HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 17, 2009 council packet (FULL - b/w copy)i
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
March 17, 2009
7:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston DeLapp Emmons Park
Smith
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City
Council will do its business.)
E. ORDER OF BUSINESS: (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings
so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the
City Council does its public business.)
F. GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council
adopted for doing its public business.)
G. APPROVE MINUTES:
1. Consider approval of March 3, 2009 minutes
H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to
speak to the City Council is treated the same way, meeting attendees wishing to
address the City Council on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for
up to three minutes.
I. CONSENT AGENDA: (Items are placed on the consent agenda by city staff and
the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion. Items may be
removed at City Council's request.)
2. Approve payment of disbursements and payroll
3. Arbor Day Proclamation
4. Authorize landscape partnership agreement, Resolution no. 2009-010
J. REGULAR AGENDA:
5. Requests by Friends of Washington County (Resolution and Funding),
Resolution no. 2009-008
6. Consideration of a variance to permit the construction of an in -ground pool,
spa, pergola and fireplace with the 100 ft buffer setback from the edge of the
development at 2931 Jonquil Trail N , Resolution no. 2009-009.
7. Presentation of the 2009 Street Improvements Feasibility Report
8. Discuss Sewer and Water Improvement Petition for Lanes DeMontreville
Country Club Addition
9. Wireless telecommunications ordinance update
10. Authorize distribution of Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR
K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
(These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.
• Mayor and City Council
• Administrator
• Planning Director
L. Adj ourn
CITY Or
LAKE
ELMO
sty/ of Lake Elmo 651/777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Brno, MN 55042
The Lake Elmo City Council will hold City Attorney Interviews on
Wednesday, March 18 2009, 5 p.m.-9 p.m,
and on
Thursday, March 19, 2009, 5 p.m.-7 p.m.
Lake Elmo City Hall
3800 Laverne Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
CAprinted on recycled paper
City of Lake Elmo
City Council Minutes
March 3, 2009
Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Johnston and Council Members DeLapp, Emmons, Park and Smith
Also present: Interim City Administrator Dawson, Planning Director Klatt, City
Engineer Griffin, City Attorney Filla, Paul Donna -Northland Securities, John North -
Ehlers, Inc., Finance Director Bouthilet and City Cleric Lumby
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve thelarch 3'2009 agenda as
presented. Council Member Park seconded the motion, The motion'
otion passed 5-0.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
GROUND RULES:
APPROVED MINUTES:
The minutes of February 17,
Emmons noted revisions mar
PUBLIC
John Cavan au 5245
Club,(MBC) wrbe re
International Rowii
Lake Elmo on August-'
with lake shore access
CONSENT AGENDA:
1 were approved by consensus after Council Member
the Planning Commission's 2009 Work Plan.
Dr YE, Maplewood, explained the Minnesota Boat
>uncil approval to host the 106th Northwestern
Championship Regatta, a two day rowing regatta on
I. NWIRA has sent letters out to 64 property owners
the event.
MOTION: Council Member Park moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Approve payment of disbursements and payroll in the amount of $192,373.49
Adopt Resolution no. 2009-06 recognizing the Washington County Historical
Society's 75°i Anniversary
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009
REGULAR AGENDA:
Announce and introduce the promotions of two new Captains Barney Sachs and Mike
Cornell
District Chief Brad Winkels introduced Lake Elmo firefighters Barney Sachs and Mike
Cornell, both of whom were recently promoted to the rank of captain.
Refunding of Bonds
Paul Donna, senior vice president with Northland Securities, explained given the
anticipated market for municipal bonds over the next few months the City should achieve
notable savings in future interest costs. (The average interest rates of the current bond
issues are approximately 4.8%; the projected average interest rates,approximately 2.9
%.) By refunding the bonds, the City would be able to free up fundsIUo address other
financial needs.
The two bond issues, under consideration, totaling Iusteaver $1 million in outstanding
principal are: 1) General obligation State Aid Street Bonds, Series 2001A and 2)
General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2002B
MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to,adopt Resolution no. 2009-007
authorizing the commencement ofrefunding Stctte Aid Bonds Series 2001A, and Water
Improvement Bonds, Serves 2002E prauaded tk total net savings is at least $60, 000 and
to authorize the services of arthland Securities, Inc., for this transaction. Council
Member Smith seconded the motion: The motion passed 5-0.
Interim City Administrator Damson requested the City Council determine the basis for
any special assessments foie used for projects in 2009 (i.e., a percentage of costs, or a
fixed dollar amount); and identify and direct staff to prepare any modifications the
Council wishes to make to the City's policy.
Jack Griffin presented several options for how the Council could finance the $2,8 million
in local street improvements planned between now and 2013, Proposals had the net
effect of assessing individual property owners up to 30 percent of project costs over the
five-year period. If the City sells general obligation bonds to fiord the work, at least 20
percent of the cost must be paid for with assessments, and if assessments are substantial
the City must be able to prove that the property is benefiting to those amounts from the
street work.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009 2
Council Member DeLapp presented an alternate proposal and a set of maps showing
different roads in the City and their type of use. He believed the City should pay for a
base standard for roadways, a 22-foot street designed to carry nine tons regardless of
when. and where the streets are built. If the residents determine they wish to have more in
their neighborhood streets such as curb and gutter, wider streets or bike paths, then the
neighborhood should be assessed for those additions.
Council Member Smith suggested the council assess affected properties for 30 percent of
those projects scheduled for 2009, and take a more in-depth look at alternate assessment
schemes in the near future.
MOTION.- Council Member Smith moved to set the special assessments to be used for
2009 street projects at a maximum of 30 percent ofproject cost per the City Engineer's
proposal and address in-depth the City's public improvement and assessment policy in
the near future. Council Member Park seconded the motion Vhe:.motion passed 5-0.
Selection Process for City Attorney
Interim City Administrator Dawson asked the C64cil how5 t will proceed with the next
steps of the city attorney selection process. The schedule'anticipated in the RFP that
firms would be interviewed during the w� k of March 9 The Council will interview
on
representatives from Campbell Knuts, Gkberg..Lammers;-Briggs, Wolff & Vierling;
Hoff Barry & Kozar; Kelly & Lemmons; and Kennedy &:Graven,
MOTION: Council Member Smtth mooed to tii(erview five law farms stated that
expressed interest to represetattng the City an civet legal matters on March 18 and 19`h,
starting at 5 p. m. Council Tuber Park seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
The meeting
Respectfully
Lumby, City Clerk
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 3, 2009
ITEM: Approve disbursements in the amount of $ 324,071.34
SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director
Claim # Amount
ACH $ 7,937.02
ACH $ 1,160.04
DD2089 - DD2119 $ 20,402.92
33961 - 33969 $ 15,767.90
33970 - 34015 $ 278,803.46
Total: $ 324,071.34
City Council
3/17/2009
CONSENT
Item: 2
Description
Payroll Taxes to IRS 03/12/09
Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept.of Revenue 03/12/09
Payroll Dated 03/12/2009 (Direct Deposit)
Payroll Dated 03/12/2009 (Payroll & Benefits)
Accounts Payable Dated 03/17/2009
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements
in the total amount of $324,071.34
w
C.
W OPOONiD V1OO ph OOPOOOONo pob p.-M OOpy OOOpG�
V N �n n p0 0 v1. N O O n A DJ
N GR
16 4'i � O N 1' �t O h n t O O .-• � n p i
y U
u U U p C N O O'E'- O Q O C
a' U U U
e
U> N 02-0.
D m .M•_ .� 0..
•a�U Nh ' p
G
c�`�'EC �+p°j
aV UIj
awe aC 2GC'ac d
ny
C!
COOOO�y�, NF`i�i��tlNW_NV_<QV_i�>muu�'�N�'iC
r�N U CS c� dli GAS Y
%
r
iUUNJJtnV1 90.xV�.-1 ✓ oaao»im
co cz
m
m F.,Q C vC �C°o
N
W W U
o4 i a
c
HU 'T 4Vi Cf U Cl N
Q
yi C g d y N .O N1 rVi, d CL N a
R
�r UoogOG°�iUa;ainn : ciZ)2xa"LEr'c�
V
M
x
W�))
,L
w.wwwwwww www �u�. c�r'w�.wc c'P°. [i �wr���'.aw'wri ti
PS T
u aY, m y aZ o m U N yy v U m c) v N v m a
G.
<nU C7 C7 CJ U)U` UC730 06 00 oCJ CSo[7 C70(7000 F- U�0C7 C7
Y
�W
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PPP P
O O O O O O O O O o O O O O g O O O pp O d O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
`n
hp'
h t� r y f^• n C� 1n t+ n n - M1 1� r^ h h
^S.i-
�.fx
'W
Oy U
M M `l M M M f1 MM M in t1 M M M r�} M M M M 1 M M M M nl M M nl fl
O O o O O O 4 o O O O O o O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
A
O
°
O Z
Poo poopP P AOP^—P0000— oa000000nr� ooP
P P P O O O O P O P P O P O O O O O O O 0 0 P P P fT
44��
P O C P O O P
U
M c`. u
a
4
C
N
z
Z
vd
10,
V 1 V l W �O M O g o n O V 0 O O M V' •- �• Yl 00 �D 0 0 0 OO
ry 0 } n 6 6 vi Vl 00 N, w O �n P M O m P h n 'O 00 -n N IR
d N N M V W N n h
V' M M O O P r^ U (V N n r(n1 h[ a �' n �G d W O rl OO D\ In d' d' h Vi OD C+ P V O n Oi O P v1 O b h h r-
M V �D M N P ry M V M N YPl M
W ry y N
U
o 7
U Z u
O c
.G. S AC.E
j y k U li U U V U U U U U U U d
G "'g. C� 00000000000060�6 ��.°^q_'❑`� y, y, �, >, �, �, y, �, T
• o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 qq 00 }ouw �ue+u'�3 own ou �u m ai
ct, o U U 0O E E E fi E E E B. E E -F.
E 'w'mwawwwwww�awUwwWWWwwWwwwwwwwww
` w v J v v v v v v v v v v v w v v Vol G
xMO 0 33J.233 ac�ci � ua FxxxxX,h Kx X,X,xx ><x
o-
W u
� G
m
U C V
v1 y vt v1 C
.d. C .� 6 -O 'O O 'O •C '�O-, •_O •4 ,'NO 'O 'Li 9 •O % 'O "d H "�
T'c_ c.-. _9_.u@..-5.9.., ._9c c_ 9.-. c_w cm 'a•H�N�-ju .n-a '.aG
X 2wd 00000000000000.
u •w�,c�] :a�u_`:',t_�-', �-5u.`:5.''-.u�.j a.OGa1poCa�u _�ti _��u_ �:%na^ :�.u..
-
�c o".y-` u d w$ K b eY u aui
v o u m v v�� a o� o a a o a�� o p v c v o. ❑ o a a _._ ,5 .y � .. �
L U w'O c4K 4, 4.44. 0.4t f-: k.L LG.. :i LL Ia, CG 4] K, 44 P..0 V1 7 W Wv]N W 41 v1 L'1 [!3 W W VJ W W W 41 ii1
v •gv•ovrov v•occ•ovvvov•d •a 'vv•ovrov•a a •o •ovvwv v'o a•o roa
C G C C C C C C C c G C C C c G G C C C C C c C C C G C
"i'r v �S1 "� ' `° mot°. {p�tl. N '� '� .m. m ^w«. E ym n m i G�w `° —L° ❑ C C C G� C C C� C G G C�� C C� G G� C� K� G��� C C ISC C���
o>c�c�vcac7�c�oc7c�vc7c�c�c7vv�c�c�c�c�ovc�3c��,c��ac�c�C7ctic�c�3c7c��.,�t�c�
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
O O O 4 0 4 O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O C C O O o o O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O o
N j�`1 �^I N N f,V ,N` N �V N �+1 NUJ �l j4 (�V ` N N �Y 5V �1 N N (`1 (�1 (�' � N N N �V yV �1 N N �V ti N j•V N. ` (^I j,V [M1V
O O O O O O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
M �D ao oo �nOhnnhn hnn nrvnn nhnn POO OOPOP- ---R V V V V V -V V --V-
O n W 00 .--. n a0 00 op Oo CO 00 DO tl0 c0 00 00 0o W 00 n n o0 O O ry O O ...� � .- .-� .-• .-• �• - r - ."• •-� •-� - .-, �•
O P P P O P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P O O P O p g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M MM M M M M M M M M M M M ('� M M M M M M M M M M MMM M M M M M M M M M M MM MM M M.
L
Q
� bN!'�o0 M O!� hUy mMC Y1Mrt M Toarya6�DPNOMC\O OOOv�00�nbOb�O N
n N W 0 0 M M O N- Cn 0 rt vi ^ N W r "" ry M P b O� O� 0 0 0 vi 0 M, n v� 0• tV s} 4 r� �D
� Ns} NN �+MMv)^Mh-NMbMNM b� N V'ON b00 l�M�DO�NN�-Ow vlNOMM -ONvI
N
U
o,
�
o
U
C Tu
vi
z G
p
O O
U Y
C G G G G U E N
.T.d NN'V
R
'�J O 00.0 O
VUy
rp
�� �� 7 u L)•G U
C G v
O
V C C G G^ C C y�
E E E E E O r�-` Z` y'` ��%
Y
v1' ✓.' Oj U
E y � S
E� 0v U�2
c_d
-V
.1Lx W
�
V U(oQQC�.
.v1022
W $ �x•��
U6 F
!X:i:� W�cWu
W°�
a�
o
V�
0UUU
yo Y
U2 ' v
¢o!n
XWu
XXX
C
uU22 ¢7-7-zzz<2i2Fn
ram'¢
[0
m co CA 07CQ
7
ou
CQ
s
z
W
W WU
G 5 �` �. F C:
'.:,p,
C C C C C E 6
9CC'GO •CON -•O
C R
•pOp 77�J'' �' d G
W M 5 .7. 7 W �-' rn
vi '� Od6eC+ om'r,
N ttl td N
Oo
Dw Od
OaRi
o�i
N V] fGN
Yu
ahci itud ui
FmO 56
O w�
vi
'
0 v v v ^v o n ❑.
" �E'
ido o
.°�u
-2?z
W W rn w CL CG D7
wo
C` C! D� rL a, Ka F-Hc vs ii�Fi--F[-F-c`
a w a W F- WHO
u.0 Um CC
N
G
c O
3 7 y 7 �� � 7�� a�� �� 7 E��?��? a a a 9c, G •C 'O C F E � C C C 9 C 9 C C
-gw gC Y p`wp v v w Yr v vCuC dCCS 'fCCi m m G v
v U U N N N G a U m N d G N N N U Ct aCi V Y aFi u u C p L Sl N N E3 aFi �i i v
0000 00Lv 0000L�0
O O O O O O O O O O 6 O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p Pp O O O O O O O O 6 O 4 O O O
O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ry �l �V (lJ £fN L'J NN N �1NN jV LV NNNN ^y,I �1 N NNNNNNN NN Cc! N �4N�V f`lNN �1
.M1�a M1 h r h M1 h h h .\M1i h h C- f� h' C� r h h Y� h I" N h h h-+
M-
O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O• � R O\ (T � O� � D• O� Ot 0\ O Q\ U a� C O� a P Crt P D\ O O O T O O U 9t D` P A Q T
♦} y i} y' � 'c{ M M M M M M M M M M M M V' M M M M M M M M M M M `V' d' 'tF M M d' M M M M. M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ^1 MM M M M M M M R M M M M M M M M M M M M
q
a
O
E
d
p�
F
City Council
Date: 3/17/09
Consent
Item: L4
Resolution 2010 - 010
ITEM: Consider approving Agreement No. 94119 and authorizing the Interim
City Administrator to execute an agreement with MnDOT for the
Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve Agreement
No. 94119 and to authorize Interim City Administrator Craig Dawson to execute that agreement
with MnDOT for the reimbursement of up to $13,000 in landscaping materials for a proposed
Highway 5 beautification project. This resolution is required by MnDOT to officially enter into the
agreement and for the city to receive the reimbursement money after the project is complete.
In January of 2009, the City Council approved an application to participate in the MnDOT
Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program and to authorize resident Susan Kane
as the primary contact person for the application. The proposed project is a continuation of the
landscaping projects completed through this grant over the past two years along Highway 5. The
landscaping project to be accomplished in May 30, 2009 would be near the Old Village area of
the city at the entrance to The Fields of St. Croix Second Addition, Little Bluestem Trail North.
The MnDOT Community Landscaping Partnership Program provides a venue through which
cities, residents, and the State work together on landscaping projects to beautify highway rights -
of -way. The grant funds cover costs related to the purchase of landscaping materials while the
City staff and community residents provide the manual labor.
Members of The Fields of St. Croix neighborhood landscape committee and the City Forester
have attended preliminary meetings, reviewed the proposed landscape plan and are supportive of
the proposed project.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
• The City utilized this same program to beautify an area along State Highway 5 approximately
eight years ago and for the past two years.
• The project completed in 2007 near Carriage Station Park resulted in the planting of 60 trees
with assistance by approximately 35 volunteers. The project completed in 2008 was also
successful and resulted in the planting of many shrubs and trees south of Carriage Station
Park.
• The City has opted to combine the tree planting with the city's Arbor Day celebration.
ATTACHMENTS (1):
1. Resolution 2009- 010
2. Agreement No. 94119
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2009-010
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO.94119 WITH THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT
IT IS RESOLVED, that the City of Lake Elmo enter into Mn/DOT Agreement
No. 94119 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following
purposes:
To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the costs of the
acquisition of landscape materials to be placed by the City adjacent to Trunk Highway
No. 5 from 200 feet west of Little Bluestem Trail to County Road No. 15 within the
corporate City limits under State Project No. 8214-969E.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the Interim City Administrator
are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the
Council of the City of Lake Elmo at an authorized meeting held on the 171h day of March,
2009, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession.
(signature)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
(Type or Print Name)
day of , 2009
Notary Public
(Title)
My Commission Expires
Notacy M:,wp
PRE -LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA Mn/DOT
SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NO.
SECTION LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
94119
S.P. 8214-969E (T.H. 5=045)
State Funds
The State of Minnesota ORIGINAL
Department of Transportation, and AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
The City of Lake Elmo
Re: State cost landscape materials $13,000.00
acquisition by the City for use
along T.H. 5
AMOUNT RECEIVABLE
(None)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of
Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as
the "State", and the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, acting by and
through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City'l.
I
94119
WHEREAS, the City is about to perform landscaping along Trunk Highway
No. 5 from 200 feet west of Little Bluestem Trail to County Road
No. 15 within the corporate City limits in accordance with plans,
specifications and special provisions designated as the.°Lake Elmo
Landscape Partnership Plan", which project has been designated by the
State as State Project No. 8214-969E (T.H. 5=045); and
WHEREAS, the City has requested participation by the State in the
costs of landscape materials acquisition in accordance with the terms
of the State's "Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program";
and
WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the
landscape materials acquisition as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes
the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and
cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of
constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system.
IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION BY THE CITY
Section A. Landscape Materials Acquisition
The City shall acquire landscape materials in accordance with plans,
specifications and special provisions designated as the "Lake Elmo
Landscape Partnership Plan". Landscaping shall be performed by City
forces in accordance with plans, specifications and special
provisions that are on file in the City's office and in the State's
Office of Technical Support in St. Paul, and are incorporated into
this Agreement by reference.
K
94119
Section B. Purchase Order to be Furnished to the State
The City shall, within 7 days after ordering the landscape materials,
submit to the State's Landscape Partnership Program Coordinator in
St. Paul a copy of the purchase order for the landscape materials.
Section C. Direction Supervision and Inspection
Landscape materials acquisition performed in accordance with this
Agreement shall be under the direction of the City; however, the
State cost participation landscape materials to be acquired under
this Agreement shall be open to inspection by the State'.s authorized
representatives. The City shall give the State's Landscape
Partnership Program Coordinator five days notice of its intention to
receive delivery of the landscape materials.
Responsibility for the.control of the State cost participation
landscape materials acquisition covered under this Agreement shall be
on the City and shall be carried out in accordance with plans,
specifications and special provisions designated as the "Lake Elmo
Landscape Partnership Plan".
The City must verify that the nursery vendor has a valid nursery
certificate as required by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
hereinafter referred to as the "MDA". Nursery stock originating
outside Minnesota must have been certified under all applicable MDA
and United.States Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to
as the "USDA", quarantines. Certification documents issued by the
appropriate regulatory official at origin must accompany all nursery
stockshipments, including but not limited to, USDA quarantines for
Gypsy Moth, Phytophthora ramorum, Emerald Ash Borer and Black Stem
Rust. MDA Japanese Beetle Quarantine nursery stock from Minnesota
3
94119
must be inspected and certified to be free of harmful plant pests,
but is not subject to MDA external Japanese Beetle Quarantine.
Section D. Completion of Materials Acquisition and Installation
The City shall cause the acquisition and installation of landscape
materials to be started and. completed in accordance with the time
schedule in the Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program
Project Application, which is on file in the State's Office of
Technical Support and is incorporated into this Agreement by
reference. An exchange of letters between the appropriate City
official and the State's Landscape Partnership Program Coordinator,
for unavoidable delays encountered in the performance thereof, may
extend the completion date for the landscape materials acquisition
and installation.
Section E. Compliance with Laws Ordinances and Regulations
The City shall, in connection with the acquisition of the landscape
materials, comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, and all
applicable ordinances and regulations.
Section F. Right -of -Way Easements and Permits
The City is hereby authorized to work on State right-of-way for the
purposes of installing and maintaining the landscape materials,
including any necessary replacement of landscape materials that fail
to survive.
The City shall, without cost or expense to the State, obtain all
rights -of -way, easements, construction,permits.and any other permits
and sanctions that may be required in connection with the
installation of landscape materials. Prior to advance payment by the
State, the City shall furnish the State with certified copies of the
documents for those rights -of -way and easements, and certified copies
0
94119
of those construction permits and other permits and sanctions
required for State landscaping.
ARTICLE II - STATE COST
Section A. Basis
The State's full and complete share of the costs of the landscaping
to be performed along Trunk Highway No. 5 from 200 feet west of
Little Bluestem Trail to County Road No. 15 within the corporate City
limits under State Project No. 8214-969E (T.H. 5=045) shall be equal
to the delivered cost of the landscaping materials acquired in
accordance with the "Lake Elmo Landscape Partnership Plan."
Section B. Payment
It is estimated that the cost of the landscape materials acquisition
is.$13,000.00, The maximum obligation of the State under this
Agreement shall not exceed $17,000.00, unless the maximum obligation
is increased by execution of an amendment to this Agreement.
The State shall pay .to the City an amount equal to the delivered cost
of the landscape materials, not to exceed the maximum obligation,
after the following conditions have been met:
I. Encumbrance by the State of the State's total cost share.
2. Execution and approval.of this Agreement and the State's
transmittal of it to the City.
3. Receipt by the State's Landscape Partnership Program Coordinator,
from the City, of the following:
a
94119
a. Copies of.the purchase orders for the landscape materials,
as provided for in Article I, Section B. of this Agreement.
b. Certified copies of the documents, as provided for in the
second paragraph of Article I, Section F. of this Agreement.
C. Written request for payment, accompanied by copies of
supplier invoices for the landscape materials acquisition
and delivery.
ARTICLE III - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section A. Installation and Maintenance by the City
After acquisition of the landscape materials, the City shall install
the landscape materials along Trunk Highway No. 5 and provide for the
proper maintenance thereof, without cost or expense to the State.
Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, removal and replacement
of all materials that fail to survive. Criteria for maintenance and
replacement are shown and described in EXHIBIT "A", Maintenance
Responsibilities Plan and Schedule, which is attached and
incorporated into this Agreement.
Section B. Responsibilities of the City
The City shall, in connection with the landscape materials
acquisition, installation and maintenance, comply with the following
conditions:
1. Use of State right-of-way shall in no way impair or interfere
with the safety or convenience of the traveling public in its use
of the highway.
6
94119
2. Preserve and protect all utilities located on lands covered by
this Agreement, without cost or expense to the State.
3. As required by Minnesota Statute 216D, notify Gopher State One
Call System (1-800-252-1166) at least 48 hours before any
excavation is done on this project.
4. No advertising signs or devices of any form or size shall be
constructed or shall be permitted to be constructed or placed
upon State right-of-way.
5. Upon completion of the installation of landscape materials and
during performance of maintenance operations, restore all.
disturbed areas of State right-of-way so as to perpetuate
satisfactory drainage, erosion control and aesthetics.
Any use of State right-of-way permitted by this Agreement shall
remain.subordinate to the right of the State to use the property for
highway and transportation purposes. This Agreement does not grant
any interest whatsoever in land, nor does it establish a permanent
park, recreation area or wildlife or waterfowl refuge facility that
would become subject to Section 4(f) of the Federal -Aid Highway. Act
of 1968.
Section C. Examination of Books, Records Etc
As provided by Minnesota Statute Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the
books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of
each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by
each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor.
as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment.
7
94119
Section D. Termination of Agreement
The State may terminate this Agreement if it's the.State's desire to
use any portion of State right-of-way subject to this Agreement for
transportation purposes, by giving the City written notice at least
90 days prior to the date that such termination shall become
effective. Upon termination of this Agreement, the City will be
required to restore and return the area to a condition satisfactory
to the State's District Engineer at Roseville.
Each party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by
providing the other party with written or fax notice of effective
date of termination. The State is not obligated to pay for services
performed after notice and effective date of termination. Upon such
termination, the City is entitled to payment for services
satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective
date of termination.
The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not
obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding
source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to
allow for the payment of.the services covered under this Agreement.
Termination must be by written or fax notice to the City. The State
is not obligated to pay for services performed after notice and
effective date of termination. Upon such termination, the City is
entitled to payment for services satisfactorily performed under this
Agreement prior to the effective date of termination, to the extent
the funds are available. .
Section E. Claims
Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims
arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is
responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to
E.
94119
the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for.the acts
and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes
Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern
liability of the City.
Section F. Nondiscrimination
The provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 181:59 and of any
applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be
considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
Section G. Agreement Approval
Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be
approved by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and
City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner
of Transportation or their authorized representative.
ARTICLE ITT - AUTHORIZED AGENTS
The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of
this Agreement is Todd Carroll, Landscape Partnership Program
Coordinator, or his successor. His current address and telephone
number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 686, St. Paul,
MN 55155, (651) 366-4617.
The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of
this Agreement is Kelli Matzek, City Planner, or her successor. Her
current address and telephone number are 3800 Laverne Avenue North,
Lake Elmo, MN 55042, (651) 233-4617.
01
94119
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their,
authorized officers.
STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered
as required by Minn. Stat. §$ 16A.15 and 16C.05.
Date
MAPS Encumbrance No.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By
Mayor
Date
By
Title
Date
10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Recommended for approval:
By
Landscape Partnership Program Coordinator
By
District Engineer
Approved:
By
State Design Engineer
Date
Approved as to form and executions
By
Contract Management
Date
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
As delegated to Materials Management Division
51
Date
EXHIBIT "All
Maintenance Responsibilities Plan and Schedule
Table la. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIFS
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATION
PLANT
GROUPS
PRUNING
WEED
CONTROL
FERTILIZATION
See Table 5,
Fertilization Schedule
When To
Type Of
Evergreen Trees
Anytime - Dry
Corrective and
Deadwood Removal
Maintain mulch at 3"
minimum around trees
in mowed areas, keep
weed free.
Yes
Shade Trees
Anytime - Dry*
Training and
Corrective
Yes
Ornamental Trees
Winter"
Corrective
Yes
Evergreen Shrubs
Anytime - Dry
Deadwood Removal
Yes
Deciduous Shrubs
Dormant
'Corrective and
Renewal
Maintain minimum 3"
woodchip mulch in a
weed free condition until
shrub crown closure.
Yes
Vines
Dormant
Deadwood Removal
No
Groundcovers
Do not prune oaks during April, May and June. Do not prune Honeylocust while dormant or when humid
or wet.
Do not prune apples, crabapples or Mountain Ash during April, May and June.
TABLE 1b. REQUIRED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATION
PLANT GROUPS
WATERING
INSECTAND
RODENT
REMOVALS AND
DISEASE
PROTECTION
REPLACEMENTS
CONTROL
Evergreen Trees
Yes until established
(2 yrs.).
As needed.
Yes - Pine Only
Remove all dead plants.
Shade Trees
Remove diseased
Yes
Replace dead or dying
Ornamental Trees
Supplemental watering
plants that pose
plants unless the lost
may be needed during
threats to adjacent
Yes
plants do not noticeably
Evergreen Shrubs
drought periods
plantings,
g
compromise the visual
during Jul
(especially 8 Y
No*
appearance or design
Deciduous Shrubs
and August) even after
plants are established.
No*
intent.
Vines
No*
Groundcovers
No*
Rodent protection is generally not practical for mass shrub plantings, maintaining clean mulched planting
areas free of weed growth will reduce problems. Mowed turf in formal planting areas will help reduce
rodent problems.
Sheet 1 of 4
TABLE 2a. CALENDAR OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITY
January
February
Mareh
Aril
Ma
June
Pruning
See Table 1 a for Best Time for Specific Species.
Weed Control:
Planting beds must be kept in a weed free condition.
0XX
I XXXX
XO
Remulch
Herbicide
Must be applied by a licensed Pesticide Applicator.
Fertilization:
Turf
Shrubs, Trees
E
XXXX
Insect & Disease
Time of control depends on the type of insect or disease and when it is detected.
Sunscald Protection
Remove
wrap*
Watering
During first and second growing seasons approximately once a week
or as needed to maintain ade uate but not excessive soil moisture.
Maintain Rodent
Protection
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
Turf Maintenance
Mowing
COX
XXXX
Mower Damage
Prevention
X
XXXX
XXXX
Replanting
Evergreen Trees
Deciduous Trees
Container Plants
Turf
OXX
OXX
XXX
O
XXO
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXO
XXOO
X - Optimum Time 0 - Less than Optimum Time
Undiluted white latex paint is recommended, repaint as necessary until trees reach 4" caliper.
Sheet 2 of 4
TABLE 2b. CALENDAR OF LANDSCAPE MAINTFNANr.F
ACTIVITY
July
August
Se tember
October
November
December
Pruning
See Table 1a for Best Time for Specific Species,
Weed Control:
Planting beds must be ke t in a weed free condition.
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
00
XO
Remulch
Herbicide
Must be applied by a licensed Pesticide Applicator.
Fertilization:
-T
Turf
XXXX
Shrubs, Trees
XXXX
Insect & Disease
Time of control depend on the t e of insect or disease and when it is detected.
Sunscald Protection
Apply or
maintain
paint. Install
wra `.
Watering
During first and second growing seasons approximately once a week
or as needed.
Maintain Rodent
Protection
0000
0000
XXXX
XXXX
X000
0000
Turf Maintenance
Mowing
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXOO
Mower Damage
Prevention
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXOO
Replanting
Evergreen Trees
OX
XXXO
Deciduous Trees
Container Plants
0000
OOOX
XXXO
OXXX
XO
Turf
0000
OOXX
XXXX
00
X - Optimum Time O - Less than Optimum Time
Undiluted white latex paint is recommended, repaint as necessary until trees reach 4" caliper.
Sheet 3 of 4
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTIONS OF TYPES OF PRUNING
TYPES OF PRUNING
WHEN TO PRUNE
DESCRIPTION
Disease Removal
After Diagnosis
Removal of fungal bacterial growths. Sterilize pruners between cuts.
Deadwood Removal
See Table 1
Removal of dead branches, normally from the interior portion of the
crown.
Training
See Table 1
Maintaining the central leaders and acceptable symmetry in evergreen,
shade and ornamental trees. Removal of suckers and waters routs.
Corrective
See Table 1
Removal of storm -damaged. vehicle -damaged or vandalized limbs.
Renewal
See Table 1
Removing all top growth at or near the ground line and remulch. Or
removal of 1/3 of the oldest stems at the ground line.
TABLE 4. WEED CONTROL METHODS - INTEGRATED APPROACH
METHOD
CATEGORY
TREES
SHRUB BEDS
TURF
Replanting - Filling Voids
X
X
Fertilization
X
X
X
Remulch*
X
X
X
Herbicides
X
X
X
Weed Whip
No
X
Wood chip mulch should be replenished around shade trees and low growing shrubs every 3-5 years.
Place mulch to a 4" depth. Mulching will help control weeds, reduce mower damage and conserve
moisture.
TABLE 5. FERTILIZATION SCHEDULE
CATEGORY
FREQUENCY
TIME OF APPLICATION
ANALYSIS **
RATE
Mowed Turf
Every 3 Years
Aril or October
23-0-30
1 lb N /1000 s . ft.
Shrub Beds*
Every 3 Years
October or April
23-0-30
1 lb N /1000 s . ft.
Shade Trees*
Every 3 Years
October or April
23-0-30
.5 Ibs/1 Cu. Yd. of soil
Note: Do not fertilize trees and turf during the same season. Offset tree fertilization by one season in order
to prevent fertilizer burn on turf.
Plants that fix nitrogen, like Silver Buffaloberry, Caragana, Honeylocust, Russian Olive or other legumes,
should not be fertilized except under special conditions.
Tall shrubs do not need to be fertilized if leaf color remains normal
Analysis will be allowed within the following ranges: N (16-24) — P (0) — K (20-30).
Sheet 4 of 4
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: Minnesota is home to many of our nations natural resources, foremost
among them are our beautiful and abundant forests; and
WHEREAS: Trees are an increasingly vital resource in Minnesota today, enriching our
lives by purifying the air, conserving soil, water and energy, creating jobs
through a large forest products industry, serving as recreational settings,
providing habitat for wildlife of all kinds, and creating beautiful
landscapes to make our communities more livable; and
WHEREAS: Human activities such as construction damage, pollution and neglect, as
well as climatic extremes, disease and insects threaten our trees, creating
the need for concerted action to ensure the future of community and rural
forests in our state and throughout the country; and
WHEREAS: Each individual can act locally to improve the environment by planting
trees and ensuring that these trees are protected and receive proper
maintenance in the years ahead; and
WHEREAS: Each year on the last Friday in the month of April and throughout the
month of May, the people of Minnesota pay special tribute to the vital
natural resource that our trees represent and dedicate themselves to the
continued vitality of our state's community and rural forests;
NOW, THEREFORE I, Dean Johnston, Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo, do hereby
proclaim April 24, 2009 to be
ARBOR DAY
and the month of May, 2009 to be ARBOR MONTH in Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
Signed this, March 17, 2009
Dean Johnston, Mayor
Tree City U.S.A.
City Council
Date: 3/17/09
Regular
Resolution 2009-0 :.5
Item: (o.
ITEM: Consider an application from Vladimir and Silvia Hugec to allow
construction of a pool, pergola, fireplace, and spa within the required 100
foot buffer setback in Open Space Preservation (OP) developments at
2931 Jonquil Trail North — A zoning - PID 22-029-21-21-0024.
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is being asked to consider a variance request from Vladimir and Silvia Hugec to
allow the construction of a pergola, fireplace, spa, and in -ground pool within the required 100 foot
buffer setback from the edge of an Open Space Preservation (OP) development at 2931 Jonquil
Trail North. The property currently has a home, garage, deck, and screened porch on the
property which conforms to the setback requirements. The pool section of city code identifies a
six foot setback from the primary structure or frost footings, so in combination with the 100 foot
setback and the requirement that pools be built in rear yards only, there remains approximately
24 feet in the rear yard where a pool could potentially be built.
The Hugec's property is located in the Farms of Lake Elmo development which was approved as
an OP development in 2005. The Lake Elmo OP development requirements include a provision
for a buffer setback from the edge of the development for any structure or driving surface not
constructed at a 90 degree angle. At the time of the review for the Farms of Lake Elmo
development, the required buffer setbacks were addressed. The City Council at that time had
approved a reduction from a 200 foot buffer setback to 100 foot buffer setback from the West,
South, and East edges of the development because the neighborhood was adjacent to the Lake
Elmo Regional Park Reserve to the south and east and would not be developed.
Although the Hugec's property does not abut the edge of the development and is buffered from
the southern edge of the development by sixty feet of Outlot A of the development, the buffer
setback still encroaches into their rear yard by forty feet.
The variance has been requested in order to build the planned pool, spa, fireplace, and open
pergola in the location originally designed. The applicant has stated that the variance is justified
due to the following:
➢ They bought the existing home with the intention of building a pool in the back yard for
their children to practice for competitive swimming. The back yard was chosen as the
windows at the back of the home allow viewing the pool for safety purposes.
➢ They were not aware of the 100 foot buffer setback at the time of the initial design of the
pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace.
➢ Sixty feet of Outlot A exists between their property and the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve and effectively serves as a preserved, undisturbed space. The land slopes
uphill approximately 2' to 6' over a 60' distance to the park boundary.
➢ The neighbor directly to the east was allowed to build their home and pool within the 100
foot buffer setbacks from both the south and eastern borders of the development. This
Property has a much smaller outlot between the property and the Park Reserve.
➢ The placement of the home to the east pushed the building of their home further back on
the lot to be in line with that home, thereby reducing the amount of buildable area in their
rear yard.
➢ The neighbor directly to their west also has a pool.
➢ The proposed pool would be completely obscured from view of the street and greatly
obscured from many adjacent properties with existing trees. Additional trees that would
further reduce any visibility are being proposed in the new pool landscape as well.
➢ No other location on the property is free from both restrictions and undesirable conditions
that prohibit a pool. The 30 feet between the house and setback line, which given the
shape of the floor plan of the house, the setbacks needed, and the proper drainage
needed from the house, the pool and landscape would be impossible.
For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is
unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only
be granted by the city when strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship on a
property owner. "Hardship" is broken down into the following three components:
a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot
be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and
no other reasonable alternative use exists;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the some zoning district; and
c. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner
after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
In reviewing the request against the three criteria listed above, staff determined all criteria were
NOT met, as more completely explained in the attached full staff report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their March 9th meeting. The
commission voted 5:3 with 1 abstention to recommend approval of the variance
application subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and discussed at the
meeting. However, their recommendation was conditional on the applicant moving
the proposed pergola and fireplace to be no further into the setback than the
proposed pool and spa.
• One of the commissioners who voted against the application suggested that the City
Council may review the ordinance to ensure that its implementation meets the intent
of the regulation.
• The proposed hardcover is 23.7%, therefore the applicant is seeking ways to mitigate
the extra allowed impervious surface through rain gardens. This will be reviewed
with the City Engineer through the building permit process should the variance be
approved.
• The DNR and Valley Branch Watershed District did not submit any comments
concerning the application.
• The Washington County Parks and Planning Department submitted a letter with
some concerns regarding the view of the proposed pergola and fireplace from the
park.
• The Minnesota Land Trust which co -holds a conservation easement over Outlot A
with the city, submitted a letter stating their only concern would be the storage of
material during construction on the outlot. They expressed no concerns regarding
the proposed structure locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
As mentioned; by majority the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance
application subject to conditions and provided that the proposed pergola and fireplace are located
no further into the setback than the proposed pool and spa.
Although this application does provide some substantive arguments for approval of the variances
requested, in following a strict review of the variance criteria outlined in city code, Staff is
recommending that the City Council deny the proposed variances for Vladimir and Silvia Hugec to
allow construction of a pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace within the 100 foot buffer setback in OP
developments at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
A resolution of approval is provided should the Council choose to approve the application
following the Planning Commission's recommendation. A resolution of denial is also provided for
consideration.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
- Introduction............................................................... Craig Dawson, City Administrator
- Report by staff............................................................................... Kell! Matzek, Planner
- Questions from the Council ................................................. Mayor & Council Members
- Questions/Comments from the applicant..............................................Mayor facilitates
Questions/Comments from the public...................................................Mayor facilitates
-
Call for a Motion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval of the motion ....................................................
-
Discussion...............................................................................
-
Action on motion......................................................................
ATTACHMENTS (10):
1.
Staff Report
2.
Draft Resolution of Approval
3.
Alternative Draft Resolution of Denial
4.
Area Map
5.
Proposed Survey
6.
Application Form
7.
Applicant's Narrative
8.
Applicant's Photograph
............. Mayor facilitates
............. Mayor facilitates
........................... Council
9. Aerial Photo
10. April 5, 2005 City Council minutes
11. Comment from Washington County Parks
12. Comment from Minnesota Land Trust
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Variance Review
To: City Council.
From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Meeting Date: 3-17-09
Applicant: Vladimir and Silvia Hugec
Location: 2931 Jonquil Trail North
Current Zoning: A— Agricultural (Open Space Preservation Development)
Request: The applicant is seeking approval of a variance from the required 100 foot buffer
setback from the edge of the Open Space Preservation development to allow the
construction of a pergola, pool, fireplace and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
Specifically, the pergola and fireplace would be located 31 feet within the setback, the
spa would be 12 feet, and the in -ground pool would be 6 feet.
Background: Farms of Lake Elmo Development
The applicant's property is Lot 12, Block 1 within the Farms of Lake Elmo development
which was approved on October 18, 2005 as an Open Space Preservation (OP)
development. OP developments are allowed by code as a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) in the Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Residential Estate zoning districts.
Application
The applicants have provided a description of their request for a variance as a part of the
application materials submitted to the City. The existing house, garage, and screen
porch at 2931 Jonquil Trail North was built in 2006 with an approved building permit
from the city.
Outlot A Adjacent to the Rear Yard of the Property
The property at 2931 Jonquil Trail North has a rear yard that abuts Outlot A of the
development which is restricted by a Conservation Easement. The easement is co -held
by the City of Lake Elmo and the Minnesota Land Trust. In that area, Outlot A is
approximately sixty feet wide and serves as a contiguous open space buffer to the Lake
Elmo Regional Park Reserve.
Applicable § 150.175 PURPOSE.
Codes:
(A) The purpose of open space preservation (OP) is to maintain the rural character
tiarianceRevierav: Hugec
OtIv Council Report; 3-177-09
Page 2
(cont.)
of Lake Elmo by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, corridors, and other
significant natural features while allowing residential development consistent with the
goals and objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan. This type of development will
allow an alternative to large lot, single-family housing and will reduce the cost of
constructing and maintaining public facilities and infrastructure.
(13 Protected open space will enhance and preserve the natural character of the
community and create distinct neighborhoods.
§ 150.180 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(B) (1) Land area. Applications for a residential development in the OP District
shall meet all the following criteria.
(c) Dwelling units shall be grouped so that at least 50% of the buildable land
area of the proposed development remains preserved open space. The preserved open
space shall consist of agricultural lands, natural habitat, pedestrian corridors, or
neighborhood or community recreational areas.
(2) Open space easement required.
(a) Preserved open space standards.
1. All preserved open space shall be subject to a conservation easement
and used for the purposes as defined by § § 150.175 et seq.....
(d) Buffer zones. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing
residential development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development under the
OP ordinance due to insufficient parcel area, a 200 foot setback shall be provided
between the property line of the abutting parcel and any structure or driving surface
within the OP development. Driving surfaces that cross the setback area at a 90 degree
angle shall be the only exception. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing
OP development, or a land parcel eligible for future development under the OP
ordinance, a 100 foot setback from any structure within the proposed OP development
and the property line of the abutting parcel may be substituted. The setback substitution
shall only be approved when there is existing mature vegetation and/or changes in
topography occurring on the site proposed for development; and/or where the OP site
developer introduces the physical features that provide an effective year round buffer of
the structures proposed for the OP site from existing residences or development. The
determination of the buffering effectiveness of existing or introduced physical features
that qualify a site for a 100 foot buffer shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council.
(h) Minimum district requirements. The requirement states that a side yard setback
for a single-family home is 15 feet or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater.
_VLarid Use!I aria osl2931 Jonquil Trt A llugec?Rep CC: lfuge;;r pro1 spet pergola. frcy7lacc Vlincrxac 3-17-09.doc
VnianceReidcnv: Htigec
C;i v Comwil Report; .3-1 i-09
Page 3
(cont.)
§ 151.085 SWIMMING POOLS, GENERALLY.
(C) Application for permit.
(3) Pools shall not be located within 20 feet of any septic tank/drainfield nor
within 6 feet of any principal structure or frost footing. Pools shall not be located within
any required front or side yard setbacks.
(K) Location.
All Swimming pools or appurtenances to swimming pools shall be located in the
rear yard and meet the setback requirements of the district in which it is located....
& General Site Overview
Site Data:
Existing Zoning —
UP use with a
Land Use Guidance — RAD — 0.45 DU/Acre (Rural Agricultural Density)
Parcel size — 0.94 acres
Property Identification Number (PID): 22-029-21-21-0024
Review:
Applicable
Code
Definitions:
§ 11.01 DEFINITIONS.
ACCESSORYSTRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature
customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
BUILDING SETBACKLINE. Aline within a lot parallel to a public right-of-way line,
a side or rear lot line, a bluff line, or a high water mark or line, behind which buildings
or structures must be placed.
BUILDING. Any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof and used or
built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of any
kind. When any portion of a building is completely separated from every other part of a
building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a separate
building.
HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question
cannot be, established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and
no other reasonable alternative use exists; that the plight of the landowner is due to the
physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not
applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; and that
these unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after
the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
SETBACK. The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment
system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top
3: ]! glut i `se!1'n iau -ail9 31 Jonquil Trd N, Hugeiaec o CC; 1714gae: Pled spa. per *ola. jirvpluce Valiance 3-1 %-09 <1oe
Variance Revicnal; fluke('
City Council Report; 3 19-09
Page 4
(cont.)
Variance
Review:
of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Distances are to be measured
perpendicularly from the property line to the most outwardly extended portion of the
structure at ground level.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground
or on -site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached
garages, cabins, manufactured homes, signs, and other similar items.
SWIMMING POOL, PRIVATE OR RESIDENTIAL. Any pool which is used, or
intended to be used, as a swimming pool in connection with a single-family residence,
and which is available only to the family of the household and private guests.
USE, ACCESSORY. A use subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on
the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use.
VARIANCE. A modification of a specific permitted development standard required to
allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control,
but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship as
defined in the zoning code. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a
hardship.
The applicants are proposing to build an in -ground pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace
within the required 100 foot buffer setback from the edge of the development.
Farms of Lake Elmo Development Review History
The city staff report for the Farms of Lake Elmo development identified early on in the
development review process that the lots in the west, east, and south side of the
proposed development would not be buildable with the 200 foot buffer setback required
from the edge of the development.
In the March 28, 2005 staff report, the planner noted:
"It appears that several of the proposed lots along the east and south
peripheries of the Concept would also fail to meet the 200 foot buffer
requirements once house pads are identified. In both cases the lots
will back onto the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. Ina recent .
similar situation lots of the Tapestry OP backed onto the City's
Sunfish Park. In that case staff found that the Intents and Purposes of
the OP ordinance would be complied with without a buffer to a major
natural park environment."
