Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-04 & 10-25-04 PZMAMfL .ED & APPROVED: 11/22/04 City of Lake Elmo PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes of November 8, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 pm COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Armstrong, Schneider, Deziel, Sedro, Sessing, Ptacek, and Roth. STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Dillerud, City Planner and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary. AGENDA Chairman Helwig added Item 2a, Minutes. M/S/P, Sessing/Sedro, To accept the Agenda as amended. VOTE: 9:0. MINUTES M/S/P, Sedro/Sessing, To accept the Minutes of October 13, 2004 as presented. VOTE: 9:0. Chairman Helwig said only 8 commissioners were present at the October 25, 2004 meeting so the vote on page 4 after Legal Opinion should be 8:0. M/S/P, Sessing/Sedro, To accept the Mintues of October 25, 2004 as amended. VOTE: 8:0:1 (Armstrong: Abstain). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — Family Entertainment Center The Planner said he brought this back from a continuance a few weeks ago. He reminded the Commission that the site is the Dolan's Marine parcel at 9200 Hudson Boulevard.; and, that the Applicant proposes to modify the site to accommodate a Family Entertainment Center. He reported that the applicant had now submitted a Section 520 Site Plan to accompany the CUP application which featured the following site/building improvements/modifications: 1. Paved parking would replace the storage area on the west side of the parcel. 2. An extensive landscape treatment would be added along the south (Hudson Road) frontage. 3. Exterior graphics and signage would be added to the south elevations of both buildings. 4. A determination had been made by the applicant's architect that fire suppression sprinkling must be installed to comply with code for the new occupancy type proposed. The Planner stated that that it is not impossible to do with a private well for fire sprinklers but could be expensive and difficult. The City water main could be extended from the west ; and, he noted that property owners to the east of this site had requested City water too. . An amendment to the City's Water Service Agreement would need approval from the City of Oakdale. He noted also that the city has drilled a new well in Eagle Point Business Park but there are no pumping or storage facilities there yet. He said that the City Engineer is investigating a way to provide some manner of water service and pressure to these properties from the new well. He said that the City Administrator will be discussing extension of the Oakdale water service to the site — at least temporarily — with Oakdale officials shortly He concluded that there is no firm solution for proving City water to the site as yet.. The Planner said that the new application materials reveal no recognized formula for the determination for the necessity of parking for a Family Entertainment Center. However, he advised that substantially more parking has been added in the plans. He noted that as many as 234 parking spaces would be required for an equivalent floor area of retail/service business, but he is not sure of what might be actually needed for this type of use He also noted that the applicant's proposed grass overflow parking could become mud overflow, and that may not be a good solution. The Planner suggested that "proof of parking" could be demonstrated beyond the paved parking proposed and added paved parking where the applicant proposes "grass overflow parking". He further suggested that the CUP can provide for conversion of the "proof of parking" to constructed parking if the City finds a parking shortage problem once the facility is in operation. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Nov. 8, 2004 1 AMEk..iD & APPROVED: 11122/04 The Planner said that he questions whether the graphic exterior additions to the buildings are building ,facade or signage; and, if they are found to be building facade, are they exterior surfacing that complies with City exterior surfacing standards. The Planner noted that no exterior lighting plans were provided; and that the applicant must meet the City's outdoor lighting standards. The Planner pointed out that this is a unique proposal with unique components and unique questions. Commissioner Schneider asked if Splat Ball is in or out. The Planner said it is not excluded by the definition of Family Entertainment Center. Therefore he concludes that it would be permitted unless removed as a use by the City as a part of the CUP process. Commissioner Deziel asked if Well No. 3 is a solution for the fire sprinklers, when could that go online? The Planner replied that there would be no water available until next construction season, even if the issues of water source can be resolved promptly, since several hundred feet of trunk water main would need to be constructed. Chairman Helwig asked if the sizable billboard is on that property. The Planner said the billboard is on the applicant's site, and he understands it to be legal though perhaps non -conforming. Commissioner Armstrong said he recalled that the Court of Appeals decided the city could determine the size of the billboard, and the City decided to reduce the allowable area by half. Hence only half of the billboard area can be used for the message. Chris Wichser and Dave Herreid, Wichser and Herreid Architects Ms. Wichser said this much square footage requires fire suppression. So that is their intent. She continued that the off-street parking formula used for the number of spaces came from a breakdown of activities like a pool or golf course with participants, people watching and waiting, and employees. She reported that 341 people is the figure they arrived at; and, that a study of recreational facilities showed 2.5 people per car. Ms. Wichser said the City Code specifies no more than 25% impervious surface and the site exceeds