Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-08 PZMan LA K E ilitELf•10 City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeEkm o.Orp NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, July 14, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. May 28, 2008 b. June 9, 2008 4. Business Items a. MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST. Application from the Meehan Family, LLC for a Minor Subdivision to split an existing 10 acre parcel into four lots at 2038 Inwood Avenue North; RE Zoning; PID 21-029-21-34-0010. 5. Public Hearings a. ACCESSORY BUILDING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. Proposed ordinance amendments to the accessory building provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. City Council/Staff Updates a. June 17, 2008 — DuFresne Variance Extension, Sign Ordinance Amendments b. July 1, 2008 - None c. South Washington County Conservation District Request for Citizen Advisory Committee Volunteers d. Impervious Surface Requirement in Open Space Preservation Developments 7. Adjourn SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Deziel, Fliflet, Helwig, McGinnis, Ptacek, Hall, and Pelletier. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt, Senior Planner Gozola, City Attorney Jerry Filla Agenda M/S/P, to approve the agenda. Vote: 8:0, motion carried unanimously. Minutes — March 24, 2008 and May 12, 2008 M/S/P, Deziel/Hall to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2008 meeting with corrections. Vote 6:0 with 2 abstentions, motion carried. M/S/P, Deziel/McGinnis to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2008 meeting. Vote 7:0 with one abstention, motion carried. Zoning Text Amendments Gozola informed the Commission that he would be reviewing three separate proposed ordinances and suggested that a hearing be conducted separately on each one. He reviewed the direction that had been provided by the City Council and noted that the City must identify a substantial government interest to protect certain types of off -site signage. The three ordinances that had been drafted would amend General Administrative Sign Regulations, Agricultural Business and Temporary Sign Ordinance Provisions. Administrative Sign Regulations Gozola summarized and reviewed the first Ordinance related to the administrative provisions associated with the Sign Ordinance. Ptacek noted that the substitution clause had been added to clarify that non-commercial speech could replace the language on any existing sign. Gozola replied that commercial signage would not be allowed under the substitution clause unless otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning district. Chairman Ptacek opened the public hearing for the draft Administrative Sign Regulations Ordinance at 7:16 p.m. Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue, expressed concern that the sign fee and renewal fee was not included as part of the proposed Ordinance. Gozola answered that this issue would need to be Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-08 1 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 considered in the future and that the Council sets all fees by Ordinance. He noted that any fees should be based on the time and money it takes the City to process each type of application. Deb Kruger, 4452 Lake Elmo Avenue, also questioned the fees and how the temporary and permanent fees would be set. Klatt stated that the Planning Department would need to estimate the time and cost associated with each permit before making a recommendation to the Council on an appropriate amount. Filla explained that it would be appropriate to bring a fee recommendation to the Council with the proposed ordinance. The public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. M/S/P, Helwig/Pelletier to recommend approval of the Administrative Sign Regulations amendments as drafted by Staff. Vote 7:0 with one abstention; motion carried. Agricultural Businesses Gozola summarized and reviewed the second ordinance related to agricultural business definitions and regulations. He stated that the intent of the proposed changes is to simplify and clarify the ordinance and to eliminate overlap between existing provisions Each the uses defined would be incorporated into the current zoning districts consistent with the goals of the community. Ptacek asked for clarification concerning pick -your -own businesses, and specifically whether they should be classified under agricultural entertainment or agricultural sales. The Commission generally discussed that these types of businesses could be classified under both sales and entertainment businesses. The Commission debated the merits of the proposed screening requirements under the use standards. Fliflet suggested that the language be revised to indicate roof -top screening be optional instead of mandatory. Gozola indicated that there are screening requirements for other businesses in the Zoning Ordinance, The consensus of the Planning Commission was to leave this requirement in the draft. Hall suggested striking item "d" in the list of standards for agricultural sales operations. The Commission agreed to remove item "d" from the list in the draft ordinance. Deziel questioned if a minimum size should be set for a conditional use permit under the proposed ordinance. Filla replied that the Commission would likely want to review smaller sites since they could potentially not provide enough room for an agricultural sales business. The Commission raised questions concerning the application of provisions that regulate impacts to adjacent properties. Filla replied that as drafted, businesses would need to take action not to impact neighbors to the site. The Commission reached consensus that this particular language should be reworded to clarify the intent. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-08 2 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 Ptacek opened the public hearing related to the Agricultural Business ordinance at 8:12 p.m. Joan Ziertman commented that pick -your -own businesses should fall under agricultural sales businesses since they should not generate any additional impacts. She noted that it is not always possible to screen all mechanical equipment on these types of properties. Ziertman pointed out some inconsistencies with certain parts of the draft ordinance and stated that she did not agree that uses should be regulated based on acreage since some businesses will require more land than others. Gozola agreed that the definitions and latter sections should be consistent and that they could be reviewed and updated as needed. Neil Kruger, 4452 Lake Elmo Avenue, discussed that no one would want to run an agricultural businesses if they needed to comply with all of the requirements that had been proposed. He stated that most agricultural businesses