Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-04 & 04-12-04 PZM1 MY OF LAKE ELMO C v Lake Elmo 651 /777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042 The Lake Elmo Planning Commission Will hold a meeting on Monday, April 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 AGENDA 1) Pledge of Allegiance 2) Agenda 3) Minutes of April 12, 2004 4) Public Hearing: CUP Amendment — Country Sure Farm 5) 520 Site Plan — Addition to Building — Retail Construction 6) City Council Update 7) Adjourn The public is invited to attend. ILO printed an recycled paper AMENDED,APPROVED: MAY 10, 2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Pelletier, Van Pelt, Deziel, Berg, Helwig, Sessing, Sedro, Bunn, and Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Dillerud, City Planner and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA M/S/P, Berg/Johnson, To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 9:0. MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2004 MIS/P, Sessing/Johnson, To accept the Minutes of April 12, 2004 as presented. VOTE: 7:0:2 (Abstain: Deziel/Sedro). PUBLIC HEARING: CUP AMENDMENT — COUNTRY SUN FARM The Planner presented the applicant's plans for an expansion of the CUP to add two greenhouses to the retail structure at Country Sun Farm. He reported that the applicant proposes to add a greenhouse to the east and a greenhouse to the west of the existing sales facility; and that there is significant history on this site dating back to at least the early 1980's, when the city approved the first Conditional Use Permit. He noted that he could not determine the basis of approval of the CUP with a retail sales structure included, since the Zoning Ordinance appears to only allow "Open Sales Lots" in the AG zone in which this site is located. The Planner explained that this proposal would effectively result in an addition to the retail facility, since customers circulating through them. He observed that allowing continued retail growth on this site may be creating a de facto retail zone. If the landscape material growing use ever ended, it might be difficult to prevent another type of retail use of this site in the future. The Planner said that another issue is access off of Highway 36. He reported that Mn/DOT would like to see that Highway 36 access disappear some day due to safety considerations. He also suggested to the Commission that increasing volumes of retail use on this site will compound the traffic safety consideration, while noting that the signalization of Highway 36/Lake Elmo Avenue may mitigate one safety problem created by `U-Turns' by westbound traffic on Highway 36 to access the site. The Planner noted that when the AG Minor Subdivision Cluster Development was recently approved for this site, the side setback standard was effectively reduced from 200 feet to 10 feet, resulting in the proposed 37.5 side setback for the east expansion becoming Code compliant. The Planner said the city allowed a retail structure on this site in 1984, but now staff suggests it might be wise to recommend denial of the CUP amendment based on the de facto increase in the retailing function that would result in the AG zoning district, and the potential for the expanded facility to attract more retail traffic, compounding the Highway 36 safety problems He observed that, if greenhouses were instead placed elsewhere on this 47 acre site, the retail would not be functionally expanded while the growing function would be. Commissioner Bunn asked if the city has any other retail outlet on Highway 36. The Planner replied that there is Lauseng Stone, but none others that access Highway 36 Commissioner Bunn asked about plans for this intersection. The Planner said that between 694 and the river, limited access is allowed, but most will be closed to access over time. Grant and Lake Elmo received the Highway 36 Study from Mn/DOT, and neither adopted that report. The plan said that some intersections along Highway 36 might become overpasses. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2004 1 ( 1 AMENDED/APPROVED: MAY 10, 2004 Commissioner Bunn asked if the city knows the proportion of retail products sold at this site from off -site sources versus what is grown and sold on -site. The Planner said the applicant grows most of what is sold, and sells some collateral products related to the growing business. Commissioner Berg pointed out that the Site Plan was a little bit thin in details. He asked about the increased safety that could be expected from the new traffic signal at 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue. The Planner said that with the improvements at that intersection, it will be safer for motorists. Keith Bergmann, Owner Keith, Chad, Troy, Eileen, and Richard Bergmann were all in attendance. Keith Bergmann prepared a response to the staff report, and that was distributed to the commission. He read that response to the commission. That response is attached to these minutes. Commissioner Van Pelt said he is supportive of what the family is