The City Council approved a 4/5 waiver of the requirement (as outlined in the city
code). The City Council minutes from April 5, 2005:
"M/SP Conlin/Johnson — to waive the 200 foot buffer requirement and
require the 100 foot buffering setback standards to the west, south and
east based on the findings of the size of lots, adjoins the majority of the
Regional Park, trees are planted on the top and the elevation difference.
Saner` tisea'cuiuriccs1931.1anqui,` Tip V HugeclRe t;G Nugec: pool, spi, pernola-fireplace Furhnicc 3-1 09.cdoe
Variance Revicrrr; fh gec
Citti Council Report; 3-17-09
Page 5
(coot.)
(Motion passed 4-0." [Sic]
Therefore, the City Council reduced the setback from the edge of the Farms of Lake
Elmo development and Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve border from 200 feet to 100
feet.
Purpose of the 100 foot buffer setback
In reading through section 150.180 B 2 D regarding buffer zones in OP developments,
the implied intent of the buffer area is to provide a physical and visual buffer of
structures from existing residences of development.
This property and others on the southeast side of the development abut an open space
outlet and the regional park, which will not be used for residences or development now
or in the future. However, as mentioned previously, the City Council was made aware
of this situation and made the decision at that time to require a 100 foot buffer setback.
Other homes in the Farms Neighborhood
Of the twelve properties in the neighborhood currently with homes, two were built
within the buffer setback. Five properties subject to the same 100 foot buffer setback
were built on and currently meet that requirement. The remaining five homes were built
on lots that were outside 100 feet (or 200 feet from the north) of the development
borders.
Vacant Lots to be Affected in the Future
Staff has identified an additional nine lots in this development that are impacted to any
degree by the 100 foot buffer setbacks from the west, south, or east edge of the
development or by the 200 foot buffer setback from the north edge of the development.
Although staff has not conducted a full analysis at the time of this report, it is possible
that some of those lots may have limited building area which may result in future
variance requests.
Additional Information
Outlot A as mentioned before is restricted by a conservation easement co -held by the
Minnesota Land Trust and the City of Lake Elmo. Within the easement document, it
outlines as one of the Conservation Values that "The Protected Property provides
continuity with nearby Lake Elmo Regional Park Preserve, which preserves wildlife
habitat within the wetlands and open space in this region of rapidly developing
residential communities." The applicant is not proposing to add any improvements
within the outlot, nor are they proposing any improvements within 9 feet of the outlot.
However, it is important to establish that the rear yard abuts the outlot and the intent of
the MN Land Trust's easement on the outlot.
iSJandt;ra liu ranus329tl JonOurr Tri l llu„u�iT':u CC Hugcc.pool.spa.. prrrola7. Jh•cpkrce l2tritrnat 1'-r)ri.n�c
Veiricatrce Revimt: Mg'ec
ON Council Report; 3-17--09
Page 6
(cone)
Application Submittal
The applicant has stated that the variance is justified due to the following:
➢ They bought the existing home with the intention of building a pool in the back
yard for their children to practice for competitive swimming. The back yard was
chosen as the windows at the back of the home allow viewing the pool for safety
purposes.
➢ They were not aware of the 100 foot buffer setback at the time of the initial
design of the pool, spa, pergola, and fire pit.
➢ Sixty feet of Outlot A exists between their property and the Lake Elmo Regional
Park Reserve and effectively serves as a preserved, undisturbed space. The land
slopes uphill approximately 2' to 6' over a 60' distance to the park boundary.
➢ The neighbor directly to the east was allowed to build their home and pool within
the 100 foot buffer setbacks from both the south and eastern borders of the
development. This property has a much smaller outlot between the property and
the Park Reserve.
➢ The placement of the home to the east pushed the building of their home further
back on the lot to be in line with that home, thereby reducing the amount of
buildable area in their rear yard.
➢ The neighbor directly to their west also has a pool.
➢ The proposed pool would be completely obscured from view of the street and
greatly obscured from many adjacent properties with existing trees. Additional
trees that would further reduce any visibility are being proposed in the new pool
landscape as well.
➢ No other location on the property is free from both restrictions and undesirable
conditions that prohibit a pool. The 30 feet between the house and setback line,
which given the shape of the floor plan of the house, the setbacks needed, and
the proper drainage needed from the house, the pool and landscape would be
impossible.
Criteria Review
A review of the City's variance criteria follows, focusing on the information submitted
by the applicants. By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the
request can successfully address all three criteria as outlined below for the proposed
structures.
The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be
established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no
other reasonable alternative use exists;
The property is currently used for residential purposes by the Hugee family;
therefore the applicants are allowed a reasonable use of the property.
5 Land UseJv ranv v: 293: Jan(ml t'r] N, HugeriRep CC; flugee pars( spa. nargola frrepla3e f arra+rc r 3-/7 oc
Variance Roderr: Huge(,
C;itr Council Report; 3.-17-09
Page 7
(cont.)
The design and location of the proposed pool, spa, fireplace and pergola was
established by a professional landscaper. At the time of his design, the contractor
was not made aware of the 100 foot setback from the edge of the OP development.
However, although the proposed pool, spa, fireplace and pergola are unable to be
built in a conforming location. on the lot in its current configuration, there is a small
conforming location in which at least the in -ground pool could potentially be
constructed. The city's pool ordinance calls for a six foot setback from a building or
frost footing. The result is approximately 24 feet between the existing home and the
100 foot setback line. Without consideration to aesthetics and pending conformance
with other requirements (impervious surface, building/structure separation, grading,
etc.), and if revisions to the size, design and location were redesigned, a pool, spa,
fireplace and pergola may be placed in a conforming location on the site. It should
be noted that an alternate site plan was not designed by staff and this alternative
located is based on the knowledge that a typical rectangular in -ground pool is often
20 feet by 40 feet in size.
The property is currently allowed a reasonable use and other locations on the site
could be an option so this criteria is not met.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district;
The applicants' property is not unique. Ten other properties within the Farms of
Lake Elmo development have a shorter distance between the edge of the
development (from which the setback applies) to their front property line. Therefore
these ten properties have the 100 foot setback affect more of their rear yard than the
applicant's property. All ten properties are similar in shape to the applicant's
property and all ten are smaller in lot size, providing additional challenges.
Three of these ten properties are built on, one of which currently has a structure that
encroaches into this 100 foot buffer setback. [An additional property adjacent to the
Hugec's was also built within the buffer setback, but was not included in this
calculation due to the lot's size and shape.] However, although the setback was not
enforced on previous properties in this development and most likely other
developments, this is not considered a hardship as defined in the city code. City staff
must enforce the city code requirements as they exist.
Twelve lots in the development are not impacted to any degree by a buffer setback.
As mentioned on page 4, this development was reviewed in a similar manner to the
Tapestry at Charlotte's Grove OP development which abuts a City Park. The 200
foot buffer setback was reduced by the City Council to 100 feet to acknowledge the
adjacent preserved open space.
Recent applications made by other property owners in the OP developments have
been required to comply with this regulation.
S':=.Cants C'sel Paurrn�es3Z931 .ionqui%Trd l lkr.,lRct CC.' Hvgec: Pool, spa. dnc
l'ariarreeRevieiv; lhigec
CCifv Council Report! .3-1 7-09
Page 8
(cont.)
Therefore, this criteria is not met.
3. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after
the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
The applicants bought the property after the existing home, deck, and screen porch
was built in the summer of 2006. The home was built further back on the lot to be
more in line with the home directly to the east, which was built in the 100 foot buffer
setback. This reduced the area available for a structure to be built in the rear yard of
the property.
Therefore, staff finds this criteria is met.
Variance Based on our analysis of the review criteria in City Code and because all three criteria
Conclusions: are not met, staff recommends denial of the variance requests for 2931 Jonquil Trail
North.
Resident The city has received no objection of the proposal by any neighbor within the Farms of
Concerns: Lake Elmo. The applicant submitted as part of their application a letter signed by three
neighbors in support of their application.
Additional
Information:
The Department of Natural Resources and the Valley Branch Watershed District did
not provide any comments on the application.
• The Minnesota Land Trust has reviewed the application and has no specific
comments or concerns with the variance being requested. Staff has added as a
condition of approval, per the Land Trust's written submittal, that the easement area
must not be used for material storage, vehicle travel, or other activities that would be
in violation of the conservation easement during the construction process.
• The Washington County Parks manager submitted a written statement with concern
regarding the intensity of the proposed uses and the potential visual impact of the
pergola and outdoor fire place structure as viewed from the Lake Elmo Park Reserve
boundary. They suggest placing the pergola and fireplace structure outside the
required setbacks to minimize the visual impact from the park. Additional screening
with fencing, berms and coniferous trees may also lessen the visual impact of the
pool facility.
■ The City Engineer has submitted a review with comments regarding the application.
The items outlined can be addressed at the building permit stage if the variance is
approved and is thus not added as a condition of approval.
S:IL�and L`seil4nranca 29,j1 Jwryw(!T'ri 1 hu etlRep CC, H"ga6. por,rf. sna.lerp*ola_ lireptrrrc t'io a ni
Veen lance Reoitear: lingeee
Ciry Council Report; 3-1 i-09
Page 9
Conclusion
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance from the required 100 foot buffer
setback from the edge of the Open Space Preservation development to allow the
construction of a pergola, pool, fireplace and spa at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
Specifically, the pergola and fireplace would be located 31 feet within the setback, the
spa would be 12 feet, and the in -ground pool would be 6 feet.
Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the variance application and held a public hearing
Rec.: at the March 96' meeting. The commission recommended by a 5:3 vote, with one
abstention, to approve the variances with the conditions outlined in the staff report and
with the additional condition that the applicant move the proposed pergola and fireplace
to a location which would not be located any further into the 100 foot buffer setback
than the proposed pool and spa.
Council
Options:
Recommended
Action:
One commissioner who voted against the application suggested that the Council has the
ability to alter the regulations by a 4/5 vote (as outlined in the OP regulations) and may
want to consider that option.
The City Council must examine the proposed variances to determine whether it meets
all conditions of approval outlined by city code. The City Council should consider the
following options:
A) Approve the requested variances based on the applicants' submission and
findings of fact.
B) Approve the requested variances based on the applicant's submission and
findings of fact with the conditions outlined in the staff report and recommended
by the Planning Commission
C) Deny the requested variances based on the applicants' submission and findings
of fact.
D) Table the request and ask for additional information.
The deadline for a Council decision on this item is April 10, 2009 which can be
extended an additional 60-days if needed.
Staff recommended option C: Denial of the requested variance with the following
findings of fact:
1) The applicant has reasonable use of the property as it is currently used for
residential purposes.
2) A swimming pool, spa, pergola and fireplace of a different configuration and
,S-land QscJ ntemce',24:31 Jonejai,'77i °- ilu v..SR4vCC: Hu,vec. Poolsp;, v(Irgota-hrepi¢ce C'artnraa; �- I-tt<,i.doc
VeIri(vnce Revicir. lhegec
City Council Reporf; 3-17-09
Page 10
(cont.) size could potentially be located on the lot in a conforming location.
3) Thirteen lots within the Farms of Lake Elmo development are subject to the 100
foot buffer setback. Therefore, this property is not unique.
4) Although two homes within the Farms of Lake Elmo development were
permitted to be built within the 100 foot buffer setback, this does not constitute a
hardship as the city staff must enforce the existing regulations.
Should the City Council choose to approve the requested variances, the following
findings of fact may be used in addition to any found by the council at the meeting.
1) The proposed variances would be in keeping with the neighborhood as the two
adjacent properties currently have in -ground swimming pools and other
accessory structures in their rear yards.
2) The home directly to the east currently encroaches further into the 100 foot
buffer setback than the applicant is proposing. The home and pool are closer to
the Lake Elmo Park Reserve than the applicant is proposing to place the
structures.
3) The rear yard of the property abuts Outlot A which is restricted by a
conservation easement intended to be utilized for open space. The county park
is on the other side of Outlot A.
4) Existing and proposed vegetation, the slope of the rear yard, and the location of
the structures in the rear yard reduce or in some cases eliminate the visual
impact to others.
5) Outlot A serves as a sixty foot open space buffer and undisturbed area between
the Hugec's property and the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve which meets
the intent of the buffer setback.
6) The home on the property was built further back on the property to be in
keeping with the property to the east, thereby reducing the buildable area in the
rear yard.
7) The home at 2931 Jonquil Trail North was built to match adjoining setbacks and
is thus located further back on the lot than required.
8) The applicable setbacks from the edge of the development, from existing
structures, and from the property lines leave limited room in the back yard of the
property for the proposed structures. By city code, swimming pools are required
to be located in the rear yard of a property, further reducing the potential
conforming locations on the property.
S1Larid Ls:;Variam s;2931 Jonquil' 7-rl 1 uu„c:: J'cq t C �1v`ugrc-pa�f. srxe per,�a�u. fi�e�,�I G:e l'irritra<<;i-1'-e)<J. nioc
Variance Review. Hvgec
Ci(Y Corrrrcil Report; 3-17-0,9
Page 11
Denial Motion To deny the requested variances as recommended by staff, you may use the following
Template (as motion as a guide:
recommended
by staff: Move to deny the variance application for 2931 Jonquil Trail North based on the
findings provided in the staff report: (or cite your own findings)
Approval To approve the requested variances, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: Move to approve the variances with the additional condition that the proposed
pergola and fireplace be located so as not to encroach further on the 100 foot
setback than the proposed pool and spa for 2931 Jonquil Trail North based on the
findings listed in the staff report and as articulated tonight, subject to the
conditions recommended by staff. (use staffs findings provided above or cite your
own)
with the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be received from the city prior to any work taking
place. A certified survey in addition to any information requested by the City
Engineer, City Planner, and Building Official must be, provided before a
building permit is issued.
2. The City Engineer must review and approve mitigation measures for the
increase of impervious coverage beyond 20% prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. A revised landscape plan approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of
a building permit.
4. Outlet A must not be used for material storage, vehicle travel, or other activities
that would be in violation of the conservation easement during the construction
process.
5. All structures must be located outside the drainage and utility easement.
cc: Vladimir and Silvia Hugee, 2931 Jonquil Trail North
David Sonka, Applicant's Contractor
S: read t`sc`t'm as rcrsi293: Jonqut Pri l Hw,addi' p CC; Huge,: poll/. sgaz. j+e-rx0ta..iirt U$2� ['arinnt i-I'-Q�J. duc'
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-0 q
A RESOLUTIONAPPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE 100 FOOT BUFFER SETBACK
REQUIRED FROM THE EDGE OF AN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN IN -GROUND POOL AT
2931 JONQUIL TRAIL NORTH
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Vladimir and Silvia Hugec, 2931 Jonquil Trail North (the "Applicants"),
have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a twelve -foot variance
from the 100-foot buffer setback from the edge of Open Space Preservation developments at
2931 Jonquil Trail North to allow the construction of an in -ground pool, spa, pergola, and
fireplace, a copy of which is on file with the City; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on March 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its recommendation to
the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 17, 2009 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
Board of Adjustment makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance is found in the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.017.
2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicants.
3) That the proposed 12 foot variance is to allow the construction of an in -ground pool, spa,
pergola, and fireplace at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as Lot 12, Block 1, Farms
of Lake Elmo, Washington Co., Minnesota.
5) The proposed structures would be in keeping with the neighborhood as the two adjacent
properties currently have in -ground swimming pools and other accessory structures in
their rear yards.
6) The home directly to the east currently encroaches further into the 100 foot buffer setback
than the applicant is proposing. The home and pool are closer to the Lake Elmo Park
Reserve than the applicant is proposing to place the structures.
7) The rear yard of the property abuts Outlet A which is restricted by a conservation
easement and intended to be utilized for open space. The Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve is located directly to the south of Outlot A.
8) Existing and proposed vegetation, the slope of the rear yard, and the location of the
proposed structures in the rear yard reduce, or in some cases, eliminate the visual impact
to others.
9) Outlot A serves as a sixty -foot open space buffer and undisturbed area between the
Hugec's property and the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve which meets the intent of the
buffer setback outlined in the Open Space Preservation development regulations.
10) The proposed in -ground swimming pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace cannot be established
under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable
alternative use exists. The applicants bought the existing home in its existing location
with the intention of building a swimming pool in the rear yard. The applicable setback
requirements outlined in the Open Space Preservation regulations and swimmingpool
requirements leave little area in the rear yard of the property to be built upon.
11) The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land and are
not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The site
is unique. The existing home was builtfurther back on the lot to be in line with the
permitted non -conforming home to the east thereby reducing the amount ofbuildable
area in the rear yard of the property. Although the lot abuts Outlot A which functions as
preserved open space within the development, approximately forty feet of the buffer
setback encroaches on the rear yard of the applicant's property. The forty foot
encroachment is an unbuildable area.
12) The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the
effective date of the city's zoning regulations. The applicants bought the home in its
existing location after it had been built as a model home by the developer. The home was
built back further on the lot to be in line with the non -conforming home to the east,
thereby reducing the amount of buildable area in the rear yard. The applicants were not
aware of the 100 foot buffer setback when they purchased the home with the intent of
building a pool as the two adjoining neighbors had.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Variance is, approved, provided the
following conditions are met:
1. A building permit must be received from the city prior to any work taking place. A
certified survey in addition to any information requested by the City Engineer, City
Planner, and Building Official must be provided before a building permit is issued.
2. The City Engineer must review and approve mitigation measures for the increase of
impervious coverage beyond 20% prior to issuance of a building permit.
A revised landscape plan approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a
building permit.
4. Outlot A must not be used for material storage, vehicle .travel, or other activities that
would be in violation of the conservation easement during the construction process.
5. All structures must be located outside the drainage and utility easement.
Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of March 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2009-011
A RESOL UTION DENYINGA VARIANCE FROM THE 100 FOOT BUFFER SETBACK
REQUIRED FROM THE EDGE OF AN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OFANIN-GROUND POOL, SPA, PERGOLA, AND
FIREPLACE AT 2931 JONQUIL TRAIL NORTH.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Vladimir and Silvia Hugec, 2931 Jonquil Trail North (the "Applicants"),
have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a twelve -foot variance
from the 100-foot buffer setback from the edge of Open Space Preservation developments at
2931 Jonquil Trail North to allow the construction of an in -ground pool, spa, pergola, and
fireplace, a copy of which is on file with the City; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on March 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its recommendation to
the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 17, 2009 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the
Board of Adjustment makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance is found in the Lake Elmo Zoning
Ordinance, Section 154.017.
2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicants.
3) That the proposed 12-foot variance is to allow the construction of an in -ground pool, spa,
pergola, and fireplace at 2931 Jonquil Trail North.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as Lot 12, Block 1, Farms
of Lake Elmo, Washington Co., Minnesota.
5) The proposed in -ground swimming pool, spa, pergola, and fireplace cannot be established
under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable
alternative use exists. The applicant has reasonable use of the property as it is currently
used for residential purposes, Given the setback and location requirements set forth in
the Open Space Preservation development and swimming pool regulations, there remains
area available for a building or structure, though not in the size or configuration
proposed by the applicant.
6) The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land and are
not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The site
is unique. Thirteen lots within the Farms of Lake Elmo development are subject to the
100 foot buffer setback Ten lots within the same development have a shorter distance
between the edge of the development (from which the setback applies) to their front
property line. Therefore these ten properties have the 100 foot setback affect more of
their rear yard than the applicant's property. Although two lots were permitted to build
homes within this buffer setback without a variance, this is not considered a hardship as
defined in the city code. City staff must enforce the city code requirements as they exist.
7) The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the
effective date of the city's zoning regulations. The Open Space Preservation
Development Ordinance was in place well before the Farms of Lake Elmo development
was proposed and approved. The reduced buffer setback of I00 feet from the edge of the
development was approved at the time of the development. Therefore, the requirements
were in place well before the applicant's home was built on the property.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Variance is denied.
Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of March 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
jL i iw+nr.-- —
- + 1
AMM
rafaNaf.Yva ry
R �" �`
hr
r r�ffNMMi
Lot 12, Block 1, Farms
Lake Elmo, Washington
, 29gj3
601.0ty,;Mlnnesota
t
Parcel ID number::' ••
2202921210024
r " "+••:
Parcel Size: 41,340 S
110.95
or.95 acres
A got"
Existing Use of Land:
Single Family Detatched
HARDCOVER CALCULATION
WIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY:
EXIST, LOT: 41,340 SF
DRIVE, HOUSE, WALK: 7423 SF
EXIST. HARDCOVER:17.95%
ADD POOL LANDSCAPE: 2,369 S
PROPOSED HARDCOVER: 23.70% 5
�!
SILT FENCE
.
�A Tr
r'
DE RESODDED
OUTLO
'•rM r•a. ACCESS
UILTR IL NORTH
"•
ILU
EATO
OPED
n
914 ENC
1
r€US a
7 � PREA TO
BE RESOpDED
a W 1DUSETBA(
I")JIWICEAREATOBERESODDEp' ii -
LT END
)EN;
gREA WITH hIATIVE PLANTS AREA FOR'0'SF OF
RFACE ROOF, HANDLE52"RAIN
IS OF
S 1%AIN
UNDISTURBED OUTLOT
0
t
A ,,, PALM BOUNDARY
PARK BO�NDA M 1 1`� I I�`l_ I"�•',� ^1 m_' EXIST. SPRUCE
IST.SPRUCE j "`" TREES IN ROW _
BT. SPRUCE` -'/ �J '-J T EES IN ROW wJ Joi )Qui ^C
Ir7 >r j c Lake Drip, MIS 55042
DESIGNEEE3Y DA�/E1 5 >NK4, MNLA ( ,,{{
Rt R OIMENWONS ); I.E R!.Nt NJI.AND FOUNDATION DE
z-O +BUILDER L� E r_
HOUSE DIAGONAL'
ORTH {9 M
FOOT
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ,Variance * (See below)
❑ Zoning District Amendment �❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Text Amendment
❑ Flood Plain C.U.P.
Conditional Use Permit
❑ Conditiona�ert it (. .P
APPLICANT: I ttJ
(Name)
TELEPHONES: " 7 7
(Home)
FEE OWNER:
❑ Lot Line Adjustment
❑ Residential Subdivision
Sketch/Concept Plan
❑ Site & Building Plan Review
(Melling
(Mobile)
Fee $
❑ Residential Subdivision
Preliminary/Final Plat
O 01 — 10 Lots
O I 1 — 20 Lots
O 21 Lots or More
❑ Excavating & Grading Permit
❑ Appeal
(Fax)
❑ PUD
(Name) (Mailing Address)
(Zip)
TELEPHONES:
(Home) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description):
DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST:
*VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must
demorate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The barhip related to this application is as follows:
1
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
I/22/2004
Signature of Applicant / Dat
mod_
City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 • Fax t 1-777JU ' 2"
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Supplemental Information for 2931 Jonquil Trail Variance Application:
Detailed Reason for Request:
Vladimir and Silvia Hugec have lived at 2931 Jonquil Trail North for two years. They
purchased their home with the intention of adding an in -ground, swimming pool and
landscape into the flat, sodded area of the backyard directly behind their home. They
have sought this as a way to better enjoy their property, to entertain neighborhood
friends, and to provide a place for their children a safe place to practice for competitive
swimming.
The Hugec's were only recently made aware of the 1 00'setback that exists from the
Lake Elmo Park Preserve in January of 2009. This 100' setback extends through a 60'
wide Outlot for an additional 40' into their property, which would prohibit a pool and
useable landscape that they had been planning for years. (150.180 Development
Standards, (B), (2), (d) Buffer zones)
Between their property and the Lake Elmo Park Preserve is a buffer area, Outlot A.
