Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-01 PZMCITY OF LAKE ELMO iik City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet Monday, March 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. 7:00 p.m. Convene as Special Projects 1. Old Village Special Project Members A. Minutes - February 26, 2001 (Old Village Section) B. Old Village Architectural Guidelines (continued) C. Meeting time for Special Projects Adjourn Special Projects (This meeting is a continuation of the February 26, 2001 Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding the Old Village Architectural Guidelines.) i® printed on recycled paper Regular Section Approved 4/9/01 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 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, Deziel, Helwig, Herber, Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro, Sessing, John, Herreid, Bucheck, Frost and Williams. Also present: Planner Dillerud. (( mph CONVENE - OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS 1.A Minutes February 26, 2001, Special Projects - Old Village Section M/S/P Williams/John - to approve the Minutes from the 2/26/01 meeting, as presented. (Motion Passed 11-0-5). Abstain: Helwig, Ptacek, Taylor, Bucheck and Frost. 1.B Old Village Architectural Guidelines (continual) Planner Dillerud reported that, as directed, he sent the draft ordinance back to City Attorney Filla for a second review, to determine the constitutionality of the ordinance, and respond in writing. He reviewed the City Attorney's report, as found in the Planning Commission packet. Chairman Armstrong said, that since the February 26, 2001 meeting, he received a few calls from residents, and decided it was appropriate to once again open the Hearing to comments, provided the speakers had not given testimony at the earlier meeting. He presented a written statement (attached) from Special Projects Member Frost. WC Blanton 3012 Lake Elmo Avenue Mr. Blanton stated he did not understand wiry city government has any business dealing with matters of taste or amfnrt. He said times change, and it was none gegacemrnerts business to dictate in this matter: Commissioner John stated he thought applause from the audience, and from planning commissioners was out of order. He said they were at the meeting to debate measures, and others may have an opposing opinion [than those of the audience], and requested applause be resisted. Deb Krueger Resident Ms. Krueger stated she was newrnotifiaiof themeeting(s), and read a prepared statonent (attached). Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Berg asked Planner Dillerud to explain the differences between the Village Plan and the Architectural Guidelines. Planner Dillerud explained there is a sequence of events and process leading to these Architectural Guidelines, and the Comprehensive Plan contains a chapter that deals with the Old Village Plan. The Old Village Plan has a series of policies that address what the Old Village is intended to appear, Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 1 and function like in the future. The Architectural Guidelines are intended to be one of the implementation documents of this planning work, which has already been adopted by the City Council. Commissioner John read a prepared statement (attached). Commissioner Mandel said several years ago, the Village Commission hosted a community workshop at Lake Elmo Elementary School, and at that meeting, lots of people were in favor of architectural guidelines. He said he was committed to rural enhancement in the city. He said he did not want any more buildings with a bunch of rocks in front; and, no glass atriums. He said the city needs guidelines to control bad architecture. Commissioner Deziel thanked the audience as good neighbors. He said, just because meetings are open to the public, it indicates bad civics by "shoving something down their throats." He said these folks pay taxes, and are good neighbors -stating his opposition to the adoption of the guidelines. Commissioner Bucheck said the ordinance does nothing more than protect the city from bad architecture. She said she did not want to see any big -box stores and no huge development. Commissioner Brass stated that when the Planning Commission reviews application, if they don't like the architecture, there is nothing they can do without guidelines. Commissioner Deziel said the city needs to slow down on making more rules. Commissioner Williams proposed three questions: Can the city legally establish guidelines? Should the city adopt guidelines? If we can, and if we should, what should we do? He commented that it was interesting when he was on the City Council, and there was talk of guidelines on the I-94 corridor, where was everyone then. He stated he felt the architectural guidelines are quite appropriate; many cities use them; most people dislike the "Highway 5 Building" -wanting to avoid difficulties like that; if we can, and if we should adopt the guidelines, he said he felt they should be in place; ideally, they are a good thing; possibly be tweaked, changed, reviewed, and the process changed; city needs to pass something, probably not at this meeting -for the protection of all. He said some people think guidelines might decrease property values, but they would not. He said he wants a city to look nice -buildings next to one another that look nice. He said it does make a difference with good architectural compatibility. Commissioner Berg stated he had no issue with guidelines, but opposes ordinance form that requires a "have to or not" philosophy. He asked if there was an opportunity for grant to be used for free architectural advice and tax incentives. He said he supports zoning standards for the old village acres and cited the 50% no re -build on non -conforming lots. Planner Dillerud discussed the 2001 Work Program, explaining one element is to define "village character" in a graphic sense, and to look at an Old Village Zoning ordinance to address existing conflicts between "suburban" zoning standards and development patterns in the Old Village. Steve Continenza, resident, asked how the public could stay informed to this issue, stating sometimes things "slip through the cracks" in 6-8 months. M/S/P Berg/Mandel — to request direction from the City Council pertaining to the following: 1) Should the guidelines that affect construction of new residential be policy or ordinance; Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 2 2) Should the guidelines that affect new and existing commercial be policy or ordinance; 3) Should the geographic area to which the ordinance or policy be smaller. (Motion Passed 14-0). M/S/P Berg/Mandel - to request direction from the City Council relating to its priorities & regarding notifying residents of the Old Village Plan. (Motion Passed 14-0). BREAK 8:05 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. 