trying to do. He said he appreciates how nice everything looks at the site. He noted that the applicant presented an eloquent case for additional growing space, but he said it appears that the Bergmanns started out with an expansion plan that was not for growing at all. Keith Bergmann explained that the original plan was to add a greenhouse to the west side, and on the east side add to the hard building with an expansion of bathrooms for the customers, a larger break room, and a small office. He continued that the City Planner told the applicants that such a plan might not get approved, so they changed their plans. He advised the Commission that less than one-half of that original expansion plan was for retail. THE CHAIR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:38 P.M. The Planner said the city received a call from an adjoining property owner to the east, Leroy Rossow, indicating he had no objection to the proposal. F1e reported that Mr. Rossow owns about 56 acres, and is the adjacent property owner on that side of the applicants' site where the setback is proposed to be 10 feet. Ron Weber Mr. Weber said he owns property adjacent to Bergmann's on the west side, on Lake Elmo Avenue, and he has no problem with the proposal. Doug Dahlbloom Mr. Dahlbloom said his property is adjacent on the south end, west side. The Bergmanns run a clean operation. He has no problem with their proposal. Bill Lundquist Mr. Lundquist said he lives across the street, and he said he practically does not know what goes on there at all. The Bergmanns' operation does not affect him at all. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. Commission Deziel said there is an inevitable nature with what the commission is dealing with. He said that if the city is going to preserve AG uses and allow greenhouses as an AG use, a family business is going to need some marginal growth. The applicant has articulated well what those reasons are. There are concerns but we have to balance them, and this proposal is well within the balance. Traffic is dealt with. The only remaining issues are inevitable with growth. He asked if the City is going to clamp down on home grown businesses, or let them make it in the marketplace. Commission Sedro asked if retail use fits in requirements for Alternate AG use. The Planner replied that there are specific ground coverage and CUP area requirements with Alternative AG. He said the site is large enough to qualify for Alternative AG, but suggested that the CUP Area Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2004 2 AMENDED/APPROVED: MAY 10, 2004 would be difficult to define, and may already exceed the percentage of total site area specified in Alternative AG standards. Commissioner Sedro said Alternative AG might be a nice compromise. Commission Berg wondered if retail comes with the product or the facility. Keith Bergmann said the quantity and size of what is grown there will increase. He said they also sell pottery, chemicals, and fertilizers. If there is a 10% increase in flower sales, hard good sales will probably also increase by 10%. Commissioner Berg said he lived where there was AG use, and when a dairy barn was added, that did not increase the scale of AG use. Keith said if the greenhouse was placed elsewhere on the site, they would still have the same amount of product flowing through the doors. Commissioner Van Pelt said he had no strong opinion, but this proposal appears to have started out with a different purpose and intent. The original design was a material increase in retail space, and nominal greenhouse increase. Only if the City is comfortable with an increase in retail, should the City approve this CUP amendment. Chairman Helwig suggested that anyone making a motion should strongly state the reasons - especially around the retail issues - in order to put the issue to sleep for twenty years more. Commissioner Bunn said this site accommodates both a commercial retail space and the growing of small plants. Growing and sales are duplicated within the proposed space. Originally she was leaning toward the staff position because of the Comprehensive Plan for this site. Listening to the response by the applicant about the intended use of the space, she said she is now leaning completely in the other direction. She observed that the applicant grows most or all of their product at the facility. She suggested that if Lake Elmo wants agriculture to succeed at all, we have to grow a superior product. She said she would like to see the city support that goal. She would be comfortable with either this proposal or the original proposal. A public restroom might be a desirable thing. She would be willing to look at a portion of this plan being a hard building addition, since most of the use is Alternate AG use, and retail sales are consistent with AG use. Commissioner Berg explained that he comes from a family farm, and has a bias in favor of preserving AG in Lake Elmo. He said he would be comfortable with trying to find a way for the applicant and City to work something