HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-00 PZMCITY OF =
LAKE
ELMO
0
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet Monday, March 27, 2000, at 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
COMMISSIONERS -PLEASE BRING YOUR CODEBOOKS
AND VILLAGE PLAN TO THIS MEETING
AGENDA - 6:00 p.m.
1. Review Section 1385 - Wind Generators (attached)
2. Review Section 535 - Signs
1. Agenda
2. Minutes
AGENDA - 7:00 P.M.
March 13, 2000
3. Public Hearing: D & T Development
Open Space Residential Development Concept Plan
Tjosvold/Zehrer Property - 8890 15th Street
4. Public Hearing: Stillwater Investment Corporation/Betty Smith
Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Concept and Development
Stage PUD; Preliminary Plat
Northeast Annexed Area
5. Communications from Village Commission
6. Other
7. Adjourn
jprinted on recycled paper
Approved: 4/10/00
Lake Elmo
Planning Commission
Monday, March 27, 2000
Meeting Minutes
6:00 n.m. - 7:00 n.m.
Discussion: Tower Ordinance - re -visit at the April 10, 2000 6:00 p m Planning Workshop.
Discussion: Sign Ordinance
M/S/P Sedro/Armstrong - to recommend no further amendments to the current Sign
Ordinance.
(Motion Passed 6-0) Armstrong, Sessing, Mandel, Brass, Sedro, Helwig.
7:00 p.m.
Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Present: Commissioners Berg, Brass, Gerard
(arrived-7:10 p.m.), Helwig, Herber, Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro and Sessing. Absent: Commissioner
Lipman. Also present: Planner Dillerud.
1. AGENDA
M/S/P Helwig/Sessing, to approve the agenda, as presented.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
2. MINUTES
M/S/P Sessing/Berg - to accept the minutes from the March 13, 2000 meeting, as
amended.
(Motion Passed 8-0-1). Abstain: Herber.
3. Public Hearing: D & T Development
Open Space Residential Development Concept Plan
Tjosvold/Zehrer Property - 8890 15th Street
Planner Dillerud discussed the site history and existing conditions as a 642-foot by 2,636 foot site of
40.02 acres. He explained there is an existing residence and two horse -related accessory structures
are located at approximately the north/south break point of topography, 1,600 feet north of 15'
Street. A pipeline easement cuts diagonally across the site from southeast to northwest over the
north half of the site. The site is bounded by the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve on the North, a
similarly shaped 40 acre parcel to the East; undeveloped agricultural land directly across 15' Street
to the South; and, the Parkview Estates Open Space Residential Development to the East. He said
City records do not indicate any other information on the site other than those related to Building
Department permits for the existing house and accessory structures.
Planner Dillerud discussed the proposal as the concept phase for an Open Space Residential
Development, dividing the 40 acres site into 18 single family detached lots (1 existing home site and
17 new lots). He explained the density allowances as found in the 3/27/00 staff report finding, as
with at least one other previous OP development, this proposal, with a 4:1 aspect ratio (depth to
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, March 27, 2000 1
width) presents difficulties for the applicant to comply with the spirit and intent of the OP
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the design/performance standards of the OP
Ordinance. Planner Dillerud said staff encouraged the applicant's representative to reconsider design
of the South'h of the site to reflect future linkage east to the Regional Park and, to the West via
outlet A of Parkview Estates. He noted the illogical diffusion of Open Space created by proposed
Lot 5, Block 2, and suggested that this element of the Concept also be revisited. He noted that
although the drawings presented essentially "ghost plats" the site to the East, no formal application
has been submitted by those landowners.
He presented the following findings:
1. The Concept Plan is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with regard to
land use (residential), and potential residential development density. The Plan falls within
the range of residential development density permissible by Conditional Use Permit as
an OP project.
