HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 05-03 PC PACKETCITY OF GEM LAKE, MN
City Hall - 4200 Otter Lake Road
Gem Lake, MN 55110-3763
Telephone 651-747-2790
E-mail City(i�umlakeMN.or<�
To: Planning Commission, City Council, and Mayor Uzpen
From: Craig Rafferty, Planning Commission Chair
GEM LAKE PLANNING COMMISION AGENDA, May 3, 2010.
Place: Heritage Hall
1. Call to Order at 7PM.
2. Review and Approval of April 2010 Meeting Minutes
3. Public Hearing Flood Ordinance
4. Introductory Review of M and H Gas Station Proposal
1
5. Review of Planning Commission Size Preference:
N
a. Do not change the number of PC members
b. Add an Alternate to the PC.
c. Add an additional 5ch member to the PC.
6. Discussion on Final Comprehensive Plan Review and Adjustments for Chapter 5
and 6 (as time allows) Trevor Oliver
7. Other Business
Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org
CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN
4200 Otter Lake Road
Gem Lake, MN 55110-3227
Telephone 651-747-2790
E-mail Cityn�!emlakeMN.ory_
Gem Lake Planning Commission Meeting
6 April 2010
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Gem Lake was called to
order by Chairman Craig Rafferty on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Gem Lake City Hall conference room.
The following members were present: Chairman Craig Rafferty, Planning
Commission members Beth Herzog, and Dan Marier.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MEETING MINUTES
Planning Commission Agenda: Chairman Rafferty asked for any changes,
deletions or added agenda items None was given, so proceeded to move
forward with the meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes: Chairman Rafferty called to approve the
March Planning Commission meeting minutes. The March Planning Commission
minutes were discussed and some corrections were needed. Upon motion by
Commissioner Marier and seconded by Chairman Rafferty. The March minutes
were approved with corrections. Ayes — 2, Nays — 0.
NEW BUSINESS
Four Seasons CUP Changes: Chairman Rafferty told the Planning
Commission that the amendments were made and were presented to the City
Council and passed at the March City Council meeting.
Hansen Property (West of Daniels Farm Road): The Daniel Farms Road
Association was present at the meeting wanting to know the status on the
development of the Hansen property. Chairman Rafferty explained that there was
some interest from a developer for three story building with a pitched roof and a
senior single level assisted living with a zero lot line and also single level senior
living. The development is residential in nature. The Planning Commission has
made it clear to the developer that the Daniels Farm Road is not available for use
with this development if it goes forward. The concerns from the nine resident
properties along the Hansen property are opposed to any height variation to be
built on that land. The question was raised on how the city would pay for the
Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 4
construction development. Chairman Rafferty explained that no drawings have
been done yet, just a site plan. Chairman Rafferty has been attempting to have
an open forum for anyone to come forward and discuss the situation. Nothing
has been scheduled due to the fact that the Planning Commission has asked
repeatedly for the developer to come forward and discuss this and they have
declined. A list of questions was sent out to the city residents to keep everyone
informed about the situation. No discussion with the developer yet and there
may not be any discussion. If one arises, the residents will be informed.
Chairman Rafferty feels that the Planning Commission and the City Council are
looking at development for the good of the residents. Commissioner Herzog
stated that at this point in time the developers right now are just shopping around
to see what the cities will pay. Because Gem Lake has not heard from the
developer, it's a good chance that they won't develop here. Chairman Rafferty
had received a letter with questions regarding the development of the land.
There is no secret agenda with the Planning Commission and the City Council
and the resident of Gem Lake has been informed and will be updated. Mayor
Uzpen stated that with the new ordinance that was passed stated what can be
developed in Gem Lake. The basis of the ordinance was discussed with the
developer.
Comprehensive Plan Review — Section Four: Section Plan Assumptions,
Goals and Issues.
Page 11 — Plan Assumptions: Chairman Rafferty feels it will flexuate and add
with regularly adjustments. Met Council is to work with those projections and will
need to be regularly adjusted.