out. He would be willing to table until the applicant talks to Mn/DOT regarding prohibiting "U-Turns" at Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue. Keith Bergmann said that the problem with tabling is that the contractor needs a firm date before June 1. Commissioner Sessing asked the Planner if he knew what the original CUP said. He said the intensity of use is probably higher today because that is what things grow into. He suggested that slipping the structure farther to the east is a concern, since the intensity of this use in AG really shouldn't go with the Cluster Development setback. He said he would like to see 50 foot setback for the greenhouse. He noted that the normal AG side yard setback standard is 200 feet today. The Planner said the Commission could recommend an alternative side setback for this plan because it is a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, where any relevant condition can be added. Commissioner Sedro said she believes the applicant wants to keep their family farm going, but based on the City's incremental actions over time, the City may lose control over the true function of the site. Commission Pelletier said he appreciates the family business, but is very concerned with the safety issue on Highway 36. She is not comfortable without knowing what Mn/DOT is planning. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2004 3 ( ( AMENDED/APPROVED: MAY 10, 2004 The Planner said the applicant could join the city requesting a "No U-Turn" sign at that intersection. Keith Bergmann said he would be glad to also ask the State for the sign, but he thinks it will be a better situation when the signal light is constructed. Chairman Helwig asked the applicant to consider maintaining 50 feet setback, and balance the resulting building addition on both sides. Keith Bergmann said they would rather not do that. Commissioner Deziel said he does not wish to redesign without a site plan. He said the additions as planned mean that there is a lot less use of heating and cooling than if the greenhouse additions were in a different location. He said it is better to put them together with the existing retail building for energy efficiency. He observed that there might be a solar gain with this design; and, that the applicant has done a good job planning it. Commissioner Van Pelt said there are potential precedents created by approval of this proposal including retail point -of -sale and relationship to on site -growth. He questioned which other properties in the City might see this proposal as a precedent? The Planner stated that he could not think of others beyond the Lindner facility. Commissioner Van Pelt said his reservations relate to use and its relationship to the present zoning. He asked if there is any latitude to rezone the property in order to call a duck a duck. The Planner said the Commission can recommend a Comp Plan Amendment, and rezoning after appropriate hearings. The city does not do that often. The Planner said the more money that is invested in retail -capable structures on a site like this; the tougher it will be to say, "No more," some day. Commission Van Pelt said that if the desire is 4000 square feet more of greenhouse, is there a problem if the applicant extended the greenhouses more to the south. Keith Bergmann said they are now located six feet from a large NSP easement to the south. He said he doubted that the power company would permit structural encroachment on that easement. He said it would be easier for the family to operate the business if this plan is approved. Commissioner Deziel said the Commission is looking at a CUP, not zoning. He observed that the applicant reported that bathroom facilities are inadequate for a retail facility. He noted that accommodating agriculture is a key point of the City's Comp Plan; and, the City has to anticipate that agriculture may not take the same forms in the future. He concluded that, therefore, the City has to make some accommodation for those changes. He stated that he is confident that this plan will happen exactly as the applicant expressed it. Commission Pelletier said she would abstain, since it is difficult to differentiate between retail and growing. She noted that the applicant reported that, if the new greenhouses are relocated elsewhere on the site, there are the issues of a water source and power lines; and, that she did not necessarily concur with the City Planner's suggestion that moving the new greenhouse elsewhere on the site would mitigate the "retailing" issue. M/S/P, Bunn/Johnson, To recommend approval of the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit for the addition of two greenhouses at Country Sun Farm with the following Alternative Findings: 1. Although the additional growing function at this facility may also result in additional retail function, the traffic safety concern is mitigated by the traffic light that is about to be installed at Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2004 4 AMENDED/APPROVED: MAY 10, 2004 2. The planned