HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-99 PZMCITY OF
LAKE
AELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet Monday, January 11, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
AGENDA
1. Agenda
2. Minutes Revised Minutes —November 23, 1998
Minutes — December 21, 1998 V
3. Annual Meeting Topics: /(K r 1
a. Election of Officers J J
b. 1999 Meeting Schedule
c. 1998 Attendance Report
d. Workshop date: Public Facilities
e. Reminder -Planning Training Seminar; Saturday, January 9. 1999, 9:00 a.m. City Hall
4. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat & Variance
Edward & Denise Abbott and Chris & Bill Friederichs
3600 and 3691 Kelvin Avenue North
5. Public Hearing: Amendment to Concept Plan
Tana Ridge — Zintl
6. Public Hearing: Open Space Concept Plan and Conditional Use Permit
to allow an OP Development in the RR Zoning District
Terry Emerson/Ed Forliti
7. Public Hearing: Open Space Concept Plan and Conditional Use Permit
to allow an OP Development in the AG Zoning District
Robert Engstrom; Phase Two; The Fields of St. Croix
8. Public Hearing: Northeast Annexed Area
Land Use Classify RAD (Rural Agricultural District)
and PF (Public Facilities)
9. Prairie Hamlet/Open Space Residential Development -Keats Avenue and Hwy 36;
Interpretation of Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Duplexes.
10. Other
11. ADJOURN
NOTE: Due to the large agenda for this Planning Commission meeting,
packets will be delayed a day.
111,11,
t= printed an recycled paper
Lake Elmo
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 11, 1999
APPPOVPO
Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800
Laverne Avenue, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Present: Commissioners Berg, Brass, Helwig, Herber, Lipman,
Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro and Sessing. Absent: Commissioner Gerard. Also present: Planner Dillerud.
1. AGENDA
M/S/P Helwig/Sessing — to approve the Agenda, as presented.
(Motion Passed 8-0).
2. MINUTES
M/S/P Helwig/Sedro — to accept the revised minutes from the November 23, 1998 meeting, as
presented.
(Motion Passed 8-0).
M/S/P Sessing/Helwig — to accept the minutes from the December 21, 1998 meeting, as presented.
(Motion Passed 8-0).
3.a Election of 1999 Officers
M/S/P Berg/Sessing — to nominate Tom Armstrong for Chairman of the 1999 Lake Elmo Planning
Commission.
Vote: 8-0
M/S/P Mandel/Berg — to nominate Bob Helwig for Vice Chairman of the 1999 Lake Elmo Planning
Commission.
Vote: 8-0
M/S/P Armstrong/Mandel — to nominate Jeff Berg for Secretary for the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission.
Vote: 8-0
3.b 1999 Meeting Schedule
M/S/P Sessing/Helwig — to approve the 1999 Planning Commission meeting schedule as presented.
(Motion Passed 8-0).
3.c 1999 Planning Commission Attendance Report
The Commission reviewed the report and Chairman Armstrong asked the re -appointed
Commissioners; Ptacek, Sessing and Berg if they would accept re -appointment for three-year
terms. All accepted.
3.d Workshop Date: Public Facilities
Planner Dillerud said the City Council had not yet set a date for this joint workshop.
(Commissioners Ptacek and Lipman arrived)
3.e Planning Training Seminar reminder; N/A
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, January 11, 1999 page 1
4. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat and Variance
Edward & Denise Abbot and Chris & Bill Friederichs
3600 & 3691 Kelvin Avenue N.
Planner Dillerud said the existing site is comprised of two land parcels, one of a nominal 10 acres
(Friederichs) and the other a 28-acre parcel (Abbott). He said the application was a result of a private
party agreement that is basically a redefinition of a property line. He said that requirements of the RR
cluster development are that parcels must have a minimum lot width at the front setback line of 125 feet
and also be of a rectangular shape with an aspect ratio (length to width) of not more than 3:1. He said the
proposed lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 is of an unusual configuration which is a result from
accommodating the location of existing structures and other site features on the proposed resulting
parcels. He said the applicant said the proposed property line follows "natural edge" on the land,
effectively separating the two principal structures of the respective owners. The resulting shape of Lot 1
provides the required 125 feet of street frontage at the front setback line (50 feet back from the street
right-of-way) but an aspect ratio of about 5.28:1. He said the result was the application for a variance
from the 3:1 aspect ratio standard. He said with respect to aspect ratio of Lot 1, the proposed plat appears
to meet or exceed the standard of Chapter 400 and Chapter 300 for cluster land division in the RR Zoning
District and the proposed street dedication and improvement has been reviewed by City Engineer Prew.