1.0 Special Project Meetings M/S/P Armstrong/Williams - to schedule "special projects" of the Planning Commission to convene at 7:00 p.m. (Motion Passed 14.0). M/S/P Armstrong/Berg - to recommend the City Council approve the first meeting of the month for Planning Commission includes Old Village Special Projects. (Motion Passed 14-0). M/S/P Williams/John - to request the City Council approve establishment of an ad hoc Old Village subcommittee to meet separately from the Planning Commission; to complete the groundwork on Old Village related items; to open the membership to all Planning Commission members; that all meetings be open to the public; and, staff need not be present. (Motion Passed 14-0). ADJOURN OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS CONVENE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Agenda M/S/P Helwig/Armstrong - to approve the agenda, as presented. (Motion Passed 9-0). 2. Minutes - February 26, 2001 M/S/P Helwig/Sedro - to accept the minutes from the Monday, February 26, 2001 meeting, as presented. (Motion Passed 7-0-2). Abstain: Helwig, Ptacek. 3. Public Hearing: St. Croix Vista (Residential Estate Zoning) Residential Development Preliminary Plat Applicants: Metro Development & Stephen Korhel (West of Keats, South of Highway 36) Planner Dillerud described the existing site as 34.69 acres resulting from a 1999 Minor Subdivision located West of Keats Avenue at 55th Street, and South of Highway 36. He noted existing residential plats located West, North, and South of the site - all three adjoining platted as conventional Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 3 Residential Estates (RE) Zoning, noting consideration for future development of this site was apparent when Rolling Hills Estates was platted. Roger Anderson (Site Engineer) Mr. Anderson said the site was designed to coordinate with the feel and nature of the abutting neighborhoods; the plan meets the requirements for RE platting; revisions based upon comments by the City Engineer will be accomplished; tree plantings will be staggered rather than all in a straight row; and, site drainage will conform to Valley Branch Watershed District recommendations. Commissioner Ptacek asked if the stub [Julep Avenue] was completed. Mr. Anderson said, "No, the applicant must build the road." Planner Dillerud reminded the Commissioners that the City Policy requires that no more than 1% drainage may leave the site. Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Todd Williams 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue Mr. Williams expressed his support for the project statinguhenRE Zoningunsinstituted; this zws exactly the kthd of development they had in mind Len Juran Resident - 57a' Street Mr. Juran expressed his concern for eater run-off and drainage So Klavitter Pond and requested the Planning Commission and City Council consider this when making its decision. Bob Seifert 9692 57`i Street Mr. Seifert brought forth his co cans regavdng erosion control, the safety of the stub road,- and the traffic sperm.' limits after construction. He thanked the applicant for mruiderirrgneighborconens before the Public Hearing Planner Dillerud said the City Council budgeted for lh time position, to report to him; and, one of the responsibilities would be to watch erosion control issues. Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:02 p.m. Commissioner Sedro asked if there were any drainage problems as a result of development of the Prairie Hamlet project. Planner Dillerud stated he would alert the City Engineer to any water problems on the site. Commissioner Deziel suggested the ridge on 57th Street might help with the drainage on this site. M/S/P Ptacek/Sessing - to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Elmo Vista subject to the following conditions: 1. Redesign of the Lot 4, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 1 common lot line to reduce the Aspect Ratio of Lot 4, Block 2 to the 3:1 Code standard; 2. Approval by the City Council of a Subdivision Code Variance to reduce the required right-of-way for 53'a Street North from 50 feet to 48.91 feet; Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 4 3. Compliance with the recommendations of the city Engineer dated February 27, 2001; 4. Submission by the applicant of a site forestation inventory and plan for compliance with site forestation requirements of Section 400.08, Subd. 6, concurrent with the Final Plat application; 5. The existing structure is razed before any building/grading permits are issued. (Motion Passed 9-0). 4. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit - Low Impact AG Zoning Neil Siverson & Susan Otto Siverson 894015' Street Chairman Armstrong announced this Public Hearing is postponed to Monday, April 23, 2001. 