addition to the facility will be used as a growing space, though it may have a duplicate retail use. 3. The applicants are a family whose business is deeply rooted in agriculture. They are trying to pass on an agriculture business from one generation to another, and with the hope to pass it on to the next generation in the future. Their business is primarily growing and the sale of agricultural products grown on site. Commissioner Berg said he is supportive but asked for another condition of a fifty foot structure setback to the east. He asked the Planner if precedence concerns could be overcome by Finding that the retail uses is tied to an AG use, or performed only in certain locations. The Planner said the commission can make that an additional finding, and they can add a condition to the CUP regarding the east setback. Commissioner Bunn said she does not support the fifty foot setback suggestion. VOTE: 5:3:1 (Nay: Van Pelt/Sedro/Sessing), (Abstain: Pelletier). Commissioner Sessing would like to see 50 feet of setback. Commissioner Sedro said her oppositions are the setback and to Finding 2 because it was not definitive enough. She felt that the word, "Primarily" meant 51%, and that percentage was not high enough. Commissioner Van Pelt said that while he feels the plan is great, he also feels that the retail portion is inconsistent with AG zoning. M/S/P, Berg/Sessing, To direct the applicant to engage the City, County and Mn/DOT in discussion to see about whether a "No U-turn" sign would be a good idea at the intersection of Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue. Commissioner Johnson said that said a traffic light may already meet the safety concerns at Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue. Commissioner Bunn said a U turn at the light with a left turn arrow might even be safer. Commissioner Berg said that is why Mn/DOT is being consulted. They are the experts. VOTE: 9:0. RECESS 8:30 P.M. RECONVENE AT 8:38 P.M. 520 SITE PLAN — ADDITION TO BUILDING —RETAIL CONSTRUCTION The Planner said the proposal before the commission is to add 4,000 square feet onto the building situated one block north of city hall, along with parking and proof of parking. He observed that although proof of parking is in the plan, there is no provision for additional landscape islands should that parking ever be constructed. The Planner suggested that this plan is a minor addition to the existing facility, and a motion for approval would be in order. He reported that the applicant advises that the addition will look like the same as the existing building. Commissioner Deziel asked about the drainfield location, and if it might be too close to the building. He asked if it would be adequate, and would the backup drainfield be compromised. The Planner said he will look into it. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2004 5 AMENDED/APPROVED: MAY 10, 2004 M/S/P, Johnson/Sessing, To recommend approval of the addition of 4,000 square feet to the building located at 11343 39th Street North. VOTE: 9:0. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE The Planner said the Council again considered variance proposal for the property on 35th Street, where the Planning Commission recommended the reduced garage size. He reported that the Council added the condition that the back of the garage must align with the house, even though it created less setback. The Planner said the Council asked to set up a Fence Workshop to include the Planning Commission. Staff will try to do set up the workshop in May, either before or after a Planning Commission Meeting. He also reported that the Whistling Valley 2"d addition was approved by the Council. The Planner said the Council had a brief discussion of the Met Council issue. The Planner was instructed to ask the City Attorney to check with the Met Council attorney to see if there was an alternative proposal brought forward by a third party, and whether it was a legitimate proposal. Commissioner Sedro noted that the minutes from the City Council about the Fence Ordinance sounds like they did not like anything the Commission recommended. The Planner said that most members of the Council were not supportive of the Planning Commission's Fence Ordinance proposal, but each disagreed with different aspects of the ordinance. The Planner said the Commission did an excellent job on the Fence Ordinance, and worked hard on it; and that the amendment is well structured. ADJOURN 8:50 PM Respectfully submitted, Kimberly SchafFel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2004 6 APPROVED: APRIL 26, 2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 12, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Parks Commission at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Johnson, Van Pelt, Sessing, Pelletier, Ptacek, Bunn, and Berg. STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Dillerud, City Planner and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance Agenda M/S/P Berg/Johnson, To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 