They had assumed that this area was established to preserve an undisturbed space
between the park and their property,. as it effectively does. But they were unaware of
any setback from the park boundary that would extend and additional 40' through the
middle of their back yard, to within 30' of their home. It was not indicated on the
Certificate of Survey and As -Built Survey they had received. (See Appendix A, B)
Their neighbors and friends on both sides of them have swimming pools, The
neighbors to the east, the Gustafson's at 2395 Jonquil Trail, have a beautiful swimming
pool and fountain feature that is well within this same setback, on two sides of the park
boundary. This property, as well as the next one to the north, appear to have homes
which seem very much on, or within, the same setback. They both also do not have
the presence of an Outlot buffer to the park preserve. (See Appendix C) Therefore,
the existence of this code was unrecognizable, nor could be interpreted by them. It
was not brought to their attention until considerable time and money had been invested
into the plans for the pool landscape, long after conversations had been initiated with
the city about their desire for a pool landscape.
FEB 10 2009
C!OF LAKE ELMO
Variance Request. (Hardship is described.)
Here is the portion of building code that was recently cited to address the proposed
pool project at 2931 Jonquil Trail North:
"... Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing OP development, or a land
parcel eligible for future development under the OP ordinance, a 100 foot setback from
any structure within the proposed OP development and the property line of the abutting
parcel may be substituted. The setback substitution shall only be approved when
there is existing mature vegetation and/or changes in topography occurring on the site
proposed for development, and/or where the OP site developer introduces the physical
features that provide an effective year round buffer of the structures proposed for the
OP site from existing residences or development. The determination of the buffering
effectiveness of existing or introduced physical features that qualify a site for a 100 foot
buffer shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council."
(150.180 Development Standards, (B), (2), (d) Buffer zones)
The enforcement of the 100' setback from Lake Elmo Park Preserve would prohibit the
ability for of an in -ground swimming pool, spa, and landscape at 2931 Jonquil Trail
North. This property is occupied by the family of Vladimir and Silvia Hugec. Dr.
Hugec relocated his family to the area two years ago from eastern Europe as a cancer
research doctor.
The location for any kind of pool on their lot would be the logical area in the flat,
buildable portion of the back yard, situated directly behind the house. This would be in
violation of the 1 00'setback requirement that was recently cited to us six weeks after it
was originally brought to the attention of the city. This setback line extends an
additional 40' into their property beyond Outlot A, within 30' of their house. Outlot A
currently serves as an effectively buffer to their back yard from the Lake Elmo Park
Preserve. It consists of an uphill slope of T to 7' over a 60' distance to the park
boundary. Along the inside edge of the park boundary is also a fencerow planting of
black hills spruce trees that are currently growing from 10 to 16' in height. (See
Appendix D)
In this backyard location, the pool would seem in a recessed location that is 80' to 90'
from the park property. It would also be completely obscured from view of the street,
and greatly obscured from any adjacent properties with existing spruce trees planted
along the boundary between the properties. Additional trees that would further reduce
any visibility are being proposed in the new pool landscape as well.
No other location on the property is free from both restrictions and undesirable
conditions that prohibit a pool. The setback leaves less than 30' at the back of the
house, which cannot support a pool design considering the required setbacks from the
home itself with its staggered footprint. A combination of issues such as conforming to
setbacks from the side lots, setbacks from the house, grading and drainage issues, and
utility service connections to the house also compound any other options. There
simply is not other viable alternative than in the logical place in the backyard.
The backyard location is the only area on the property where sufficient space is
currently available for the pool, drainage patterns on the lot can be maintained, and the
pool can be supervised from all windows along the back of the house. This will ensure
safety and security for their children, neighbors, friends, and family members visiting to
use the pool and surrounding landscape.
Vladimir and Silvia Hugec's children are both active in competitive swimming. Their
intention is to create a pool, spa, and useable landscape which would provide their
young children a place to enjoy and practice swimming. They want the swimming area
to be large enough to allow lap swimming, but intimate enough where they can dine and
sit, relax and enjoy the outdoors. The proposed pool is 18 x 46' with an extended
shallow area for entry. They intend to employ some of the most recent energy -efficient
heating technologies where they can extend the pool season and use it in after -school
and after -business hours of the day. The pool landscape will provide an attached spa,
a dining area, and an intimate place for a fire to keep warm in cooler temperatures
while their children use the pool.
As Dr. Hugec describes, he moved to this home in Lake Elmo with the intention of
having a nice, safe home with wonderful neighbors, a nice, peaceful place to enjoy
being outside, and great place to spend time with his kids while the play and practice
what they love to do. This is all part of his American dream.
(Please see attached Appendices, A, B, C, D)
Additional Information for Variance Procudure:
Supplemental Information for 2931 Jonquil Trail Variance Application:
Item List:
1. A completed land use application form:
- Please see the enclosed sheet and supplemental information.
2. Written Statements:
a. A list of all current property owners:
Dr, Vladimir and Silvia Hugec
b. Site Data:
Legal Description:
Lot 12, Block 1, Farms of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota
Parcel ID number: 2202921210024
Parcel Size: 41,340 SF or .95 acres
Existing Use of Land: Single Family Detatched Residential
RECEjVEp
FEB 10 200g'
fCIVY Op hgK8 ELMO
Current Zoning:
The 2007 Zoning Map for Lake Elmo lists it as A -Agricultural, as shown on the current zoning
map on the City of Lake Elmo website.
Assumption is that it has since been re -zoned as OP/OS since the 2007 Survey.
c. The provisions of the City of Lake Elmo Code for which a variance is sought:
"... Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing OP development, or a land
parcel eligible for future development under the OP ordinance, a 100 foot setback from
any structure within the proposed OP development and the property line of the abutting
parcel may be substituted. The setback substitution shall only be approved when
there is existing mature vegetation and/or changes in topography occurring on the site
proposed for development; and/or where the OP site developer introduces the physical
features that provide an effective year round buffer of the structures proposed for the
OP site from existing residences or development. The determination of the buffering
effectiveness of existing or introduced physical features that qualify a site for a 100 foot
buffer shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council."
(150.1.80 Development Standards, (B), (2), (d) Buffer zones)
Also, for compliance with recent updates to the hardcover provisions (which was not available
online) :
Maximum Impervious Surface of Gross Lot Area: "20%. This percentage may be
increased to 25% provided a pervious paver or comparable system is installed
consistent with the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Standards Manual or storm water
mitigation measures are installed to mitigate the runoff created by the additional
coverage above the base district amount. All mitigation measures must be approved
by the City Engineer."
d. Specific written description of the proposal and how it varies from the application provisions
of Lake Elmo code:
Vladimir and Silvia Hugec have lived at 2931 Jonquil Trail North for two years. They
purchased their home with the intention of adding an in -ground swimming pool and
landscape into the flat, sodded area of the backyard directly behind their home. They
have sought this as a way to better enjoy their property, to entertain neighborhood
friends, and to provide a safe place for their children to be outdoors and practice their
sport of competitive swimming. Their neighbors and friends on either side of their
property have built in -ground pools. Given the varying setbacks of these pools, and
the varying setback of the houses from Lake Elmo Park Preserve as other pools and
homes are well within this setback, there was no way for them to discern that building a
pool at their home would be prohibited. So they purchased this home and proceeded
to invest time and money into their plans for the pool. They had many conversation
with their neighbors and initiated conversation with the city to gather information on
Outlot A, and existing utility easements.
The. ideas for the pool they have discussed since moving into their home, and after
becoming friends with their neighbors, have developed into more formalized plans.
These plans include an in -ground swimming pool of a free -form shape to allow for lap
swimming, with an attached spa. The plan would also provide a place to prepare food
and dine in the outdoors, as it will be used often in the after -business hours. The plan
also offers a place to be in the shade of a 24'L x 10'W x 8511-1 pergola with open sides
and open canopy. The pergola is centered on a fireplace that will be used for when
the pool season is extended into the spring and late summer to fall months.
As the 100' setback has recently been brought to their attention, the restriction on
building any kind of pool would extend 40' into their property from Outlot A. This
invisible line would fall within the body of the pool. This would leave less than 30'
between the house and setback line, which given the shape of the floor plan of the
house, the setbacks needed, and the proper drainage needed from the house, their
pool and landscape would be impossible.
e. Preapplication discussions with the City of Lake Elmo:
The Hugec's were only recently made aware of the 100' setback that exists from the
Lake Elmo Park Preserve, in January of 2009, six weeks into the process, and after at
least two years that they had been discussing the pool project among themselves and
their neighbors. They had purchased this home with the intent of adding a pool, so in
saving money for two years and allowing their children to get older, they engaged in
starting plans for the pool and continued dialog with their neighbors.
In Fall of 2008, they hired a landscape designer, David Sonka MNLA CP, through a
school fundraiser to work on getting the plans started. The first meeting with David
was in December of 2008. As David started investigating the site, he almost
immediately emailed the City of Lake Elmo office to ask Kyle or Kelly about the Outlot A
buffer area which showed up on a plat, and whether they had a Survey which would
describe this and what it was for. He had been familiar with Kyle and Kelly and has
always found them helpful to work with. In his initial questioning, he asked about the
specifics of this outlot, whether there was any utility usage of it, or if it was just setup as
a buffer zone. In this early communication, he mentioned the swimming pool and
hardcover issue for this area.
David received a phone call the very next day and was told of the hardcover and the
existence of this Outlot as part of the open space provision. He was told that the City
of Lake Elmo had the Certificate of Survey and an As -Built Grading Survey for the
property, as it was in the hand of the official while conducting the phone conversation.
The pool project was specifically mentioned in this conversation. It was also
discussed that constructing raingardens to collect runoff, or incorporating permeable
pavers, could allow for an additional 5% of hardcover, from 20% to 25%, given they are
adequately constructed for performance and maintenance.
David received another phone call right before the new year, on December 30 or 31,
2008. However, David was away with family over the holidays and was not able to call
back or return to the City of Lake Elmo office until January. The voicemail message
was very brief, and so it was assumed that all questions had been answered
appropriately from the conversation on December 17. David was already 40 + hours
into the plan by this point.
On January 28, David picked up paperwork for filing permits for the pool and the
landscape features with the City of Lake Elmo. He received applications for the
building permit, fence permit, and asked about any other permits that might apply for
which to collect applications. He talked with two of the city officials on the classification
of the pergola and fireplace structure, and the grades and setbacks of the utility
easements. After this point of the conversation, it was indicated that this lot might
have a setback or easement that extends into the property from the Lake Elmo Park
Preserve. This was the first mention of this setback, to which he was a bit surprised.
The following afternoon, January 29, he received a phone call confirming this setback
that would not allow for the construction of the pool, or other landscape features within
the setback. David was shocked, so he reassessed the design and the implications on
the project with the homeowner, and it was determined that this effectively would not
permit a pool on this property given this and other setbacks.
In the homeowner's amazement and dismay, he is hoping for the opportunity afforded
to both of his neighbor's a friends, for the chance to be able to implement a pool
landscape of his own, which was his intention in buying this house. The city officials
have been gracious and supportive, and a bit apologetic that this project and all of the
time and energies that have been put forth, have gotten trapped by this code.
It has also been made apparent that a great deal of information regarding the Open
Space designation is not fully available online, nor is the recent zoning classification of
this development property. According to the 2007 Zoning Map currently found online,
it has this development still classified as agricultural.
f. Explain why the property cannot be put to reasonable use under the zoning code:
The Hugecs moved into their home with the intention of putting in a pool, just as their
neighbors and friends on both sides have a pool and landscape. This 100' setback
extends through a 60' wide Outlot (Outlot A) for an additional 40' into their property at
2931 Jonquil Trail North, which would prohibit any pool and useable landscape.
(150.180 Development Standards, (B), (2), (d) Buffer zones) This would leave less
than 30' between the house and setback line, which given the shape of the floor plan of
the house, the setbacks needed, and the proper drainage needed from the house, their
pool and landscape would be impossible.
Vladimir and Silvia Hugec's children are both active in competitive swimming. Their
intention is to create a pool and useable landscape which would provide their young
children a place to enjoy and practice swimming. They want the swimming area to be
large enough to allow lap swimming, but intimate enough where they can dine and sit,
relax and enjoy the outdoors. The proposed pool is 18 x 46' with an extended shallow
area for entry. They intend to employ some of the most recent energy -efficient heating
technologies where they can extend the pool season and use it in after -school and
after -business hours of the day. The pool landscape will provide an attached spa, a
dining area, and an intimate place for a fire to keep warm in cooler temperatures while
their children use the pool.
With the prohibition of installing the pool, there is also.a restrictive hardcover code
which would allow very minimal surface area to create places to be around the edge of
the pool. The lot is currently at just under 18% hardcover including the driveway. To
have useable space around the pool, they want to incorporate a concrete paver pool
deck to allow for a dining area and a place to sit in the shade of an open pergola by a
fire. With these surrounding landscape improvements, the hardcover would be 23.5%.
However, the intention is to also construct stormwater rain gardens which would
collect, store, and infiltrate the water coming from the gutters along the entire back of
the house. Under the supervision of Rusty Schmidt, Natural Resource Specialist with
the Washington County Conservation Office, a raingarden of this scale was designed
for this site.
g. Explain why the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner.
The location for any kind of pool on their lot would be the logical, flat, buildable portion
of the backyard that is situated directly behind their house. This would be in violation
of the 100' setback requirement, but no other location on the property is free from both
restrictions and undesirable conditions that prohibit a pool. The setback leaves less
than 30' at the back of the house, which cannot support a pool design considering the
required setbacks from the home itself with its staggered footprint. A combination of
issues such as conforming to setbacks from the side lots, setbacks from the house,
grading and drainage issues, and utility service connections to the house compound
issues and rule out any other options. There simply is not other viable alternative than
in the logical place in the backyard.
The backyard location is the only area on the property where sufficient space is
currently available, where drainage patterns on the lot can be maintained, and where
the pool can be supervised from all windows along the back of the house. This will
ensure safety and security for their children, neighbors, friends, and family members
visiting to use the pool and surrounding landscape. Both neighbors on either side of
their property have a pool in the same scenario, and they hope that the same
circumstances could be afforded to their family.
h. Justify that granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood:
The Farms of Lake Elmo development blends well into pastoral landscape of the Lake
Elmo Park Preserve, and other hamlet characteristics of the area. Outlot A currently
serves as an effective buffer to their backyard from the Lake Elmo Park Preserve. It
consists of an uphill slope of approximately 2' to 6' over a 60' distance to the park
boundary. Along the inside edge of the park boundary is also a fencerow planting of
black hills spruce trees that are currently growing from 10 to 16' in height.
In this backyard location, the pool would seem in a recessed location that is generally
70' to 100' from the park property. It would also be completely obscured from view of
the street, and greatly obscured from any adjacent properties with existing spruce trees
planted along the boundary between the properties. Additional trees that would further
reduce and almost totally obstruct any visibility from the park, street, and adjacent
properties, are being proposed in the new pool landscape as well.
With these improvements and enhancements, the long open views afforded in the
Farms of Lake Elmo neigborhood will remain intact. Just as the neighbors to the east
and west, a pool landscape will be tucked behind their home in the useable space.
This pool will have a high aesthetic value with a free -form shape, natural building
materials, lots of perennial color and planting beds, strategically -placed trees, and a low
profile to ensure that views toward the horizon line to the south will be maintained.
Dr. Hugec moved to this home in Lake Elmo from eastern Europe, as a cancer
research doctor. As he describes, his intention is to have a nice, safe home win
Minnesota with wonderful neighbors; a nice, peaceful place to enjoy being outside; and
great place to spend time raising his kids while the play and practice what they love to
do. This is all part of his American dream.
3. Verification of Ownership (Title report or purchase agreement, property tax statement, etc.)
SEE ENCLOSED
4. Address Labels: A list of property owners located within 350' of the subject property obtained
by a licensed abstractor.
SEE ENCLOSED
5. Fifty Copies of a certified survey; includes the required information on the lot with proposed
plan.
SEE ENCLOSED
j -
,1 ;aa
15
'4
-
�V, IN.
i� yi v
f6 f
y{4 +ft
J
4a-
-
C. Resolution No. 2005- 036:Award Bid for Phase I of the Water System
Interconnect Project
In his letter dated March 24, 2005, the City Engineer reported bids were opened on
February 18, 2005 for this project. The City engineer recommended awarding the
contract to the lowest bidder, Chris Riley Utilities, Inc. for their bid of $348,626.18.
M/S/P Johnson/Conlin - to adopt Resolution No. 2005-036, A Resolution Awarding the
bid for the Phase I of the Water System Interconnect Project to Chris Riley Utilities in the
amount of $348,626,18. (Motion passed 4-0).
A. Preliminary Plat Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezoning Conditional
Permit and OP Concept Plan — Deer Glen/Evangelical Free Church (Continuation)
Attorney Filla reported he received a 13-page document from the representatives of the
church late this afternoon and has not had time to review the submittals. He asked the
applicant if they would agree to a two week extension of their application. Chuck Palmer,
the applicant, said he would agree to the two week extension as long as it had no impact
on the merits of the case.
M/S/P Smith/Johnson - to approve the extension for two weeks agreed to by the
applicant, Chuck Palmer. (Motion passed 4-0.)
B. OP Concept Plan — Farms of Lake Elmo
This is an OP Concept Plan for Earl Friedrich Farm for 30-single family building lots on
a site of 84 acres. The Planner explained the three lots at the southwestern edge of the
site may not meet buffer requirements, but an adjoining parcel is eligible for OP
development. The zoning ordinance does not provide for monument signs, so the letters
have to be taken down and the wall left up.
Tim Freeman, Surveyor with FFE, indicated these lots sizes match or exceeds
neighboring properties and only a few houses are close. Their plan would have the
existing berm cut in with houses and planted above with additional buffering and
screening. Freeman said the intent of the ordinance is met with 100 feet of buffer, and
that they worked hard to keep each lot not having a neighbor across or behind them.
The Planner pointed out that the Planning Commission's recommendation deleted the
staff condition # 1 requiring the developer to install a full 200 foot OP buffer between the
house pads of the westerly 3 lots and the west project property line. By implication, a
100 foot buffer with appropriate landscaping would be the expectation for the
Development Stage Plan, but a 4/5 City Council waiver will be necessary to adopt that
design strategy.
LAKE ELO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 5, 2005
M/SP Conlin/Johnson - to waive the 200 foot buffer requirement and require the 100
foot buffering setback standards to the west, south and east based on the findings of the
size of lots, adjoins the majority of the Regional Park, trees are planted on the top and the
elevation difference. (Motion passed 4-0.
M/S/P Johnson/Conlin - to adopt Resolution No. 2005-038, as amended, A Resolution
Approving the OP Concept Plan of Farms of Lake Elmo per the plans staff dated March
18, 2005, and subject to conditions #143, of the Staff Report of March 18, 2005 and a 4`h
condition that the nameplate be removed from the rock wall at the entrance. (Motion
passed 4-0).
C. Minor Subdivision: Olinger, 9057 Lake Jane Trail
The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this
application to divide an existing 16 acres parcel into parcels of 2,04 acres, .75 acres, and
13.3 acres. This application is responsive to the Comprehensive Plan amendment actions
and a rezoning that was approved by the Council in 2004. A condition of the approval
recommendation is that the .75 parcel be either combined with the parcel to the south
(across Lake Jane Trail), or that a "No Build" covenant be placed on the title.
M/S/P Johnson/Johnston - to adopt Resolution No. 2005-037, A Resolution approving the
Minor Subdivision for Daniel and Jean Olinger at 9057 Lake Jane Trail, per plans staff
dated March 8, 2005, and subject to the conditions of the March 8, 2005 Staff Report.
(Motion passed 4-0).
D. Section 520 Site Plan —11051 Stillwater Blvd
The City Planner reported the Planning Commission recommended approving this
application to modify the site and make a building addition that nearly doubles the size of
this existing 2,057 square foot structure. Since the additions will not double the size of
the structure, the GB Architectural Standards do not apply. The two issues that form
conditions to approval are proper placement of the pylon sign and the City Engineer's
recommendation that a septic site be identified on the site. The Building Official pointed
out that this building must be sprinkled.
M/S/P Smith/Conlin - to adopt Resolution No. 2005-039, A Resolution approving a
Section 520 Site Plan for site modifications and a 2,046 square foot addition to 11051
Stillwater Blvd. per plans Staff dated March 9, 2005, and subject to the conditions of the
Staff Report. (Motion passed 4-0).
E. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -Home Occupation in Rural Residential
Zoning
The City Planner reported the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and
adopted a recommendation to approve an amendment to the text of the RR zoning district
to permit Home Occupation as an Accessory Use. The Commission considered the
reports of the City Attorney and City Planner on the matter and concluded that the
amendment amounts to a code housekeeping item.
LAKE ELO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 5, 2005 7
Washington
County
February 27, 2009
Kelli Matzek, Planner
City of lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Ms. Matzek,
Public Works Department
Donald J. Theisen, P.E.
Director/County Engineer
Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E.
Deputy Director/Assistant County Engineer
Washington County has reviewed the development application submitted by Vladmir and Silvia
Huger for variance request for the construction of a spa, in -ground swimming pool, pergola
and outdoor fire place structure. The property is located at2931 Jonquil Trail North in Lake
Elmo adjacent to the Lake Elmo Park Reserve. The proposal raises a number of concerns
regarding the intensity of the proposed uses and the potential visual impact of the pergola and
outdoor fireplace structure as viewed from the Lake Elmo Park Reserve boundary.
A Master Plan for the park reserve was adopted by the County Board in May, 2005. The Master
Plan, process included several opportunities for public involvement and input. In addition, the
Plan was developed with assistance from a Technical Advisory Committee, which included local
officials, residents, and professional staff. One result of the planning process involved retaining
the 'park reserve' •status of the park. The 'park reserve' status requires that no more than 20% of
the entire park can be developed, The remaining 80% is to remain undeveloped and natural.
The park area directly adjacent to 2931 Jonquil Trail North is within the 80% undeveloped and
natural area of the park reserve and the site contains a restored native tall grass prairie. This
environment provides for very natural and scenic experiences for park visitors.
In review of the site plan, there may be opportunities to place the pergola and outdoor fireplace
structure within the required setbacks to minimize the visual impact. Additional screening with
fencing, berms and coniferous trees may also lessen the visual impact ofthe ,pool facility from
the park.
Thank you for your request to comment on this variance request. We look forward to working
with the City of Lake -Elmo as we implement our park plan.
Si cerely,
Peter A, Ott, Park Manager
Washington County Parks
11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573
Phone: 651-430-4300 - Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246
www.co. washin gton. m n. us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
Keiji Matzek
From:
Sarah Strommen Isstrommen@mnland.org]
Sent:
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:30 PM
To:
Kell! Matzek
Subject:
Farms of Lake Elmo variance request
Dear Kelli:
Thank for you sending the Land Use Review packet regarding a request for a variance at 2931
Jonquil Trail North in the Farms of Lake Elmo development. I have reviewed the packet and do
not see that any activity is proposed to occur within the Outlot A, which is covered by a
conservation easement held by the Minnesota Land Trust. Therefore, the Land Trust has no
specific comments on or concerns with the variance being requested.
However, we would like to take this opportunity to remind the City and the applicant that the
easement area must not be used for material storage, vehicle travel, or other activities that
would be in violation of the conservation easement during the construction process. If there
are any questions related to the conservation easement, I would be happy to address them.