5. Public Hearing: Variance (Buffer Zone in Residential Zoning) Cardinal Homebuilders/D & T Development 1696 Ivy Avenue - Cardinal Ride Residential Development Planner Dillerud described the site as 1696 Ivy Lane (Lot 1, Block 3, Cardinal Ridge). He explained that sometime during the first week in March, the City was advised that is appeared a home was under construction in Cardinal Ridge at a location that would violate the 100-foot structure buffer adjacent to agricultural property. He said planning staff determined the lot was in compliance, but requested the Building Official check all other issued building permits in Cardinal Ridge, as well. Upon doing so, the Building Official reported that the construction on Lot 1, Block 3 had proceeded to basement walls and first floor cap, and the structure was situated 29.02 feet from the property line to the West. He explained the variance request is to reduce the buffer from 100 feet to the 29.02 feet now in place, a variance of 70.98 feet, or 71% of the standard. He noted in this case, attorneys advocating on behalf of their clients for both approval and denial have presented detailed documentation regarding the necessary findings for the Commission. He said, considering the circumstances leading to this variance application, that it did not seem appropriate for staff to offer a formal recommendation to the Commission. Tim Freeman (Representing Applicant) Folz, Freeman, and Dupay Mr. Freeman reviewed a narrative, as found in the March 26, 2001 staff report. He said the first obvious thought for the applicant was to move the existing home to comply with the buffer requirement, but, upon further review, this option became unrealistic and commercially impractical. He presented several colored photographs (overhead) of the structure, which he described as a home, more than "just started." He explained that to move this home, it would require complete demolition and removal of the entire structure, estimated cost being in the neighborhood of $65,000.00 - $70,000.00. He further noted this was clearly an oversight, stating none of the parties involved would have continued with the home in its current location if they had realized the error. He said the only viable solution was to request a variance from the buffer standard requirement. He suggested there might be mitigation of the buffer by planting additional trees to buffer the homes from each other, and said he did not think it made sense to buffer similar compatible uses from one another. Commissioner Taylor stated her opposition to the variance saying the development was platted and now the applicant wants to change things to fit them because of problems. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 5 Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:29 p.m. Todd Rapp (Attorney) Representing resident of Parkview Estates - Ed & Cindy Forletti Mr. Rapp noted he wis an attorney from Apple Valley, representing Cindy and Ed Forletti. Mr. Rapp said he could keep his comments short, as it teas his understanding that the Planning Commission had rc eitd a copy of his letter. He said he was appearing to stand behind the comments found therein, and to respond to questions. He said the photographs presented by the applicants' represenutive do not accurately depict the view of the structure from the Forletti property to the West Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:32 p.m. Chairman Armstrong suggested a solution might be to re -zone the entire parcel, owned by Tjosvold/Zehrer, to Rural Residential, noting there is a lesser setback requirement in RR, and the Open Space Easement to the City would be maintained. M/Failed Armstrong - to consider the solution of a rezone of Lot 1 and Outlot B to Rural Residential (RR) Zoning. Commissioner Brass stated she was very opposed to this idea, saying the Forletti's were "there first" and it seemed no one was concerned about their rights. She said everyone knew of the Code, and this was a huge mistake. Commissioner Mandel stated he supported buffers where OP developments abutted RE developments. Commissioner Helwig suggested tabling the issue to allow staff time to discuss another option. Chairman Armstrong said the Planning Commission should not hold up that applicant, and make a decision at this meeting. Planner Dillerud suggested further investigation of Chairman Armstrong's proposal, stating the criteria would be: the outlot be forever tied to the Tjosvold/Zehrer property; Park dedication is based on AG Zoning, and would have to be re -visited. M/S/P Ptacek/Taylor - to deny the Zoning Ordinance Variance - Buffer Width to Cardinal Homebuilders, Inc./D&T Development-Tjosvold/Zehrer, finding the hardship is self- imposed; and, to approve would be a special privilege to applicant. (Motion Passed 8-1). Opposed: Armstrong M/2/F Armstrong/Berg -to set a Public Hearing for April 9, 2001, to Rezone Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 3 of Cardinal Ridge, from AG to RR. (Motion Failed 3-6). Opposed: Brass, Herber, Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro, and Sessing. Mr. Rapp said he felt this was an unheard of procedure; the concept of rezoning to alleviate a condition and, passed on an 8-1 voted because of a self imposed hardship was clearly spot zoning, and he stated his strong opposition. Chairman Armstrong reminded Mr. Rapp that the Minnesota Planning Act allows cities to initiate rezoning without applications, and assured him it was within the authority of the Planning commission to do so. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 6 Planner Dillerud supported Chairman Armstrong's comment by siting Section 300.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. Site Plan Amendment Twin Gable Office Complex Laverne Avenue & Highway 5 Dorothy Erban, applicant Planner Dillerud said the proposed amendment to a previously approved site plan is to solidify the design as a single structure by fully enclosing the connection between the two wings, and provide a climate controlled interior "garden area", as well. Steve Erban (applicant's representative), provided no further comments. M/S/P Armstrong/Taylor — to recommend the City Council approve the amended site plan for a multi -tenant project per plans dated by staff March 7, 2002, June 22, 2000, subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with all conditions of the August 2, 2000 City Council Site Plan approval of the site. (Motion Passed 9-0). 