start as pick -your -own and should be allowed under both classifications. Deb Kruger questioned when screening would be required, and made suggestions for various changes to the sales business standards as drafted. She noted that there is a cost to the regulations and that the Commission should to consider the needs of the community in making its decision. Gary Johnson, 2500 Manning Avenue, referenced the action taken by the Council six months ago and explained that he thought the direction at this time was simply to allow agricultural businesses to continue. He stated his concern over the proposed regulations since they seem to be tailored to more urban communities. Johnson urged the Commission to keep the Ordinance simple if it wanted to keep the community's rural character, and that they needed to promote, not destroy, these businesses. The public hearing was closed at 8:34 p.m. The Commission discussed allowing pick -your -own businesses under both agricultural sales businesses classifications and generally debated the need for regulations as opposed to allowing activities that promoted the community's rural character. Ptacek suggested that the Commission review and vote on each standard as drafted prior to making its recommendation on the Ordinance as a whole. Under the Agricultural Entertainment standards, the Commission elected to keep standards (a), (e),(fl,(j),(1),(m),(o),(q),(r), and (u) as drafted and to strike the remainder under this section. Under the Agricultural Sales standards, the Commission voted to keep standards (2),(3),(4),(8),(9) with a recommendation that the language be tightened in (8) and (9) and to strike the remaining items under this section. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-08 3 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 M/S/P, Hall, Pelletier to recommend approval of the Agricultural Businesses amendments with the revisions to the use standards as approved by the Commission. The motion was amended to remove any limits to the number of full time equivalent employees allowed in Agricultural Entertainment businesses. Vote 8:0; motion carried unanimously. Temporary Sign Ordinance Gozola summarized and reviewed the third ordinance primarily related to temporary signage. He reviewed all changes to the Ordinance that had been made since the last Planning Commission meeting. Gozola explained that the City needed to make a connection between only allowing off premises advertising for certain businesses and a specific governmental interest, and that if none could be identified then all businesses must be allowed these types of signs. Gozola stated that Staff was able to make a link between agricultural signs and the preservation of rural character but could not make the same link with real estate signs. The staff recommendation was to limit off -site signage to agricultural businesses only. Three options were presented to the Commission, including an ordinance that allowed off -site advertising for agricultural businesses only, one that allowed these signs for both agricultural businesses and real estate developments, and one that did not allow off -site advertising anywhere in the City. Filla reviewed a legal opinion that had been provided to the Commission on this matter. Deziel questioned if signs would help developers reach development targets and avoid penalties with their projects. Klatt replied that there would still be many opportunities available to advertise development projects and that the housing market would be more likely to drive build out than any specific advertising. The Commission discussed how to proceed with a review of each ordinance and decided to consider the second option since the others dropped portions of this Ordinance as drafted. Helwig left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Fliflet asked how temporary sales signs differed from permanent signs according to the Zoning Ordinance. Gozola replied that a business could use both and that a permanent sign may be used for signage at any time as long as it is not removed from the site for more than a 12-month period of time. Deziel commented that the City has an incentive to promote and encourage development within housing projects and that there is a significant public interest in advertising for these developments. Pelletier offered support for allowing two off -site signs for agricultural businesses and stated her opposition for off -site real estate signs. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-08 4 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 Fliflet indicated that the need to obtain land owner permission should limit the overall number of signs that will be installed in the City. Chairman Ptacek opened the public hearing related to the Temporary Sign Ordinance revisions at 10:15 p.m. Joan Ziertman stated her support for the first option that would allow temporary signage for agricultural businesses only. She suggested that the Comprehensive Plan supports the preservation of community character. Ziertman pointed out that there are a lot of conservation easements along major roadways which would limit where signs could be placed. She stated her concerns about potential confusion over which type of permit might be required, and recommended that the City not require an annual renewal if the sign does not change. Klatt responded that a permanent sign would allow for the replacement of a message on the sign. Deb Kruger discussed the history of her businesses and stated that off -site signs should be permitted as a way to continue the viability of the business. She expressed concern over the potential cost of the required permits. Gary Johnson noted that the current Ordinance allows signs over and within the street right-of- way with Council permission and that he considers this off -site advertising. He objected to a fee for on -site signage. Johnson said that he believes many of the signs discussed are already permitted and that he has installed a lot of signs in other rural communities that are allowed. The public hearing was closed at 10:47 p.m. Pelletier stated that she was concerned about the existing businesses in town and questioned why the City would provide benefits to some businesses and not others. Hall suggested that the City could allow off -site signage for all businesses and then evaluate this change at a later date. Filla responded that he would not recommend this approach since these signs would obtain vested rights if the signs were not temporary. Gozola discussed that the Commission could look at a fourth option to allow off -site advertising for all businesses, but that this Ordinance would need to come back to them as a new hearing. Filla noted that this option was not one the Commission was asked to consider. M/S/F, Ptacek, Pelletier to move forward with the first option that would allow temporary off - site signage for agricultural businesses only with an amendment to Section 3 as drafted. Vote 2:4 with one abstention; motion failed. Fliefliet suggested allowing off -site signage for agricultural businesses now and then considering additional amendments in the future. She stated that she did not want to delay the progress at implementing the current ordinance as drafted. