#21 - Kramer Lake Overlook - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 DOCSOPEN\LA515\117\949622.v2-4/26/24 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Findings. 1. That the Applicant has submitted a request to the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and the Lake Elmo Planning Commission and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355; and 2. That the Request is to amend the MUSA Phasing and Growth Plan, Map 3-7 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in order to allow development of the Property prior to the year 2030 (within the decade between 2020 and 2030); and 3. The Property is within the City’s MUSA boundary and currently guided by the City’s adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan to develop after the year 2030. This is because the area bound by Keats, 10th Street N. and Lake Elmo Avenue (which includes the Property) will be difficult to serve with public utilities. Required utility connections and alignments create a need for broad coordination amongst current and future property owners in the area; and 4. Feedback was provided by the City to the Applicant relating to the flexibility that would be required to be sought through eventual variances. For example, the proposed number of twin home units will exceed the maximum permitted by the City’s shoreland planned unit development ordinance, even when the density bonuses are applied. The proposed twin homes also do not meet minimum setbacks required by the City’s shoreland planned unit development ordinance, which provides for flexibility. In addition, a majority of the twin home lots do not comply with the 30 percent impervious surface requirement in the City’s Shoreland District. 5. That the Request is to allow a development in 2020-2030 which is 10 years prior to the year 2030, which is when the Comprehensive Plan allows for the Property to be developed. 6. The reason for the Property not being able to be developed until at least 2030 is because the Applicant will need to ask for flexibility with respect to the City’s shoreland overlay ordinance through variances. Even though the City has provided the Applicant with these concerns, the Applicant has not provided information as to how these concerns will be addressed. 7. The Property is difficult to serve with public utilities and will require broad coordination amongst current and future property owners in the area, most of which are not prepared to develop at this time. Furthermore, the City does not wish to create a situation where the Property is served by City utilities but the property that it surrounds is not. The Applicant also has not indicated how the utility extension and required Hudson Boulevard improvements will be addressed. 8. It is not in the best interest of the City to amend its Comprehensive Plan that would allow for a development that will not be able to meet the requirements of the City’s Shoreland Overlay ordinance and variances or a planned unit development will not be able to provide the necessary flexibilities.