Thanks again for contacting me. The Land Trust very much appreciates the up -front
communication and cooperative relationship.
Sincerely,
Sarah Strommen
Sarah Strommen
Conservation Director, Central Region
Minnesota Land Trust
2356 University Ave. W.
Suite 240
St. Paul, MN 55114
Phone: 651-647-9590
Fax: 651-647-9769
www.mnland.org <http://www.mnland.or>
1
City Council
Date: March 17, 2009
REGULAR
Item: 7
Motion
ITEM: 2009 Street Improvements — Resolution Accepting the Report and Calling for a Public
Improvement Hearing
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to receive the
Feasibility Report for the 2009 Street Improvements and pass a Resolution Accepting the Report
and Calling for a Public Improvement Hearing to be held on April 7, 2009.
TKDA has completed the Feasibility Report for the 2009 Street Improvements including the
residential streets in the Myron Ellman, Eden Park, Eden Park 2nd, and The Forest subdivisions.
TKDA will present the findings of the Feasibility Report to the City Council. The Report findings
will be presented at a neighborhood meeting prior to the Improvement Hearing.
BACKGROUND:
On February 17, 2009 the City Council adopted the 2009-2013 Street CIP and passed a motion
directing TKDA to complete the 2009 Street Improvement Feasibility Report. On March 3, 2009
the City Council received information on the financing options for the Street CIP and provided
direction to assess 30% of the total project costs for the 2009 Street Improvement projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the recommendations for the 2009 Street
Improvements Feasibility Report and call for the Public Improvement Hearing.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to adopt Resolution No. 2009-012 Accepting the Feasibility Report for the 2009 Street
Improvements and Calling for a Public Improvement Hearing to be held on April 7, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS.-
1 . Resolution No. 09-012
2. Notice of Improvement Hearing
3. Proposed Project Schedule
4. 2009 Street Improvements Feasibility Report dated March, 2009 — submitted under
separate cover.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
0 Introduction Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
• Report by staff or other presenter
• Questions from city council members to the presenter
• Questions/comments from the public to the city council
(a maximum of three minutes per question/statement)
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mayor and council members
Mayor facilitates
• Action on motion City Council
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 09-012
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR THE 2009 STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND CALLING HEARING ON
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council motion, a feasibility report has been prepared by
TKDA for the 2009 Street Improvements, including the residential streets within the Myron
Ellman, Eden Park, Eden Park 2"d Addition, and The Forest Subdivisions,
AND WHEREAS, the feasibility report discusses the existing conditions of the
neighborhood streets, reviews alternative improvements, and states that the project is necessary,
cost-effective, and feasible,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. The City Council will consider the improvements in accordance with the report and the
assessments of the abutting properties for all such portion of the cost of the improvements
pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429.
2. A.public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 7th day of April, 2009,
in the council chambers of the City Hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. and the clerk shall
give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
Date: March 17, 2009 CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By:
Dean Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson
City Administrator
Resolution No. 09-012
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
NOTICE OF HEARING
2009 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the council chambers
of the city hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, to consider the
making of the following improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429,011 to
429.111;
The improvement of the city streets within the Myron Ellman, Eden Park,
Eden Park 2"d Addition, and The Forest subdivisions, including Legion
Avenue North, Legion Lane North, Legion Lane Court North, Legion Lane
Circle North, Lisbon Avenue North, 21st Street North, and 3rd Street Place
North. The improvements will consist of reclaiming the existing bituminous surface
and providing a new bituminous surface in the current location and grade.
The area proposed to be assessed for these improvements include the abutting properties
along the above referenced streets. The estimated cost of the street improvements is
$588,000. A reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment to each property will be
available at the hearing. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvements will be heard at this meeting.
DATED: March 18, 2009
BY ORDER OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Dean Johnston, Mayor
(Pubk}bed in the Oakdale -Lake Elmo Review on March 25, 2009 and April 1, 2009)
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
2009 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
TKDA PROJECT NO. 14363.000
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
February 17, 2009 Council orders TKDA to prepare a Feasibility Report for
project area.
March 17, 2009 Presentation of Feasibility Reports for project area.
Council passes resolution receiving Report and calling for
Hearing on Improvements to be held on April 7.
March, 2009 Resident workshop meetings held to review preliminary
Report findings.
April 7, 2009 Public Improvement Hearing for project area. Council
passes resolution ordering Improvement and preparation
of Plans.
June 2, 2009 Presentation of Plans and Specifications to the City
Council for all project areas. Council approves Plans and
Specifications and orders Advertisement for Bids.
June 5, 2009 Placement of Advertisement for Bids — Oakdale - Lake
Elmo Review. Publication date of June 10 and June 17.
June 8, 2009 Placement of Advertisement for Bids - Construction
Bulletin. Publication date of June 16 and June 23.
July 6, 2009 Receive Contractor bids/review and award
recommendation. Prepare preliminary assessment roll.
July 7, 2009 City Council accepts bids and awards Contract.
July 10, 2009 Process and send out Contract Documents.
July 27, 2009 Receipt of Contractor's Bonds/Legal Review and Issue
Notice to Proceed.
July 30, 2009 Conduct Pre -construction Meeting.
August 3, 2009 Contractor begins work.
June, 2010 Final Completion
Sept./Oct., 2010 Final assessment hearing.
City Council
Date: March 17, 2009
REGULAR
Motion
lt8
ITEM: Lanes DeMontreville Country Club Addition — Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering
the Preparation of Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Craig W. Dawson, Interim City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received a petition for sewer and water improvements
to the Lanes DeMontreville Country Club Addition. The Council is being asked to adopt a Resolution
Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering the Preparation of Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer and
Water Improvements to this area.
BACKGROUND: In November 2008, staff received a petition from owners of more than 70% in frontage of
the real property located in the Lanes DeMontreville Country Club Addition, and they are requesting the City of
Lake Elmo to develop a sewer and water improvement plan for the area together with an estimate of the cost
to implement the plan. As stated in statute, with a petition having more than "35% in frontage of the real
property abutting the streets named in the petition", the project may be ordered by a 3/5ths vote of the Council.
The petition contains certain statements that may suggest that the petitioners have signed the petition without
fully understanding the public improvement process. The petition instructs that the project "would not proceed
without the approval of the required number of property owners". In the statutory process for proceeding with
the project, the Council would be holding a public hearing if the project moved that far into the process, and
the Council would be listening to the comments made by the property owners; thus, the process does not call
for a vote of the property owners.
The properties in question are located outside of the planned municipal service boundary for sanitary sewer
services per the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, there is no current plan by the City to extend municipal
water to this area. The petition area is about 1,500 feet from the Oakdale City limits, and about 3/4 of a mile
from the nearest Oakdale sewer connection point.
Comprehensive Plan Issues: As stated above, the area of the petition is one where the City's Comprehensive
Plan does not anticipate that public sewer service will be provided. However, the 2005 Memorandum of
Understanding with the Metropolitan Council anticipates that sewer use may be extended to existing
neighborhoods, if and when there are failing septic systems that need to be mitigated to protect the
environment. The City has not yet articulated or, adopted a policy on this scenario. An amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, which will likely be needed, would require a 2/3�ds vote of the Council.
Policy Consideration regarding Feasibility Report: In following the "429 process" (i.e., the one in Chapter 429
of Minnesota Statutes, relating to public improvements and the possibility of special assessments), an
improvement project may not proceed without the preparation of a feasibility report. The cost for the feasibility
report may be assessed if the Council orders the improvement. If the improvement is not ordered, then the
City (in this case, its sewer and water funds,) will bear the cost of the feasibility study. As recommended
below, a very general (or "high-level") feasibility study could be undertaken to provide a wide range of probable
cost, and become the basis for a more refined feasibility study if the Council so desired. This very general,
and much less expensive, initial Report may satisfy the statutory requirement.
Lanes DeMontreville Sanitary Sewer & Water Improvement Petition
March 17, 2009, City Council Meeting
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council declare the petition adequate and order an
initial Report by the City Engineer to develop a preliminary project cost estimate to determine an order of
magnitude of the proposed assessments to the benefitting properties for sanitary sewer only. This order of
magnitude study would be a quick cost estimate using aerial mapping and scaled drawings without in depth
investigation of the properties, utilities, rights -of -way, topography, or identification of issues impacting the
feasibility of a potential project. The high-level study would assume a sewer connection to the City of Oakdale
and would assume a low-pressure gravity sewer system with individual grinder pumping stations at each
property. The City Engineer would complete this study for an amount not to exceed $2,000.
Staff recommends that a study not include water at this time, as a hook-up to the Oakdale system appears
difficult for Oakdale to accommodate, and the City's system is too far away to be feasible at this time.
By authorizing this initial study, the Council will receive a Report by the City Engineer estimating the potential
assessment of a project of this scope. This estimate may then be used to determine if the project is worth
further investigation. It is recommended that the initial study include only sanitary sewer service. Upon receipt
of the initial study information, should the Council wish to proceed further with this project, a detailed feasibility
study meeting Chapter 429 requirements could then be authorized for sanitary sewer and, if desired, water
improvements.
If the Council declares the petition adequate and orders the feasibility report, the resolution should be
published per Minn. Stat. Section 429.036. Any person aggrieved by the determination may post a $250 bond
and appeal within 30 days after the adoption and publication of the resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION
Move to adopt the Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering the Preparation of
Preliminary Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer to the properties of the Lanes Demontreville Country
Club Addition. The initial study would be completed in an amount not to exceed $2,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Lanes Demontreville Country Club Addition — Sewer and Water Improvements Petition
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction
• Report by staff or other presenter
• Questions from city council members to the presenter
• Questions/comments from the public to the City Council
(a maximum of three minutes per question/statement)
Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mayor and council members
Mayor facilitates
0 Action on motion City Council
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-011
A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, the City has received a Petition for Local Improvements to complete a feasibility
report to provide municipal sewer and water service for the properties in the Lanes
DeMontreville Country Club Addition; and
WHEREAS, the City follows the provisions of Chapter 429 Minnesota Statutes relating to public
. improvements,
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that
1. A certain petition requesting sanitary sewer and water improvements for the properties in the
Lanes DeMontreville Country Club Addition, submitted to the City on November 3, 2008, is
hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected
thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minn. Stat. Section 429.036.
2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and that person is instructed to report to
the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether
the proposed improvement for sanitary sewer service is cost-effective and as to whether it
should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement.
3. The preliminary cost estimate will be developed for sanitary sewer service for an amount not
to exceed $2,000. Should the project appear to be cost-effective the Council may authorize
further Feasibility Studies to pursue the necessity and feasibility of sanitary sewer and/or
water improvements as initially requested by petition.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo this 17th day of March, 2009
Dean A. Johnston
Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson
Interim City Administrator
Resolution No. 09-011
Sewer and Water Improvement Petition
for
Lanes Demontreville Country Club Addition, Washington County, Minnesota
To the City Council of Lake Elmo, Minnesota:
We, the undersigned, owners of property within Lanes Demontreville Country Club Addition
abutting on 50th Street, Hill Trail, Hill Trail Court, and Argyle -Bennett Street hereby request the
City of Lake Elmo to develop a sewer and water improvement plan for our area and an estimate
of the cost/property to implement such plan.
Our signatures below are not to be construed as an agreement to proceed with any such sewer
and water project. It is expressly understood that upon completion of the improvement plan
and cost estimates that the City will hold public hearings on this matter and that implementation
of the project will not proceed until the required number of property owners approve.
Name Address Phone (H/W) Date/E-Mail
Print: J �b�g „ � 4A i H 451- 77 7-'7%E+e sept. —11-12008
n: W661-727-7744e-mail oc
hoc n� a%ctrn„e�v,�@t'
Print: i _ptf S , 2008
x, W
eIr
Sign z ��- ,� fie" -Fait
Print: _eo's, 0)� 7�_AACL TYQ; 4 H 6,i 103SSept. a7g, 2008
Sig ' W &j 27/-3/Y6_e-mail Cjr "" I TZa o , ig o M
Print: t J�%>)�`� H��s/ 71U-agly Sept. a—`� , 2008
Sign: WO- !3o oPgr) e-mail r�emo �aE!e8�"% coti,
Print:
Sign:
Print:
Sign:
Print:
Sign:
/F 1 #7/ -1 A H(pS�i-y i - nJSj Sept. 'Z (, 2008
4/} -rJS �- o1lJ te-mail (QS�I is oew ✓/�
�rbd 0'4' St.Q) H ifSl ?_ Zvi /J�1!% Sept. ,2008
W — e-mail
�b ! 8 bill H 66 (-774 -ilfl Sept. , 2008
W e-mail
Name Address Phone (HIM Date/E-Mail
Print:y -015s 9 1 q,I OeW 7z,
Sign: i c r- .L&ks (5-
Print: M ,
Sign: A
H jvS1-7rl� 7i`yept, 2008
W e-mare e l<rasS
�C� rtip
H &S / 77e ^$Sept., 2008
mail ntntiCl i® GC1�ctrvi
H �W5c&5'gept.,2008
W
e-mail
?0j,33 'S"% PJ,H &, -I- li S- 7 9 iept, P , 2008
e-mail er 4- HoTtt414,4
Print: wv ^ kll,S�r•J-_ �lAl N H y�-77a-ZoFC� Sept. 2008
C �Q
Sign t 0� W
Print: 1/A0 t E3DLV(13 7W0 ITN S 1 Wbq
, H69-770 0 Sept. 3 �, 2008
�"cti�
Sign: . �,Ffrt le' d&Iud W A�# e-mail ' !!! t.04EA'9v.c was.
Print: R 1^ck L6-/ Ses Nk
Sig
H 6 S1-770-3 32SSept. 3 (5, 2008 1
W e-mail t r s s(Dh(6w1A; i,
3 eog Com
H C Z 3 6 f Sept. 5 G -2008
(_a l2-Lo�,a W
Sign:���2AW�
M 79S�'
Print: etf6lZ C% Ufv LAV:
Sign:
e-mail
-
H � Tf Sept. 3" 2008
W
e-mail
H �� 'Sept. 20, 2008
Pii
Print: l%44M Hdye Sept , 2008
Sign:5zy:�= y W e-mail
Name Address i Phone (H/W) Date/E-Mail
Print: u4.. (T Lf 1�1(J 6--oa_ H Qn y � Oct. S , 2008
Sign: 14L� Wk2l�92"cf�f3�i e-mails 7e �(4h1�)eG�GI.
Print: 0. 1, 1&vkrs i�_Le� '75 F - Will Ir1 (i H "Ga 1%'77 7 •
wr C�ct. � , 2008
Sign: S_ -aA Qv L4 -- 6 GU, Meld W e-mail rLALNY1 e. @ Q ul • Ctst
Print: !11J eS f 3 9 7 Z 0, it Tv' N H &5_1 X-Zc Aoct. � , 2008
Sign: a... LAte G/mQ Inlij W e-mail eeT
Print:-XUn 614 A(7Cf ( Ya ? S N i'1 1 Tn H , �i 163 V65yoct. - 2008
Sign:
Print,:/ r'(> ,U •e 1L.
Sigti_ :
Print: V ;rEdF<
Sign:
Print:
I A 1ZL E/r, W
e-mail
17-.136) Cry M rf4 1420'Oct. e5 , 2008
W e-mail'
H �✓��Oct. <, 2008
W
e-mail
6_0_?;L 8W -F/ .A/ H 0 1-,; 1IM .1 oct. // , 2008
VIM
Print: "f�/69 /l� v i T/��� #,IL7-124' A" 457- 21q
Sign:�.e W
Print: C11 RL A601MM,501J
Sign:
Print: CCt4, L. e nib
Sign:
r
Print: �C5 6V-
Sign: ni Lr v. 2
W
e-mail
Oct. _/- 2008
e-mail
P
Oct. / i , 2008
e-mail
H Ls,n7,4-75 Oct. (` , 2008
W eel -mail
HU"• / %J t7ct., 2008
W e-mail
rvil.t, d,
Name Address Phone (H/W) Date/E-Mail
Print: L o,v rU v losro 1 g") SIN �l; It TY:V94 (051--1 let49 jbot. i 6 , 2008
Sign: G`PAJuL Ck.Ke..C-lvrlb,fth] W e-mail51s5car��cryv
ro 4 So `-l.'d, Camem ncst.
Print: C`�nP/��%O�Z�yN; F(ry6tl� H foSl^(o i`� �% Oct.J, 2008
qq�
Sign: J"�tlJrdi��3�. t' W e-mail C�xoat:
Print: z e� f t�/TGAt N Her`/ 7ef8-,7836oct..2( zoos
Sign: _ W / 63C ^66 7/ e-mail ► lavt°
e-ztW5 ICiteSevviol -Comic
Print: �i c-A-0 iNr(e rnb 41i 9ct. �c�2aos
Signs 1x ,�fXL9r�l2�
� W e-mail
Print: � L�•SJ3 20 3214- 0 'Tk. H 1 a13 ooyt. ZZ , 2008
Sier �/l�l W Q G+, CS 2'l�"-L
Print: �" �L%l.2 31L 5(Ak- 6� Oct. _, 2008
Sign: /� W
e-mail
Print:foZ�:_�C[i2 1�2 s � 1�/1/ I /^�.b <E2i - Oct. %/ , 2008
Sigtv%' %l�e�/ e-mail
Print: '/ Fb/2_ 5eS` _/V H 6S 1-77o-95l ! Oct. Z?L , /2008
Sign: jW e-mail 4Ci/�rlfS�.0
Print:�Jl0cwsca Sm /�`���®/�° H i�"�V%457Oct.,2008
Sign: Wku� L e-mail � as �•:
Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of
owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for.
City Clerk
City Council
Date: 3/17/09
Staff Update
Item:
ITEM: Update concerning the hiring of consultant to assist with the wireless
communications tower ordinance amendment project
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director P-
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council has previously asked to be kept up-to-date concerning the wireless communications
tower ordinance update project and specifically the progress made towards hiring a consultant to assist
the City with this project. Staff has taken a little more time than proposed under the work schedule to
formally seek out outside expertise, but during this additional time has been successful at making contact
with several potential firms to discuss Lake Elmo's current situation. These conversations have been very
informative for staff and will ultimately help with the selection process by identifying those firms that are
best suited to help the City draft a sound ordinance.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Staff has attached a list of the consulting firms that have been identified, which includes preliminary
comments regarding each firm based on the initial conversations that have been conducted. Also
attached is a copy of the request for services that has been distributed to the identified consultants.
Please note the response date of March 31, 2009 which would allow the Council to make a final selection
in time for the April 71h Council meeting.
Based on the research done to date, there are four firms on this list that clearly provide the range of
services and expertise being sought by the City. The remaining consultants focus much more specifically
on the installation, planning, and maintenance of wireless services facilities, and may not have as much
experience dealing with the legal and local government issues associated with wireless
telecommunication ordinances.
The Planning Commission will be discussing the wireless communications ordinance at its next regular
meeting on March 23 , and staff is currently planning for an open house either late in March or early April
to solicit community feedback concerning this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is required at this time. Staff will be seeking Council authorization to work with a consulting firm
at the April 7, 2009 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Listing of Wireless Communications Consultants
2. Request for Services
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction/Report............................................................ Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Questions from the Council ..................................................Mayor & Council Members
Potential Wireless Communication Consultants List
Lake Elmo Planning Department: 2/24/09; Updated 3/12109
Company
Contact
Notes
Kramer Telecom Law Firm
2001 S. Barrington Avenue
Suite 306
Jonathon Kramer
Attorney at Law
310-405-7333
Provided written inquiry regarding Lake
Elmo's request to hire an outside firm.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Kra mer(o)TelecomLaWFirm com
Experience as outside wireless siting
planner.
Training and experience as FCC -licensed
and APCO-certified RF engineer.
Submitted background sheet with
credentials and previous experience.
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Dan Zienty
Senior Professional Specialist
NACE #3186
Sent information concerning recent
assistance provided to the City of Eagan.
651-490-2160
dzientvg,sehinc.com
Analysis of lease application process and
master lease.
Site surveys and structural assessments.
GIS data management system.
Forwarded information on stealth tower
design.
Twin Cities Industrial Control
13005 16t" Avenue North
Suite 500
Craig Ross
Sales Manager
763-557-6648
Has performed installs of SCADA and
other wirelss public works equipment in
Lake Elmo.
Plymouth, MN 55441
craigCa)tcicinc com
Installation of communications equipment
and towers.
RF Engineers — no experience with code
development.
Steel in the Air
16001 Waterleaf Lane
Ken Schmidt
Attorney at Law
Has arrangement with CityScape — see
information below.
Fort Myers, FL 33908
877-428-6937
info aC)steelintheair com
Works primarily with private entities, will
typically refer public agencies to
CityScape.
Cell tower lease issues.
CityScape Consultants, Inc.
7040 W. Palmetto Park Rd.
Suite 4, PMB 652
Richard Edwards
Engineering Group Director
919-845-6700
Experience in both planning and RF
Engineering.
Boca Raton, FL 33433-3483
rickCa)citvscapeconsultants cam
Work only with government organizations,
set u to hel level the la in field for the
(cont.)
public. Act as a "referee" in dealing with
issues.
Offer master planning services to identify
potential tower sites.
Center for Municipal Solutions
70 Cambridge Road
Glenmount, NY 12077
Richard Comi
Co -Founder
518-439-3079
Assisted City of Lake Elmo with review of
T-mobile application.
dick .telecomsol com
Assist local governments with regulation
of wireless carriers.
Services are provided at no -cost to
community (requires contract to handle all
of the communities wireless issues)
Experience in cable and communications
fields.
Kreines & Kreines, Inc.
58 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
Ted Kreines
415-435-9214
mailno planwireless com
Helps local governments regulate
wireless and generate revenue from
wireless.
Experience with preparation and review of
wireless communications ordinances.
Specializes in helping communities find
alternatives to towers.
Places emphasis on submittal process
and making sure Cities are receiving
--adequate
information to make decisions.
Owl Engineeing & EMC Test Labs
5844 Hamline Avenue North
Shoreview, MN. 55126
Garrett G. Lysiak, P.E.
651-784-7445
Info owleng com
Communications Consulting Engineering
Firm specializing in Radio Licensing,
Intermodulation Studies, Radio Coverage
Predictions, Radio Field Measurements,
Antenna Tower Engineering, and EMC
Test Facility.
Installation, planning, and maintenance of
systems.
Limited experience in code development
and administration.
Smith and Fisher
2237 Tacketts Mille Drive
Suite A
Kevin Fisher
703-494-2101
kevin(ailsmithandfisher com
Specialization in working with broadcast
industry.
Lake Ridge, VA 22192
RF and interference studies, signal
propagation studies, population studies.
Used by the City of Shorview for larger
projects.
Evans Associates
Ralph E. Evans III
Design and implementation of wireless
210 S. Main Street
Founding Partner
networks.
Thiensville, WI 53092
262-242-6000
Ralphiii@evansassoc.com
Request for Services
Lake Elmo Wireless Communications Ordinance Update Project
Introduction and Background
The City of Lake Elmo is seeking technical assistance from qualified firms to help develop
revisions to the City's existing wireless communications tower ordinance.
The City of Lake Elmo current has an estimated population of 8,182 people and is located
approximately 10 miles east of St. Paul, Minnesota and within the greater Twin Cities
Metropolitan area. The City prides itself at maintaining its rural character and is nationally
known for its use of open space/conservation developments. The community is located
within a major metropolitan area, however, and abuts a major interstate highway corridor on
both its northern and southern boundaries.