2. Due to the aspect ratio of the site (relationship between width and depth) and the
proposed Concept Plan design, one of the purposes of the OP ordinance, reduction in
the cost of constructing and maintaining public facilities, will not be realized. Over 'h
mile of public streets is proposed to serve 18 dwelling units. Enhanced design efforts
toward grouping dwelling units and aggregating open space into larger units would go to
overcoming this conflict with OP purpose.
3. The proposed Concept Plan does not appear to comply with the development standards
for OP of the City Code. At least open space parcel size; main structure setback to
property line adjoining existing development; and paved street width proposed appear to
conflict with Ordinance standards.
4. The Concept Plan appears to preserve an amount of open space somewhat short of the
50% ordinance standard — due, it appears, to failure to account for private pathway
deductions from Preserved Open Space totals, as required by the Code.
Tim Freeman
Folz, Freeman & Dupay
(RepresentingD & TDere&opna, Tjosznld/Zehrer)
Mr. Freeman explained that: the open space outlots designated on the drawings would be privately
owned and farmed by the owner; pathways would NOT be private; street widths would be the same
as Tana Ridge and Fields of St. Croix -Second Addition; expects the property to the east will be
developed, and he designed this development with that in mind; the Homeowners Association will
maintain the Village Greens and ponds. Mr. Freeman stressed that the proposed design is a
reasonable layout request from a "future planning" standpoint.
Commissioner Mandel said he favored wider street widths in OP developments.
Commissioner Brass said she was uncomfortable with the idea of basing a concept plan approval on
the future development of an adjoining property.
Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Neil & Susan Siverson
Resident (Owners: adjacent property to the East)
Chairman Asn str ngreada preparrdstatement aut and by the Sizrrson's (attached).
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, March 27, 2000 2
Pat Ganley
Resident
Ms. Ganley asked if homes could be built within the 100 foot pipeline easement.
Planner Dillerud explained that the owner of the pipeline easement determines the building
conditions, not the City.
Steve Wortman
1668 Ivory Avenue
Mr. Warman asked if 15t Street veotld be paved in the future.
Mr. Freeman said the developer would escrow funds for future development of 15th Street.
Jon Dostell
1727 Ivory Avenue
Mr. Dostell explained that he lives at Lot 8, Block 5, Parkview Estates, and said he was concerned about the
location of the proposal residence on the flag -lot, which would impair his view, and felt the buffer zone between this
proposal and his lot is not sufficient
Jeff Iverson
1663 Ivory Avenue North
Mr. Iverson asked hozv the open space uould be utilized
Mr. Freeman said the current property owner would remain private, and that the Tjosvold's would
continue to "farm" the land, in agreement with the Minnesota Land Trust requirements.
Neil Siverson
(Resident/property mazer directly east)
Mr. Sizerson said he had some concerns regarding the buffering betzeren properties; he is not currently interested in
developing his property. He said the proposed road layout is fine, and he may consider developing later, but for now,
agricultural use is preferred
Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Planner Dillerud observed there is indeed no Oudot "E" at the scale of the graphics, it appeared to
him that there were two outlots on the East side of the plat, not one.
There was considerable discussion regarding the 16th Street "stub." Commissioners Gerard, Brass,
and Herber said the design of the plan may have further potential, but had concerns about the
property to the East of this site being undeveloped at this time and no application pending.
Commissioner Mandel expressed his personal dislike for walking paths, and requested the developer
change the plan to make them more contiguous.
Commissioner Berg said he preferred to "table" this issue, but felt the plan is close to the intent of
the OP ordinance. He said he was not in favor of the proposed "flag lot."
M/S/F Brass/Ptacek - to recommend denial of the D&T Development/Tjosvold-Zehrer
Open Space Concept Plan based on the following findings:
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, March 27, 2000 3
The proposed Concept Plan does not appear to comply with the development
standards for OP of the City Code. At least open space parcel size; main structure
setback to property line adjoining existing development.