that figure now. It is currently Class 5 gravel. Overflow parking would be pervious. They could do overflow parking in Class 5 or they could pave the whole thing along with the area to the west of the building but then the 25% is exceeded again. She said they would be willing to show how parking could work in the northern area of the site along with landscaping. Ms. Wichser added that the lot is currently all Class 5 now. Ms. Wichser said that both buildings are orange now. Their plan was to apply something on the outside to reflect the use of the building. Their intent makes it appear something fun is going on there. She said this is similar to treatments in the Old Village. They suggested metal panels because both buildings are metal paneled. The colors chosen are orange, green, and purple because those are lazer tag colors and aimed at a child. Existing standards of City Code are meant to maintain as much of and original building as possible. In the 2002 updated standard, this design meets the 30% accent material standard. Commissioner Deziel said that if the gravel is deep, it probably is already impervious. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Nov. 8, 2004 2 AME ,ED & APPROVED: 11/22/04 Ms. Wichser said the Applicants' concern is getting through the approval process in order to meet their funding and financing schedule. Spring might be actual construction. The parking lot would have to be done during the construction season but interior remodeling could progress all winter long. The Planner said water would have to wait until spring because the cost would be too high in the winter. Jeff Wyman, Applicant He said their plan was to be ready to open by February 1, provided the fire suppression issue is rectified. Commissioner Schneider asked where the site drains. Mr. Herreid said about 20% drains west but most drains sloping gradually to the north. Commissioner Deziel asked if the billboard is staying or going. Mr. Wyman said the billboard will stay. Ms. Wichser said the septic drainfield is south near Hudson Boulevard; they would relocate the tanks south toward the drainfield. They provide a landscape island around the well and it will be used for irrigation on the site. Commissioner Roth asked the hours of operation. Ms. Wichser said the operating hours will be Monday —Thursday 10 to 9pm, 10 to 11 pm on Saturday and Sundays until 6 p.m. Chairman Helwig asked whether the facade materials meet what materials currently exist. Ms. Wichser explained it meets the 30% of the total accent surface area standard. She said the side of the building is 16 feet high. Sign would be 35 square feet to meet the code. Commissioner Sedro suggested that if the city is not precluding splat ball, a safety review period would be appropriate. Commissioner Ptacek said the surfacing is similar steel siding like it looks now. Ms. Wichser explained that the corrugated steel siding which exists is not allowed in the code. She said it is a different metal and not corrugated. Commissioner Ptacek asked about using something more modern like stucco. Ms. Wichser said there is also a percentage limit on that material too. Metal panels are more modern and lively. That is her initial reaction. Mr. Herreid showed a sample of the steel product. He said stucco is more likely to fade and color fades rapidly. This product is more colorfast. It has a honeycombed backing and it is used on more modern high rises. It is specifically designed to look like aluminum but it is steel. Commissioner Schneider said he thinks the panels are signs. He would like to see no lighting on that surface at all. He particularly did not want those jagged edges outlined with lights. Ms. Wichser said the building is lit and there are parking lights. There are no lights on the back building. They are looking to light just the portion for the sign. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Nov. 8, 2004 3 AMELD & APPROVED: 11/22/04 Mr. Herreid said the words would be backlit and they would like to keep the lighting on the building. He said it cannot be seen by driving by it. Commissioner Armstrong said we can make these issues subject to later review or deal with them now and define what we mean now. Commissioner Ptacek observed that it was clear to him that fire sprinklers would be mandatory for this use in these buildings. He also noted that the building and site would need to comply with City Code lighting standards. He stated that he considers the proposed metal graphics to be building facade, and that only the lettering on the facade to be actual signage. He stated that he is comfortable with the metal facade proposal size if it fits lighting and sign code. He noted that the site appears to have ample area in the rear for the additional parking that may be required and asked if the applicant had approached the neighboring business to the east regarding shared parking arrangements. Ms. Wichser reported that since the applicant had determined that there was enough room on -site for off street parking they had not approached the neighboring business in that regard. Commissioner Schneider stated that he had a concern with the size and intent of the facade graphics proposed. He indicated that he would not wish to see neon lighted outlines or similar additions to the graphics that would turn a new facade totally into a sign. At a minimum he would want to see a condition that would preclude any such facade lighting. Commissioner Sedro stated that she sees the graphics as more of a sign than a facade. She noted, however, that if the Commission finds the graphics to be a facade addition, she disagrees that the facade material proposed (metal) may meet the City Code exemption standard for new exterior surfacing of an existing building, since the existing building is not surfaced with the same metal. Ms. Wichser suggested that the facade could be considered to be "exterior surfacing accent" materials, which are allowable by Code