7. Planned Unit Development: Mulligan Masters Practice Center Concept Phase and Watercolors Office Complex Keats Avenue & Hudson Blvd. Hiner Development/Durow Planner Dillerud described the site as 55.5 acres located at the Northeast Quadrant of Keats Avenue & Hudson Blvd. He noted the existing zoning classification of the entire site is Rural Residential (RR), and the zoning district classification would be one of the two districts, the other being AG, would be consistent with an RAD Land Use Plan classification. He said the applicant proposes a Commercial Planned Unit Development Concept for a golf practice facility on the Northerly 33.5 acres, and an office park, which are two groupings of 15 acres and 5 acres. He said the concept plan is consistent with the 1997 Land Use Plan. He added the existing zoning of the site could be AG (part) and LB (part), and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, noting a golf practice facility and professional offices would be allowable uses within the consistent zoning classifications. He said the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan appears to satisfy the purposes and intent of the AG and LB Zoning Districts, however, this depends on a determination with regard to the intent and purpose of wastewater generation standards in the LB zoning district — bringing forth the question: Are those standards intended to relate to wastewater treatment capabilities, or control of use intensity? Rich Hiner (applicant) Hiner Development Mr. Hiner presented, and discussed a "to -scale" model of the proposed Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, which 3 dimensionally illustrated the golf practice facility and office complex. Commissioner Helwig noted that he was one of the commissioners with longer tenure. He recalled that the wastewater standards appearing in the commercial zoning districts were partly intended to address wastewater issues, and partly intended to address land use intensity uses. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 7 Mr. Hiner introduced members of the Durow family; and, noted that this land had been in family ownership for several decades. M/S/P Deziel/Berg - to recommend the City Council approve the determination regarding the intent and purpose of wastewater volume standards of the LB Zoning District to be wastewater management only. (Motion Passed 8-1). Opposed: Brass M/S/P Armstrong/Deziel - to recommend the City Council approve a Commercial Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Hiner Development, Inc./Durow; and, use of the 5 acre site be permitted uses in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District only. (Motion Passed 7-1-1). Opposed: Armstrong; prefers conventional zoning; trouble in the past with Planned Unit Developments; but, likes the plan, and thinks it will be good for the City. Abstain: Brass. Chairman Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young -Planning Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 8 CITY OF LAKE likkELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet Monday. March 26. 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. 7:00 p.m. Convene as Special Projects 1. Old Village Special Project Members A. Minutes - February 26, 2001 (Old Village Section B. Old Village Architectural Guidelines (a tinuai) C. Meeting time for Special Projects Adjourn Special Projects Convene - Regular Planning Commission AGENDA 1. Agenda 2. Minutes - (Regular Planning Commission Section) Monday, February 26, 2001 3. Public Hearing: Lake Elmo Vista -Residential Estate Zoning Residential Development Preliminary Plat & Variance Metro Development & Stephen Korhel (West of Keats A7x rue, South of Higherg 36) 4. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit - Low impact AG Zoning Neil Siverson & Susan Otto-Siverson 8940 15th Street fib C« printed on recycled paper 5. Public Hearing: Variance (Buffer Zone in Residential Zoning) Cardinal Homebuilders/D & T Development 1696 Ivy Avenue - Cardinal Ridge Residential Development 6. Site Plan Amendment: Twin Gable Office Complex Laverne Avenue & Highway 5 Dorothy Erban 7. Concept Plan Review: Planned Unit Development Mulligan Masters Practice Center & Watercolors Office Complex Keats Avenue & Hudson Boulevard 8. Other 9. Adjourn 1 Regular Section Approved 4/9/01 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 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, Deziel, Helwig, Herber, Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro, Sessing, John, Herreid, Bucheck, Frost and Williams. Also present: Planner Dillerud. CONVENE - OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS 1A Minutes February 26, 2001, Special Projects - Old Village Section M/S/P Williams/John - to approve the Minutes from the 2/26/01 meeting, as presented. (Motion Passed 11-0-5). Abstain: Helwig, Ptacek, Taylor, Bucheck and Frost. 1.B Old Village Architectural Guidelines (continued) Planner Dillerud reported that, as directed, he sent the draft ordinance back to City Attorney Filla for a second review, to determine the constitutionality of the ordinance, and respond in writing. He reviewed the City Attorney's report, as found in the Planning Commission packet. Chairman Armstrong said, that since the February 26, 2001 meeting, he received a few calls from residents, and decided it was appropriate to once again open the Hearing to comments, provided the speakers had not given testimony at the earlier meeting. He presented a written statement (attached) from Special Projects Member Frost. WC Blanton 3012 Lake. Elmo Avenue Mr. Blanton stated he did not understand why city government has any business dealing with natters of taste or comfort He said times change, and it wets none cfgovernments business to dictate in this matter. Commissioner John stated he thought applause from the audience, and from planning commissioners was out of order. He said they were at the meeting to debate measures, and others may have an opposing opinion [than those of the audience], and requested applause be resisted. Deb Krueger Resident Ms. Krueger stated she was nezernotfied of theme?ting(s), andread a prepaid statement (attached). Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Berg asked Planner Dillerud to explain the differences between the Village Plan and the Architectural Guidelines. Planner Dillerud explained there is a sequence of events and process leading to these Architectural Guidelines, and the Comprehensive Plan contains a chapter that deals with the Old Village Plan. The Old Village Plan has a series of policies that address what the Old Village is intended to appear, Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 1 and function like in the future. The Architectural Guidelines are intended to be one of the implementation documents of this planning work, which has already been adopted by the City Council. Commissioner John read a prepared statement (attached). Commissioner Mandel said several years ago, the Village Commission hosted a community workshop at Lake Elmo Elementary School, and at that meeting, lots of people were in favor of architectural guidelines. He said he was committed to rural enhancement in the city. He said he did not want any more buildings with a bunch of rocks in front; and, no glass atriums. He said the city needs guidelines to control bad architecture. Commissioner Deziel thanked the audience as good neighbors. He said, just because meetings are open to the public, it indicates bad civics by "shoving something down their throats." He said these folks pay taxes, and are good neighbors -stating his opposition to the adoption of the guidelines. Commissioner Bucheck said the ordinance does nothing more than protect the city from bad architecture. She said she did not want to see any big -box stores and no huge development. Commissioner Brass stated that when the Planning Commission reviews application, if they don't like the architecture, there is nothing they can do without guidelines. Commissioner Deziel said the city needs to slow down on making more rules. Commissioner Williams proposed three questions: Can the city legally establish guidelines? Should the city adopt guidelines? If we can, and if we should, what should we do? He commented that it was interesting when he was on the City Council, and there was talk of guidelines on the I-94 corridor, where was everyone then. He stated he felt the architectural guidelines are quite appropriate; many cities use them; most people dislike the "Highway 5 Building" -wanting to avoid difficulties like that; if we can, and if we should adopt the guidelines, he said he felt they should be in place; ideally, they are a good thing; possibly be tweaked, changed, reviewed, and the process changed; city needs to pass something, probably not at this meeting -for the protection of all. He said some people think guidelines might decrease property values, but they would not. He said he wants a city to look nice -buildings next to one another that look nice. He said it does make a difference with good architectural compatibility. Commissioner Berg stated he had no issue with guidelines, but opposes ordinance form that requires a "have to or not" philosophy. He asked if there was an opportunity for grant to be used for free architectural advice and tax incentives. He said he supports zoning standards for the old village acres and cited the 50% no re -build on non -conforming lots. Planner Dillerud discussed the 2001 Work Program, explaining one element is to define "village character" in a graphic sense, and to look at an Old Village Zoning ordinance to address existing conflicts between "suburban" zoning standards and development patterns in the Old Village. Steve Continenza, resident, asked how the public could stay informed to this issue, stating sometimes things "slip through the cracks" in 6-8 months. M/S/P Berg/Mandel - to request direction from the City Council pertaining to the following: 1) Should the guidelines that affect construction of new residential be policy or ordinance; Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 2 2) Should the guidelines that affect new and existing commercial be policy or ordinance; 3) Should the geographic area to which the ordinance or policy be smaller. (Motion Passed 14-0). M/S/P Berg/Mandel - to request direction from the City Council relating to its priorities & regarding notifying residents of the Old Village Plan. (Motion Passed 14-0). BREAK 8:05 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. 1.0 Special Project Meetings M/S/P Armstrong/Williams - to schedule "special projects" of the Planning Commission to convene at 7:00 p.m. (Motion Passed 14-0). M/S/P Armstrong/Berg - to recommend the City Council approve the first meeting of the month for Planning Commission includes Old Village Special Projects. (Motion Passed 14-0). M/S/P Williams/John - to request the City Council approve establishment of an ad hoc Old Village subcommittee to meet separately from the Planning Commission; to complete the groundwork on Old Village related items; to open the membership to all Planning Commission members; that all meetings be open to the public; and, staff need not be present. (Motion Passed 14-0). ADJOURN OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS CONVENE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Agenda M/S/P Helwig/Armstrong - to approve the agenda, as presented. (Motion Passed 9-0). 2. Minutes - February 26, 2001 M/S/P Helwig/Sedro - to accept the minutes from the Monday, February 26, 2001 meeting, as presented. (Motion Passed 7-0-2). Abstain: Helwig, Ptacek. 3. Public Hearing: St. Croix Vista (Residential Estate Zoning) Residential Development Preliminary Plat Applicants: Metro Development & Stephen Korhel (West of Keats, South of Highway 36) Planner Dillerud described the existing site as 34.69 acres resulting from a 1999 Minor Subdivision located West of Keats Avenue at 55th Street, and South of Highway 36. He noted existing residential plats located West, North, and South of the site - all three adjoining platted as conventional Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 3 Residential Estates (RE) Zoning, noting consideration for future development of this site was apparent when Rolling Hills Estates was platted. Roger Anderson (Site Engineer) Mr. Anderson said the site was designed to coordinate with the feel and nature of the abutting neighborhoods; the plan meets the requirements for RE platting; revisions based upon comments by the City Engineer will be accomplished; tree plantings will be staggered rather than all in a straight row; and, site drainage will conform to Valley Branch Watershed District recommendations. Commissioner Ptacek asked if the stub [Julep Avenue] was completed. Mr. Anderson said, "No, the applicant must build the road." Planner Dillerud reminded the Commissioners that the City Policy requires that no more than 1% drainage may leave the site. Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Todd Williams 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue Mr. Williams expressed his support for the project stainguhenRE Zoningzeas instituted; this was exactly the kind gedecelopment they had in mind Len Juran Resident - 57th Street Mr. Juran expressed his concern for neater run -of and drainage into Klazvitter Pont; and requested the Planning Canrnission and City Council consider this when making its decision. Bob Seifert 9692 57t1 Street Mr. Seifert brought forth his cauems yegarding erosion control, the safety of the stub mad; and the traffic speed dunks afterconstructiaz. He thanked the applicant formnsideringneighbfrconcerns before the Public Hearing Planner Dillerud said the City Council budgeted for lh time position, to report to him; and, one of the responsibilities would be to watch erosion control issues. Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:02 p.m. Commissioner Sedro asked if there were any drainage problems as a result of development of the Prairie Hamlet project. Planner Dillerud stated he would alert the City Engineer to any water problems on the site. Commissioner Deziel suggested the ridge on 57th Street might help with the drainage on this site. M/S/P Ptacek/Sessing - to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Elmo Vista subject to the following conditions: 1. Redesign of the Lot 4, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 1 common lot line to reduce the Aspect Ratio of Lot 4, Block 2 to the 3:1 Code standard; 2. Approval by the City Council of a Subdivision Code Variance to reduce the required right-of-way for 53`a Street North from 50 feet to 48.91 feet; Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 4 3. Compliance with the recommendations of the city Engineer dated February 27, 2001; 4. Submission by the applicant of a site forestation inventory and plan for compliance with site forestation requirements of Section 400.08, Subd. 6, concurrent with the Final Plat application; 5. The existing structure is razed before any building/grading permits are issued. (Motion Passed 9-0). 4. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit - Low Impact AG Zoning Neil Siverson & Susan Otto Siverson 8940 15th Street Chairman Armstrong announced this Public Hearing is postponed to Monday, April 23, 2001. 5. Public Hearing: Variance (Buffer Zone in Residential Zoning) Cardinal Homebuilders/D & T Development 1696 Ivy Avenue - Cardinal Ride Residential Development Planner Dillerud described the site as 1696 Ivy Lane (Lot 1, Block 3, Cardinal Ridge). He explained that sometime during the first week in March, the City was advised that is appeared a home was under construction in Cardinal Ridge at a location that would violate the 100-foot structure buffer adjacent to agricultural property. He said planning staff determined the lot was in compliance, but requested the Building Official check all other issued building permits in Cardinal Ridge, as well. Upon doing so, the Building Official reported that the construction on Lot 1, Block 3 had proceeded to basement walls and first floor cap, and the structure was situated 29.02 feet from the property line to the West. He explained the variance request is to reduce the buffer from 100 feet to the 29.02 feet now in place, a variance of 70.98 feet, or 71% of the standard. He noted in this case, attorneys advocating on behalf of their clients for both approval and denial have presented detailed documentation regarding the necessary findings for the Commission. He said, considering the circumstances leading to this variance application, that it did not seem appropriate for staff to offer a formal recommendation to the Commission. Tim Freeman (Representing Applicant) Folz, Freeman, and Dupay Mr. Freeman reviewed a narrative, as found in the March 26, 2001 staff report. He said the first obvious, thought for the applicant was to move the existing home to comply with the buffer requirement, but, upon further review, this option became unrealistic and commercially impractical. He presented several colored photographs (overhead) of the structure, which he described as a home, more than "just started." He explained that to move this home, it would require complete demolition and removal of the entire structure, estimated cost being in the neighborhood of $65,000.00 - $70,000.00. He further noted this was clearly an oversight, stating none of the parties involved would have continued with the home in its current location if they had realized the error. He said the only viable solution was to request a variance from the buffer standard requirement. He suggested there might be mitigation of the buffer by planting additional trees to buffer the homes from each other, and said he did not think it made sense to buffer similar compatible uses from one another. Commissioner Taylor stated her opposition to the variance saying the development was platted and now the applicant wants to change things to fit them because of problems. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 5 Chairman Armstrong opened the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:29 p.m. Todd Rapp (Attorney) Representing resident of Parkview Estates - Ed & Cindy Forletti Mr. Rapp noted he was an attorney from Apple Valley representing Cindy and Ed Forletti. Mr. Rapp said he wxr/d keep his comments short, as it was his understanding that the Pluming Commssion had rere txcl a copy of his letter. He said he was appearing to stand behind the arnments found therein, and to respond to questions. He said the photographs presented by the applicants' representatirr do not accurately depia the viav of the structure from the Forletti property to the West Chairman Armstrong closed the comment portion of the Public Hearing at 9:32 p.m. Chairman Armstrong suggested a solution might be to re -zone the entire parcel, owned by Tjosvold/Zehrer, to Rural Residential, noting there is a lesser setback requirement in RR, and the Open Space Easement to the City would be maintained. M/Failed Armstrong - to consider the solution of a rezone of Lot 1 and Outlot B to Rural Residential (RR) Zoning. Commissioner Brass stated she was very opposed to this idea, saying the Forletti's were "there first" and it seemed no one was concerned about their rights. She said everyone knew of the Code, and this was a huge mistake. Commissioner Mandel stated