development of the surrounding area. Everett Beaubien purchased the Collopy farm in the mid-1960's (See, Preliminary Development Sketch ); at that time the farm was used for grazing cattle and raising crops. In the early 1960's Percy Collopy had platted out and developed what for the time was precursor of a cluster development. The development consisted of six homes on seven fractional acre lots on Kelvin Avenue (See, Sketch at (A)) with a dedicated outlot on the shoreline of Sunfish Lake. (See, attached Deed (1)) The outlot covered parts of an area covering the current Beaubien home site, the Harstad home site, and the area marked 11.237 acres on the Sketch. The outlot was dedicated to the common recreational use of the families living in the Collopy-plattedhomes on Kelvin Avenue. The common recreational use included boating and fishing and other lake related recreation. Just prior to the purchase of the canopy farm by Everett Beaubien Percy Collopy exercised an option in the deed for the outlot to move the access to the outlot. A second deed was granted to the Collopy-platted homes on Kelvin Avenue. (See, attached Deed (2)) As stated on the second deed, the original purpose of the outlot had been defeated. At that time, a then -receding shoreline defeated access to Sunfish Lake. The second deed extinguished the original access and outlot and in its place granted an unrestricted easement to Sunfish Lake. (See, Sketch at (B)) This transfer preserved (to this day) the goal of the cluster development, to allow higher density housing to be offset by a large undeveloped common area. 2 _EF =_ ' 91 15: 34 l JJLJ EF PHD Pe:=I]C. 511 POO4 After Everett Beaubien purchased the Collopy farm he began a slow pattern of development. The first home he built is marked on the Sketch as the Harstad home and was the first of only two homes which to this date have been built within the Sunfish Lake basin. (that is, below the level of the surrounding fields which form a shelf above Sunfish Lake and upon which all previous development had been limited. This is significant in that Sunfish Lake is designated as a "Natural Environment" lake for which the esthetics are to be preserved.) The next step in Everett Beaubien's development came when he subdivided another lot next to the Harstad home for his daughter, Jeanie Chavez to build a home. After this Everett Beaubien further subdivided the area where his home sat, sold the home to the Harstad's and moved out of state while retaining title to the rest of the Collopy farm. After a few years Everett Beaubien decided to build a summer home on Sunfish Lake. He again subdivided his property after receiving variances from a reluctant City Council, and built the current Beaubien home (See, Sketch) which became only the second home to be built within the Sunfish Lake basin (both homes in the basin have now been built by Everett Beaubien. This is aggravated further by the close proximity of Sunfish Park). Current Development Everett Beaubien is now coming before the city of Lake Eimo to ask permission once again to subdivide his property. And the SEP 23 '91 15::5 HILLIIEP WEE ti5SOO. n11 Pn5 result of this subdivision will be to create two nonconforming lots, that of the current Beaubien home and a new lot which is believed to be the future homesite of his son, Roger. As the proposal is currently set out, the development is illegal and does not rise to the standards for which a variance can be granted. Development Requirements The Beaubien-developed land on Sunfish Lake is zoned Rural Residential. The non -clustered lot size for Rural Residential is 10 acres; if the subdivision is granted, it would create two lots for which acreage above the water line is well less than 10 acres combined. The Beaubien home site would sit on a lot, with combined submerged acreage of approximately half that required by law. These figures are based on acreage figures derived from the Preliminary Development Sketch and the Final Survey. Putting aside the issue of lot acreage totals, there is a second related issue of the use of submerged lands to fulfill the acreage requirement. Less than 3 contiguous unsubmerged lands make up the new proposed lot; the majority of the lot is underwater. And has been for several years. According to the recollections of Percy Collopy (now deceased) it was his understanding that when the original Civil War patent was taken out for the land even'then the lake basin was a Tamarack swamp. There have been brief periods in past history when sunfish Lake has receded; the last episode occurred in the mid-1960's when the narrow neck of -the lake dried 4 SEP 23 '91 1: _5 ! IILLPIEP AND PSSOc, 611 PO6 up enough for a brief period to allow a person to walk from one shore to another. However, in the ensuing years the lake has always maintained itself. Even in the years after the cessation of pumping from Lake Jane the lake has remained relatively stable. The permanency of the lake is evidenced by its many years of use in the 1970's and 1980's for fishing, boating, swimming, and canoeing. I can personally attest to the above. In recognition of the permanent character of the lake, the Minnesota DNR has