to be up to 30% of the exterior surface. "Architectural Metal" is one of the allowable accent materials and the area of the proposed graphics/facade would be well under the 30% maximum allowed. The City Planner noted that even if it is the consensus of the Commission that the proposed graphics are allowable facade and not totally signage, the lettering on the graphics is still signage and cannot be higher than the building parapet or more than 20 feet above grade — whichever is lower. He observed that the location of the lettering as proposed would likely not be totally in compliance with that requirement. Commissioner Schneider asked if the site is still zoned General Business. The City Planner responded that the site is zoned General Business. M/S/P, Ptacek/Deziel, To recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Family Entertainment Center based upon Findings and recommendations as described in the Staff Report along with Planning Commission interpretations regarding proposed building graphics after discussion tonight, and adding the following conditions to those proposed by the Planning Staff Report: 1. That the CUP be subject to subject to a 90 day safety review regarding any reported injuries to customers related to activities offered to the Public. 2. Only parking lot and building illumination for security and safety in accordance with City Code will be allowed, and Lighting of the sign letters must be in accordance with the code, with no exposed neon. Additional lighting of the facade, including any `wash' lighting must meet the City Code requirements. Commissioner Roth said he likes the concept and the proposed improvement of the existing structure. He noted, however, that he hopes other similar businesses will not consider this to be an invitation to locate in this area of the city. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Nov. 8, 2004 4 AMC, cD & APPROVED: 11/22/04 VOTE: 9:0. The Planner recommended the 90 day safety review that nobody is harmed by splat ball. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE The Planner advised that the City Council approved the contract for CDBG funds with the county for 2004-05. The amount is $48K which will be used for the Cimarron gas line project. The Planner said the council considered fence ordinance amendments. No final action was taken. The council got stuck on percentages of openness to air and light. The Planner said the Council had a Workshop after the meeting to discuss a Joint Powers Agreement with the county and Mn/DOT for a bypass over Highway 5 in the Old Village. It would be funded by all three units at about $90K each. The council authorized TKDA to do the work. The Planner told the commission that the CIP has been noticed, and it will come before them on November 22. ADJOURN: 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Nov. 8, 2004 5 CITY OF LAKE ELMO 3800 LAVERNE AVE LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 Phone: (651) 777-5510 Fax: 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Orq MEETING NOTICE The Lake EImo Planning Commission Will hold its regular meeting on Monday, November 8, 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. Conditional Use Permit — Family Entertainment Center 4. City Council Update 5. Adjourn AMENDED L.,PPROVED: 11/08/04 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Roth, Johnson, Sedro, Sessing, Schneider, Ptacek, and Deziel (7:03 p.m.). STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Dillerud, City Planner; Martin Rafferty, City Administrator; and Kimberly Schaffel, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance Agenda The Planner asked to amend the Agenda to add the CIP at the end of the meeting as 6A. M/S/P, Sessing/Sedro, To accept the Agenda as amended. VOTE: 7:0. The Planner advised that the Minutes of October 13 were delayed, they will be forthcoming at the next meeting. Minor Subdivision and Final Plan Amendment — Fields II/Dupuis The Planner introduced an amendment to the Fields of St. Croix 2°d Addition OP Final Stage Plan and the concurrent application for a Minor Subdivision to create three new parcels. He reported that the applicants' plan is to take an existing 3.5 acre parcel adjoining Fields II and divide it into three lots, two of which would be added to the Fields of St. Croix 2'd Addition. The third parcel would quarter the homestead. He reported that Outlot N was created in the Fields II plat in anticipation of the addition of these parcels. The Planner reported that the existing parcel of 3.5 acres is already non -conforming in area in the Rural Residential District, and all three proposed new lots would be as well. Therefore, the applicants are proposing amending the Fields II OP Plan to include all three of the lots to accommodate the proposed lot areas. The Planner reported that the applicant's engineer to recalculate the open space preserved in the Fields II OP Plan with the three new lots. There was enough excess Open Space to allow the creation of these three additional residential lots. The Planner continued that utility connections would be to the constructed wetland and city water that serve the development. The applicant says there are two connections that were created at the time of the plat. According to the City Engineer, city plans only show one connection. He said that Staff also questions the decision of where the applicants put the dividing line between the two north lots. One lot is smaller than the lot size that was allowed to be created in the OP Ordinance that exists today. He said would like the applicants to adjust the dividing line to make the area of both lots equal, and compliant with the current OP minimum lot area of .75 acres. The Planner said he recommends approval of the OP Final Plan Amendment and Minor Subdivision with the conditions that the applicant modify the lot line between Parcels B and C to bring both lots into area conformance, and amend the Homeowner's Association Declaration of Covenants to include Parcels B and C. He noted that historically, when a home already exists on a site, the city does not require that parcel to be a party to the Declarations because of existing non -conforming conditions. Creation of these two new lots would be subject to $1500 Park Dedication Fee each. The city does not calculate park fees on existing parcels. One more pair of utility leads must be constructed at the expense of the developer, assuming those stubs are not there already. Commissioner Johnson asked if staff is aware of issues of easements on the two newly created parcels. The Planner said there were no recorded easements that he is aware of. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2004 1 AMENDED &%APPROVED: 11 /08/04 Bob Engstrom, Developer Mr. Engstrom stated that in the comer of Parcel C there are two large white oak trees which is why that lot was created slightly larger, explaining the location of that lot line. Commissioner Schneider asked about the park being created between Tana Ridge and Fields. Residents have asked him about that park and ballfield. Mr. Engstrom said he thinks the contractors are waiting for soccer posts that are supposed to be installed this fall. Chairman Helwig reminded the Commission of the issue of a variance granted to an individual who promised to save a tree but cut it down along with several others. He asked the developer what assurance the City can have that he will save these trees. The Planner said that we can add the condition that significant trees are identified and marked. That will guarantee those trees will live through the development process at least. Commissioner Ptacek said he would like the lot that is below .75 acre size adjusted to equal .75 acres. Mr. Engstrom said his agreement with Ms. Dupuis is that the parent parcel would be exactly the size shown on the plan. He has no right to take more of the parent parcel. He reminded the commission that most of the Fields II lots are .5 acres. Commissioner Sedro said that mathematically, it appears there are an infinite number of places the lot line can be relocated. Mr. McAdam, Builder Mr. McAdam said he will be building a home on that lot. The more encroachment there is on those white oak trees, the less chance they have of surviving. Narrowing the parcel brings side yard setbacks into play. That would limit buildable area too. Chairman Helwig said we have .75 acre lots in the Code now, so it would require a variance to do it the way the applicant presents it. It would not qualify for a hardship. Commissioner Deziel said that regardless of what we recommend, the Council can approve it with a 4/5 vote anyway. The Planner agreed that the applicant would not need a hardship for a 4/5 OP variance and that Commissioner Deziel's suggestion is probably valid. A Straw Poll indicated that six of nine commissioners would like to maintain three-quarter acre lot size. Commissioner Ptacek said that philosophically he has no problem with the arrangement now proposed but our ordinances must be interpreted, and he sees it as black and white. M/S/P, Ptacek/Sessing, To recommend approval of the application to annex the Dupuis parcel to the OP of Fields of St. Croix and the Minor Subdivision per the Staff Report dated October 25, 2004 with the following conditions: 1. Modify the lot line between Parcels B and C to result in all new parcels being at least .75 acres in parcel area. 2. Amend the Fields Homeowner's Association Declaration of Covenants to annex Parcels B and C. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2004 2 AMENDED & hrPROVED: 11/08/04 3. Payment of a Public Use Dedication Fee of $1500 each for Parcels B and C. 4. Install second set of utility connections in Lily Avenue at owner's expense if missing. 5. Identify and preserve two prominent white oaks. VOTE: 8:0. Zoning Code — Neighborhood Conservation District The Planner reminded the commission of a variance for a garage in the Old Village where the property owner had a very old garage on the property line and asked to replace it in the exact same place. The City Council denied the request as recommended by the Planning Commission. He reported that he understood that it was the desire of the Council for many years to address the Old Village issues of endless variances like this one; and that this was the initial charge to the Old Village Commission. The Planner reported that a section in the draft new zoning ordinance addresses these variations for proposed neighborhood conservation districts to preserve what already exists in neighbor -hoods of small lots. In that draft, a strategy is also addressed for conversion of non -conforming uses to `conforming' by Special Use Permit. The Planner suggested that neither of those vehicles really gets to the issue before the City in the older neighborhoods. Proposed NR quantitative standards are not much different from what we already have in R-1 which is where the problems are in the older neighborhoods today. He noted that one earlier suggestion was to inventory existing properties in those neighborhoods and come up with a least common denominator for lot size and setbacks and other standards we might wish to address. He noted that there might be 1,000 such parcels in the Old Village and Tri-Lakes — a huge task. Structure setbacks would require a visit to each site. The Planner then suggested considering adopting some version of the `urban lot' standards proposed by the draft zoning ordinance for new residential development adjacent to the Old Village. He noted that those standards pretty well reflect what already exists in the Old Village. The Planner said the City Council would like this issue addressed now. He asked for direction from the Planning Commission saying he could structure it into the current ordinance language. Commissioner Deziel said fire emergencies and drainage are also considerations. Commissioner Ptacek said that