he supported buffers where OP developments abutted RE developments. Commissioner Helwig suggested tabling the issue to allow staff time to discuss another option. Chairman Armstrong said the Planning Commission should not hold up that applicant, and make a decision at this meeting. Planner Dillerud suggested further investigation of Chairman Armstrong's proposal, stating the criteria would be: the outlot be forever tied to the Tjosvold/Zehrer property; Park dedication is based on AG Zoning, and would have to be re -visited. M/S/P Ptacek/Taylor - to deny the Zoning Ordinance Variance - Buffer Width to Cardinal Homebuilders, Inc./D&T Development-Tjosvold/Zehrer, finding the hardship is self- imposed; and, to approve would be a special privilege to applicant. (Motion Passed 8-1). Opposed: Armstrong M/2/F Armstrong/Berg -to set a Public Hearing for April 9, 2001, to Rezone Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 3 of Cardinal Ridge, from AG to RR. (Motion Failed 3-6). Opposed: Brass, Herber, Mandel, Ptacek, Sedro, and Sessing. Mr. Rapp said he felt this was an unheard of procedure; the concept of rezoning to alleviate a condition and, passed on an 8-1 voted because of a self imposed hardship was clearly spot zoning, and he stated his strong opposition. Chairman Armstrong reminded Mr. Rapp that the Minnesota Planning Act allows cities to initiate rezoning without applications, and assured him it was within the authority of the Planning commission to do so. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 6 Planner Dillerud supported Chairman Armstrong's comment by siting Section 300.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. Site Plan Amendment Twin Gable Office Complex Laverne Avenue & Highway 5 Dorothy Erban, applicant Planner Dillerud said the proposed amendment to a previously approved site plan is to solidify the design as a single structure by fully enclosing the connection between the two wings, and provide a climate controlled interior "garden area", as well. Steve Erban (applicant's representative), provided no further comments. M/S/P Armstrong/Taylor - to recommend the City Council approve the amended site plan for a multi -tenant project per plans dated by staff March 7, 2002, June 22, 2000, subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with all conditions of the August 2, 2000 City Council Site Plan approval of the site. (Motion Passed 9-0). 7. Planned Unit Development: Mulligan Masters Practice Center Concept Phase and Watercolors Office Complex Keats Avenue & Hudson Blvd. Hiner Development/Durow Planner Dillerud described the site as 55.5 acres located at the Northeast Quadrant of Keats Avenue & Hudson Blvd. He noted the existing zoning classification of the entire site is Rural Residential (RR), and the zoning district classification would be one of the two districts, the other being AG, would be consistent with an RAD Land Use Plan classification. He said the applicant proposes a Commercial Planned Unit Development Concept for a golf practice facility on the Northerly 33.5 acres, and an office park, which are two groupings of 15 acres and 5 acres. He said the concept plan is consistent with the 1997 Land Use Plan. He added the existing zoning of the site could be AG (part) and LB (part), and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, noting a golf practice facility and professional offices would be allowable uses within the consistent zoning classifications. He said the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan appears to satisfy the purposes and intent of the AG and LB Zoning Districts, however, this depends on a determination with regard to the intent and purpose of wastewater generation standards in the LB zoning district - bringing forth the question: Are those standards intended to relate to wastewater treatment capabilities, or control of use intensity? Rich Hiner (applicant) Hiner Development Mr. Hiner presented, and discussed a "to -scale" model of the proposed Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, which 3 dimensionally illustrated the golf practice facility and office complex. Commissioner Helwig noted that he was one of the commissioners with longer tenure. He recalled that the wastewater standards appearing in the commercial zoning districts were partly intended to address wastewater issues, and partly intended to address land use intensity uses. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 7 Mr. Hiner introduced members of the Durow family; and, noted that this land had been in family ownership for several decades. M/S/P Deziel/Berg - to recommend the City Council approve the determination regarding the intent and purpose of wastewater volume standards of the LB Zoning District to be wastewater management only. (Motion Passed 8-1). Opposed: Brass M/S/P Armstrong/Deziel - to recommend the City Council approve a Commercial Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Hiner Development, Inc./Durow; and, use of the 5 acre site be permitted uses in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District only. (Motion Passed 7-1-1). Opposed: Armstrong; prefers conventional zoning; trouble in the past with Planned Unit Developments; but, likes the plan, and thinks it will be good for the City. Abstain: Brass. Chairman Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young -Planning Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Monday, March 26, 2001 page 8 26 March 2001 Planning Commission City of Lake Elmo Dear Commissioners: I do not know if my work schedule will permit me to attend tonight's meeting, so I am submitting the following statement in writing in support of the Architectural Guideline Ordinance for the Village Area. The architectural guidelines were written to provide a common good, creating an appearance consistent with Lake Elmo's rural aspect that would benefit everyone. The guidelines are intended to exclude existing residential buildings. Much of the furor that has arisen over these guidelines has been fueled by a fear that the ordinance would mandate otherwise, which is simply incorrect. The opposition appears to derive from those who would happily sacrifice the common good at the altar of individual freedom and profit. They ignore the fact