established official lake elevations for the purposes of development and lake level maintenance. In using what in reality is lake bottom to fulfill the requirements of lot size, the applicant is being at best disingenuous. My name was on the first comprehensive zoning ordinance, as a Planning Commission member, adopted by the City of Lake Elmo. I was vice chairman when my term expired. I can state that it was never the intention, when considering development density, to include lake bottom in the calculation of lot sizes. Personal opinions aside, there is a question as to whether clear title to the submerged lands rests with Everett Beaubien anymore. While in the past the argument has been made that Sunfish Lake is unmeandered and Everett Beaubien may still be paying taxes on the submerged property; the use of Sunfish Lake by the public has continued openly, notoriously, with claim to right, and unhindered for longer than the statutory time required for title in Everett Beaubien to be extinguished and to vest instead in the State by virtue of public use. SEP 23 191 15:% !dILL1iEF. AHD ASSOC, 511 POT ( The proposed lots do not conform to the 4 to 1 anspect requirement of the zoning ordinance. This may seem to be a trivial or arcane requirement; however, it is meant to prevent the very gerrymandering of lot boundaries which is occurring here. By changing the shape of the lots homes can actually be placed closer together, creating a higher effective development density than is allowed 'by law. For the above described reasons the proposed subdivision is illegal, standards For Grantina Variance It is in recognition of the failure to meet the requirements of the law that variance is being requested for the subdivision. However, the request for subdivision also fails to meet the standards required for a variance. Paraphrasing the City Code at 301.060 (C)(1)(a)-(c) to receive a variance, undue hardship must be shown that is created by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which are unique to that property only; literal interpretation of the Code would deny the applicant rights enjoyed by others; the special conditions did not result from the actions of the applicant; the variance requested is the minimum which would alleviate the hardship; and the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinance. The Code also defines "hardship" saying that a hardship, "means the proposed use of the property... cannot be SEF 33 '91 16;11 ILLNEF AND ASSOC. 613 PO: established under the conditions allowed by this Ordinance... an4 no other reasonable alternative use exists ...-[and] these unique conditions of the site cannot be caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of this Ordinance. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship." Additionally, in the Code it stateswith regard to a variance, that, " the entire property of the appellant... cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless the permit is granted...[and that] the arantina of such permit is required by the considerations of iustice and eauitv ." (emphasis added to above quotes and paraphrase) From the facts. of the circumstances surrounding the request for a variance, none of the standards are met. The hardship did not come about based on existing circumstances; the hardship is the result of the drawing of the boundaries of the lots. Justice and equity do not demand that this variance be granted. Instead, justice and equity demand that the proposed subdivision be made to conform to the requirements of the law and the intent of the protection offered by the zoning ordinance, or else the subdivision be denied. Alternatives to Subdivision Legal alternatives appear to exist which would accomplish the objective of the subdivision, and provide an additional homesite for Everett Beaubien. There is an additional 40 acre tract 7 SEP 27 '91 15:53 LIILLMEP PHD 1;55oC. 612 P03 adjacent to the proposed subdivision owned by Everett Beaubien. There are two alternatives for incorporating that 40 acre tract to achieve the requirements of the zoning ordinance and still maintain the Agricultural use zoning of the tract. The simplest is to make the actual 2.6 acre house site a part of the 40 acre tract. This would allow for one home to be built and still meet all the zoning requirements. The second, alternative would be to combine the current Beaubien homesite with the proposed new homesite and the additional acreage owned by Everett Beaubien on the former Collopy farm to meet or come close to meeting the required 61 acres for a clustered development in an Agricultural Zoning district. This second alternative would come closest to matching the intent of development on the Collopy farm prior to the purchase by Everett Beaubien. The Agricultural cluster development would complement the original cluster development on Kelvin Avenue. A variance for the Agricultural cluster development would be keeping more with the intent of the zoning code by preserving the large open space and foreclosing once and for all the sporadic, substandard development pattern which has occurred on the Collopy farm. It is my hope that these alternatives will be considered. eno