He said certain modifications to the cul-de-sac are indicated in the City Engineer report, as well. He said
with respect to the variance request, the applicant is in compliance with each of the six standards required.
Tim Freeman
Folz, Freeman & Dupay
(Representing the applicant)
Mr. Freeman expanded on the City Planners comments by saying that the proposed lot line was situated
along a steep slope and said the Abbott's planned to build a new residence at the original homestead site
and cease to use the live-in quarters in the existing structures. He said the Abbott's would privately
contract the road construction and update the cul-de-sac, bringing it up to City standards.
Chairman Armstrong opened and closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m.,
NO COMMENTS.
M/S/P Armstrong/Berg — to approve Resolution No. PZ 99-04 regarding a zoning ordinance
variance to permit an aspect ratio of 5.25:1 for Lot 1 where the Zoning Ordinance specifies a
maximum of 3:1 in the RR Zoning District, Abbott/Friederichs, Collopy Hills.
(Motion Passed 6-3) Opposed: Ptacek, Sedro, Mandel.
M/S/P Sessing/Helwig — to recommend approval of Resolution 98-_, a resolution approving the
Preliminary Plat for the Abbott/Friederichs Property; Collopy Hills, containing the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's memo of January 4, 1999.
2. Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Variance for aspect ratio of Lot 1.
3. Precluding further subdivision of Lot 2, except as permitted by the existing RR Cluster
Ordinance.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
Planner Dillerud said the Planning Commission would consider three applications; Tana Ridge (a
previously approved concept plan), Emerson/Forliti and The Fields of St. Croix -Phase Two. He said the
Parks Commission would consider all three applications at its Tuesday, January 12, 199 meeting. He said
when Tana Ridge was being considered, it came to his attention that there were two other adjoining land
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, January 11, 1999 page 2
projects pending application. He noted the Emerson/Forliti and Fields property were in the Village
Commission moratorium area, but the City Council had adopted an ordinance excluding them. He said
that the presentations at this meeting were indeed "Concept" plans and asked that the Commissioners
avoid focusing on design details that would be appropriate of more scrutiny at the Preliminary Plat stage.
He presented a full size graphic that showed all three Concept Plans. He said there appeared to be four
basic areas in which coordination is evident between the three Concept Plans:
1. Aggregation of the permanent OP open space;
2. Integration of vehicular and pedestrian movement corridors;
3. Integration of wastewater treatment (common wetlands treatment system);
4. Integration of Public Park dedication to enhance scale.
Tim Freeman
Folz, Freeman & Dupay
(Representing Tana Ridge and Emerson/Forliti)
Mr. Freeman said the developers/three adjoining landowners had met, and in an unprecedented effort,
coordinated their design efforts to create a united Concept Plan. At this meeting, the results of that effort
would be presented in three separate concept plans.
5. Public Hearing: Amendment to Concept Plan
Tana Ridge — (Zintl Property, generally located off 50`" Street, west of The Fields of St.
Croix)
Planner Dillerud said at previous hearings regarding the site, there was first hand testimony of flooding on
the northwest portions of this site, particularly during the 1965 heavy snow event. He said the City
Council approved the rezoning of the site, and an OP Concept Plan in August of 1998. He said net effect
when calculating open space including all three proposed developments was _ +3.40 and the net effect _
when calculating required parkland was —2.03, although the developers suggest the park improvements
they propose well make up for the shortage of acreage.