Page 12 — Goal of this plan needs to have new residential development in mixed
use planning area that averages at least three units per acre to conform to the
Metropolitan Council guidelines. Chairman Rafferty does not want it to state that
way. In the next use planning area improves the average to balance with the
Metropolitan Council guidelines for land use. Improve the average to balance
with the Metropolitan Council guidelines. So it averages throughout the city. Will
question SEH on what it refers to and will need clarification. The last sentence on
page 12 needs to be adjusted so it is not just on commercial development.
Page 13 — Provisions for Public Utilities — Sanitary Sewers: Sentence reads
sanitary sewers are being installed in the neighborhoods of the City of Gem Lake
as requested. Chairman Rafferty thinks it should say in designated
neighborhoods in the City of Gem Lake as requested in the designated areas.
So it shows that not all neighborhoods have the option to do so. City of Gem
Lake presently serving a portion of residents and commercial properties owners.
Take out the number of sewers.
Page 14 — The last portion of the last sentence, take out sentence referring to
parks in the future for Gem Lake.
Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org
Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 4
Comprehensive Plan Review — Section Five: Does the Gateway ordinance tie
into the comp plan? Ordinance 107 ties into the Comp Plan. This section will
need all new updated maps. Attorney Trevor Oliver will need to come to May's
Planning Commission meeting to work with the Planning Commission on getting
the ordinances in agreement to present the Comp Plan. Upon motion by
Commissioner Herzog and seconded by Commissioner Marier, it was agreed to
table the discussion on Section Five.
OPEN DISCUSSION
Additional Member for Planning Commission: Chairman Rafferty was open
for discussion on adding another member for the Planning Commission.
Ordinance states three members with an alternate are enough for the Planning
Commission. Mayor Uzpen suggested that Paul Emerott withdraw his
application for a seat on the Planning Commission.
ADJOURN
Upon motion by Commissioner Herzog and seconded by Commissioner Marier,
the April 6, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:29 pm. . Ayes — 3, Nays — 0.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Julie Newkirk Craig Rafferty
Recording Secretary Chairman
Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org
Gem Lake Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4 of 4
SIGN-UP SHEET:
Paul Emerott
Fritz Magnuson
Tony Scornavaao
John Kony
Mike Garrett
Isaac Nelson
U
Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org
SECTION 5 - "ES" ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Section 5 Intent
The intent of the estate residential district is to preserve the historical and cultural characteristics of the real
property generally associated with the water body Gem Lake and its attendant wetlands. These lots are
large, five acre minimum, that traditionally have been home to estates and farms. This area has
traditionally been associated with large lots and "estate" style homes.
Section 5.1 Permitted Uses. Within any "ES" Zoned Estate Use District, no structures or land shall be used
except for one (1) or more of the following uses:
5.1.1 Single family detached dwellings
5.1.2 Truck gardening and other horticultural uses provided that only those products produced on the
premise be sold or offered for sale.
Section 5.2 Permitted Accessory Uses. Within any "ES" Zoned Estate Use District, the following uses shall
be permitted accessory uses.
5.2.1 Attached or detached housing such as a carriage house or garage apartment, up to one additional
un it.
5.2.2 Private garage, car port or parking space.
5.2.3 The keeping of not more than two (2) roomers.
5.2.4 Private swimming pool, tennis court, horse training ring, or similar construction for non -
motorized private sports and recreation.
J 5.2.5 Home occupation
5.2.6 Structures temporarily located for purposes of construction on the site for a period of time not in
excess of such construction.
5.2.7 Conservatories for plants and flowers, not including any business, trade or industry.
5.2.8 Essential services.
Section 5.3 Conditional Uses. Within any "ES" Zoned Estate Use District, no structures or land shall be
used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit:
5.3.1 Country clubs, golf courses and other private non-commercial recreation areas and facilities,
including swimming pools; provided that any principal building or swimming pool shall be located not
less than fifty (50') feet from any other lot in an "E" or "R" District.
