HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-03 PZMCITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
65 1 /777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / lake Elmo, MN 55042
MEETING NOTICE
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet
Monday, April 28, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
In Council Chambers,
Lake Elmo City Hall
3 800 Laverne Ave. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
AGENDA
1) Pledge of Allegiance
2) Agenda
3) Minutes of March 31, 2003 and April 14, 2003
4) City -owned Land Transaction
5) Commercial Planned Unit Development General Concept Plan
PRAIRIE RIDGE OFFICE PARK
6) City Council Update
7) Old Business
8) Adjourn
The public is invited to attend.
4128
t0 printed on recycled paper
APPROVED. MAY 12, 2003
City of Lake Elmo
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes of April 28, 2003
Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ptacek, Van Pelt, Sessing, Berg, Sedro, Bunn, Pelletier, (Deziel 7:07
p.m.) STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Dillerud, City Planner and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA
MIS, Sessing/Sedro, To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
MINUTES
Minutes of March 31, 2003. Commissioner Ptacek said the Maker of the Motion on Page 5 was
Commissioner Bunn and Seconded by Commissioner Pelletier. Commissioner Bunn made changes to
Page 2. MIS, Sessing/Bunn, To accept the Minutes of March 31, 2003 as amended. VOTE: 8:0
PASSED.
Minutes of April 14, 2003
MIS, Bunn/Johnson, To accept the Minutes of April 14, 2003 as presented. VOTE: 7:0:1 (Ptacek
Abstain) PASSED.
CITY -OWNED LAND TRANSACTION
Staff Report, Chuck Dillerud
Resident requested a land exchange with the city that involves one of the city's 201 wastewater sites. The
Hustad-Perrins own an adjoining parcel, and wish to construct an in -ground swimming pool. One of the
few places on the property that the pool could be built due to slopes, etc., would overlap the 201 parcel.
What the owner proposes is the city give them a triangular piece of city land, and they are offering a piece
from the opposite side of their property in exchange. This was presented to the City Engineer who was
asked if this parcel of the city's would be negatively impacted if the city gave them this portion of the
site.
In 2002 the city adopted a policy for city -owned land. Public property should not be transferred or
swapped without an in-depth analysis. The Planning Commission must then review it and make a
recommendation to the City Council as to how it affects the Comprehensive Plan. The city -owned
property is about 38,000 square feet in area, a substandard lot size.
Commissioner Bunn
Their parcel goes to the lake. What is to the left of the western line of their property?
City Planner
A residential parcel.
Commissioner Sedro
City -owned land can only be sold if it has to do with a failing septic system.
Commissioner Deziel
Septics are better on higher ground. In this case they offer us low ground for high ground.
Citv Planner
The 201 site is capable of handling what is already connected there. At what point might you have to
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003 1
APPROVED: MAY 12, 2003
expand the drainfield, and wnen would high ground matter?
David and Margaret-Hustad—Perrin, Co -applicants
Their primary goal is to gain use of the land near their house. The west side of the house is a steep slope.
Their logic as to the proposed exchange was more from a taxpayer standpoint. There are many days
when it is too dusty on Klondike. They would trade frontage for frontage in case Klondike is later paved.
It would be cheaper ultimately because of the possibility of assessments.
Their primary goal is to get the swimming pool installed. They assumed this section they wish to own
was part of their property because it was mowed and maintained by the previous owner. Some of the old
plats show the lines in a different place. Because of the existing fence, they assumed it was their property
line.
If they owned that portion they could place a 20 X 40 feet pool and meet setback requirements. That
portion is a natural drainage area now. Their drainage is west of the house and probably drains down
toward the hillside.
Commissioner Bunn
Are the house and proposed pool at least 100 feet from Ordinary High Water?
David and Margaret-Hustad—Perrin, Co-annlicants
Yes.
Commissioner Sedro
Where is the driveway located?
David and Margaret-Hustad—Perrin, Co -applicants
Mrs. Perrin showed photographs of the property and driveway to the Commissioners.
Chairman Helwig
What would the owners propose the city would do with that small chunk on the west side of their
property? How big is it?
David and Margaret-Hustad—Perrin, Co -applicants
3,100 square feet. It is wooded, probably nothing could be done with it in reality.
Commissioner Bunn
The policy created by the city should have been general and not just for septic. She believes there should
be a net benefit to the city in situations like this. If no benefit, there should be no loss. To justify a swap
there should be some potential future value to the city. The land proposed to be conveyed to the city is on
the lakeshore where we could have a public dock. Given that it is wooded and hilly, that would probably
not be desirable for a public dock, but should probably remain in its natural state. She can think of no
other good use for it. As a swap, it does not appeal. She would be in favor of selling a portion to the
applicants.