Sincerely, Christopher P. Curran OSB #87036 8 SEP 23 '91 15:33 I,I I LLNER RI ID P'SDC, E11 P10 98, warranty peed Dated May S, 195'3 Filed June 15, 1959 Book 221 Deeds page 202 All that part of the E 1/2 of NW 1/4 ofSec, 14, T. 29, R. 21, described as follows: The N 100 feet of the S 233 feet of the W. 250 feet thereof, subject to a 33 foot easement • over and across the W. 33 feet for road purposes, containing .575 acres, more or less; Together with an easement for road purposes over and across the W. 33 feet of the S. 233 feet of the before mentioned E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of Sec. 14, together with an easement over and across the E. 33 feet of the S. 233 feet of the W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of said Sec. 14, also an easement over and across the W. 25 feet of the N. 907.5 feet of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of said Sec. 14, and an easement over and across the E. 33 feet of the N. 907,5 feet of the NW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of said Sec. 14, said roadway to be usad by the parties as a means of ingress to and egress from the property hereby conveyed: Together with an easement over and across the N. 66 feet of theS. 699 • feet of the W. 616 feet of the E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of said Sec, 14, for the purpose of providing access to the following described tract; The E 300 feet of the W. 916 feet of the N 87 feet of the S. 720 feet of the E1/2 of NW 1/4 of said Sec. 14, the last described tract to be used by parties of the second part with parties of the first part and others tb whom parties of the first part may grant the right as a beach and for dock purposes and for the purpose of launching a boat therefrom to be used on the non -meandered lake known as Sunfish Lake; it is understood and parties of the second part do agree in accepting this deed that should the roadway above described providing access to the said beach tract be changed by first parties and another roadway provided for said purpose that said second partie will release and relinquish their right to the said roadway easement above described; second parties further understand that any such roadway together with the tract designated as beach shall be used by them with others for the purpose of utilizing the said Sunfish Lake; first parties do in addition hereby grant to the second parties the right to use in common with others the surface of said Sunfish Lake over any part of the land now owned by parties of the first part for purpog'es of boating, fishing, swimming and similar recreation. C nh4lae'F fn nip restrictions set forth in Exhibit A hereto attached an William P. Collopy and Elizabeth C. Collopy, husband and wife to Donald V. Paulson and Phyllis K.Paulson, husband and wife (Joint tenancy clause) 5EP 2' "91 15,319 WILLNER AND ASSOC. E11 P',J 111 i ,..ti-- a u ram " o ow' aeosont and Mite, parties of the Dated Dec. 6, 1962 fist part. Pitied Jan, 4, 1963 and nook 254 Deeds page 112 Erwin D. neutel and Whereas, first parties are the. John S. t3eutel, husband fee owners of the following and wife,.vonald V, described tracts of land in Paulson and Phyllis Washington County, Minnesota • K. Paulson, husband and Tract 1, The N 66 feet of the wife, Earl L. Kask and S. 699 feet of the W. 616 feet Freya L. Kask, husband of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of and wife, David S. Loos and Sec. 14, T, 29, it, 21 Wendy' Loos, husband and Tract 2. The E 300 feet of the W wife and Donald A. Miller and 916 feet of the N 87 feet of the Constance F. Milhr, husband S. 720 feet of the E 1/2 of and wife, parties of the the NW 1/4 of Sec. 14, T, 29, second part R. 21, and DeeS12 Whereas first parties have previously granted to second parties easements over Tract 1 for access to Tract 2 and easements over Tract 2 for beach and dock purposes; and Whereas, said easements no longer provide access' to Sunfish,Lake as originally intended and; Whereas, first parties are willing and intend by this instrument to grant second partia3 access to present water or shoreline of said Lake in consideration for a release from second parties of their easement rights over said tracts 1 and 2 above described. Now therefore in consideration of $..00 and other good and valuable considerations including the release from second partieb herein contained, first parties do hereby grant and convey to second parties i.e, to said individual, couples, husband and wife, as named, as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, a permanent easement to run with the respective individual tracts of land now owned by second parties in the L 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of said Sec, 14, over and across the following described tract: That part of the S. 33 feet of the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 14, T. 29, R. 21, commencing at the W. line of said E 1/2 of NW 1/4 of sec. 14, and running E. to the water line of said Sunfish Lake, such easement to be used by second parties and first parties, and others as a means of access to said Lake and said easement shall run in a straight line to the water line of said Lake as such water line recedes or rises. That in consideration of one dollar $1.00 and other good and valuable considerations including the 33 foot easement herein granted to -_-:i...a eannnd parties, do grant and release SEP 23 '91 15;37 WILLNER AND RSSOC, 0 fi 611 P09 •g .o �` � � cam"J '' ..c) �37 .