5.3.2 Essential Service Structures
5.3.3 Agricultural Structures, including but not limited to barns, stables, kennels and the like.
Structures in which farm animals or fowl are to be housed shall require a set -back of one hundred
(100') feet of any lot line, well or ISTS. 5.3.4 Bed and Breakfast Establishments
5.3.4 Storage of vehicles, including motor homes, campers and trailers, which are in excess of 7,000
pounds or 20 feet in length.
5.3.5 Family Day Care Horne.
5.3.6 Residential clustered development as regulated by Section 18.19 of this Ordinance.
5.3.7 Residential -use Planned Unit Development (PUD) as regulated by Section 13 of this Ordinance.
Section 5.4 Height Regulations. No principal structure shall exceed thirty-five (35'0") feet in height and no
accessory structure shall exceed twenty-five (25'0") feet in height measured from the ground six (6'0") feet
from the primary front entrance to the highest point of the roof structure.
Section 5.5 Area, Frontage and Yard Requirements
5.5.1 The following standards shall apply to all land within an "ES" zoned Estate Use district:
A) The minimum lot size is five (5) acres; portions of any lot which lie below the ordinary high
water level of the water body Gem Lake shall not be included in any calculation of lot size.
B) The maximum total lot coverage by buildings and impervious surfaces allowed on any lot is
25% of the gross lot area.
C) A lot must have a minimum of 200 feet of frontage on an improved private way or public
street.
D) All structures on the lot must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of the public or
private right of way which allows the lot to satisfy (C) above.
E) The lot must be at least 200 feet wide at the front setback line established by (D) above.
F) Structures on the lot must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the rear lot line, and 30 feet
fi-orn any side lot line. In addition, new structures erected must be located 100 feet away from any
existing structure standing on another lot.
G) The combined total of land dedicated to permitted, accessory and conditional uses on a lot shall
not exceed 65% of the total area.
5.5.2 Patios, fireplaces, sheds and pools can be erected within set backs as long as no part of the
structure is closer to the front of the lot than the rear of the principal structure.
5.5.3 All provisions within this Section are subject to the regulations stated in Section 21 of this
Ordinance (Shoreland Regulations), and if conflict exists between the provisions set forth above and
the Shoreland Regulations, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
SECTION 6 - "EX" EXECUTIVE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
,'—) Section 6 Intent
The intent of the executive residential district is to preserve the historical and cultural characteristics of the
real property that has traditionally been classified as low density but does not meet the characteristics or the
criteria of the Estate Residential District for preservation of larger lots or for application of Planned Unit
Development.
Section 6.1 Permitted Uses. Within any "EX" Zoned Residential District, no structure or land shall be used
except for one (1) or more of the following uses:
6.1.1 Single family detached dwellings
6.1.2 Truck gardening and other horticultural uses provided that only those products produced on the
premise be sold or offered for sale.
Section 6.2 Permitted Accessory Uses. Within any "EX" Zoned Residential District, the following uses
shall be permitted as accessory uses:
6.2.1 Attached or detached housing such as a carriage house or garage apartment, up to one additional
unit.
6.2.2 Private garage, car port or parking space.
6.2.3 The keeping of not more than two (2) roomers.
6.2.4 Private swimming pool, tennis court, horse training ring, or similar construction for non -
motorized private sports and recreation.
`✓ 6.2.5 Home occupation
6.2.6 Structures temporarily located for purposes of construction on the site for a period of time not in
excess of such construction.
6.2.7 Conservatories for plants and flowers, not including any business, trade or industry.
6.2.8 Essential services.
Section 6.3 Conditional Uses. Within any "EX" Zoned Residential District, no structure or land shall be
used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit
6.3.1 Agricultural Structures, including but not limited to barns, stables, kennels and the like.
Structures in which farm animals or fowl are to be housed shall require a set -back of one hundred
(100') feet of any lot line, well or ISTS.
6.3.2 Bed and Breakfast Establishments.
6.3.3 Storage of vehicles, including motor homes, campers and trailers, which are in excess of 7,000
pounds or 20 feet in length.
6.3.4 Family Day Care Home.
6.3.5 Essential Service Structures.
j 6.3.6 Residential -use Planned Unit Development (PUD) as regulated by Section 13 of this Ordinance.