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-08 5 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 MIS/P, Deziel, Fliflet to recommend approval of the first option that would allow temporary off - site signage for agricultural businesses only but to also recommend that the City Council consider a fourth option as well that would allow off -site signage for all businesses. Vote 6:1, motion carried. Informational Items Klatt discussed that the City Council had recently accepted the public improvements installed within the Hidden Meadows Phase 1 project area. Adornment The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-08 6 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Fliflet, Hall, Deziel, McGinnis, Pelletier, Ptacek, Roth. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt. Agenda M/S/P, to approve the agenda. Vote: 8:0. Minutes — May 28, 2008 Klatt noted that the minutes from the May 28, 2008 meeting would be included in the next Planning Commission packet. Accessory Building Ordinance Amendments Klatt presented an update concerning proposed amendments to the Accessory Building provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He reviewed specific changes to the Ordinance that had been requested by the Commission at its last meeting and reviewed additional information describing the amendments as drafted. Ptacek questioned the setbacks proposed in the RE District, and specifically why these properties would be more restrictive than other districts. Klatt noted that this zone was likely meant to encourage houses with space around them as a mechanism for promoting open space. The larger setbacks could also be used as a tool to promote a specific style of development. Hall stated his disagreement with the RE District setbacks that were proposed. He suggested that these requirements be similar to other districts to allow accessory buildings closer to lot lines. The Commission generally discussed the potential impacts of a setback reduction in the RE District. Fliflet suggested a compromise that would still require a somewhat larger setback in RE Zones. Hall made a motion which was seconded to adopt the following accessory building setbacks in the RE Residential Estates District: 100 feet Front Yard, 15 feet Side Yard, 30 feet Street Side Yard, 15 feet Rear Yard, 50 feet Arterial Street. Motion carried with a vote of 5:3. Ptacek stated that he had thought the direction to Staff was to keep the attached garage size requirements the same as the detached regulations. After discussion the Commission generally agreed that attached garages should not exceed the size of the principal building footprint and that limiting the size, appearance and overall impact of garages on neighborhoods served a legitimate public purpose. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-9-08 1 SUBMITTED; 7-14-08 M/S/P, Roth/Fliflet to amend the accessory building ordinance as drafted to limit the size of the. garage footprint to no more than the footprint of the principal building and to note also that garage space located under living space or other garage space will not count towards the total area measurements. Vote 7:1, motion carried. M/S/P Dieziel, Roth to set a public hearing for the next Planning Commission meeting to consider adopting revisions to the Accessory Building provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Vote 8:0, motion carried unanimously. Adornment The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-9-08 2 ITEM: REQUESTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Date: 7/14/08 New Business Item Item: 4a Consider an application from Patricia Meehan for a Minor Subdivision to be named Torre Pines 2nd Addition Patricia Meehan, Applicant Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning `ri Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from the Meehan Family, LLC for a Minor Subdivision. The proposed subdivision would split an existing 10-acre lot within the Torre Pines Addition (Lot 15, Block 1) into four new parcels in accordance with a preliminary plat approved for this subdivision by the City over 10 years ago. The application is being submitted in the form of a final plat, but may be processed as a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance (under "Exceptions to Platting"). A minor subdivision does not require a public hearing, and may be approved by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Since there is no new public infrastructure needed to serve the proposed lots, many of the requirements for platting will not apply to this request. The building on all lots within this subdivision will need to comply with the previous plans approved for the site, which can be verified by the Planning and Zoning Department at the time building permits are requested for each lot. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • The City Engineer has reviewed the Minor Subdivision request and provided comments related to the plans submitted. • A permit will be required from the Valley Branch Watershed District as noted in the attached letter from the VBWD staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request for a Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney. 2. All easements as requested by the City Engineer shall be documented on the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication based on the fair market value of 7% of the area of new undeveloped lots to be created (7.5 acres), which equals 0.53 acres. City shall hire a licensed appraiser at the applicant's expense to determine the fair market value of the land for the purposes of determining the cash -in -lieu value for park dedication. 4. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the NPDES program, and any other approvals that are necessary. 5. An as built lot survey and individual lot grading plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for all lots within Torre Pines 2nd Addition. These plans shall be consistent with the approved grading plan for Torre Pines 1st Addition. 6. Soil percolation test information for on -site septic systems shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within Torre Pines 2nd Addition. 7. The driveway access from Lot 13, Block 1 shall be moved to 21st Street prior to any expansion or replacement of the existing house on this lot. 8. Other information as requested by the City Engineer in a letter to the City dated July, 2008 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within Torre Pines 2nd Addition. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval as per the Staff recommendation. 2. Recommend denial of the request for a Minor Subdivision with findings of fact that the applicant is not able to meet,the criteria of the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Table the request and direct Staff, the applicant, or others to provide additional information concerning the application. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Applicant Comments Chair facilitates Questions of the Applicant Chair & Commission Members - Call for a motion Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Final Plat for Torre Pines 2nd Addition 3. Development Plan (Torre Pines 2od Addition) 4. Torre Pines (1s1 Addition) Development Plan 5. Torre Pines (1'1 Addition) Grading Plan 6. Aerial Image of Site 7. Review Comments from City Engineer 8. Review Letter from Valley Branch Watershed.District City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Minor Subdivision Request To: Planning Commission From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Meeting Date: 7/14/08 Applicant: Patricia Ann Meehan Owner: Meehan Family, LLC Location: 2038 Inwood Avenue North (Lot 15, Block 1 or Torre Pines Addition) Zoning: RE — Residential Estates Introductory Information Application The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from the Meehan Family, LLC to Summary: subdivide a larger parcel within the Torre Pines Addition into four new lots. The application is being submitted in the form of a final plat, but may be processed under the City's Minor Subdivision requirements since there are four or fewer lots that will be created. Property The preliminary plat for the Torre Pines Addition included the applicant's proposed Information: four lots; however, when the final plat was submitted the family estate decided to hold off on platting the original farmstead property until a later date. The applicant had been requesting an extension of the time to file the final plat for several years; unfortunately, the City has not taken action on the more recent requests and the deadline for completing a final plat has passed. After reviewing the specific subdivision request, Staff determined that it could be processed as a Minor Subdivision since there were no more than four lots being created. The application has therefore been submitted as a Minor Subdivision, which exempts the subdivider from some of the submission requirements of a final plat. Most notably, a public hearing is not required as part of the City's review, and there is less information that needs to be submitted as part of the application process. Torre Pines is located roughly halfway between Stillwater Boulevard and 10t Street with access off of Inwood Avenue North. The preliminary plat proposed 24 single family residential lots under the RE — Residential Estates zoning district, 20 of which were ultimately included on the final plat. The overall plan for the preliminary plat included the applicant's four lots, and therefore all requirements that needed to be met by the overall subdivision were calculated at the time the preliminary plat was reviewed. The property to be subdivided is located at the southeastern portion of Torre Pines Addition (Lot 15, Block 1). All roads needed to provide access to the site were built A4ino7Subdivision: Torre Pines2"`'Ad n ' Planning Commission Report; 7-14-O8 with the original subdivision, and the final plat approved also included a grading and storm water management plan for the entire site. The final plat as approved by the City left the original farmstead site with 10 acres that was proposed to be split into four 2.5 acre parcels in the future. The parcels have not changed from their planned arrangement under the preliminary plat with one small exception specific to the boundary between lots 3 and 4 of the proposed plat. In this case, a 218-foot segment has been realigned to provide more usable land for both of these lots. This realignment does not alter the minimum required area, length, or other dimensions required under the RE District regulations. Applicable Section 154.048 RE — Residential Estates. Codes: Subd A - C. Outlines the general requirements for the RE Residential Estates Zoning District in Lake Elmo. Section 153.09 Exceptions to Platting. Subd. (A) Specifies that a Minor Subdivision is a division of land that results in four or fewer parcels and wherein each resultant parcel complies with the city's minimum lot dimension and public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which the land is located. Subd. (C) Contains the application requirements for a Minor Subdivision. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 10 acres Existing Use' Single Family Residence with Agricultural Outbuildings Existing Zoning: RE — Residential Estates Property Identification Number (PID): 21-029-21-34-0010 Application £eview: Minor Since the parcel to be subdivided lies within a plat that was previously approved by Subdivision the City, many of the application requirements for a typical subdivision do not apply Review: to the request under consideration by the Planning Commission. All public improvements necessary to serve the proposed lots were installed at the time the final plat for Torre Pines was approved, and there will not be any additional dedications or land required beyond the drainage and utility easements shown on the plat. At this point in time, Staff has been unable to find the City file on the original preliminary plat for Torre Pines, and therefore the review and analysis completed by Staff deals with issues that are specific to the proposed Minor Subdivision. The Torre Pines Addition was approved over 13 years ago and all lots with the exception of the applicant's parcel have been developed. Staff is not aware of any specific requirements from the 1s` Addition approval that need to be addressed as part of the 2nd addition proposal. S: \Lad ilse\,S'uhdh'isions'2038 Inwood Avenue_AleehanlRep PZ 7in•re Pines 2nd add 7-14-08..doc Page 2 Mlnor^ cubdivisivn: There Pines 2'11 Ado • Planning Commis.vion Repoli; 7-I4-08 Some of the issues that should be considered by the Planning Commission include the following: Lot configuration. The proposed lots as approved under the preliminary plat meet the RE District requirements, including the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, the lot width to length ratio of 3:1, and the provision for each lot to contain a circle with a diameter of 250 feet minimum. As shown on the Minor Subdivision, the lots are consistent with thepreliminary plat for Torre Pines. Density: The overall density for the site meets the average acreage requirement of 3.33 acres for the lots. The total subdivision are is 78.43 acres which results in the 24 lots