� 1 -�� e1 if A •JC -- ,I r f i1' �, r ! 1 ..-• .,..._ 3.r1.ti V 1 �.�..� J1� �hw.VV ") 1 51 Me 7' REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW MEETING DATE: September 23. 1991 AGENDA TOPIC: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN. ITEM NO. g4.. t Attached is the planning commission's current work plan. Before we ask the council for a joint meeting to discuss this work plan, I would suggest we review this plan and rearrange, add, delete, etc., before we take it to the council for approval. Please think about any other items that you would like to add to the work plan so this can be finalized at this meeting. 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN 1. Review all applications in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan, comment and make recommendations to the City Council. 2. Update Ordinance to relate to the Comp. Plan. 3. Consider local responses to State of MN RWE55 p proposed revisions to Shoreland Management regulations. 4. Residential Estates Zoning: a. Landscape Plan. Dc»4E? 5. Building height limitation - eliminate the exception which allows broadcast transmission towers. 6. Stronger restrictions for accessory structures in the R1 zoning district - 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). 7. Conditions or possible restrictions on residential subdivisions where large accessory structures exist. 8. Meet with the county and adjacent community planners to discuss common issues on an "as -needed" basis. 9. Future Road Plan (ties in with road design). PRoc66S 10. Retention of wildlife habitat and wetland areas - adequacy of wetland overlay district. 11. Recommend t the City Council a committee be established, comprising of PZ members, business owners, and intereseted residents (5-7 members) to study an Historic Building/ Architectural Design Overlay District in the Old Village Area. 12. Adopt an ordinance for utility (pipeline and power lines) setbacks in the City's Subdivision and platting regulations. 13. Sign Ordinance. 14. Review sideyard setbacks relative to lot size. 15. Standards for holding ponds. 16. Fill Ordinance. 17. Driveway Ordinance. 18. Economic Development Committee. * = Top priority (revised from 1989 plan) 1602 DRIVEWAYS... 1502.0E0. General Rea uirements A. Licensed Contractor. All vehicular work done within the right-of-way of the street shall be done under the supervision or the Building Oft'Iclaf, who will see that all regulations are rigidly followed. Work may be performed by an owneriresident or a -r-eg rlarilcensedcontractor. B. Driveway S urface. Whenever a driveway is constructed, all that portion of the boulevard designated as driveway shall be surfaced with a plant -mixed machine laid bituminous material conforming to M.H.D. kJ,rn4.er 1734 in accordance with plans approved by the Building Official: Driveway paving blocks or concrete with a design approved by the City Engineer may alternatively be used. D. Notification of Construction. The Building Official is to be notified of the proposed start of construction at least 24 hours in advance. E. Plot Plan Prlortorthe construction ora driveway not associated with new building construction, a plot plan must be submitted to the Building Official which indicates the location and specifications for the driveway, and curb outs whoro appitcabte. A Building permltwill tie Issued wnen the Buliaing Metal determines that the proposed Work meets City requirements and the permit fee has been paid. For construction of a driveway associated with new building construction, the driveway submission shall be included with plans for the newbuilding construction and one permit will be issued for the driveway and the building. 1602.070 Standards. The following regulations shall apply to all driveways, curb auto and aiclac: A. Width. The width of any new residential driveway may be between 10 feet and 16 feet from the edge of the street surface to a minimum distance of 20 feet beyond the street right-of-way. Curb cuts may be up to 6 feet wider than the driveway width. The maximum width for any commercial driveway shall be 24 feet with curb cuts designed to provide safe entrance and egress. Existing residential driveways may be maintained or reconstructed with a maximum driveway and curb cut of 24 feet. G. Access to Street. On properties having frontage on both thoroughfares and minor roads, access shall be provided via the minor road wherever feasible in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on the thoroughfare. One curb cut is permitted for each residential lot. 1504.010 Required Screening. A. No. of vehicles? fviotor Homes? 301.130 E (4. a. Calls for a 32 foot maximum driveway width???) 2. e. No off-streetparking area shall be located closer the twenty (20) feet from an adjacent lot zoned or used for residential purposes. 3. h. ??? 25% of yard allowed for driveway or vehicle storage.