Mr. Freeman said this project was part of the cooperative joint effort with the Emerson/Forliti and
Engstrom properties. He said the issues discussed and resolved between the property owners include:
roadway and traffic circulation, parkland and development of the park facilities, open spaces designated
and their uses, setback issues between each development and the layout of the homesites and the
architectural controls for each development. He said Tana Ridge would be part of the joint construction
of a wetland treatment system. He said each home in the three developments would contribute to the fund
for maintenance and repair of the facility. He said the idea of a through street connection between 50111
Street on the north of this property to Highway 5 on the south end of the Engstrom property was not
favored by anyone. He said three separate neighborhoods are proposed, but the open space and the park
would be integrated. He said the development of a joint park area is proposed. He said they anticipate
building a soccer field, ball diamond and a tot lot play area, which he feels well makes up for the shortage
in required park acreage. He said they intend the park to be a neighborhood park to serve the immediate
neighborhood consisting of 100 or more homes. He said no large parking areas or lighted areas are
indicated.
Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Reid Gilbertson
Resident
Mr. Gilbertson said his concerns remain the same as when the previous Concept Plan was presented, that
he felt this land was ill -suited for 18 homesites and this plan violates his sense of what Lake Elmo is all
about.
Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:07 p.m.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, January 11, 1999 page 3
M/S/P Helwig/Lipman — to table until after the other two plans were presented.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
BREAK — 9:20 — 9:30 p.m.
6. Public Hearing: Open Space Concept Plan
Emerson/Forliti
Mr. Freeman said that after several meetings with the immediate adjoining homeowners to identify their
concerns, the most important issue for them was that no new homes be built up on top of the hill between
them. He said the other issue was not to have a roadway between their homes to access development
from Highway 5. He said he felt that this can be accomplished by arranging a land swap with Mr. Smith,
the neighbor to the west. He said Mr. Smith will trade part of his land below the hill for inclusion in the
development in exchange for an outlot on top of the hill, understanding that this outlot will be held with a
conservation easement to a qualified land trust. He said a through street to Tana Ridge development was
not favored. He said an access plan from the Engstrom property has been negotiated. He said the
roadway plan will plat a right-of-way to the west property line to facilitate a future extension.
Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:40 p.m.
Bob Eischen
Resident
Mr. Eischen asked if the developer would agree to post his road as `private" and asked if there could be
some screening provided. He asked if the wetland treatment system was experimental. He said he had
heard that there were going to be soccer fields installed along Highway 5 and if this was indeed true, he
would be opposed.
Mr. Freeman said he would work with the neighbors regarding any concerns they might have and assured
Mr. Eischen that "private drive" signs would be installed as well as proper screening. Mr. Engstrom said
the wetland treatment systems were not considered experimental, anymore, they had been tried and tested
in several different climate zones, including one in Ontario, and also said the wetland treatment systems
are regularly monitored by the MPCA, under very strict guidelines.
Barry Harrison
Resident (The Fields of St. Croix -Phase One)
Mr. Harrison said he was a hydro -biologist and would offer his expertise to any questions that may arise.
He said wetland treatment systems are highly efficient. He said he saw the quality of life in "The Fields
of St. Croix" development as good and said he thought this these proposals were "a step in the right
direction."
Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 10:00 p.m.
M/S/P Helwig-Berg — to table this until after the "Fields of St Croix" — phase two was presented.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
7. Public Hearing: Concept Plan, "The Fields of St. Croix -Phase Two"
Robert Engstrom Companies/Robert Engstrom
Mr. Engstrom said the second phase is an addition to the 146 acre first phase of 45 homesites, the restored
barn community center, pathways and open space, all of which are virtually completed. He said the
second phase creates an intensively developed Village Green as a central focal point and organizes the
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, January 11, 1999 page 4
homesites in a manner that results in all of the homesites having a relationship with the Village Green. He
said the entrance approach slopes past a pond. He said the viewshed along Highway 5 is kept open in a
manner that retains the open space character. He said lot sizes average slightly over one-half acre. He
said the same architectural guidelines as Phase One would be echoed in Phase Two.
(Commissioner Sessing left at 10:20 p.m.)
Chairman Armstrong opened and closed the comment
NO COMMENTS.