Section 6.4 Height Regulations. No principal structure shall exceed thirty-five (35'0") feet in height and no
accessory structure shall exceed twenty-five (25'0") feet in height measured from the ground six (6'0") feet
from the primary front entrance to the highest point of the roof structure.
Section 6.5 Area, Frontage and Yard Requirements
6.5.1 The following standards shall apply to all land within an "EX" zoned Residential district:
A) The minimum lot size is three (3) acres; portions of any lot which lie below the ordinary high
water level of the water body Gem Lake shall not be included in any calculation of lot size.
B) The maximum total lot coverage by buildings and impervious surfaces allowed on any lot is
35% of the gross lot area.
C) A lot must have a minimum of 200 feet of frontage on an improved private way or public
street.
D) All structures on the lot must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of the public or
private right of way which allows the lot to satisfy (C) above.
E) The lot must be at least 150 feet wide at the front setback line established by (D) above.
F) Structures on the lot must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the rear lot line, and 35 feet
from any side lot line
G) The combined total of land dedicated to permitted, accessory and conditional uses on a lot shall
not exceed 65% of the total area.
6.5.2 Patios, fireplaces, sheds and pools can be erected within set backs as long as no part of the
structure is closer to the front of the lot than the rear of the principal structure.
6.5.3 All provisions within this Section are subject to the regulations stated in Section 21 of this
Ordinance (Shoreland Regulations), and if conflict exists between the provisions set forth above and
the Shoreland Regulations, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
u
Jean Reiter
From: Tom Riedesel [Tom.Riedesel@ci.white-bear-township.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:15 AM
)To: Craig Rafferty
Cc: RLUzpen@gmail.com; 'Reiter, Jean'
Subject: FW: Rough Idea for 1581 County Road E
Hi Craig,
Sally Ackerman contacted me this morning regarding plans to develop the old Marathon Oil site. I understand you have
a Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for tomorrow night.
I suggested that the P. C. may be able to review the plans in concept but would not be able to review anything formally
due to the short time frame between her contact and the scheduled meeting.
Please let me know if you would like to add this item to the agenda and I will contact the applicant and let her know if
you will schedule this item for concept discussion or if it should wait until the June meeting.
Thanks,
Tom
From: Sally Ackerman[mailto:sally.ackerman@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Tom Riedesel
Cc: Giorgi Gochitashvili
Subject: Rough Idea for 1581 County Road E
Tom:
Per our conversation this morning, I wanted to send a quick email regarding my husband's and my plans for the
above -referenced property. We are currently waiting for a purchase agreement from the bank, but have been
)told that our offer for the property was accepted. We run a small car dealership in Maplewood called Vera Auto
Sales, which we would like to move to the Gem Lake property. Specifically, we have the following thoughts
about the property:
Renovate the Car Wash building to house the car dealership, with up to 20 cars for sale, which will be
parked on the South and East sides of the building. We'd like to keep the garage doors and car space on
either end of the building for housing some sale vehicles if necessary and build the office into the middle
of the building with an awning over the front door (likely made out of the 3rd window in from Cty Road
E) and a small patio/apron to welcome customers. We would also build in a restroom off the office and
the renovation of course would include code standards, HVAC, etc.
We would like to re -open a gas station/convenience store on the property, fixing the interior of the
building to bring everything up to code and installing new pumps also to bring the business up to code.
There is currently a commercial kitchen in the convenience store that we would like to run as well,
either continuing as a portion of the convenience store, or as a separate commercial deli or bakery.
The mechanics' shop behind the gas station we would like to keep relatively as is, although there are a
myriad of small hallways and hallway -like offices that we would like to take out and replace with one or
two large offices and one or two large storage areas, creating better sight lines within the space. We
would also need to replace the roof immediately. Otherwise, the space will be used for car repair.
We understand from the bank's realtor that a new well must be drilled for code purposes but that the gas tanks
are relatively new and should meet code standards.