those urban lot standards could be a solution. It would be a good idea and may free up additional space for emergency vehicles by having an alley space behind. If we could make it work in Tri-Lakes too, it would be fine. Two structures on a zero lot line do not work though; allowing setback all on one side seems to be a good answer. Commissioner Deziel said those neighbors in the recent example had a good compromise if we could be flexible enough to allow it, spacing between garages was good. The Planner said that applying it in built up areas may not be as simple as it sounds. If the first guy in gets that lot line. Nuances like that will have to be addressed so not every one becomes a Special Use Permit (SUP). Commissioner Johnson said many lots have garages on the lot line. She would be worried about being sure they are not all strictly ordered that way. We cannot rubberstamp everything because there is so much variety. The Planner said that if this is better than an SUP, this is all the direction he will need to begin working on it. He noted that this would not do much for Shoreland areas. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2004 3 AMENDED & ?APPROVED: 11 /08/04 Chairman Helwig said if we had a situation of a zero lot line like before, maintenance of the back side of the building means trespassing across the neighboring property. Feuds would be another problem. Commissioner Sedro noticed that if two guys got there first, the third guy in the middle could be squeezed before he gets there. Commissioner Deziel suggested easements and agreements between neighbors could make this work. If a building is on a zero line, then create a 10 foot clearance/setback around that structure by easement. Existing situations will have to be handled differently. Neighbors can grant easements to each other. The Planner said easements can go to drainage issues too. Gutters could be required and drainage easement could be part of it too. The question is, can it be addressed in ordinance format? Commissioner Ptacek said in this case two neighbors could agree. An owner could get approval from the neighbor and purchase land or get an easement. It is a good alternative. He would have liked to have granted approval of that last variance. An ordinance allowing situations as in the diagram, with acquiescence from neighbors is workable. He said he would rather restructure the ordinance this way than turn away reasonable requests because our Code does not fit. Commissioner Deziel suggested structures be 20 feet apart with 10 foot easements each for two buildings. Commissioner Ptacek said we could lay it out as the right-hand diagram as shown in the draft zoning ordinance and the left-hand diagram as a Special Use Permit. The Planner said then it would not all have to come to the Planning Commission for variances and SUPs. He said that the purpose of easements is that neighbors today are not neighbors tomorrow. He said he will try to draft some amendments based on past circumstances. Deziel this may not have to be just in the Old Village. Many of our garage setback variances might have been resolved if the applicant just got an easement from a neighbor instead. The Planner said he will come back in the next couple of meetings with a draft. Legal Opinion a Variances The Planner explained that Commissioner Deziel asked the Planner about variances recently and provided case records along with observations about those records. The Planner did not know how to respond because those records disagreed with what he thought was the case for very many years. The issue addressed the term, "reasonable." The Planner sent those records to the City Attorney for his opinion on how to address reasonable toward the granting of variances. The City Attorney's Memo was included with the Staff Report. The Planner said we rely upon the City Attorney's opinion. The Planner suggested the Commission invite the City Attorney and City Council to the next meeting, and talk about "reasonable" in terms of variances and solicit guidance for the future. He is willing to accept what the City Attorney advises. Commissioner Deziel said if this is something normally allowed or generally permitted on other lots in the district that would be reasonable, not an opposite use. M/S/P, Helwig/Sessing, To invite the City Attorney and City Council to the next meeting at 7:00 p.m. to discuss "reasonableness." VOTE 8:0. City Council Update Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2004 4 AMENDED & ..-PROVED: 11 /08/04 The Planner informed the commission that Commissioner Pelletier requested a temporary leave of' absence until the end of January and the City Council approved. The Planner said the City Council looked at the recommended amendments to the Fence Ordinance, and agreed with three of four. They got stuck on percent open above 42" in height. The City Council directed staff to determine if that was an undue hardship for costs to owners. He has not done the research yet. That could influence the current standard of 75%. The Council wondered if only custom fences could comply with that standard. He also reported that the application for a Minor Subdivision Variance by Tauer and Pechan was approved as recommended. Draft 2005 — 2009 CIP The Planner explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is required by state statute and we are required to annually update it. Any depreciable expense over $5000 is a capital item and those are budgeted in the CIP. Equipment in the CIP is categorized as replacement or new. Between now and the next meeting Staff will be looking at finding for the negative balance items in the CIP. Commissioner Schneider asked about the Reserve Contribution under Building.. The Planner said a Reserve Account acts like a savings account over the years. The City has a number of Reserve Accounts. He will explain the method at the next meeting. Adjourn at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2004 5