including the four in Torre Pines 2nd Addition. Access/Roads. All required roads were completed with the first addition improvements. Access to the new lots will be from 21 S` Street North with the exception of the existing farm site which currently has direct access to Inwood Avenue. Staff is recommending that the access from this parcel (Lot 13, Block 1) be moved to 21st Street prior to any expansion or replacement of the existing house on this lot, Park Dedication. The City Code requires the dedication of area within new subdivisions for public park, trail, or open space purposes. The City can require a payment in lieu of land dedication, which is recommended for Torre Pines 2"d Addition given the small size of the land to be subdivided. Although it is possible that a payment was made to the City when the first addition was platted, the Subdivision Ordinance requirements will apply anytime a parcel of land is divided. The required park dedication in an RE District is 7% of the total land area to be subdivided. The Subdivision Ordinance does note that "where there is a subdivision of property which has an existing residential dwelling, no park dedication fee shall be required for the existing dwelling unit". Based on this provision, Staff is recommending that the existing farmstead parcel be eliminated from the calculation, leaving the three 2.5 acre lots as the area subject to park dedication requirements. 7% of 7.5 acres leaves 0.53 acres that should be used to determine the fee in lieu of dedication. Prior to signing off on the final plat and at the developer's expense, the City will need to determine the fair market value of the land by hiring a licensed appraiser. The required cash -in -lieu of land payment shall be the fair market value of the 0.53 acres of land required for dedication. Water. Each lot will be served by a private well. Sanitary System. The grading plan submitted with the preliminary plat depicted drain field test areas for the development, but did not include the property subject to the Minor Subdivision. Each lot will therefore need to submit percolation test information for on -site septic systems prior to the issuance of a building permit. Storm Water/Grading. An overall grading plan was submitted as part of the Torre Pines First Addition review by the City. Although the City does not have an as -built and 7Lse\Subdivisioas12O38 Mwood .I venue_dleeAar;Rep PZ Tore Pines 2nd Add 7-74-9,9 doe Page 3 Minor Subdivision: Torre Pines 2" Jd Ai( n� ' Planning; Commission Report; 714-08 on file for the grading done on the minor subdivision lots, any new construction should be consistent with the plan previously approved by the City. Staff is recommending that the review of a site specific grading plan be completed at the time a building permit is issued for each individual lot. Existing Structures. There is an existing accessory building shown on Lot 4, Block 1 that is planned for removal. The City will need a guarantee in place that this structure will indeed be removed from the property before signing off on the final plat. Environmental Impacts. There is a wetland that was previously delineated on the property. The boundaries of this wetland were included in a drainage and utility easement previously dedicated to the City. The proposed development plan related to the Minor Subdivision will not impact this wetland, which is located at the extreme southeastern corner of the existing farmstead. Conclusion: The Planning Commission is being asked to examine the proposed Minor Subdivision, to determine whether they meet all requirements of approval outlined by city code. Since the request follows very closely the previously -approved preliminary plat, the Minor Subdivision of Torre Pines 2"d Addition will meet the applicable subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements with certain conditions of approval. Additional Information: Conclusion: Based on the above analysis of the proposed Minor Subdivision, Staff recommends approval of the request provided several conditions of approval are met that are documented below. As noted in the review letter from the Valley Branch Watershed District, a permit will be needed from the watershed district. This requirement is included as a recommended condition of approval. The applicant is seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision to allow the creation of four lots from an existing 10-acre parcel located at 2038 Inwood Avenue (Lot 15, Block 1 of Torre Pines Addition). Commission The Planning Commission has the following options: Options: A) Recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision request with findings that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; B) Recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision request with findings that the proposed subdivision does not meet the requirements of either the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinances. The 60-day review period for this application expires on 8-13-08, but can be extended S.I Lund Us&,S'uhdivrsion. \2038 Inwood Aoenve_hleelurnlitep T'Z Torre Pines 2nd Add 7-I4-08.doc - Page 4 Mino&' Subdivision: Torre Pines 2" d Ad m ' Planning Commission Report; 7-/4-08 an additional 60 days if more time is needed. StaffRec: Staff is recommending approval of the Minor Subdivision request based on the following: 1. The Minor Subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed plat is consistent with and follows closely to the preliminary plat of Torre Pines First Addition. 3. The Minor Subdivision does not require any additional public infrastructure to serve the development that has not already been provided to the site. 4. The Minor Subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Provided the following conditions are met 1. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney, 2. All easements as requested by the City Engineer shall be documented on the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication based on the fair market value of 7% of the area of new undeveloped lots to be created (7.5 acres), which equals 0.53 acres. City shall hire a licensed appraiser at the applicant's expense to determine the fair market value of the land for the purposes of determining the cash -in -lieu value for park dedication. 4. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the NPDES program, and any other approvals that are necessary. 5. An as built lot survey and individual lot grading plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for all lots within Torre Pines 2"d Addition. These plans shall be consistent with the approved grading plan for Torre Pines 1st Addition. 6. Soil percolation test information for on -site septic systems shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within Torre Pines 2"d Addition. 