These are our initial thoughts about the space. We are very excited to work with you and the planning
commission on this project and ultimately become commercial residents of Gem Lake. Please contact
me directly at (651) 331-6833 with any questions/concerns/clarifications. We do understand that the city
council has a workshop tonight and the planning commission has a meeting tomorrow night and we are happy
to attend either or both to introduce ourselves and answer any initial questions that you might have. Thank you.
Sincerely
Sally Ackerman & Giorgi Gochitashvili
j
U
Page 1 of 3
From: Brass, Mike [MBrass@WelshCo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:07 PM
To: bill.short@ci.white-bear-township.mn.us; Riedesel Tom
Cc: Craig Rafferty
Subject: FW: Gem Lake - Questions
See below per our meeting last week
Mike Brass
Vice President
Welsh Companies LLC
5910 Rice Creek Parkway
Shoreview, Mn 55126
Cell: 612.750.4312
Fax: 952-541-8054
mike@mikebrass.com
www.mikebrass.com
From: Eric Anderson [mailto:Eric.Anderson@RyanCompanies.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Brass, Mike
Cc: 'Todd Novaczyk'; Louis De Medici
Subject: Gem Lake - Questions
Mike,
Per our discussion with Bill Short, Gem Lake's contract administrator, he asked us to provide a list of questions
we would like some direction on, before we continue to move forward on development plans. This email
encompasses the major issues/questions we would have. Please forward these on to the appropriate
representatives. If they don't understand any of the questions, please have them call.
Development Question:
In a difficult financial environment, added uncertainty based on political risk is probably the largest deterrent to
moving forward with a development. Based on my review of the Gem Lake Gateway District Development Code,
I cannot clearly distinguish:
• Whether Sr. Living is an acceptable use;
• If it is, whether our required density and height results in an acceptable use (5 acres, 130 units or 26
units/acre, 3-4 stories); and
• What the acceptable FAR, Setbacks, and other site -planning criteria are
In a typical city, developers look at a comp plan and zoning code as a guide to determine whether you have an
acceptable use based on the code and then meet with staff to get guidance on the "development particular"
criteria to ensure we don't have a situation that will result in a significant number of variances. Once we get this
guidance, developers will typically spend the money to develop full architectural and engineering plans that can
be used for final approval. The reason to take the risk is that a municipal code has guided us that we have an
acceptable use and we strive to create a development concept with no variances. In that situation, the
governing board (either planning commission or city council) don't have the ability to deny approval of the
development without justifiable reasons based on the the code.
What has been represented to us, is that we should present our concept plan to the City Council for discussion
so we can hear their thoughts to help guide us whether to move forward with the development, change the
https://rcmail. co.ramsey.mn.us/Jean.Reiter/Inbox/FW : %2OGem%2OLake%20PC%202010... 4/20/2010
Page 2 of 3
concept, or move on somewhere else. We were told that this type of discussion with the Council in no way
binds them to accepting the development concept. We also heard that once we have completed this step, we
will need to spend the money for full architectural and engineering drawings of the site for approval before the
Council. This step costs us $250,000-$300,000. We were also told that even if the Council gives us positive
guidance to move the development forward in the initial concept meeting, they could turn down the
development for a myriad of reasons after we have invested a significant sum of money.
1. While the preamble was "long-winded", does the planning approval process for this site create that
kind of risk after spending the money to get the development fully designed and engineered?
Infrastructure:
2. What's are the city guidelines for required road/utility infrastructure - size, specifications, required
utilities, required streetscape.etc?
3. It isn't clear whether the road will be public or private. If public, who services and maintains the road
and at what cost? If private, are there different specifications?
4. In light of the contribution of open space by the existing landowner, are there other city dedication
requirements (either park dedication fees, land dedication requirements, etc.?
5. As part of the development, will the Senior Living development be required to provide anything to
the dedicated open space (i.e. trees, plantings, maintenance, etc.)?
Fees and_perational Expenses:
6. What are the fees associated with the approval of the development?
7. Describe under what conditions the developer pays for staff review/consultant review of the
development?