Commissioner Sedro
Rather than making the lot less conforming than it already is, she would prefer a different adjustment of
the lot line than the one presented.
Commissioner Van Pelt
He agreed with a different form of swap. Would the owners entertain it?
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003 2
APPROVED: MAY 12, 2003
Margaret-Hustad—Perrin
That would be tough. They are on a shallow bay, with fairly nice lake frontage. The nicest part is the
portion the Planner depicts swapping in his graphic. That precludes their ability to use the lakefront
because shoreland vegetation grows further west.
Chairman Hetwig
He also agrees with Commissioner Sedro. They are offering to swap for a little chunk of land in the
middle of nowhere. There is the possibility of moving the pool. He liked Planner's graphic plan better.
Commissioner Bunn
When would the fact that it is a substandard lot ever become an issue? The only time this might get sold
would be if sewer came into the city.
Citv Planner
Yes, that is true; it would only become more substandard for building purposes.
Commissioner Ptacek
If we were looking at a private owner doing this, we would not allow it. He agrees with the Planner.
David and Marearet-Hustad—Perrin, Co -applicants
Can you be sure there has never been a swap for a swimming pool before? Mr. Perrin thought there had
been one.
Commissioner Sessine
Years ago in Tamarack, there was one in the Open Space with a different scenario. Neither of the subject
parcels were substandard lots. That was a case of a pool being mistakenly placed.
Commissioner Deziel
There is no exactness in the applicants' exhibits. The photograph is so different from their drawing. The
Planning Commission should see the topographical depiction. He expects more from an applicant than
what was presented in this case.
Commissioner Ptacek
He called for a straw -vote on whether this non-contiguous swap would be an option. 7:1 (Deziel— Likes
the idea of a portage.)
MIS, Ptacek/Sessing , to recommend denial of the applicant's proposal of a non-contiguous swap of
parcels. VOTE: 9:0 PASSED.
MIS, Bunn/Johnson, to recommend to the City Council to take up the discussion of the possible sale of
land contingent that the owner provide an approved and more detailed survey -type drawing showing the
minimum amount of land required in order to accommodate their pool and its setbacks.
Commissioner Sedro
She disagreed. We should not create a more non -conforming parcel. How can we impose standards on
others and break them for ourselves?
Commissioner Pelletier
She thinks they should move the line parallel to the existing lot line.
David and Marearet-Hustad—Perrin. Co -applicants
They tried for 1.5 years and could not make it happen. Mr. Perrin agrees with the Commission about
contiguous land. It is not a fair characterization to say we are inflexible, the plan is just not workable the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003 3
APPROVED: MAY 12, 2003
way Mr. Dillerud presented it.
Commissioner Bunn
Planners are reticent to have irregular borders.
Chairman Helwie
It is not up to us or the City Council to design a plan for you.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BUNN/JOHNSON.
M/S, Deziel/ Johnson, to table until there is a more detailed plan. VOTE: 9:0 PASSED.
COMMERCIAL PUD GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN — PRAIRIE RIDGE OFFICE PARK
Staff Report, Chuck Dillerud
Typically a concept plan has very little detail. The idea is that before the applicant spends tons of money,
they get an idea if the Planning Commission is satisfied with the concept. A PUD looks for waivers of
some standards in the code. Those waivers of standards are internally managed within the parcel.
This land is zoned Limited Business and on the face, this concept is consistent with that use. The
applicant proposes seven buildings entailing 45,000 square feet of use. They request several waivers of
internal setbacks, including reducing from the standard of 3.5 acres per building lot. Their plan is more
like a condo development. Our Code provides minimal standards, even in a Planned Unit Development.
One is the setback at the periphery of the site on the west property line.
There is an issue is the intensity of use on the site. Essentially the Code addresses the site use intensity
with a standard for wastewater generation. The Sewer Accessibility Charge (SAC) unit equals 274
gallons. The Code dictates the number of SAC units. Either of those standards results in a maximum of
40,000 square feet and 31,000 leasable square feet. Their proposed gross and net leasable building area is
about 27% more than the Code implies. The following are the proposed Findings of Fact:
1. The concept to locate seven buildings on a 16 acre site adjacent to Hwy 5 and Stillwater Blvd is
basically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent and purpose of the zoning
ordinance.
2. The use and apparent zoning of the parcel to the west are in conflict. There is a pet cemetery and
pet training facility there with a Conditional Use Permit.
3. Public health, safety, and welfare are directly related to intensity of use and traffic impact. Our
understanding from Mn/DOT is there will be no access to Highway 5.
He recommends an approval recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. Reduce gross building area to less than 35,000 square feet and net leasable area reduced to 32,000
square feet.