The Concept Plan appears to preserve an amount of open space somewhat short of
the 50% ordinance standard - due, it appears, to failure to account for private
pathway deductions from Preserved Open Space totals, as required by the Code.
(Motion Failed 2-7).
M/S/P Mandel/Sessing - to recommend the plan reflect continuation of the
pathways, so they "flow" and connect.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
M/S/P Gerard/Ptacek - to recommend 26' street widths.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
M/S/P Ptacek/Berg - to recommend alteration of the "flag lot."
(Motion Passed 9-0).
M/S/P Mandel/Brass - to recommend a 200' buffer from the property lines for all
structures.
(Motion Passed 8.1). Opposed: Armstrong: interprets the code as the applicant has
presented.
M/S/P Brass/Berg - to recommend all open space be more contiguous, particularly
noting Outlot D, and remove the "stub" as an extension of 16`h Street to the East.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
M/S/P Sessing/Herber - to "table" D&T Development/Tjosvold-Zehrer Open
Space Development Concept Plan until the April 10, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
BREAK
(CommissionerHelwig - exit 9:00 p.m)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
PUD Concept Plan, PUD Development Stage Plan,
Preliminary Plat
Stillwater Investment/Betty Smith
Northeast Annexed Area
Planner Dillerud explained that the previous Stillwater Investment Corporation/Betty Smith
plan did not meet the requirements for SRD, and the City Council referred this application
back to the Planning Commission. He said the current proposal, which indicates 110 single
family residential dwellings meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and
with proper project design and PUD Contract controls, the Land Use Classifications
proposed will not have an adverse impact on public infrastructure.
He noted that the PUD Development Stage Plan & Preliminary Plat must correspond with
the Concept Stage Plan, and would not, with the Concept modifications recommended.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, March 27, 2000 4
Commissioner Sedro asked why the City Council preferred Limited Business land use rather
than residential, specifically, townhouses.
Planner Dillerud responded by saying the City Council was not very clear with their reasons,
other than to say that there may be the necessity for less services with non-residential use
than residential.
Mike Gair
McCombs, Frank, Roos
(Representing the applicants)
Mr. Gair reviewed the proposed plat, noting the City Council recommended density of 1.4
units/per acre. He explained the entrance/exit changes near St. John's Church and 55'
Street. He said the commercial structure at the north end/limited business area might
indicate a structure that could emulate a "barn" design. Mr. Gair explained that there may
be a "Welcome to Lake Elmo" monument sign at the north end of the property, similar to
that which is currently located on the west side of the Schiltgen Farm, along Highway 5.
Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:55
p.m.
Bernie Wilke
5085 Linden Trail North
Mr. Wilke said he was concerniel about the watershed area and asked if trees world be remo4 and
excavating along Highway 5. He expressed his concern that pollution may occur in the pond area as a result
ofdecelopment, but feels the plan has pnanise.
Mike Thiesen
5323 Stillwater Blvd.
Mr. Thiesen asked hour an oice buildingwxsld indicate "transitional" planningfor this area.
Chairman Armstrong entered two (2) letters from residents (attached).
Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 10:00
p.m.
M/S/F Gerard/Sedro - to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, Planned Unit Development
Stage Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Stillwater Investment Corporation/Betty Smith
as presented, conditioned upon approval from the City Attorney, Valley Branch
Watershed District, and that salt tolerant trees be planted along Highway 5.
(Motion Failed 1-8).
M/S/P Armstrong/Sessing - to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, Planned Unit Development
Stage Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Stillwater Investment Corporation/Betty Smith
as presented, finding the plan exceeds the Planning Commission recommendation of
.9 units/per.
(Motion Passed 7-2). Opposed: Berg, Sedro - would rather table the proposal.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, March 27, 2000 5
5. Communications from Village Commission
Village Commission Chairman Frost proposed a joint workshop to include the Village
Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, to discuss the radical departure from
the Village Commission recommended Land Use Plan for the Village Area Planning District,
in hopes to take a more pro -active course.