The City's current wireless communications tower ordinance was written in 1998, shortly
after the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. Although the code was
drafted with the intent of minimizing adverse visual effects of wireless towers, it does require
that new towers be designed for co -location, and in essence, encourages bigger and taller
towers where allowed. The code also permits new towers on most agricultural and
residentially -zoned over ten acres in size, and does not provide any specific direction
concerning the City's preferred locations for new facilities.
Until this past year, the City of Lake Elmo has been fortunate to be able to locate new
wireless communications antennas on existing water towers in the community. However,
last summer, the City received an application from a telecommunications company to build
on a site in very close proximity to one of the City's prime natural parks and lakes. The City
Council ultimately denied the permit for this request, and adopted a moratorium on the
constriction of any new towers until the City completed a review and revisions to the existing
wireless telecommunications ordinance.
Finding a suitable balance between the provision of wireless services and the City's stated
desire to preserve its rural character will be a challenge. The City is different from many of
its neighbors due to the lack of urban development that could otherwise help camouflage
antenna sites. Although there are major highways that border the City to the north, south,
and west, these corridors are already well -served by existing towers. The City is
anticipating that future requests for wireless facilities will focus on serving residential areas
between the two major road corridors and in areas that could potentially impact residential
neighborhoods, parks, trails, open space, and other important view sheds.
Scope of Services
The primary responsibilities of a consultant will be to assist with the drafting of a new
ordinance by providing technical expertise regarding the implementation of wireless
communications networks on a community -wide scale and the appropriate tools that a City
can use to mitigate and reduce the impact of new facilities. The preferred firm will have a
strong knowledge of the wireless communications industry; will have had experience in the
design and siting of cellular sites; and should have a thorough understanding of the legal
requirements for drafting legislation at the local level.
The City Council has adopted a work plan (attached) for the project with an anticipated
completion date of July or August, 2009.
Some of the specific services that are being requested by the City of Lake Elmo include the
following:
• To identify the submittal requirements and technical details necessary for the City to
review a request for a wireless communications facility.
• To establish the appropriate type and amount of information (to be provided by
applicants) that is required to demonstrate the need for wireless services, especially
with regards to the size, location, and number of towers or other facilities needed in
Lake Elmo.
• To make sure that the City's regulations are supported by sound technical
knowledge regarding the operation of wireless technology.
• To transform the City's current ordinance from its current emphasis on towers to
promote alternatives for the provision of wireless facilities.
• To review and help draft language for a revision to the City's wireless
telecommunications tower ordinance, and to help ensure that this ordinance will
remain in compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
• To help the City identify the preferred location for new towers and other facilities
necessary to provide wireless services within the community and to evaluate the
various options that are available to provide these services.
• To identify opportunities for alternative designs and to draft provisions in a new
ordinance that will effectively minimize the adverse visual impacts of wireless
communications facilities.
• To analyze potential existing co -location sites for their suitability at meeting the
coverage and aesthetic needs of the community.
• To provide other recommendations that will help preserve and protect the
communities rural character from the visual effects of wireless communications
towers.
The City's Planning Department will be coordinating the update process and will be
completing specific tasks related to the project, including the following tasks:
Drafting ordinance changes based on input from pubic meetings and direction
provided by the Lake Elmo City Council and Planning Commission.
Reviewing model ordinances, including the work that has been done to date by the
St. Croix Valley Wireless Communication Service Group.
Coordinating the Planning Commission and City Council review of the proposed
ordinance amendments.
Proposal Criteria
Responses to this request for services must include, at a minimum, the following
information:
1) A transmittal letter that states the respondent's desire to perform the required
services.
2) A general information statement that provides a brief description of the candidate
firm or consulting team.
3) The specific experience of the consultants who would be assigned to the project.
Please provide a list of such individuals and their experience with similar work.
4) The firm's relevant project experience as it relates to the drafting of wireless
communication ordinance revisions or administration of such codes.
5) A list of references, including names of individuals and phone numbers or other
contact information as appropriate.
6) Estimated fees and expenses. If based on an hourly rate, provide the hourly rates to
be charged for each individual who would be assigned to this project. Also, provide
an explanation if fees will be calculated on any other basis.
7) Estimated time schedule for the project, which can be expressed in total elapsed
time and capacity to proceed immediately and without delay.
8) Expectation of information and resources to be provided by the City.
Evaluation of Qualifications:
Submittals will be reviewed and respondents will be evaluated according to the following
evaluation criteria:
• Experience of key staff on similar projects and knowledge of the technical issues
associated with the provision of wireless communications services.;
• Commitment of key staff for the project;
• Candidate firm or consulting team's ability to accomplish the proposed work in a
timely manner;
• Project approach, including public participation, organization, and management
Proposal Deadlines
Three (3) copies of your response must be received in the offices of the Lake Elmo
Planning Department by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2009. Proposals should be
mailed (email submissions will be accepted) or delivered to:
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Inquiries
Please direct all inquiries concerning this request for qualifications to:
Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
City Council
Date: 3/17/09
Regular
Item: VD
ITEM: Authorize Distribution of Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR
REQUESTED BY: Planning Department
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director L,L-1'
REVIEWED BY: Craig Dawson, Interim City Administrator
Ciara Schlichting, Bonestroo
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council is being asked to formally authorize distribution of the Lake Elmo Village Area
Final AUAR for the required 10-day public comment period for a Final AUAR. The Council has
previously conducted a workshop session to review the draft AUAR comments that have been
submitted to the City during the 30-day comment period along with a draft response to these
comments and proposed revisions to the AUAR document to address comments received. In
addition to the revisions proposed the City's planning consultant, the Council directed staff to
incorporate additional mitigation strategies that were discussed during the workshop session.
These changes are incorporated as part of the attached documents.
Once the Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR is distributed and the 10-day comment period
ends, the City Council can adopt the Final AUAR provided there are no objections filed by a state
agency or the Metropolitan Council.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
After reviewing the list of comments previously reviewed by the City Council, staff realized that a
response letter had been submitted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) that was not
included in the previous documentation provided to the City Council. The full text of the MAC
letter is now included with the other comments, and new responses to the issues raised in this
letter have also been incorporated into the Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR.
Proposed revisions to the Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR to address comments received
from the City Council and the public at the February 17, 2009 City Council workshop and a
comment letter received from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) are provided in the
attached memo from the City's planning consultant.
NEXT STEPS:
Once the Final AUAR document is adopted by the City, the Council may then begin the process
of identifying a preferred development scenario to implement. As part of this process, the Council
intends to study all or some of the development scenarios for financial feasibility. Amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan will be necessary to move forward with any scenario that differs from the
City's existing land use plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize distribution of the take Elmo Village Area Final
AUAR and distribute the document in accordance with the State of Minnesota's environmental
rules for the 10-day public comment period.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction/Report ...............................................
- Questions from the Council ..................................
- Questions/Comments from the public ...................
- Call for a Motion
(required for further discussion; does not
imply approval of the motion .................................
- Discussion ....................
.......... Clara Schlichting, Bonestroo
............. Mayor & Council Members
.............................. Mayor facilitates
.............
.......... Mayor facilitates
.......... Mayor facilitates
....................... Council
ATTACHMENTS:
1. See AUAR Workshop Materials (the Council Packet only includes those itmes
that have changed since the workshop).
2. Memo from Clara Schlichting to Kyle Klatt regarding additional comments
received and proposed revisions to the Final AUAR.
3. Comment Letter from Metropolitan Airports Commission
4. Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
5. Amended Pages from Lake Elmo Village Area AUAR
2
Memorandum
* Bonestroo
2335 Hlghway 36 W
To: Kyle Matt Project: Lake Elmo AUAR Date: 3/11/09 St. Paul, MN 55113
From: Clara Schlichting Client: City of Lake Elmo Tel 651-636-4600Fax651-636-1311
Re: Proposed Revisions to Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan File No: 38-06001 `" .bDmgmo.00m
The purpose of this memo is to transmit proposed revisions to the Lake Elmo Village
Area Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to address comments received
from the City Council and the public at the February 17, 2009 City Council workshop
and a comment letter received from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC),
dated December 22, 2008, that was discovered at City Hall by you on March 4, 2009.
City Council Workshop — February 17, 2009
The following new mitigation strategies are proposed to address comments received
at the Council workshop regarding green development principles and the preferred
character of Stillwater Blvd (TH 5):
11.14. Require the use of conservation development design and/or Low Impact
Development (LID) principles and encourage neighborhood development and
buildings to incorporate Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED)
principles.
21.11 Work to enhance the character of Stillwater Blvd. as a key community
roadway.
Metropolitan Airports Commission Comment Letter (Dated 12/22/08)
MAC submitted a comment letter during the 30-day public comment period and the
city is required to provide a response to their comments. Addressing MAC's comments
warranted several revisions/clarifications to the Final AUAR that was previously
transmitted to the City Council prior to the February 17, 2009 workshop. The following
attachments to this memo are an addendum to the Final AUAR materials transmitted
to the City Council in February and are outlined below:
• MAC Comment Letter (with comment response tracking system notations).
The responses to MAC's comments are found in comment responses 8-3, 9-6,
9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 17-21, 18-2, 21-11, and 21-12
• Appendix K — Draft Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR
Comments. Only the pages that contain responses to MAC's comments are
provided
• Proposed Revisions to Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan To address MAC's
comments, revisions are proposed to the Executive Summary, Table 8-1, Item
9 — Land Use, Item 17- Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff, and the
Mitigation Plan (Items 8, 9, 17, and 21). Only the pages that contain
revisions to address MAC's comments are provided.
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Minneapolis -Saint Paul International
r� 1 t 'g 6040 - 28th Avenue South Airport279
T Minneapolis, MN 55450.2799
'4 t e Phone (61.2) 726-8100
c m
m
' ^91gwOPta
December 22, 2008
Mr. Kyle Klatt
Planning Director
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laveme Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042-9629
Re: Old Village Draft AUAR
Lake Elmo Airport
Dear Mn Klatt:
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has reviewed the Lake Elmo Village Area AUAR
document dated November 13, 2008. We appreciate the
and offer the following comments. opportunity to review the document,
References to an Airport Zoning ordinance
The Executive Summary indicates that "AII scenarios propose to locate single family residential
uses within portions of the safety zones and noise contours/impact areas, which is typically
considered an incompatible use. Any future development proposed to s, located within the
safety zones and noise contour/impact areas will be subject to the development restrictions
within each safety zone (e.g. land use building height) and noise contours (e.g. land use
type) established by state statute and the city. To minimize land use compatibility issues with
p the airport, the city will work with a Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) to prepare an airport
zoning ordinance prior to new development occurring within or near the safety zones and
updated noise contours."
Portions of this text are repeated in some areas of the document, and slightly modified in others,
Including paragraph 7, paragraph 9 paragraph 24 and paragraph 29. Please ens
language. ure that all of
the text within the AUAR is consistent with the Executive Summary with regard to the JAZB
' ��
To be compliant with regional planning, it is paramount that the AUAR acknowledge the state
safety zone process and potential restrictions on land use and building. heights. Residential
development within noise sensitive areas of the airport is discouraged as well as within
incompatible areas of state safety zones. Further there should be no development within the
Runway 14-32 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) that lies within the AUAR area. Greenbelt
buffers should be used to the maximum extent possible to minimize Impacts resulting from
airport operations and noise.
The Metrppalifan AirPprts Cmnmisstan Is an of i"'afte ach" e'Plnyer.
ReBevar Airports: AIRLAKF .r\'VOKA COUNTY/BLAINEH�-�Nn. pairport'C
. CRYSTAL . FLYING CLOIID . LAKE ELMO . SANT PAUL DOWNTOWN
Mr. Kyle Klatt
December 22, 2008
Page 2
The AUAR correctly states that a Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) is responsible to determine
the size of the safety zones as well as the extent of land use and height restrictions. On page
ten ("x') of the Executive Summary is a comment.regarding the representatives who will make
up the JAZB. There are to be two representatives each from Lake Elmo, Baytown Township,
West Lakeland Township, and Washington County. MAC will also have two representatives as
well as a chairperson to be selected by all representatives. MAC also encourages the city to
develop their own ordinances regarding enhanced structural performance standards for
residential properties within the AUAR area to further reduce the potential for noise impacts.
Since the airport zoning process can take from 6 —18 months depending on the Issues and
efforts of the JAZB, MAC Is interested in commencing the process as soon as possible after the
first of the year.
Paragraph 8 Permits and Approvals Required
It should be noted in this section of the AUAR and on Table 8-1 that approvals from the FAA
may be required for certain construction related activities. Once completed, the airport zoning
ordinance should Identify parcels and document the allowable building heights for each.
0 However, please note that review by the FAA is required for any construction that involves
equipment or cranes in excess of the allowed heights, as well as for areas outside the safety
zones In proximity to the airport (all of the AUAR area). The City should ensure that the FAA is
properly notified via submittal of a Notice of Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1A) and a
"determination of no hazard" received before issuing permits for structures that require this type
of review. The form can be found and submitted on line at www.faa.gov,
Paragraph 9. Land Use
On page 15 of the draft AUAR, it refers to the airport as the Lake Elmo Regional Airport, Please
delete "Regional" from this title and any other airport references.
Under the Mitigation Summary on page 23, the last bullet states "Prohibit the establishment of
waterfowl habitat within the airport safety zones (e.g. large stormwater ponds with mown grass
edges). Stormwater management facilities located within the airport safety zones should utilize
Infiltration BMP's to manage storm water." MAC fully supports the use of infiltration basins In
the vicinity of the airport, and encourages all ponding areas to be designed to be non -attractive
to waterfowl. The FAA has developed guidelines for not only ponds, but other potential wildlife
attracting sources that fie within the vicinity of airports. FAA Advisory Circular 15015200-33B Is
attached to this fetter for your convenience. Note, however, that the prohibition of waterfowl
habitat should, not just be limited to the safety zones, According to the circular, the entire AUAR
area lies within the separation distance recommended by the FAA (5,000 feet for airports
serving piston -powered aircraft), Please also see our comments in the next paragraph.
Mr. Kyle Kiatt .
December 22, 2008
Page 3
Paragraph 17. Water Quality — Surface Water Runoff
The AUAR, page 73, discusses some of the proposed mitigation summary efforts that may take
place with the proposed development. Table 17-5 indicates pond surface footprints for the
differing scenarios. This equates to approximately seven acres for one pond and 25 acres for a
second pond. At these sizes, waterfowl will utilize the ponds if they contain open water
surfaces, As noted in the comments above, MAC encourages the use of infiltration basins for
storm water management, even for areas such as these that lie outside the proposed safety
zones, In lieu of infiltration, MAC suggests that any ponds that must contain open water be
designed with emergent vegetation to minimize use by waterfowl. As an alternative, the
suggestion In the AUAR to design the ponds as a continuous surface water conveyance system
along natural drainage routes would be an acceptable alternative, since long and narrow open
water passages will help restrict the use by waterfowl
Paragraph 18. Water Quality- Wastewater
As part of their review of the long term comprehensive plan update for the Lake Elmo Airport,
the Metropolitan Council recommended MAC continue efforts with the City of Lake Elmo and
Baytown Township to provide sanitary sewer and water services for the airport. While the
proposed alignment for the new sanitary trunk forcemain is not adjacent to the airport, MAC
v requests that it be -sized to handle the limited amount of flow that would come from the airport
should it be connected in some manner to the Village system. Atypical aircraft storage hangar
would only have a toilet and a sink, with usage just a couple of time a week. While we have
many aircraft storage hangars, we would certainly not expect all of them to connect should
services become available. MAC can estimate the airport contribution in terms of flow and
provide that to the city as part of the preliminary design work for the sanitary forcemain. Please
keep MAC in the loop regarding this process.
Paragreph 21. Traffic
This section indicates that the intersection of Manning Avenue and 30" Street will benefit from
traffic lights whether or not the Village development moves forward (Table 21-7 on page 105,
and table 2 in the executive summary). If the City or Washington County proceed with plans for
L \ the installation of a signal at this intersection, the plans must be reviewed by MAC and the FAA
prior to installation. The intersection lies in the approach to Runway 4, and the signals need to
be designed to not be an obstruction to this approach surface. A Notice of Construction or
Alteration form, as noted in our Paragraph 8 comment, must be submitted to the FAA, with a
copy to MAC, for a determination to ensure no hazard is created.
Also note that the reference to exclusive eastbound and westbound turn lanes implies a need
for additional road right-of-way. MAC needs to be fairly compensated for any right-of-way taking
consistent with federal revenue diversion criteria. If the granting of right-of-way is necessary,
and if feasible, the fair -market value for the property would have to be determined by appraisal.
Mr. Kyle Klatt
December 22, 2008
Page 4
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the AUAR document. The Lake Elmo Airport is an
important recreational and transportation asset to the City and the region. The MAC looks
forward to working with the City through the aliport zoning process to make future
redevelopment as compatible as possible.
We look forward to meeting with the City staff and Its consultants to discuss the concerns within
our letter as well as provide the City with additional information to help you with the planned
development of the Old Village area.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-8371 or via e-mail at
bridaet.riefOlmsomac.ora.
Sincerely,
1.14
Bridg Rief E.
Assistant Director — Airside Development
Attachment
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
8-1 Comment Summary: If a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Individual Permit is required
by the USACE for any development related activities, then an MPCA CWA Section 401 Water
Quality Certification must also be obtained.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Response: Comment noted. The list of permits and approvals (Table 8-1) has been amended to
reflect the potential need for the CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
8-2 Comment Summary: Lake St. Croix, a receiving water for runoff from the AUAR area, is
included on the 2008 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) list of impaired waters as
being impaired for aquatic recreation due to eutrophic conditions. Under the CWA, this impaired
status requires that a TMDL study and implementation plan for the lake be completed, and the
MPCA is currently working on a plan for doing this. Once an implementation plan is in place,
targeted for 2011, waste load allocations will be given out to permitted sources throughout the
watershed, including the city of Lake Ehno. With this in mind, the city should take all possible
measures during development to reduce or eliminate phosphorous and sediment loading to Lake
St. Croix. Steps should also be taken to minimize loading to wetlands and other lakes to prevent
them from being listed as impaired. It should also be noted that a Lake Pepin TMDL
implementation plan is currently in the process of being formulated, which could include a load
allocation for the city of Lake Elmo.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Response: The Lake St Croix TMDL is not scheduled to be completed until 2011 and the Lake
Pepin TMDL completion date has not been scheduled. Once the TMDL Implementation is
completed and approved for Lake St Croix and Lake Pepin, the City of Lake Elmo will have 18
months to update their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to incorporate the
findings of the TMDL and the methods for meeting the associated waste load allocation. New
development in the AUAR area will need to go through review and approval with the City in
compliance with their SWPPP.
The List of Permits and Approvals has been updated to include the TMDL implementation plan
requirements of the city as follows: "Future review and permitting pending US EPA approval of
Lake St Croix and Lake Pepin TMDL Implementation Plans".
8-3 Comment Summary: It should be noted in this section of the AUAR and on Table 8-1 that
approvals from the FAA may be required for certain construction related activities. Once
completed, the airport zoning ordinance should identify parcels and document the allowable
building heights for each. However, please note that review by the FAA is required for any
construction that involves equipment or cranes in excess of the allowed heights, as well as for
areas outside the safety zones in proximity to the airport (all of the AUAR area). The City should
ensure that the FAA is properly notified via submittal of a Notice of Construction or Alteration
(Form 7460-1A) and a "determination of no hazard" received before issuing permits for
structures that require this type of review. The form can be found and submitted on line at
www.faa.eov.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
K-3
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
Response: The list of permits and approvals required has been amended to reflect the potential
need for FAA permits.
9-1 Comment Summary: Keep low level buildings and rural aesthetics top of mind, with trees and
store fronts capturing an era that is all but lost if not for memories. Ensure that current land
owners and business' are dealt with fairly and equitably. Keep peoples opinions high on the list,
where they make sense.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Richard Mathus
Response: The Village Master Plan includes thirteen principles, which is intended to build on
the existing Village's strengths. These principles were accepted by the City Council in April
2007. The thirteen principles summarized are: 1) provoke a sense of place, 2) balance the natural
and built systems, 3) broaden the mix of local goods and services, 4) provide a variety of housing
choices, 5) invest in quality public space, 6) preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources,
7) improve connectivity, 8) build partnerships, 9) foster public safety, 10) forward a vision that
can be implemented, 11) become a great model,'12) lead by design, and 13) minimize the impact
on existing residences and businesses. The complete text of the land use principles is located in
Appendix C.
It has been the intent of the planning process and it remains critical that the city follow the
Village Master Plan principles when it prepares the Comprehensive Plan update and creates its
official controls through zoning, subdivision and other regulations. Examples include adopting
building setbacks, screening, landscaping, buffers, heights limits, architectural controls and
design.
9-2 Comment Summary: The Screatons object to any extension of Zone 4 beyond the 60 DNL
contour. If the City were to extend Zone 4 out to the 55 DNL contour, the development options
on the Property should include what is allowed under existing MAC guidelines, including
multifamily residential development, office and commercial uses, as well as educational, medical
and other institutional uses. A mix of uses is most appropriate at the Property, as it is located at
the junction of two (2) major City thoroughfares. Mixed -use development on the Property would
be easily accessible to residents and visitors and would limit additional infrastructure needs.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Screatons
Response: The city and affected local units of government will work with the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) to prepare an airport zoning ordinance prior to new development
occurring within or near the safety zones and updated noise contours. According to MAC, the
airport ordinance will be prepared by a Joint Zoning Board comprised of two representatives each
from Lake Elmo, Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township, Washington County, and MAC.
The Joint Zoning Board will determine the development restrictions.
9-3 Comment Summary: The AUAR notes the 2025 Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP)
Update for the Lake Elmo Airport by identifying it as a reasonably foreseen future action. The
AUAR needs to reflect that the Metropolitan Council, on October 22, 2008, approved the LTCP.
The approved LTCP included the development alternative preferred by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission as addressed in the AUAR.
K-4
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Met Council
Response: The Final AUAR has been updated to note that the Metropolitan Council, on October
22, 2008, approved the LTCP.
9-4 Comment Summary: p.22, land use compatibility: No mention is made of the fact that lower
total development units will mean lower population and hence lower impacts of all kinds: traffic,
noise, congestion, impervious surface, etc. p. 143, land use: Clearly, the AUAR shows that the
scenarios with lower total population increase have the lower impacts. This is especially true of
impacts on existing residents. This is also especially true of the noise impacts (Item 24)
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Todd Williams
Response: Quantifiable impacts associated with the four development scenarios are described
throughout the AUAR document (i.e, traffic, impervious surface, water use, etc.).
9-5 Comment Summary: The draft AUAR identifies several properties within or near the AUAR
study area with actual or potential soil and/or ground water contamination. State law requires that
persons properly manage contaminated soil and water they uncover or disturb — even if they are
not the party responsible for the contamination. Developers considering construction on or near
contaminated properties should begin working early in their planning process with the MPCA's
Petroleum Brownsfields Program and/or the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program to
receive necessary technical assistance in managing (investigating, remediating, mitigating, etc.)
contamination. For some properties, special construction might be needed to prevent the further
spreading of the contamination and/or prevent petroleum vapors from entering buildings or utility
corridors. Information regarding the Petroleum Brownfields Program can be found at:
htip://Www.pca.state.mn.us/l)ropram,R/Nlpic 1)html#factsheets. Information regarding the VIC
Program can be found at: htti)://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleallul)/vic.litml.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MPCA
Response: Comment noted. The information provided by the MPCA has been added to the
Potential Environmental Hazards section of AUAR Item 9.