2. Applicants must commission a Traffic Impact Study at their own expense.
Commissioner Sedro
She wanted more information about the western property line.
City Planner
The Code required 150 feet for the structure and 100 feet for parking, and they propose to be quite a bit
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003 4
APPROVED: MAY 12, 2003
closer than that.
Commissioner Deziel
There is indication that there is water on the property. He could not find a drop of water there today.
City Planner
That is a Jurisdictional Wetland, it may have no standing water most of the time. If this is constructed,
there will be a lot of water there.
Commissioner Sedro
There are accidents at Stillwater Boulevard and State Highway 5. She would like a traffic impact study,
and thinks we might end up with a traffic light there.
Paul Kroehnert, P.E., Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
The formula for SAC units with site area minus wetlands equaling 15.36 acres does not seem to fit the
situation very well. The proposed 3% of the total building coverage is way below the 25% of city
requirement. The total impervious surface is way below what is allowed by the Code. They would
request a waiver of the gross building area standards. The wetland, ponding, and water quality pond
reduce the buildable space which works against us in the formula allowing less square footage for
buildings. Joe Lux at Washington County indicates an existing entrance and culvert there with adequate
site distance. People at Mn/DOT Planning were not favorable to an entrance on Highway 5. There is a
great deal of difference in the elevations making it infeasible.
Dan Tachenv, Co-annlicant
They designed it to be extremely pleasing aesthetically in order to fit into this area. There are certain
added expenses that will result. In order to make the profit, they need more square footage. The bare
minimum they need are 45,000 square feet. These buildings will be sold not leased. He thinks it will be a
very nice project for Lake Elmo. Usually with a PUD project Eke this, a city wants to work with a
developer.
Peter Tachenv, Co-annlicant
He requested the density issue be waived. He drove around looking at other completed developments in
Lake Elmo, and this would have far less cramming into the space than Carriage Station Professional Park.
The density is what he sees when he drives by.
Commissioner Ptacek
The majority of this Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the PUD for Carriage Station.
City Planner
Carriage Station got that density because they gave 35 acres of Open Space.
Commissioner Sedro
She asked about tree preservation and grading plans.
Paul Kroehnert, P.E., Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
There will be enough drainfield area, more than enough for wastewater. If we meet State Code, that
should be enough.
Paul Kroehnert, P.E., Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
He calculated for two wastewater systems per building. The formula the city uses works against us.
Commissioner Deziel
When you did those calculations for storm ponding, what was the surplus?
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003
5
APPROVED: MAY 12, 2003
Paul Kroehnert. P.E.. Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
It was a tight fit on the east side because they receive runoff from about 10 miles north- 240 cubic feet per
second in a 40 inch culvert. That is why those two sites are tighter. In the other area there was plenty of
room.
Chairman Helwig
Eventually that water goes into Lake Elmo after it leaves this site.
Paul Kroehnert. P.E.. Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
Their hydro model shows the culvert is currently inadequate. They propose to widen the ditches so it
would not encroach on the drainfield.
Commissioner Sedro
She has received calls regarding concerns about flooding as a result of this project. The watershed talked
about mitigation, reduction of impervious surface.
City Planner
Our key standard is the 1% rule. The watershed recommends but may not necessarily require it.
M/S, Ptacek/Sessing, to recommend approval based on recommendations, Findings, and Conditions 1
and 2 in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Bunn
On the issue of percentages Mr. Kroehnert highlighted, two of our own panelists did not see water there.
It seems like a lot of water storage needed out there. Smaller square footage buildings may make it less
attractive; she would like to look at it again.
Commissioner Van Pelt
It is a nice looking plan and consistent with what the city appreciates. Density and calculations are based
on acreage. Every measure we have shows a higher density proposed than what we wanted for the area.
VOTE: PASSED 9:0.
Commissioner Sedro
What other grading were you planning? Could it change substantially?
Paul Kroehnert, P.E.. Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
The grading plan pretty well fit the topography and slope of the ground. Most of the grading is for the
water quality pond.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Staff Renort. City Planner. Charles Dillerud
On April 15, the Planner reported to the City Council that the Met Council adopted the same
recommendation as they did on September 11- to reject our Comp Plan for 2020. They added clauses that
they respected Lake Ehno's desire to maintain a rural character. They admonished the Metropolitan
Council staff to try to work with us. Tomorrow is a closed City Council session to discuss the meeting
last week where Chaiman Bell and the Regional Administrator may reconsider some of the framework for
how they would address Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo's primary objection is to the big pipe, the Lake Elmo
Interceptor. Would the city reconsider I-94 and population numbers, etc?