M/S/P Armstrong/Berg - to request the City Council approve a joint workshop with
the Village Commission, Planning Commission and Council on an alternate
Monday.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
Chairman Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young -Planning Secretary
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Monday, March 27, 2000 6
To: Chuck Dillerud
Lake Elmo City Planner
From: Neil & Susan Siverson ti 5 ?s:
Adjacent Landowners
ommomaL
A"Celiteb
Cir:419 2 17 40
4410
Re: Proposed Concept Plan
Tjosvold Property
Date: March 27, 2000
- We are in favor of the roads, as proposed. They provide for
comprehensive future development.
- The concept plan does not appear to meet the required
"Buffer Zone" as stated in Section 301.070D.16, Subd. 7., of
the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. (Buffer zones of at least one
hunderd (100) feet shall be required between residential
structures and agricultural uses ) Preliminary plans do
not show a barrier separating yards from fields and
pastures. Also, dwelling locations need to meet the 100 foot
setback from Agricultural property.
- A number of Walking Trails appear to be going nowhere and
dead -ending at Agricultural property. We would like to see
the trails "buffered" from Agricultural operations, also.
cc: Planning Commission
Tim Freeman
OROGOKag.
Charles E. Dillerud
City Planner, City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo MN 55042
Re: Stillwater Investment Corporation
Northeast Annexed Area
Dear Mr. Dillerud,
12335 53rd Street, North
Stillwater MN 55082
March 22, 2000
RP'CFlVED
�+ z 4 4JUU
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Thank you for the notice of public hearing on the 90 acres in the
northeast annexed area of the city. We are opposed to this reclassification
of land use in this area.
We live across Highway 5 from the proposed development. When we
bought our home, that land was in Baytown Township and subject to a 2.5
acre minimum lot size. We have not imagined that the land would stay a
corn field forever, and have expected that it would someday be turned
into house lots. We did believe that those lots would be 2.5 acres or more.
This proposal calls for 25000 sq ft of office space and 109 single family
lots. It looks like those lots would be about .75 acre each.
This density of development is out of character with a rural
residential area. Already, turning left out of 53rd Street onto Highway 5 is
difficult for about 8 hours a day. Several hundred car trips more a day
won't help. We would like our area to resemble the rural residential area
of Lake Elmo, and not resemble Oak Park Heights.
We recognize that the farmer's last, most profitable crop is often
houses, and would not want to deny anyone the right to develop their
land in a profitable way. We are willing to support housing on 2.5 acre
lots. We just want development to reflect the character of Lake Elmo
rather than having it become another extension of Oak Park Heights.
Yours truly,
Y
Jo1in A M
Priscilla R. Mac Dougall
Charles Dillerud
City of Lake Elmo:
RECEIVED
MAR 4 ZODU
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your letter and the
copies of the Public Hearing Notice and Site Map regarding the
"amended application by Betty Smith & Stillwater Investment...
,,
We have lived in our home for the past 15 years plus and seen the
area undergo dramatic change and development. I have not been
pleased to see most of this change away from our semi -rural
environment, however, I do acknowledgett that most of the growth
has been done with some respect for retaining large lot sizes.
I am not in favor of seeing multiple businesses and 109 single-
family building lots squeezed into 90 acres directly across the
street. A check of the Blackwood Farms and Cloverdale Farms
developments would show far less density than this latest proposal,
maybe more on the order of 35 homes in the same 90 acres.
It is almost impossible now to get on Highway 5 in the mornings to
go towards Lake Elmo and cross traffic coming to the high school
and also merge with traffic going to work.
I think the added congestion, the further destruction of wildlife
habitat and the added visual and audio "pollution" caused by such
a large number of homes will destroy what little remains of the
rural "ambiance."
I encourage you to reject the application and consider far more
stringent lot size and use restrictions.
Mary Rooney c /22/00