7. The driveway access from Lot 13, Block 1 shall be moved to 21m Street prior to any expansion or replacement of the existing house on this lot. 8. Other information as requested by the City Engineer in a letter to the City dated July, 2008 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within Torre Pines 2"d Addition. Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move to recommend denial of the request by the Meehan Family, LLC for a Minor Subdivision...(please site reasons for the recommendation) .S'.\Land ilselSuhdivisions12038 Inwood ,Ivenue_AIeehantkep 1'27'nm Pines 2ud Add 7-14418. dor Pages Minor ,Subdivision: Torre Pines 2id Ac( 9n Plunning Commission Report; 7-14-08 Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move to recommend approval of the request by the Meehan Family, LLC for a Minor Subdivision based on the following findings... (use staff's findings provided above or cite your own) ...with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney. 2. All easements as requested by the City Engineer shall be documented on the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication based on the fair market value of 7% of the area of new undeveloped lots to be created (7.5 acres), which equals 0.53 acres. City shall hire a licensed appraiser at the applicant's expense to determine the fair market value of the land for the purposes of determining the cash -in -lieu value for park dedication. 4. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the NPDES program, and any other approvals that are necessary. 5. An as built lot survey and individual lot grading plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for all lots within Torre Pines 2"d Addition. These plans shall be consistent with the approved grading plan for Torre Pines 1a Addition. 6. Soil percolation test information for on -site septic systems shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within Torre Pines 2nd Addition. 7. The driveway access from Lot 13, Block 1 shall be moved to 21s` Street prior to any expansion or replacement of the existing house on this lot. 8. Other information as requested by the City Engineer in a letter to the City dated July, 2008 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any lot within Torre Pines 2nd Addition. cc: Rosita Meehan, Meehan Family, LLC Ryan Stempski, TKDA S.'.Lnnd UseYSulAliv, /ous12038 imruod .dr•('rute_AfeehtnfJiep PXTore Pines 2nd add 7-14-02.doe Page 6 City of Lake Elmo IELOPMENT APPLICATION FOE Z✓ ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Zoning District Amendment ❑ Text Amendment ❑ Flood Plain C.U.P. Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) APPLICANT: Vb1EEwA-h (Name) E Variance * (See below) MI Minor Subdivision E Lot Line Adjustment Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan E Site & Building Plan Review ❑ Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O 01-l0Lots O 11 - 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More ❑ Excavating & Grading Permit ❑ Appeal ❑PUD tea--ricry Lt_G 740 V)'W-GI-t/k-Ct- At7t;. - Si Run-. Vfln (Mailing Address) (Zip) TELEPHONES: (nS I -a t' — (Home) FEE OWNER: PA- (Name) 1'3©5 (Work) (Mobile) 47-1 in VY1 C""a— (Mailing Address) TELEPHONES: (aS-1 -". Cl a ^ i 3L) (Home) (Work) (Mobile) 651v� 0,9/^3C7,9. /Xrhw (Fax) 7f+O vn .-5r• P4-ct L, vnrt (Zip) bSi)Dy 651-39 .^13c)-^ (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): R. al C0 -`e • ;I(• 3`4. O / O o2,g IntvJitl3fl LT —ot5 fRLLg.col T40za Piv-r=5 DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST:TM tDee. Pt nt s De4noPvr•Csnr- Con5lei re, n F= )-oTSrA-rnit_1 Lt--C (1--1-0 /)uWnc r•©I.LIC (21= Qtl `Tl+t'"1? iDt2Q.G 'Pitnec Pizl;Z.Inntn7A-R+1 Cr LOTS t.0512-e FJ/.cmt.nt:ciar-.th 15, id r74no 17, L!•C UAC. DF2CJ/ir-)n'TA 417-4,- 11-/-a 1 biro A-nt> 'SfittOe .rib +1f I V -ri- is n /1r7 -ll-F1_ irryl-,2 %c. r r *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outline in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense. • Date Signature of Applicant Date 10/1/2003 City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042. 651-777-5510 • Fax 651-777-9615 TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2140 (651) 292.4400 (651) 292.0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Reference: Torre Pines 2nd Addition Copies To: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Proposed Minor Subdivision City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Proj. No.: 14078.001 From: Ryan Stempski, P.E. Routing: Date: July 3, 2008 Kyle, I have reviewed the proposed minor subdivision for Torre Pines 2nd Addition and have the following comments: 1. Proposed and existing contours (minimum 2-foot) must be shown. 2. All existing storm sewer must be shown on the development plan. 3. A minimum of 20-foot easement must be provided on BOTH sides of storm sewer pipe between Lot 2 and Lot 3. 4. For all existing and proposed houses, low floor and garage floor elevations must be provided on the development plan. 5. Access driveway locations must be provided on the development plan. 6. We recommend that the Planning Department discuss the relocation of the existing access on Inwood Avenue North (C.S.A.H. 13) to a location on 20th Street North. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 292-4487. Ryan An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity July 3, 2008 Mr. Kyle Klatt City of Lake Elmo Planning Director 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Proposed Torre Pines 2"d Addition Dear Mr. Klatt: Thank you for sending me information regarding the proposed Tone Pines 2"d Addition. The subdivision will require a Valley Branch Watershed District permit, and I will review the project more thoroughly once a VBWD permit application is submitted. Valley Branch Watershed District permitting requirements and materials are posted on the District's website at www.vbwd.org. Sincerely, P. Hanson BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Engineers for the Valley Branch Watershed District c: Meehan Family LLC, 740 Marshall Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104 L(NCOLN FETCHER • DAVID BUCHECK • DONALD SCHEEL • DALE BbRASH • RAY LUGKSINGER VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT • P.O. BOX 838 • LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA55042-0538 wawvbWd.org Planning Commission Date: 7/14/08 Public Hearing Item: 5a ITEM: Accessory Building Zoning Ordin ce mendments SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director . ) REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review proposed changes to the City's accessory building regulations and to conduct a public hearing regarding these changes prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. At its last meeting, the Commission made several final modifications to the draft that was presented by Staff and established a hearing date of July 14, 