9-6 Comment Summary: The Executive Summary indicates that "All scenarios propose to locate
single-family residential uses within portions of the safety zones and noise contours/impact areas,
which is typically considered an incompatible use. Any future development proposed to be
located within the safety zones and noise contour/impact areas will be subject to the development
restrictions within each safety zone (e.g. land use type, building height) and noise contours (e.g.
land use type) established by state statute and the city. To minimize land use compatibility
issues with the airport, the city will work with a Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) to prepare an
airport zoning ordinance prior to new development occurring within or near the safety zones and
updated noise contours."
Portions of this text are repeated in some areas of the document, and slightly modified in others.
Please ensure that all of the text within the AUAR is consistent with the Executive Summary with
regard to the JAZB language.
The AUAR correctly states that a Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) is responsible to determine
the size of the safety zones as well as the extent of land use and height restrictions. MAC will
also have two representatives as well as a chairperson to be selected by all representatives. MAC
K-5
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
also encourages the city to develop their own ordinances regarding enhanced structural
performance standards for residential properties within the AUAR area to further reduce the
potential for noise impacts.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: The language regarding the JAZB in AUAR Items 7, 9, 24, and 29 have been
reviewed and updated, as necessary, to be consistent with the language in the Executive
Summary. New Mitigation Strategy 9.6 requires the city to develop an ordinance regarding
structural performance standards for residential properties to reduce the potential for noise
impacts.
9-7 Comment Summary: To be compliant with regional planning, it is paramount that the AUAR
acknowledge the state safety zone process and potential restrictions on land use and building
heights. Residential development within noise sensitive areas of the airport is discouraged as
well as within incompatible areas of state safety zones. Further there should be no development
within the Runway 14-32 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) that lies within the AUAR area.
Greenbelt buffers should be used to the maximum extent possible to minimize impacts resulting
from airport operations and noise
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: Item 9 has been updated to include the runway safety zone and associated land use
restriction information contained in the Lake Elmo Airport Long -Tenn Comprehensive Plan. The
RPZ's and safety zones are shown on Figures 9-1, 9-2, and 27-1. Figures 9-3 and 9-4 that were
included in the Draft AUAR were obtained from MAC and show the existing and proposed
height restrictions.. New Mitigation Strategy 9.5 prohibits development within the Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ).
9-8 Comment Summary: On page 15 of the draft AUAR, it refers to the airport as the Lake Elmo
Regional Airport. Please delete "Regional" from this title and any other airport references
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: The reference to Lake Elmo Regional Airport was changed to Lake Elmo Airport
9-9 Comment Summary: Under the Mitigation Summary on page 23, the last bullet states "Prohibit
the establishment of waterfowl habitat within the airport safety zones (e.g. large stormwater
ponds with mown grass edges). Stormwater management facilities located within the airport
safety zones should utilize infiltration BMP's to manage storm water." MAC fully supports the
use of infiltration basins in the vicinity of the airport, and encourages all ponding areas to be
designed to be non -attractive to waterfowl. The FAA has developed guidelines for not only
ponds, but other potential wildlife attracting sources that lie within the vicinity of airports. FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B is attached to this letter for your convenience. Note, however,
that the prohibition of waterfowl habitat should not just be limited to the safety zones. According
to the circular, the entire AUAR area lies within the separation distance recommended by the
FAA (5,000 feet for airports serving piston -powered aircraft). .
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
K-6
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
Response: Mitigation Strategy 9.7 was revised to address this comment and now states: Prohibit
the establishment of waterfowl habitat located within the airport safety zones and within 5,000
feet of the Lake Elmo Airport (e.g., large stormwater ponds with mown grass edges). Any ponds
or created wetlands that contain open water should be designed with emergent vegetation to
minimize use by waterfowl. Stormwater managementfacilities located within the airport safety
zones should utilize infiltration BMPs to manage stormwater. The discussion of mitigation
strategies under Item 9 was revised to reference the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B and to
commit the city to consulting with MAC prior to approving activities that could result in
establishing wildlife habitat considered hazardous to airports.
11-1 Comment Summary: A more detailed evaluation/interpretation of the quality of the woodland
area may prove useful when evaluating habitat impacts of proposed development(s). Recognition
that the minimization of impacts to forests and other natural cover types will reduce overall
stormwater impacts is encouraged.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: WCD
Response: Mitigation Strategy 11.13 — "Create a tree/woodland preservation policy" has been
expanded to require the evaluation of tree/woodland quality. The discussion of the mitigation
strategies has been expanded to note that ecological restoration and management can minimize
stormwater impacts.
11-2 Comment Summary: For natural areas that are protected, identification of management and
funding strategies to facilitate mitigation strategies such as invasive species control is
encouraged.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: WCD
Response: The discussion of such mitigation strategies includes the requirement for a
management plan, stewardship funding, and ecological education programs. The phase "funding
source" has been added to the discussion of implementing such mitigation measures.
ITEM12.PHYS]CALIn7t'ACTSTo'1N'ATERRESOURCES,
12-1 Comment Summary: The WCD encourages the use of the VBWD's wetland inventory with
function and value assessment to assess and minimize potential wetland impacts.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: WCD
Response: VBWD is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) on behalf of the city. The city appreciates the assessment completed by
VBWD and VBWD rules require the use of their classification system (VBWD Rule 4).
12-2 Comment Summary: The AUAR should be revised to more clearly indicate where potential
wetland impacts are expected. A figure or figures showing the expected impacts should be
included in the AUAR. Potential hydrologic, habitat/biological diversity, quality and quantity
wetland impacts should be noted.
K-7
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
17-21 Comment Summary: The AUAR, page 73, discusses some of the proposed mitigation summary
efforts that may take place with the proposed development. Table 17-5 indicates pond surface
footprints for the differing scenarios. This equates to approximately seven acres for one pond and
25 acres for a second pond. At these sizes, waterfowl will utilize the ponds if they contain open
water surfaces. As noted in the comments above, MAC encourages the use of infiltration basins
for storm water management, even for areas such as these that lie outside the proposed safety
zones. In lieu of infiltration, MAC suggests that any ponds that must contain open water be
designed with emergent vegetation to minimize use by waterfowl. As an alternative, the
suggestion in the AUAR to design the ponds as a continuous surface water conveyance system
along natural drainage routes would be an acceptable alternative, since long and narrow open
water passages will help restrict the use by waterfowl.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: The follow text was added to Item 9 and Mitigation Strategy 9.7 and 17.3: Any ponds
or created wetlands that contain open water should be designed with emergent vegetation to
minimize use by waterfowl.
18-1 Comment Summary: The discussion in the draft AUAR regarding wastewater appeared to
adequately address the main issues, and flow estimates based on land use seem reasonable.
However, it was unclear to us in our review of the document whether downstream sewer lines
have adequate capacity for this development. In the final AUAR, please include a discussion of
this for each development scenario. Include any necessary discussion of plans for expansion or
addition of downstream capacity.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MPCA
Response: The municipal sanitary sewer system downstream of the AUAR area is not yet
constructed. From Section 18: The city has been exploring the potential schematic layout of the
major sanitary sewer facilities required to extend sewer service into the AUAR area. Current
plants calls for a trunk sewer from the I-94 interceptor to 30 Street on the south end of the
Village. The trunk sewer is proposed to follow Lake Elmo Avenue. It will be a forcemain sewer
to 30`h Street with gravity sewer serving properties within the AUAR area, see Figure 18-1. A
major lift station would be located near 30`h Street. The lift station is being designed to
accommodate the projected initial lowflow conditions and to allowfor staged expansion based
on the future growth.
From Section 18: The planned expansion of the city sewer system is based on MCESproviding
additional capacity to serve the anticipated development by construction ofa new interceptor in
northeast Woodbury, called the Lake Elmo East Interceptor. This interceptor has been designed
and is currently under construction. The Northeast Regional lift station number 77 (Northeast
Regional IS-77) that the interceptor will connect to is currently in the early stages ofdesign. The
capacity of the Lake Elmo East Interceptor is 2.7 million gallons per day (MGD) design flow with
a peaking factor of 2.7 results in a peak flow of 7.3 million gallons per day
The mitigation plan notes that the future sanitary sewer trunk system will need to be sized
adequately to accommodate the flow from development in the AUAR area. The range of
predicted flow is summarized in Item 18 of the AUAR
K-19
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
18-2 Comment Summary: As part of their review of the long term comprehensive plan update for
the Lake Elmo Airport, the Metropolitan Council recommended MAC continue efforts with the
City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township to provide sanitary sewer and water services for the
airport. While the proposed alignment for the new sanitary trunk forcemain is not adjacent to the
airport, MAC requests that it be sized to handle the limited amount of flow that would come from
the airport should it be connected in some manner to the Village system. A typical aircraft
storage hangar would only have a toilet and a sink, with usage just a couple of times a week.
While we have many aircraft storage hangers, we would certainly not expect all of them to
connect should services become available. MAC can estimate the airport contribution in terms of
flow and provide that to the city as part of the preliminary design work for the sanitary foreemain.
Please keep MAC in the loop regarding this process.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: The city will continue to work with MAC regarding future wastewater and water
services. Please provide the city with MAC's estimate wastewater flows so the city can
incorporate this information into its future infrastructure planning efforts.
21-1 Comment Summary: All previous traffic comments have been addressed. The Lake Elmo
document appears to adequately address land use, environmental concerns including groundwater
issues, and addresses potential conflicts with the Lake Ehno Airport,
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Washington County
Response: Comments noted.
21-2 Comment Summary: Regional Impacts of Traffic. The AUAR addresses traffic impacts and
mitigation on page 88, Item 21 of the AUAR states that the "analysis must discuss the project's
impact on the regional transportation system." The AUAR did not address whether traffic
impacts would extend to I-694, I-94, and TH 36, which are principal arterials on the regional
highway system. It is possible that there will be no discernible impacts on these highways
resulting from the development of the Village Area, but the AUAR needs to determine whether
this is the case.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Met Council
Response: The Village development will have minimal impacts on the regional transportation
system. It is expected that the Village development would increase the average daily traffic
(ADT) on I-694, I-94, and TH 36 by between 1.2% and 3%. Chapter V Section B of the Traffic
Analysis (Appendix E) has been updated to address this comment.
K-20
DRAFT Appendix K: Response to Lake Elmo Village Area Draft AUAR Comments
interstate system with a major intersection at the north end of CSAH 17, less than 2 miles from
the AUAR designated area.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: Steve DeLapp
Response: Traffic patterns will continue to evolve as modifications to the existing transportation
system are implemented. The AUAR needs to be updated every five years and the evolution of
traffic patterns and transportation system improvements will be captured in future updates to this
traffic impact analysis. The Village development will have minimal impacts on the regional
transportation system. It is expected that the Village development would increase the average
daily traffic (ADT) on I-694, I-94, and TH 36 by between 1.2% and 3%.
21-11 Comment Summary: This section indicates that the intersection of Manning Avenue and 30'
Street will benefit from traffic lights whether or not the Village development moves forward
(Table 21-7 on page 105, and Table 2 in the executive summary). If the City or Washington
County proceed with plans for the installation of a signal at this intersection, the plans must be
reviewed by MAC and the FAA prior to installation, The intersection lies in the approach to
Runway 4, and the signals need to be designed to not be an obstruction to this approach surface.
A Notice of Construction or Alteration form, as noted in our Paragraph 8 comment, must be
submitted to the FAA, with a copy to MAC, for a determination to ensure no hazard is created.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: A Notice of Construction or Alteration form will be submitted to the FAA, with a
copy to MAC, if signals are proposed for the intersection of Manning Avenue and 30t' Street,
This permit was added to the list of permits and the discussion of mitigation under Item 21 notes
these requirements
21-12 Comment Summary: Also note that the reference to exclusive eastbound and westbound turn
lanes implies a need for additional road right-of-way. MAC needs to be fairly compensated for
any right-of-way taking consistent with federal revenue diversion criteria. If the granting of
right-of-way is necessary, and if feasible, the fair -market value for the property would have to be
determined by appraisal.
Agencies/Persons Commenting: MAC
Response: Additional ROW may be needed. If additional ROW is needed, the County and City
will need to determine the fair market value of the property.
24-1 Comment Summary: According to the AUAR, during more than 10% of the peak hour time,
the traffic noise, 100 feet from Manning Ave is at or above 65 dBA. The AUAR also states that
65 dBA, or higher, is the noise level within 50 feet of the railroad tracks. The noise level of a
normal conversation from 3 feet away is 60 dBA, so that a normal conversation could not be
carried out within 100 feet of the centerline of Manning or 50 feet of the tracks. Anyone with any
experience near the tracks in Lake Elmo, knows that the noise levels are far higher than stated in
the AUAR. I would also add this article from htip://www.telcuanh.co uk/news/] 967803/Noise-
Pollution-map-warns-of-health-risks html.
K-23
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009
Elmo Avenue. It will be a forcemain sewer to 30a' Street with gravity sewer serving properties within the
AUAR area, see Figure 18-1. A major lift station would be located near 30a' Street. The lift station is
being designed to accommodate the projected initial low flow conditions and to allow for staged
expansion based on the future growth.
The planned expansion of the city sewer system is based on Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) providing additional capacity to serve the anticipated development by construction of a
new interceptor in northeast Woodbury, called the Lake Elmo East Interceptor. This interceptor has been
designed and is currently under construction. The Northeast Regional lift station number 77 (Northeast
Regional LS-77) that the interceptor will connect to is currently in the early stages of design. Sanitary
flow from the AUAR area will discharge to the MCES Lake Ehno East interceptor, which will then
discharge to the Northeast Regional LS-77.
The capacity of the Lake Elmo East Interceptor is 2.7 million gallons per day (MGD) design flow with a
peaking factor of 2.7 results in a peak flow of 7.3 million gallons per day. Anticipated flows from Lake
Elmo are being considered in the planning and design of the MCES facilities. Based on the estimated
flow from existing development (0.112 MGD, or 412 RECs) and the four development scenarios (ranging
from 0.206 MGD, or 755 RECs, for Scenario A to 0.479 MGD, or 1,755 RECs, for Scenario C), the
facilities will have adequate capacity to serve Lake Elmo. The proposed major lift station and future trunk
sanitary sewer lines will need to be sized to accommodate the flow from existing and future development
in the AUAR area.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY —LAKE ELMo AIRPORT
The Lake Elmo Airport is located adjacent to the AUAR area and portions of its safety zones and noise
contours/impact areas are located within the AUAR area. All scenarios propose to locate the
greenbelt/buffer alongside TH 15, which provides a buffer from future development in the AUAR area to
the airport. All scenarios also propose to locate single family residential uses within portions of the safety
zones and noise contours/impact areas, which is typically considered an incompatible land use. Land use
compatibility with airports is addressed in the Metropolitan Council's land use compatibility guidelines
for aircraft noise and state airport safety zone regulations. Any future development proposed to be
located within the safety zones and noise contours/impact areas will be subject to the development
restrictions within each safety zone (e.g., land use type, building height) and noise contours (e.g., land use
type) established by state statute and the city. To minimize land use compatibility issues with the airport,
the city will work with a Joint Airport Zoning Board JAZB to prepare an airport zoning ordinance prior
to new development occurring within or near the safety zones and updated noise contours. According to
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the JcAZ,oning-Beard will be comprised of two
representatives each from the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Baytown and West Lakeland
Townships, and MAC. The JAZB will determine the future safety zones; therefore the draft safety zones
displayed on figures in this AUAR may change
The location of stormwater management features that attract waterfowl should be discouraged within the
safety zones as waterfowl pose a safety hazard to aircraft. Large stormwater ponds or created wetlands
with mowed grass buffers provide optimal habitat for waterfowl and should not be located within or near
the safety zones or within 5,000 feet of the airport. The city should consult with MAC rceardin > wildlife
habitat protection, creation or restoration in the AUAR area to minimizeyotentially hazardous wildlife
attractants. The majority of the soils within the safety zones are appropriate for stormwater infiltration
best management practices (BMPs) that are more appropriate stormwater management strategies than
large regional ponds within the airport zones.
Eta
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009 Page 10
8. Permits and Approvals Required: List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals,
and financial assistance for the project, Include modifications of any existing permits,
governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial
assistance, including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of
these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been
completed. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3100.
WAE:Mffiaes: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments
and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by
the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each development scenario. This
list will help orient reviewers to the regulatory framework that will protect environmental resources,
The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the
mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR.
MAJOR PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Major permits and approvals likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects are
listed in Table 8-1. Depending on the type of project, the applicant for each permit or approval will vary -
applicants may be developers, property owners, or the city. For example, a municipality is required to
apply for and obtain the Sewer Permit to Connect from the Metropolitan Council for connection to a
Metropolitan Council interceptor and the regional system. Connections needed by developers and
homeowners would be covered under the permit received by the municipality and would not need an
additional permit from the Metropolitan Council to connect.
On the other hand, the Sewer Extension Permit from the MPCA must be applied for and obtained by the
municipality for connection to the regional sanitary system (interceptor), and also by developers and
homeowners for connection to the municipal system. Additional information is provided in Item 18
regarding sanitary sewer permits.
Table 8-1
Mainr Permits and Annrnonls
Unit of Government
Type of Application
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
Letter of No Wetland Jurisdiction
Federal Aviation Administration
-
Notice of Construction Alternation (Form 7460-1 A) and determination of no hazard
for construction in excess of allowed heights in the forthcoming airport ordinance
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit/General
Stormwater Construction Permit
Sewer Extension Permit -
M8 4 permit amendment, if needed
CWA Section 401 Water Duality Certification -
rmure review and permitting pending US EPA approval of Lake 4t Croix and Lake
Pepin TMDI Implementation Plans
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Permit for work in State Highway right-of-way, if proposed
Right-of-way access permit, if proposed
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Water Appropriation Permit for new municipal well, if needed
Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for construction dewatering
Public Waters Work Permit (for work within a DNR Public Water)
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009 Page 14
update and creates its official controls through zoning, subdivision and other regulations to ensure land
use compatibility. Examples include adopting building setbacks, screening, landscaping, light pollution,
buffers, heights limits, architectural controls and design.
The thirteen principles summarized are: 1) provoke a sense of place, 2) balance the natural and built
systems, 3) broaden the mix of local goods and services, 4) provide a variety of housing choices, 5) invest
in quality public space, 6) preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources, 7) improve connectivity,
8) build partnerships, 9) foster public safety, 10) forward a vision that can be implemented, 11) become a
great model, 12) lead by design, and 13) minimize the impact on existing residences and businesses. The
complete text of the land use principles is located in Appendix C.
EXISTING LAND USE — SURROUNDING AREAS
Southwest of the AUAR area is the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. To the south of the AUAR area is
a neighborhood consisting of mainly single-family homes. To the northeast of the AUAR area is a gas
station, a single commercial property. East of the AUAR area is the Lake Elmo Airport and the
Washington County Fairgrounds, which are located in Baytown Township. The rest of the AUAR area is
bounded by agricultural and large -lot residential uses. To the north of the AUAR area are Little Bluestein
and Fields of St. Croix neighborhoods.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY — SURROUNDING AREAS
Existing Residential Development
The edge of the Village is a green buffer in all four development scenarios. The buffer is intended to
capture the development patterns that are established in the existing conservation developments and to
maintain the character of the community with the additional development. It will also create some
continuity between the Village area that is newly developed and the surrounding conservation, larger lot
and agricultural uses on the edge of the Village. Specific details related to the design (length, width,
location, character/purpose (land use buffer, land use screen, environmentally sensitive area conservation,
stormwater management, etc.)habitat (type of wildlife habitat being conserved or restored), and the land
use mechanisms for reserving the green belt buffer will continue to be addressed as the Village
development process continues. This AUAR proposes many recommendations regarding the greenbelt
buffer. The area will be officially addressed as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan Update.
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve
All scenarios propose to locate the greenbelt/buffer adjacent to the Regional Park Reserve. No land use
compatibility issues are anticipated.
Lake Elmo Airport
The Lake Elmo Airport is located adjacent to the AUAR area and portions of its safety zones (see Figure
9-1) and noise contours/impact areas (see Figure 24-1) are located within the AUAR area. All scenarios
propose to locate the greenbelt/buffer alongside TH 15, which provides a buffer from future development
in the AUAR area to the airport. Scenarios A, B, and C propose to locate residential uses and open space
within the safety zones and noise contours/impact areas. The majority of the land within the safety zones
and noise contours/impact areas is guided greenbelt in Scenario D and only a small portion of safety zone
B includes residential uses. No development will be allowed within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
The State of Minnesota Department of Tran5Dortation (Mil/DOT) has established regulations that control
the type of development allowed off runway ends in order to prevent incompatible development These
guidelines should be used to establish zoning ordinances to protect areas around an airport The states
zoning areas overlay and extend beyond the RPZs which are defined by FAA The most restrictive areas
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009 Page 15
created by Mn/DOT regulatious are called State Safety Zones A and B The recommended safety zones
should exist off each runway end and follow the approach zones out to the total length of the respective
runway. The length of Safety Zone A is 2/3 of the total runway length; Safety Zone B is 1/3 of (lie total
runway length and extends from Safety Zone A There is also an area called Safety Zone C which is
circular and typically follows the FAAs FAR Part 77 horizontal surface
Safety Zone A does not allow any buildings or temporary structures places of public assembly or
transmission lines. Permitted uses include agriculture livestock cemeteries and auto parking areas
Safety Zone B does not allow places of public or semipublic assembly (i.e. churches hospitals schools)
andis subject to site -to -building area ratios and site population limits Permitted uses are generally the
same as Lone A, plus some low -density developments
Safety Zone C does not allow use that causes interference with radio or electronic facilities on the ahpor
or interference with radio or electronic communications between the airport and aircraft lighting that
makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport Bights and other lights or that results in lace in
pilot's eves, and lighting that impairs visibility in the airo�
A complete description and copy of the Minnesota Rules Chapter 8800 Department of Transportation
Land use compatibility with airports is addressed in the Metropolitan Council's land use compatibility
guidelines for aircraft noise and state airport safety zone regulations. It is noted that information
regarding airport noise and land use compatibility is further discussed in response to AUAR Item 24 —
Noise.
The safety zones defined by Mn/DOT are shown on Fi€nires 9-1 and 9 2 The existing and propose
height restrictions are shown on Figmes 9-3 and 9-4 Any future development proposed to be located
within the safety zones and noise contours/impact areas will be subject to the development restrictions
within each safety zone (e.g., land use type, building/structure height) and noise contours (e.g., land use
type, structural requirements for minimizing noise impacts) established by state statute and the city.
To minimize land use com atp ibility issues with the airport Tth'e city will work with a Joint Airport
Zoning Boan I I ' to prepare an airport zoning
ordinance prior to new development occurring within or near the safety zones and updated noise contours.
According to MAC, dief Je tt�A7iir g Board will be comprised
of two representatives each from Lake Elmo, Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township, Washington
County, and MAC. The JAZB will determine the future safety zones; therefore the draft safety zones
displayed on fi gores m this AUAR may change
The Lake Ehno Ri�giexai-Airport is included in the MAC Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
expansion of a runway. The runway expansion does not impact the safety zones or height restrictions
within the Village AUAR area. However, the safety zones may change based on the ordinance prepared
by and adopted by the Joint Airport Zoning Board. The existing and proposed height restrictions
associated with the Lake Elmo Airport are shown on Figures 9-3 and 9-4.