M/S/P Helwig/Mandel — to table this and the other
Planning Commission meeting.
(Motion Passed 8-0).
8. Public Hearing: Northeast Annexed Area
Land Use Classify
portion of the Public
two proposals until
Hearing at 10:25 p.m.,
the January 25, 1999
Planner Dillerud said Metropolitan Council had had some problems with the amendment classifying this
area OP and PF. He presented options: 1. Move forward with the RAD/PF classification on the
assumption that since conventional platting is then possible, large open space may not result; 2. Classify
the southerly 1/3 (except the PF church site), corresponding with the "Permanent Rural" classification of
the Regional Blueprint, AG; and, the northerly 2/3 RAD; 3. Consider some type of non-sewered, non-
residential classification (Commercial, Urban Office Commercial or Limited Business) for the area from
the power line easement north to Highway 36; and west of the Kern Center to Manning Avenue. He said
the power line easement and Manning would act as the geographic limitation for this extension of Kern
Center.
Chairman Armstrong opened and closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 10:40 p.m.
M/S/P Helwig/Sedro — to continue this Public Hearing and re -open at the January 25, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting, and notify all the residents in the annexed area of the options
presented.
(Motion Passed 8-0).
9. Prairie Hamlet/Open Space Residential Development -Keats Avenue and Hwy 36
Interpretation of Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Duplexes
Planner Dillerud said the Prairie Hamlet Development was approved for 16 total units, of which 8 are
single family detached, and 8 units are "duplexes' (8 units in four structures). He said the importance at
this time is the manner in which the Duplex lots were platted by the 1997 action — as true duplex lots. He
said the clear implication of platting in this manner is that it is intended that each two -unit structures
would have a single owner, with one (or both) units rented to residents. He said code requires a
Conditional Use Permit for duplex units and that the City Council approved a CUP for duplexes in the
Prairie Hamlet at its April 15, 1997 meeting, subject to several conditions related to design, including a
prohibition on "side -by -side" two family structures. He said the developer HAD submitted drawings
depicting two structures that cosmetically had the appearance of large, single family homes, however, the
initial construction permit application was withheld because the building permit proposal was to construct
a two family unit that was clearly of a mirror image "side -by -side" design, contrary to the prohibition
condition of the CUP. He said the builder has withdrawn the building permit application and the
developer has submitted new drawings that represent a "side -by -side" configuration, but NOT a mirror
image design. He said the developer now proposes Sinele-Familv Attached structures rather than
Duplexes. requiring the division of the lots into 2 separate tax parcels (less than '/2 acre in size) for
individual ownership.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, January 11, 1999 page 5
He asked if it was clearly the intent of the City to have single-family attached structures on one lot (2
units, one owner, one parcel), OR, was the intent to have two units, two owners, with property lines going
down the center line. He asked if a half -acre lot provision in the OP District was their intent for single
family attached units.
Roger Tomten
(Representing Bob White, Developer for Prairie Hamlet)
Mr. Tomten presented several designs for single-family attached structures and said there is no doubt that
the floor plan indicates a mirror image, but the exterior would not represent "side -by -side" design.
Commissioners Helwig, Berg, Armstrong and Mandel said their recollection was what the Planning
Commission recommended in 1997 was single-family attached structures on their own lot, that these
could be side -by -side interior design, but not mere image side -by -side exterior appearance.
Commissioner Helwig said, at the 1997 meeting, "side -by -side" indicated mere image.
Plainer Dillerud said if the lots were divided, the result would be 6/10's of an acre each. He said you do
not control density with lot size. He said the deviation in the plan will not be handled as a variance.
10. Other
Chairman Armstrong asked that an annual work plan be submitted to the Planning Commissioners at its
January 25, 1999, meeting. He suggested a Planning Commission quarterly review, as well.