8. Based on the concept of our proposal (130 units of Senior Living plus new infrastructure), what are
the limits of spending regarding the staff review? Is there a cap, what are the various hourly rates,
etc.?
9. Are there additional operating costs for the Senior Living development once it opens? There was
mention of additional fire service fees to accommodate the ambulance calls to the development. If
so, what are those fees (ranges of numbers are fine)? Any other out -of -the ordinary utility fees,
licensing fees, etc.?
Tree Preservation
10. We respect need to preserve the character of the treeline to the north of the development (along CR.
Q. We would like to have the ability to select a mutually agreeable (agreeable to both City & Senior
Developer) arborist to examine the treeline and make recommendations to thin out the brush;
properly prune the trees; and remove any agreed upon "junk trees" (such as box elder, buckthorn,
etc.). in addition, we want the ability to continue to maintain the treeline under an "agreed upon"
maintenance guidlelines. Will the City consider such an agreement?
11. In light of the treeline masking the development from view on CR E, we want the ability to place a
sign (at a mutually agreeable size and character) at the curb cut from CR E. This most likely would be
close -to or in the right-of-way so we don't have to remove trees to install it. Will the City allow such a
sign?
Ability to move forward with/without other development
12. Under the current plan, the proposal includes a senior living development and ownership-
townhomes. We heard in some early discussions that the City would require one of the two to be the
https://rcmail.co.ramsey.mn.us/Jean.Reiter/Inbox/FW:%2OGem%2OLake%20PC%202010... 4/20/2010
Page 3 of 3
Master Developer to ensure that both developments move forward. Each developer will have their own
financing partner for their respective development. In light of the current economic market, we
cannot be held responsible to ensure our neighboring developer will move forward with their
development. Will the City require any sort of development guarantee that requires either the senior
living or residential developer to develop the entire site?
Those are my questions, per Bill's request. Up and above all the questions, #1 is the one that could lead us to
look to other development sites. We cannot have significant uncertainty prior to approval if we spend a quarter
of a million dollars.
Thanks for you review, and please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Eric Anderson & Todd Novaczyk
Eric Anderson I Director of Development
Ryan Companies US, Ina 1 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012
612-492-4629 tel 1612-492-3629 fax WWW RYANCOMPANIES_COM
xJ cid:imageC
https://rcmail. co.ramsey.mn.uslJean.Reiter/Inbox/F W : %20Gem%2OLake%20PC%202010... 4/20/2010
Paul Emeott
3960 Schuneman Rd
Gem Lake, MN 55110
DATE; March 29. 2010
TO: Robert Uzpen — Mayor - City of Gem Lake
FM: Paul Emeott
SUBJECT: Interest in open position on the City of Gem Lake Planning Commission
Attached find a short resume stating my education, experience and qualifications for the open position
on the Gem Lake Planning Commission.
If you have questions or desire additional information, please let me know.
Paul Emeott
651-429-5040
Pemeott@comcast.net
CC: Craig Rafferty — Chairman — Gem Lake Planning Commission
Paul Emeott
3960 Schuneman Rd
Gem Lake, MN 55110
Request for opportunity to be considered as candidate for open
position on the City of Gem Lake Planning Commission
Qualifications for this position
Resident of the City:
37 year resident of the City of Gem Lake
Education on Zoning and related matters:
1) Zoning Basics (1996) — Government Training Services
2) Beyond the Basics (of Zoning) (1996) — Government Training Services
3) Stormwater and Erosion Control Practices (2004) —
Received Minnesota Erosion and Sediment Control certificate
Experience in Zoning matters:
1) Zoning Administrator for 12 years — City of Gem Lake
2) Comprehensive Planning
P.E. 3/19/10
11
A) Involved in 1975 City of Gem Lake Comprehensive plan as public observer
B) Involved in preparation of 1996 City of Gem Lake Comprehensive plan
C) Author of at least half of the sections of the 2008 City of Gem Lake
Comprehensive Plan
3) Stormwater and Erosion Control
A) Member of VLAWMO Technical Committee (2000-2006)
B) Chairman of VLAWMO 2006-2007