2008 to consider public testimony regarding the proposed changes. The attached ordinance describes in detail the changes that have been proposed, which can be summarized as follows: • The RE District provisions (Section 154.058) will be amended to add accessory building setbacks to the district table. • Language in all zoning districts will be amended to clearly state whether or not the dimensional requirements apply to principal, accessory buildings, or both. • The reference to roof height in Section 154.092, Subd. (A,2) will be removed. With this change, all accessory building heights will be calculated in the same manner as principal buildings. • The accessory building height in all districts (except for agricultural buildings) will be amended to 18 feet (from either 14 feet or 20 feet). This figure is recommended as a balance between the previous roof height requirement of 20 feet and the averaging that is allowed for mansard, gable, hip, and gambrel style roofs. • The definition for a tool shed has been revised to delete a statement related to roof height. These types of structures will still have a separate height requirement that is lower than other buildings. • Accessory buildings in the Open Space Preservation District are currently allowed to be built to a higher height than in other districts; this provision will be amended to reflect a common height across all residential zoning districts. • The requirements for maximum building height and door height will include a notation that these limits apply to residential districts only. • All language pertaining to size limits for the parking of passenger automobiles (found in Section 154.092, Subd. D) will be deleted. • Clarification will be added to specify that building footprint will be used to calculate the size requirements for an accessory building (not gross floor area). This revision also provides for a blanket statement across all districts that an accessory building cannot exceed the size of a principal structure. • Section 154.092 Subd. F and G will be amended to clarify that accessory buildings cannot exceed the height of the principal building in any zoning district with the exception of agricultural farm buildings and the exceptions to height listed elsewhere in the City Code. • The table found in Section 154.093 has been updated to clarify the accessory building requirements for the smallest lot sizes in R-1, RED, and OP districts and to remove existing language that states the size of accessory buildings cannot exceed a principal structure. The revised statement in Section 154.092, Subd. D will now cover this requirement. • A provision will be added to Section 154.092 that reads as follows: "The footprint of an attached garage shall not be larger than the footprint of the living area within the principal building. All garage space located under a living area or other garage space will not count towards the total attached garage area allowed". The primary purpose for making the changes as summarized above is to fix some of the inconsistencies and confusing language that exists within the current code. The amendments should help simplify the review process for new accessory buildings by standardizing the organization of information and the consistency between each district, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The proposed accessory building changes will help address some of the current deficiencies within the existing ordinance, but ultimately the Planning Commission should look at improving the overall organization and presentation of information with the Zoning Ordinance. It would be most logical to work on some of these improvements with Zoning Ordinance changes that might be necessary after the City completes its Comprehensive Plan update process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to the accessory building provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as documented in the attached draft Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance with Specific Accessory Building Section Amendments ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Open the Public Hearing Chair Close the Public Hearing Chair Call for a motion Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ACCESSORY BUILDING REGULATIONS Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended to remove the following definition: HEIGHT OF BUILDING. The vertical distance between the lowest grade level at the building line and the uppermost point on the roof. and to add the followingjliagram to the definition of BUILDING HEIGHT so that it reads as follows: BUILDING HEIGHT. The vertical distance from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for that portion of the lot covered by building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs; to the roof deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height between eaves and highest ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. Ridge--' r Highest Point of Roof Building Height (Flat or Shed Root) Average Distance Between Ridge and Eave Eave— Building Height Gable, Hip or Gambrel Roof) t nDockline Building Height Mansard Roof) Page 1 of 6 Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that the Minimum District Requirements tables found in Sections 154.033, Subd. (D); 154.041, Subd, (C); 154.044, Subd. (C); 154.047, Subd. (C); 150.180, Subd. (B, 2, h) are hereby amended in the following manner: a) All table rows with references to accessory building height will be eliminated. b) All tables will include a section for accessory and principal buildings with one column labeled "Principal Building Setbacks" and another labeled "Accessory Building Setbacks". These sections will also reference § 154.082 for principal buildings and §154.082 for accessory buildings. c) All rear yard setbacks for accessory buildings will be set at an amount that is equal to the required side yard setbacks except for Rural Storage and Animal Building in the AG Agriculture and RR Rural Residential Zoning Districts. d) The setback for an accessory building in the OP Open Space Preservation District adjacent to an arterial street will be 50 feet consistent with all other residential districts. e) The RE Residential Estates District will incorporate the following setbacks for accessory buildings: Yard Front Side Side (Street) Rear Arterial Street Setback (in feet) 100 15 30 1 15 50 1 Section 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 154.092 is hereby amended to read as follows: § 154.092 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. (A) Types of accessory buildings include storage or tool sheds; detached residential garage; detached rural storage building; detached domesticated farm animal buildings; agricultural farm buildings. The accessory buildings are defined as follows: (1) STORAGE OR TOOL SHED A 1-story accessory building of less than 160 square feet gross area with a maximum reef -height of 12 10 feet and exterior colors or material matching the principal structure or utilizing earthen tones. No door or other access opening in the storage or tool shed shall exceed 28 square feet in area. Page 2 of 6 (2) DETACHED RESIDENTIAL GARAGE. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of motor driven passenger vehicles regulated in § 154.093-vd h E;nucitnum roof height of 20 feet. No door or other access opening shall exceed 14 feet in height. The exterior color, design, and materials shall be similar to the principal structure. (3) DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment, workshop equipment and the like. Exterior materials shall match the principal structure in exterior color or be of an earthen tone. (4) DETACHED DOMESTICATED FARM ANIMAL BUILDING. A 1-story accessory building used or intended for the shelter of domestic farm animals and/or related feed or other farm animal supportive materials. The building shall require a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency feedlot permit and site and building plan approval. (Am. Ord. 97-38, passed 11-17-1998) (5) AGRICULTURAL FARM BUILDING. An accessory building used or intended for use on an active commercial food -producing farm operation of more than 20 acres, a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit may be required. (B) A tool shed as defined in this section may be placed on any lot in addition to the permitted number of accessory buildings. (C) No accessory building shall be constructed nor accessory use located on a lot until a building permit has been issued for the principal building to which it is accessory. (D) No accessory building used-et4nt d fcr t?:e ,t:.< < f pusoong° tuttomebituE-ahal? escaed LOW -square feet of gross artxi, nor shy other -opening et:ccc;I-theheitht-of-1-0-feet, nor shall -any structure exceed 1 story ii3 height-e*cept-when-the garages ar@-leeated i : bu . s ied unit deveIeptxenti. On parcels-of2-MP° square R,et in area ar'.c3sino-de'a hed-accessory ^t' "ng e age shall exeeed the -size of the prl-neipal building in gross floor arta. The footprint of any detached accessory building shall not be larger than the tbolnrint of the Principal building. (E) The footprint of an attached garage shall not be larger than the Ibotorint of the living area within the principal building. All t>_araae space located under a living area or other garage space will not count Towards the total attached garage area allowed (F) An accessory building shall be considered as an integral part of the principal building if it is located 6 feet or less from the principal building. The exterior design and color shall be the same as that of the principal building or be of an earthen tone; the height shall not exceed the height of the principal structure unless more restrictive portions of this chapter prevail. Page 3 of 6 (G) Accessory Building II -eight. (1) No accessory building in a earr:mercial or industrial distriet-shall exceed the height of the principal buildine-except for agricultural farm buildings and the exceptions to building height listed in Section 154.083. (2) No building accessory to a residential structure or located in a residential district shall exceed 18 feet in height. of the principal bulld ag. (H) Accessory buildings in the commercial and industrial districts may be located to the rear of the principal building, subject to the Building Code and fire zone regulations. (I) No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR, and R-1 Districts where detached garages may be permitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution of the City Council, except in planned unit developments or duster developments. (Ord. 97-107, passed 4-16-2002) (J) Accessory structures located on lake or stream frontage lots may be located between the public road and the principal structure, provided that the physical conditions of the lot require such a location and a resolution is issued. In no event shall the structure be located closer than 20 feet to the public right-of-way. (K) All accessory buildings over 35 square feet in area shall have a foundation, concrete slab or wind anchor. Buildings larger than 100 square feet shall require a building permit regardless of improvement value. Roof loads and wind loads shall conform to requirements as contained in the Building Code. (L) The required rear yard setbacks for detached residential garages, and storage, boat, and tool sheds shall be a distance equal to the required side yard setback for each zoning district, except on through lots when the required rear yard setback in each zoning district shall apply. (M) Performance standards for detached agricultural buildings and domesticated farm animal buildings on parcels of less than 20 acres shall include the following: (1) Setbacks. All animal buildings, feedlots, and manure storage sites shall be set back in accordance with the underlying zoning district regulations. Page 4 of 6 (2) Slopes. The building, feedlot, or manure storage shall not be placed on slopes which exceed 13%. (3) Water level. Evidence of the seasonally high groundwater level or mottled soil (as established by 8-1/2 foot borings) shall not be closer than 6-1/2 feet to the natural surface ground grade in any area within 100 feet of the proposed building and/or feedlot. (4) Wetlands. No marsh or wetland (as established by the predominant wetland vegetation and/or soils) shall be utilized for placement of the proposed structure, feedlot, or grazing area. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 154.092 is hereby amended to read as follows: § 154.093 NUMBER/SIZE OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. The maximum number and size of accessory buildings permitted in each zoning district shall be as follows. No accessory building shall be constructed unless there is adequate room for the required secondary drainfield site. Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Buildings Residential - R-1, RED, and OP Qve 000-squturo feet but less than 1 acre From 1 acre to 2 acres Over 2 acres A combined 1,200 square feet total for both attached and detached accessory structures or residential garage; the eizc of thu footprint of thu d&taclted structure shall not —ex — eel -the size -of the -toot iet—ef the primary ntructcu'c One 1,200-square foot detached residential, garage or building, in addition to an attached garage One 1,300-square foot detached residential garage or building in addition to an attached garage Section 5. Adoption Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. was adopted on this day of vote of _ Ayes and _ Nays. Mayor Dean Johnston , 2008, by a Page 5 of 6 ATTEST: Susan Hoyt City Administrator This Ordinance No. was published on the _ day of , 2008. Page 6 of 6