that such an ordinance would be likely to enhance property values in the Village Area. The result of failure to pass this ordinance is simple to see. There will be no restrictions of any substance on the architecture of buildings in the city. The result will be a viewshed dominated by corporate logos (e.g.,Cenex) and amateur architecture (e.g., the phallic imagery of what the high schoolers refer to as the 'unit building', Creative Office Gardens). On the other hand, passing the guidelines gives bath the planning commission and the City Council some useful structure within which to make future decisions. This city has invested much time and effort, from the Minnesota Design Team and design consultants through long hours put in by two city planners and an untiring executive assistant to four years of work by resident volunteers; each supports a vision of a city with a set of clearly defined architectural and structural criteria. We can't afford to let this last chance slip away. Please resist the self - motivated concerns of individuals and make the tough decision needed to ensure that Lake Elmo grows in a considered and conscious fashion. Pass the architectural guidelines. Sincerely, Arlo Frost RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2001 CITY OF LAKE EU/IO ( ( `ct88 vi YD0 Ckr:5 I\15 1LCilk, 4"3V.ZSca.5 ,1.k'`). (2 (,... J p ,9\-k 1"lntg. y) (5 3 @ ' , (a.1ixn 40 b1 e� 1`14= "�'r5 p �� rct`Piw.-S ‘1744-Yokii 0 cecti'N\6& . p tk gig i (P/\Cc VO:t_ =`v ncaii'n J 4 vry (3! a'ct �3'6. 4\ , V ' i.56-s&).0 -V11E, w. pct [l E, p r.; crlc L,-, rz . ps O s 1b ups E c. YC,.E• bcb-i v,T c°. t l , \ JA Ei lam a-Yi i ul,:ti.o-i\ \np-'hti«1.�: f is ,A _T -\-t c is (0 l.1.- asi I Ica I_, b€, L Gf 115 fth ov'IJ c \vi d e/ Y L cb , cc ai&Q, as )(c,O.akin Pahl cot (licit/jail 11`iN `� -; rcS cii 'yuga. bin , LZ:6 d rfs k LcL %n V_ )'1 \-a Ise (>t&)t1- (P1 or . �� 1c�. \ c93 �t 11C 01:lz t1L a5 3 `\911Y- nVz ',Oj i n Y� i VA. 1bcti v-1 ec-4t5d:d loltl,OL1 p ak2:A &'4Y S t1 J., +.oC R-z_ ' t t-ejUI -O {r'fru) -Ina r- ,c33 k io-�C : 'JAG hearth -\h at). t`i�iA.1c-). ` i k92, �.-1� t:e: ) (1`l �... � v.'y Sect J� �_ ct ( Y\A7- 7 O\ICAJ it V -(J&t- CC'� �- Y �.\ `f `ZJ1::} IOU, ( E V\' <.r� - , C mm ..1(& ti5 6 a tccc Ly� rj a s ra, e.,1)-us 'Mt, t, ` „ \i Uy` o c (93Q..3 t h -16.e_, i1tcdt arec. 6W5kcQ ©t C�., Leg&4J(-\ RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2001 Architectural Guidelines for the Old Village Area WY OF LgKLMb Lake Elmo 1. Located approximately 15 miles from a major metropolitan area, Lake Elmo is subjected to strong development pressures. In the absence of appropriate ordinances, there is a strong likelihood that the Center of Lake Elmo will develop in an uncontrolled way, to the ultimate loss of its unique character. 2. The proposed Architectural Guidelines recognize this situation, and are an attempt to ensure that what is built in subsequent years, is related, in architecture and scale, to what characterizes the City Center today. 3. The Village Commission worked for over three years in developing the ordinance. That it took so long is a reflection of the difficulty the members had in defining what would be deemed appropriate, as well as in agreeing on the boundaries covered by the guidelines. 4. The Architectural Guidelines were prepared to receive residential input. The potential results of the guidelines have been discussed and criticized. There is a need to ensure that the Guidelines can be uniformly applied, as well as being as dearly defined as possible, given the fact that what is covered is a very subjective artistic definition. 5. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. It is equally true that ugliness is almost universally abhorred. The City Council cannot act to avoid potential ugly, or unacceptable, development without having a controlling ordinance that it may use. That is the purpose of the Architectural Guidelines, but they have to be clear and unambiguous. 6. At the public hearing, mention was made of the positive design examples in the Fields of St. Croix housing development. I do not believe that the City Council would have a problem if development proposals were to follow that lead. I believe it is legally challengeable, however, if the Architectural Guidelines were to specify that single development as an example. What is being attempted is to define Architectural Guidelines that would embrace such attractive opportunities. 7. The village of Lake Elmo has already been subject to one architectural development which is the subject of much ridicule, even though the internal landscaped design is considered to be unusual and attractive. But the City is concerned with the external appearance of its buildings, and this is what the Guidelines attempt to address. Recently, the Council had to approve a building, by the same architect, which was the subject of almost unanimous opposition. But in the absence of clearly defining guidelines, approval had to be given. 8. This example is given here more to emphasize the difficulty in reaching agreement on a workable set of architectural guidelines which covers all that the Village Commission considers right. 9. In the absence of agreement on the Guidelines tonight, the work in improving their definition should continue. W.M. John. 4,• CITY OF LAKE jiiELMD March 20, 2001 City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 To: Environmental Management - Special Projects Lake Elmo Planning Commissioners From: Cynthia Young Administrative Secretary Cc: Mary Kueffner - Administrator Charles Dillerud - Planner/Assistant Administrator Thomas Armstrong - Planning Chair Re: Special Projects Meeting Dear Commissioner: As you know, the Monday, March 12, 2001 Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather, and all agenda items were re -scheduled for March 26, 2001. Due to the unusually extensive agenda on March 26, and Administrator Kueffner being out of the office on April 9, the Environmental Management Special Projects has been moved up to the APRIL 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. You will receive an agenda packet several days before that meeting. Thanks for your patience. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. t= printed on recycled paper