Also, the Council considered the Old Village Moratorium resulting in a 4:0 vote. They voted only after
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003 6
APPROVED: MAY 12, 2003
one major property owner indicated neutrality, and another one only if it is limited to six months though
he disagreed in the past. If a project were submitted in that period, the City Council might let it go
through if it was responsive to our desired planning for that area.
There are a couple of projects on the Old Village Special Projects Planning Commission. The Planner
met twice with Commissioners Bunn and John and wrapped up the adjustments to the Power Point
Presentation. The City Council wanted an aggressive schedule that would have it ready by September.
OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Bunn
At the site of Mulligan Masters, she noticed a large number of trees planted that are apparently dead.
City Planner
He sent a letter to the owners to stop work and get the site plan amended because it appears he has
drastically changed his grading plan. They dug holes much deeper than they were supposed to be dug.
Commissioner Sessine
Can the city set up its own mining tax or a soil export tax?
City Planner
No, only Washington County may impose an aggregate mining tax, a portion of which is remitted to the
city.
Adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Schaffel
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2003 7
a
CITY OF
LAKE
JOELMD
City of Lake Elmo
651/777-5510
/ 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
MEETING NOTICE
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet
Monday, Anril I4, 2003, at 7:00 D.M.
In Council Chambers,
Lake Elmo City Hall
3800 Laverne Ave. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
AGENDA
1) Pledge of Allegiance
2) Agenda
3) Postpone — Minutes of March 31, 2003
4) Public Hearing: Variance from Shoreland Standards
Gustafson — 8120 Hill Trail North
5) Public Hearing: OP Development Stage/CUP/Preliminary Plat ---
WHISTLING VALLEY
6) Public Hearing: Mixed Use Planned Unit Development General Concept Plan
VILLAGE NORTH COMMONS
7) City Council Update
8) Old Business
9) Adjourn
The public is invited to attend.
Z40printed on recycled paper
* CITY OF
LAKE
litELMQ
City of Lake Elmo
651/777-5510
j 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Whistling Valley/OP Development Stage Plan/CUP/Preliminary Plat
City of Lake Elmo
Washington County, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, April 14,
2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North,
Lake Elmo, Minnesota, to consider a request by Bald Eagle Development for an Open
Space Preservation Development Stage Plan/Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat
entitled WHISTLING VALLEY at property generally described as follows:
A parcel of approximately 52.7 acres located in the west one -quarter of the southeast
quarter of Section 27, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, north of 10th Street North and
east of the entrance of Lake Elmo Park Reserve, adjacent to Goose Lake in the City of
Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota - Property I.D. No. 27.029.21.42.0001.
All persons who wish to be heard regarding this Open Space Preservation Development
Stage Plan/CUP and Preliminary Plat will be given an opportunity at the Public Hearing.
Written comments will be accepted up until the time of the Public Hearing.
Charles E. Dillerud
City Planner
Published in the Thursday, April 3, 2003 Gazette.
ILOprinted on recycled paper
CITY OF
LAKE
JOELMO
Variance — Gustafson 2003
City of Lake Elmo
651/777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
City of Lake Elmo
Washington County, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, April 14,
2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake
Elmo, Minnesota, to consider a request by Bradley and Amy Gustafson for a Variance to
Section 325.06 Shoreland Standards. Subd. 4. A Setback from Ordinary High Water
Level of Lake Demontreville to construct an addition to a residential dwelling 86 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Level where 100 feet is required. The property is known as:
Property I. D. No. 09.029.21.22.0009. and generally described as 8120 Hill Trail North.
All persons who wish to be heard regarding this Variance request will be given an
opportunity at the Public Hearing. Written comments will be accepted up until the time of
the Public Hearing.
Dillemd
City Planner
Published in the Thursday, April 3, 2003, Stillwater Gazette.
tO printed on recycled paper
CITY OF
LAKE
ELM
City of Lake Elmo
Village North Commons PUD Concept
651 /777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042
City of Lake Elmo
Washington County, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, April 14,
2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North,
Lake Elmo, Minnesota, to consider a request by Mike Lynskey for a Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (PUD) General Concept Stage Plan entitled VILLAGE NORTH
COMMONS at property generally described as BROOKMAN 3RD ADDITION which
Iies northerly of 39th Street North and easterly of Lake Elmo Avenue to County Highway
5, in the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota - Property I.D. Numbers:
13.029.21.21.0004
13.029.21.21.0005
13.029.21.22.0011
13.029.21.22.0012
13.029.21.22.0013
13.029.21.22.0014.
All persons who wish to be heard regarding this Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
General Concept Stage Plan will be given an opportunity at the Public Hearing. Written
comments will be accepted up until the time of the Public Hearing.
Charles E. Dillerud
City Planner
Published in the Thursday, April 3, 2003 Gazette.
111.
it.0 printed an recycled paper