8:0. Minutes M/S/P Ptacek/Sessing, To accept the Minutes of March 29, 2004 as amended. Change 3RD to last paragraph of page two to read, "...Needs to be in tune with the scale of the neighborhood." VOTE: 7:0:1 (Bunn: Abstain). PUBLIC HEARING — WHISTLING VALLEY 2ND ADDITION The Planner introduced the application for this OP Development Stage Plan, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit. He said that OP Projects come to the city in three stages: first is Concept which addresses the basics of the plan, second stage is this one with much greater detail, and information is submitted to outside reviewing agencies for comment as well as to the city engineer and city attorney, and the third and final stage will go directly to the City Council. The Planner said the site is 45 acres of undeveloped land, and this plat is an extension of another approved project. This project would be 18 single family lots, and half of buildable land will be preserved as permanent open space. The Planner said that at the Concept Stage, the developer responded to all conditions of the Planning Commission by the time the Concept reached the City Council one week later. The road was changed to connect to the other adjoining plat. Emergency access was indicated as going out to the Keats Avenue entrance to the Lake Elmo Park Reserve, and that was rejected by the county. The length of the trail system now exceeds the road length requirement in the OP standards. The lot owner at the southeast corner had expressed concern about activities on their parcel creating a problem to their new neighbors. The developer responded by volunteering a screening plan with a berm. The Planner said this Development Stage Plan and the plat meets the Concept Plan requirements. FIe noted that one proposed lot is 1,300 feet below the a acre minimum lot size, but he said he believes it can be adjusted. He reported that the staff report did not include many outside agency comments since some of those agencies did not respond until after the staff report was drafted. The Planner reported that the City Engineer and Washington County have responded. The Planner said that the County's response was a bit confusing so he called Joe Lux asking what was meant. He advised the Commission that the second bullet of the County's letter indicated the County does not want to have direct access from this plat into the Regional Park. He observed that the developer relocated the trail access to Keats Avenue in the Development Stage Plan, but that the County does not like that arrangement either. The County has suggested that from a traffic perspective, speed is faster at the proposed point of access than farther north Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2004 1 APPkOVED: APRIL 26, 2004 toward the park. The Planner suggested that access might be made from the northeast corner of the plat in the outlot, if access is on a right angle going to Keats, and not into the park. The trail location going east toward Keats is to be determined. The Planner pointed out that the street section as proposed is 24 feet from curb to curb, the maximum allowable, and only 22 feet wide along the preserved open space. He stated that staff recommends approval of the OP Development Stage/Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat based on three findings in the staff report: 1. The OP Development Stage Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the approved OP Concept Plan. 2. The OP Development Stage Plan complies with the documentation requirements and standards of the OP Ordinance, except as noted. 3. The Preliminary Plat complies with the documentation requirements and standards of Section 400 of the City Code (Subdivision), and approval should be subject to two conditions 1. The area of the lot that is currently too small should be increased to a' acre minimum size. 2. Compliance with recommendations of the City Attorney, City Engineer, Valley Branch Watershed District, and Washington County (if the city deems those recommendations as reasonable and proper). The Planner suggested that the commission may wish to point out that the trail location is to be specified at a later date. Commissioner Bunn asked if the county has articulated a trail policy about not having direct access in the Park Reserve. The Planner answered that the County had recently set Policy in that regard. The Policy generally calls for only a minimum number of access points to the Regional Park, and that they are all public trail accesses. The County is awaiting the city's Trails System Plan to address the preferred points of access to the Park by City trails. Dave Sorenson, Anderson -Sorenson Homes, Bald Eagle Development Mr. Sorenson said he tried to work with County Parks about the trail issue. The developer prefers any solution closer to the Park than going down 10th Street. He would be open to a system that might have a gate or whatever is required to deter the entry into the park by vehicles. He said the undersized lot won't be a problem to fix. Chairman Helwig asked if the wetland on the undersized lot is deep. The developer's engineer replied that it is a seasonally wet depression. Bob Close, Landscape Architect The road extension suggestions by the Planning Commission at the Concept Stage make for better circulation on the trail for residents. Commissioner Helwig asked if any of the private trails go to loth Street. Mr. Close said no, they just go to Goose Lake. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2004 2 APF-rtOVED: APRIL 26, 2004 William McCully, Rehbein Company In response to a comment by the city engineer to the preliminary sewer plan, Mr. McCully explained that the sanitary sewer is placed where shown because they ran out of depth of cover, which is why they are cutting the corner of a lot. They will abide by setbacks from a residence to the sewer line but prefer not to lose the depth. Commissioner Bunn asked how much depth is lost by maintaining the setback. Mr. McCully said the resulting sewer line then becomes about five feet deep, and they prefer to have more depth. THE CHAIR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:26 P.M. Jim Kaufhold Mr. Kaufhold spoke as a representative for his son, the owner of the lot being surrounded by this development. He asked if the county would let his son put a road out to 10t1h Street. He asked if the developer would allow his son road access if they wanted to develop their parcel. The Planner said that on a 10-acre site, the County would probably allow no more than one point of access to 10°i Street, and no access to Keats Avenue. The current driveway access is permitted, and that won't be lost to the owner in the future. Mr. Kaufhold asked what if his family created two lots in the back. Could he get access across the outlot? The Planner said that the right-of-way does not extend to the east property line of the plat so there would be no access. William McCully said there is common space between the road and the Kaufhold Parcel. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:31 P.M. Commissioner Ptacek said that, if the county permits only one point of access, Mr. Kaufhold might be able to relocate his present access farther west. The Planner said that the closer the driveway gets to the west property line, the safer the situation would be as to spacing access to 10'h Street. The Planner offered to provide The Kaufhold with the name and number of the County Engineer to confirm access questions to 10'1' Street. Commissioner Ptacek said he would be uncomfortable asking the developer to provide right-of- way in this case. M/S/P Ptacelc/Van Pelt, To recommend approval of the Open Space Development Stage Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat of WHISTLING VALLEY 2m1 ADDITION per plans staff dated April 5, 2004, based on Findings and Conditions specified, and with the additional condition that a satisfactory resolution of the trail connection to Keats Avenue be found. VOTE: 8:0. The Planner said this item will come before the City Council at its April 20, 2004 meeting. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE The Planner said the Eisele Variance request came before the council. They asked the applicant Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2004 3 APPROVED: APRIL 26, 2004 to reduce the setback variance, and the property owner will redraw it. The request results in only slight modifications and probably will be approved. The Planner said that Mulligan Masters site plan amendment was approved unanimously. The Planner said the City Council extended the Old Village Moratorium another 60 days. Wastewater, Water Supply, and Traffic Studies have now been received, with the latter two studies arriving last Tuesday. The city is still waiting for the Surface Water Study. The Council wanted the time to ponder the results of the Surface Water Study and the Stormwater Study. He noted that the new city administrator will need some time to look at the reports as well. The Planner reported that the Commission's Fence Ordinance recommendation was brought to the Council. The Council has scheduled a workshop to discuss fencing, and staff will notify the commissioners of the date. This will be the Council's workshop but the Council wants the Planning Commission there to participate. Commissioner Bunn said the commission adopted a permitting ordinance for fences. She suggested that the fee structure established should be in relation to the fence being built. The Planner responded that one approach the staff is looking at is to use the fee structure in the Building Code since it is a function of project value — the same as project scale. Commissioner Bunn asked when the decision was made not to hire an assistant planner. She said that whether or not we hired an administrator, she understood that the City was still planning to hire an assistant planner. The Planner said it would not be necessary to have an assistant planner if the City has a fully functioning City Administrator. 7:50 pm adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2004 4