Chairman Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young -Recording Secretary
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, January 11, 1999 page 6
Subj: Fwd: Abbots/Frederick
( te: 1/27/99 3:39:12 PM Central Standard Time
rrom: LakeElmoCy
To: LakeElmoCD
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Abbots/Frederick
Date: 1/26/99 6:28:08 PM Central Standard lime
From: ksedro@trane.com (Sedro, Kathy)
To: lakeelmocy@aol.com ('Young, Cindy)
Hi Cindy,
For the minutes, I voted to oppose the Abbots/Fredenc' k
variance on 1/11 for the following reasons:
1. I prefer to change the ordinance (so that the property
dimension ratio is computed using the average length and
average width). This would make the ordinance
more usable and it would enable us to avoid Gunnar's
slippery slope of variances in this instance.
2. It appears to me that the need for the variance
is a result of where the owners chose to place their
buildings rather than as a result of any action by the
city so I don't believe that all of the preconditions
for a variance have been met.
What would be the procedure for getting this ordinance
change onto the agenda (or are we too busy to bother
with it now)?
Thanks,
Kathy Sedro
ksedro@trane.com (651)407-4182
Header`
Return -Path: <ksedro@trane.com>
Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35]) by air-yc05.mail.aol.com (v56.24) with SMTP;
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:28:08 -0500
Received: from nacg.trane.com (nacg.trane.com [198.80.4.66])
by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with SMTP id TAA00483 for <lakeelmocy@aol.com>;
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:28:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: by nacg.trane.com id SAA06695
(InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for lakeelmocy@aol.com);
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:28:04 -0600
Message-Id:<199901270028.SAA06695@nacg.trane.com>
Received: by nacg.trane.com (Internal Mail Agent-1);
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:28:04 -0600
. •rom: "Sedro, Kathy" <ksedro@trane.com>
To: "'Young, Cindy"' <lakeelmocy@aol.com>
Subject: Abbots/Frederick
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:31:33 -0600
JAN 26 '99 02.5OPM SMPRTE CARTE INC
TODD PTACEK
P.2
January 26, 1999
Charles billerud
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
Dear Chuck:
Pursuant to the discussion at last night's Planning Commission meeting regarding
individuals voting in opposition stating their reasons for doing so, I would like to
submit the following for the record:
Concerning the resolution granting a variance to applicants Abbott/ Friederichs,
I would like to state my reason for opposing the resolution. I disagree with the
findings, specifically as it relates to #4, which states that "The variance will not
confer upon the applicant privileges denied to other property owners within this
zoning district." My fear is that in allowing this variance will set the precedent for
a future party to come to us with a request for a variance to the aspect :ratio or
create an issue for someone who may have been denied the same in the past:.
As you may have guessed from my voting and discussion last night, I have a problem
with setting precedent in granting variances and allowing concept plans that don't
exactly meet the code move forward. Maybe I have an unrealistic fear of the "next
party" using these issues as a strategy to push something by us that we may not want.
If they construe our actions as technically having been permitted before, are we forced
to accept it for fear of being sued? I hope that all future applicants will have legitimate
reasons for requesting variances and will not just be taking advantage of our
"generosity" on a previous occasion. Believe me, having been on the applicant side of a
variance request, I have an appreciation for the process and am thankful that the
process exists. I am certainly not out to deny fairness to anyone. Perhaps as Gunnar
suggested in our recent training, if we find ourselves granting a great number of
variances, we need to look at the applicable codes to see if changes are warranted.
As a new member of the Planning Commission, I appreciate the patience and
understanding you have demonstrated thus far and appreciate your help in my coming
to terms with these issues.
Sincerely,_
Ci
Todd Ptacek
•
B12 JULEP AVE N • LAKE ELMO, MN • 55042
PHONE; 651 501 8319 FAX; 651 501 1786
January 1.1,1999
From: Tim Mandel
Re: Collopy Hills Preliminary Plat
Comments: Reason for opposing vote.
I felt a specific building site on Lot 2 devalued Lot 1 in the way it was platted.
I thought Lot 1 could have been platted larger than 5 acres to come closer to
the 3:1 zoning ordinance.
- FZre d �2�cL, C
7,24 .E/ c p� L
eAI A 5 fact
i4t. J/JIT U / co" 1
0-g b ae ,.> p /1; Rd Li i G c '441'-}
.j � -ea 5 iT`C✓ Cc-'rx dosv