According to the FAA Tthe location of stornwater management features that attract waterfowl should be
discouraged within the safety zones and within 5,000 feet of the Lake Elmo Airport as waterfowl pose a
safety hazard to aircraft. Large stormwater ponds with mowed grass buffers provide optimal habitat for
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009 Page 16
waterfowl and should not be located within or near the safety zones. The majority of the soils within the
safety zones are appropriate for stormwater infiltration best management practices (BMPs) that are more
appropriate stormwater management strategies than large regional ponds within the airport zones. The
area to minimize potentially hazardous wildlife attractants For example any ponds or created wetlands
within the AUAR area should be designed to be non -attractive to waterfowl and designed with emergent
vegetation to minimize use by waterfowl
PIPELINES
A 24-inch Northern Natural Gas pipeline traverses the AUAR area north -south approximately a quarter
mile west of the eastern boundary of the AUAR area (see Figure 9-1). Outside of the AUAR area and just
south of 50 Street North an 8-inch gas line branches off and heads east towards the southern end of
Bayport. (Source: Protected Waters and Wetlands Map for Washington County, Sheet 1 of 2.1985. MN DNR Division of
Waters. )
A Northern Natural Gas utility station is located within the AUAR area south of the railroad line.
Northern Natural Gas is proposing to extend a new natural gas pipeline through the AUAR area along the
same route as the existing pipeline. The project is part of a larger project called the Northern Lights
Expansion Project. The phase that is proposed for construction in Washington County (including Lake
Elmo) is called the Riverside C-Line Extension and is part of the Northern Lights 2009-2010 Zone EF
Expansion. Construction of the project is planned to start May 2009 and is anticipated to be in service
November 1, 2009.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Information received from Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated (EDR) June 18, 2007 was used
to assess the presence of potential environmental hazards such as .registered underground and
aboveground storage tanks (USTs and ASTs), hazardous waste generators currently existing within the
AUAR area, and the occurrence of past spills or releases. The EDR report identified several sites of
potential concern within and near the AUAR area (see Figure 9-2):
• 5 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites (4 of these have been issued closure by the
MPCA)
• 1 leaking aboveground storage tank (LAST) site (closure was issued by the MPCA)
• 2 spill sites (information regarding closure not provided)
• 1 VIC site (investigation in progress)
• 1 SHWS site (remediation and monitoring in progress)
• 10 underground storage tank (UST) sites
• 2 aboveground storage tank (AST) sites
• 1 clandestine drug lab (CDL) site
• 2 sites that are required to submit a chemical inventory report (Tier 2)
• 1 permitted air facility (AIRS)
• 14 small quantity hazardous waste generator (SQG) sites
Of these sites, the LUST, LAST, Spill, VIC and SHWS sites are sites where a release of petroleum
product or other chemical substance is documented to have occurred; these sites are summarized in the
Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Four of the LUST sites and the LAST site have been issued closure by the MPCA.
The MPCA issues closure to sites it determines no longer present a threat to human health or the
environment.
Descriptions of the databases in which properties within or near the AUAR area are identified are
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009 Page 24
MITIGATION SUMMARY
Land Use Compatibility: Mitigation to address compatibility among different land uses of will consist of:
Follow the Village Master Plan guiding principles that address potential land use compatibility
issues between the existing Village residences and business and the new development or
redevelopment opportunities supported by the Master Plan composite land use map. Specific
examples of mitigation opportunities include establishing requirements for: building setbacks,
screening, landscaping, light pollution, buffers, height, architectural controls, and design. These
principles should continue to be followed as Village development planning continues (e.g.,
Comprehensive Plan, zoning, site plan requirements, design standards, etc.)
Buffers consisting of beans and/or trees and shrubs will be established to shield residential and
rural areas from more intensive land uses of commercial retail, office, institutional, and airport
properties and between different types of residential uses (e.g., single family, townhomes, and
condos).
• Compliance with lighting ordinances will be enforced to minimize conflicts between land uses.
Prepare an airport zoning ordinance prior to new development occurring within the vicinity of the
safety zones and noise contours/impact areas:-Aee *�,�', This airport ordinance will be
prepared by a Joint Airport Zoning Board comprised of two representatives from Lake Elmo,
Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township, Washington County, and MAC. Follow these
land use restrictions for the airport safety zones and noise contours established by the Joint
AirGiort Zoning Board for development proposed to be located within the safety zones and noise
contours. The JAZB will determine the future safety zones; therefore the draft safety zones
displayed on figjmes in this AUAR may change Additional information regarding noise impacts
is presented in AUAR Item 24 — Odors, Noise, and Dust.
Prohibit the establishment of waterfowl habitat located within the airport safety zones and within
5,000 feet of the Lake Elmo Airport (e.g., large stormwater ponds with mown grass edges). The
FAA has developed guidelines for potential wildlife attracting sources that lie within the vicinity
of airports. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B is on file at City Hall The city will consult
with MAC and will refer to the FAA guidelines prior to activities that could result in establishing
wildlife habitat considered hazardous to airports For example any ponds or created wetlands that
contain open water should be designed with emergent vegetation to minimizc use by waterfowl
Stormwater management facilities located within the airport safety zones should utilize
infiltration BMPs to manage stormwater.
Potential Environmental Hazards: The potential presence of environmental hazards due to past site use
will be revisited prior to development activities. At the time specific development is proposed, a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) and possibly follow-up subsurface investigation may be
warranted to determine if contamination is present.
A Phase I ESA is a study completed to find out if the potential for contamination exists at a particular
property. The study uses reasonably ascertainable data to identify hazardous substances or petroleum
products at a property which may indicate a recent release, past release, or a material threat of a release in
structures at the property, or into the soil, ground or surface water at the property. A Phase I ESA
includes collection and analysis of the following information: regulatory database records; historical
information such as aerial photographs, address directories, topographic maps and Sanborn Fire Insurance
maps; geologic and hydrologic information; interview information from current and past site occupants,
DRAFT Lake Elmo Village Area Final AUAR March 12, 2009 Page 83
Surface Water Management Plan in 2009 as part of its required 2030 Comprehensive Plan update.
Construct ponds 519 and 520 to alleviate existing downtown flooding issues and address rate control
and potentially the volume management and water quality treatment goals for the AUAR area in the
Downs Lake watershed. Approximate pond sizes required are listed in Table 17-115. The pond size
required varies only 5% between Scenario A with the lowest residential development intensity and
Scenario C with the highest development intensity. Any ponds that contain open water should be
designed with emergent vegetation to minimize use by waterfowl
Table 17-115
ADDroximate Pond Rize Rem,ired
Scenario
Pond
Footprint at HWL ac
Flood Storage ac-ft
A
519
7-47.1
4-21030.5
520
2.924.7
6"59.1
B
519
7.67.1
4-3,930.5
520
2-5 024.8
67 959.3
C
519
7.67.1
44,230.6
520
2-5;024.5
69,059.E
D
519
747.0
1 42,028.4
520
?4 924.7
457656.9
• Provide runoff volume facilities adequate to maintain existing runoff volume for the 100 year event
draina.cre system to treat water runoff. Some exarnples include:
• Special ditches arranged in a series that soak up more water
• Vegetated filter strips at the edges of paved surfaces
• Residential or commercial rain gardens designed to capture and soak in stormwater
• Porous pavers concrete and asphalt
• Decreased and disconnected impervious narrower streets
• Rain barrels and cisterns
• Green roofs
• Protection of natural areas
• Minimizing soil compaction and/or mitigating coiUacted areas
• Street trees that intercept rainfall improve water quality, and facilitate stormwater
infiltration/treatment
. _ P 2-c8x2rF7+
U
imm
Potential Impacts
■ Certain types of proposed land use (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional) may not be
compatible with existing residential development within and adjacent to the Village.
• Certain types of land use may not be compatible with the adjacent Lake Elmo Airport safety zones.
• Contamination may impact the types of land uses that would be appropriate in certain areas.
• Construction and other development activities may encounter contamination associated with current
or past land use (such as a gas station with underground storage tanks) or from material releases that
may have occurred,
■ Redevelopment activities may require the removal or abandonment of petroleum systems.
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
9.1 Follow the Village Master Plan guiding principles that address potential land use compatibility
issues between the existing Village residences and business and the new development or
redevelopment opportunities supported by the Master Plan composite land use map These
principles should continue to be followed as Village development planning continues (e.g.,
Comprehensive Plan, zoning, site plan requirements, design standards, etc.).
9.2 Review and update its official controls (e.g., zoning and subdivision ordinances) to ensure that the
following requirements are adequate to address the potential land use compatibility issues
identified in the AUAR including, but not limited to: building setbacks, screening, landscaping,
noise, lighting, buffers, height, architectural controls, and design standards.
9.3 Require the establishment of buffers consisting of berms and/or trees and shrubs to shield
residential and rural areas from more intensive land uses of commercial retail, office, institutional,
and airport properties and between different types of residential uses (e.g., single family,
townhomes, and condos).
9.4 Prepare an airport zoning ordinance prior to new development occurring within the vicinity of the
safety zones and noise comourslimpact areas. Ae�.".?.;C, This ordinance will be prepared
by a Joint Airport Zoning Board consisting of two representatives each of Lake Elmo, Baytown
and West Lakeland Townships, Washington County, and MAC. Follow these land use restrictions
for the airport safety zones and noise contours established by the Joint Airport Zoning Board for
development proposed to be located within the safety zones and noise contours.
9.5 Prohibit development within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
9.6 Develop an ordinance regarding structural Performance standards for residential properties to
reduce the potential for noise impacts
2..59.7 Prohibit the establishment of waterfowl habitat located within the airport safety
zones and within 5,000 feet of the Lake Elmo Airport (e.g., large stormwater ponds with mown
grass edges). Any ponds or created wetlands that contain open water should be designed with
emergent vegetation to minimize use by waterfowl Stormwater management facilities located
within the airport safety zones should utilize infiltration BMPs to manage stonnwater.
4.€9.8 Require developers to assess the potential presence of environmental hazards due
to past site use prior to development activities. At the time specific development is proposed, a
Phase I ESA and possibly follow-up subsurface investigation may be warranted to determine if
contamination is present. If contamination is discovered prior to or during the course of
156
development, the developer or other responsible party will be required to address the situation in
accordance with MPCA rules.
8-79.9 Work with the MPCA to ensure the removal of all above ground or underground
storage tanks and associated underground piping in accordance with applicable state and federal
laws.
9,99.10 Work with the MPCA and developers to ensure that any party that may discover
residual petroleum contamination shall follow state law and report the information to the MPCA
for further investigation and potential remediation.
How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured
Mitigation will be regulated through the city's development approval and permitting process. Proposed
master development plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans
must address relevant mitigation measures prior to final approval by the city. Implementation of mitigation
measures will be assured through developer agreements with the city, which will require a financial security
for land and infrastructure improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits and la
eertifie4es af-eeEapatxsy-until all relevant mitigation measures have been addressed.
Involvement by Other Agencies
Metropolitan Council review is required for any Comprehensive Plan updates or amendment that will
address land use changes for the AUAR area. According to MAC, the airport ordinance will be prepared by
a Joint Aiiroort Zoning Board comprised of two representatives each from Lake Elmo, Baytown Township,
West Lakeland Township, Washington County, and MAC. The FAA has developed guidelines for potential
wildlife attracting sources that lie within the vicinity of airports FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200 33B is on
file at City Ilall. The city will consult with MAC and will refer to the FAA guidelines prior to approvin
activities that could result in establishing wildlife habitat considered hazardous to airports If contamination
is discovered during development, it must be reported to the State Duty Officer, and follow-up work must be
coordinated with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
ITEM 11. FISI[, il'ILD1,IFe,ECOLOC.ICALI,]' SLNSITIN'L R13SOI1RCE5
Potential Impacts
• All scenarios propose to convert natural and semi -natural land cover types (forests, woodlands, and
herbaceous areas) to urban uses (see Figure 10-1). The majority of these areas are located adjacent to
Reid Park.
o Scenarios A, B, and C result in a loss of 63 acres of forest (a 52% reduction from existing
conditions) 18 acres of woodlands (a 77% reduction), and 24 acres of herbaceous areas (a
25% reduction). The amount of potential land cover conversion is the same for Scenarios A,
B, and D-C as they include the same protection area.
o Scenario D results in a loss of 61 acres of forest (a 5 1 % reduction from existing conditions)
16 acres of woodlands (a 70% reduction), and 23 acres of herbaceous areas (a 23%
reduction).
All scenarios propose to convert prime farmland to urban uses.
• All scenarios propose to impact ecologically sensitive resources (see Figure I 1-3). The majority of
these areas are located adjacent to Reid Park.
• All scenarios may impact the use of property as wildlife habitat. Development will likely affect
wildlife species of agricultural and old field habitats more so than forest/wooded and wetland
habitats because the majority of development will occur on open uplands and wetlands are protected
157
by various federal, state, and local regulations (see Figures 10-2 and 10-3). However,
forest/woodland habitats adjacent to Reid Park are proposed for development in all four scenarios.
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
11.1. Revisit the location of the Buffer Zone/Opens Space (Scenarios A, B, and C) or the Greenbelt
(Scenario D) to consider the inclusion of primary ecologically sensitive resources (e.g., primary areas
adjacent to Reid Park). This may be compensated by considering the removal of non -ecologically
sensitive resources that have been identified for open space. Any modifications to the buffer will
also need to address mitigating land use compatibility issues discussed in AUAR Item 9.
11.2. Require developers to focus development to areas with lower habitat value areas (agricultural land).
11.3. Work with property owners and developers to keep remnant natural areas intact.
11.4. Promote the establishment of corridors to connect wildlife habitat on and off site. These corridors
can be created as multi -functional greenway corridors that provide for wildlife movement, open
space, trails, and areas for surface water management (e.g., infiltration BMPs).
11.5. Work with property owners and developers to enhance natural areas on site (through activities such
as invasive brush removal, native wildflower seeding, and similar)
11.6. Encourage property owners and developers to restore hydrology and vegetation of wetlands that are
currently farmed for habitat or stonnwater management, where appropriate.
11.7. Work with property owners and developers to protect steep slope areas.
11.8. Require public land dedication of primary ecologically sensitive areas through the subdivision
process, to the extent practical.
11.9. Require that cash in lieu of public land dedication for subdivisions within the AUAR area be spent
within the AUAR area to purchase, restore, and/or maintain priority natural open space areas. This
must be balanced with the park needs of the Village discussed in AUAR Item 25.
I1.10. Consider provisions for conserving secondary ecologically sensitive areas (see Figure 11-3) during
the development review process.
11.11. Work with agencies, non-profit organizations and developers to establish mechanisms for ecological
restoration, management, stewardship, and education.
11.12. Work with property owners and developers to encourage farmers markets and community gardens
that can provide local access to food systems.
11.13. Create a tree/woodland preservation policy. This nolicy will require the evaluation of tree/woodland
uali, .
11.14. Rcauire the use of conservation development design and/or Low Impact Development (LID)
principles and encourage neighborhood development and buildings to incorporate Leadership in
Energy Efficiency and Design(LEED) principles
Additional Discussion of Mitigation Strategies
Conservation of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) throughout the AUAR Area
Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA, see Figure 11-3) provide the foundation for most of the conservation
objectives within the AUAR area. The overall conservation objectives include:
• Conserving the most significant primary ecologically sensitive areas within the Village;
• Protect these conserved ecologically sensitive areas from adjacent land uses by implementing
buffering; and
158
Potential Impacts
• Development may increase runoff rate and volume, and decrease the quality of runoff flowing into
receiving waters, including Down's Lake and the St. Croix River,
• Development may result in bank failure and erosion in streams and drainage ditches.
• Development may result in de -watering of streams and wetlands by limiting infiltration and
groundwater recharge.
• Development may result in algal blooms, including toxic blue-green algae, due to high nutrient
concentrations in stormwater runoff.
• Development may result in thermal pollution of water bodies as stormwater runoff may have
relatively high temperatures after flowing over impervious surfaces.
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
17.1 Continue to Aaddress stormwater runoff volume management, rate control, and water quality
treatment measures for the entire city through its Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) update
in compliance with the pertinent agency regulations. 'T"t g .h ' » >
it nerds to adoptreHifictive,—orea a ro 1rx'n The city is in theprocess ofin'�.s4,&
initiate an updatiige-to its Surface Water Management Plan in -by May 29, 2009 as part of its
required 2030 Comprehensive Plan update.
' ;.
in qeries
011
L -t
4-1617.2 Complete ongoing maintenance of proposed and existing stormwater facilities.
47417.3 Construct ponds 519 and 520 to alleviate existing downtown flooding issues and address rate
control and potentially the volume management and water quality treatment goals for the AUAR
area. The estimated size of the ponds for each scenario is shown in the following table.
Implementing stormwater management techniques throughout the Village that decrease estimated
stormwater volumes may reduce the estimated size of these ponds. Any ponds tbat contain open
water should be designed with emergent vegetation to inininuie use by waterfowl
Scenario
Pond
FootDrint at HWL ac
Flood Storage ac-ft
A
519
7.1=4
30.542A
520
24.7-a479
59.145-6
B
519
7.144
30.54374
520
24.833-0
59367A
C
519
7.1-7-.6
30.644
167
21.4 Prioritize alternative travel modes within the Village and require project proposers to address
alternative travel modes (e.g., bus, bicycle, and pedestrian foot -traffic) by identifying appropriate and
safe accommodations in developer's site plans and in the city's plans for trails and transit.
21.5 Address the recommendations of the Safe Routes to Schools Study currently underway, as
appropriate, during the Village development process.
21.6 Consider the need for additional infrastructure improvements in future updates or amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and Village Master Plan. Submit the plan updates to the appropriate agencies
(i.e., FHWA, Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Council, etc.).
21.7 Achieve effective traffic operations within the city by requiring that site plans make use of access
management practices that promote safe, effective traffic flow.
21.8 Continue to coordinate capital improvement programming with applicable transportation authorities.
21.9 Work with appropriate road authorizes and developers to implement traffic calming measures, where
appropriate, prior to or during development of a future project.
21.10 Work with MnDOT and the County to identify right-of-way needs for future expansion of the state
and county road system.
21.11 Work to enhance the character of Stillwater Blvd as a key community roadway,
How Mitigation will be Applied and Assured
The City will implement an on -going traffic management plan to monitor traffic volume growth and any
operational issues that may develop in and around the AUAR area. This monitoring program is intended to
give the City, County and other agencies the opportunity to evaluate future development projects within the
AUAR area and their cumulative impacts on the transportation system. A traffic impact study will be
required for all developments within the AUAR area. To maintain consistency, the traffic impact study will
use the following methodology:
a. Use a traffic simulation model to determine operational traffic impacts for the proposed
development.
b. Identify the deficiencies and reasonable mitigation measures that are related to the development.
Address consistency or lack of consistency with City of Lake Elmo subdivision and zoning
ordinances, Land Use Plan element of Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Transportation Plan.
c. If no reasonable mitigation measures are agreed upon or are unfeasible, the intensity or timing of the
proposed development would be staged so as to not overly burden the transportation system. For
example, if it is determined that full -build out of a proposed development project would overly
burden the transportation system, then varying degrees of development, i.e., 75%, 50%, 25% would
be analyzed. As surrounding infrastructure is improved, the remaining portion of a proposed
development could be evaluated to determine if it could be constructed. This is intended to address
the cumulative traffic impacts that occur within the AUAR area.
Mitigation will be regulated through the city's development approval and permitting process. Proposed
master development plans, planned unit development and subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans
must address relevant mitigation measures prior to final approval by the city. Implementation of mitigation
measures will be assured through developer agreements with the city, which will require a financial security
for land and infrastructure improvements and/or revoke the right to acquire building permits and er
crtifieat: s o:': oeupaney-until all relevant mitigation measures have been addressed.
173
Involvement by Other Agencies, if applicable
There are a number of potential transportation improvements and issues that have been identified as part of
this AUAR. Numerous agencies will be responsible in varying degrees to implement the identified
improvements. The following table identifies the improvement(s) and the responsible agencies to initiate and
oversee implementation.
Responsible Agencies for Implementation of Improvements
General Improvement
Primary Agency
Additional Agencies
State and County Roadways
Mn/DOT, W ashin ton Coun
City of Lake Elmo
Local/Frontage Roadways
City of Lake Elmo
Access Control
FHWA, Mn/DOT, Washington
Cou2t.y, City of Lake Elmo
--
Transit
Metro Transit, Washington County
City of Lake Elmo
Bicycle/Pedestrian
City of Lake Elmo, Washington
Count
Mn/DOT
Air/Noise
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mn/DOT, Washington County, City
of Lake Elmo
the approach to Runway 4, and the signals need to be desiened to not be an obstruction to this approach
surface. A Notice of Construction or Alteration foma must be submitted to the FAA with a copy to MAC:
for a determination to ensure no hazard is created
Potential Impacts
Noise levels related to traffic increase may rise above existing levels
■ Single family residential uses are proposed within noise exposure zone 4, which are considered
incompatible according to Metropolitan Council guidelines.
Railroad noise and vibrations may affect Village development. The extent of the noise impact
depends on if development is located in a no whistle zone or a whistle zone as shown in Table 24-5.
Mitigation Strategies
The City will:
24.1 Establish residential structure setback standards in its zoning ordinance to ensure an adequate setback
to major roads in the AUAR area to mitigate potential traffic -related noise on residential structures.
Tables 24-2 and 24-3 provide a guide in establishing an appropriate setback in that it describes the
distance within which noise standards are exceeded; however, these distances are not a recommended
structure setback distance. These setbacks will be established by city ordinance and will consider the
land use proposed and characteristics of the setback area in that requiring vegetation or berms may
mitigate noise and lessen the necessary structure setback distance to the roadway.
24.2 Use the aircraft noise land use compatibility guidelines to inform fixture land use decisions regarding
the comprehensive plan. Within its statutory limits, the city needs to prepare an airport zoning
ordinance to address building height, land use compatibility, structural performance standards, and
noise buffers.
24.3 Prepare adequate structure setback standards in its zoning ordinance to ensure an adequate setback to
the railroad tracks. The Village has coexisted with the railroad tracks - they are part of the historic
175
Major permits and approvals likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects are listed
in the following table. Depending on the type of project, the applicant for each permit or approval will vary -
applicants may be developers, property owners, or the city.
Unit of Government
Type of Application
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit
Letter of No Wetland Jurisdiction
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Construction. Alternation (Form 7460-1A) and determination of no hazard
for construction in excess of allowed heights in the forthcoming ai ort onlinance
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit/Geneml
Stormwater Construction Permit
Sewer Extension Permit
MS-4 permit amendment, if needed
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Future review and permitting pendinc US EPA approval of Lake St Croix and Lake
Pcpin'1'MDL lnmlememation flans
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Permit for work in State Highway right-of-way, if proposed
Right-of-way access permit, if proposed
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Water Appropriation Permit for new municipal well, if needed
Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for construction dewatering
Public Waters Work Permit (for work within a DNR Public Water)
Minnesota Department of Health
Permit for new municipal water well
Permit to abandon and seal private wells, if necessary
Permit for watermain construction
Washington County Highway -
Department
Utility Permit to install utilities within County road right -of- ways
Permit to work in County roadways
Permit for new accesses to County roadways, if proposed
Valley Branch Watershed District
(VBWD)
Development Review and Approval/Permitting— land alterations, impervious
surface creation, work below the established 100-year flood level, discharge of
municipal or industrial water or wastewater to a surface water drainage system,
erosion control plan, grading plan, stormwater management plan,
landscape/vegetation plan, etc.
Wetland Delineation Boundary Confirmation
Permit for wetland impacts under Minnesota Welland Conservation Act
Certificate of Wetland Exemption for temporary impacts due to linear utility
extensions
Metropolitan Council
Sewer Permit to Connect
Comprehensive Plan Updates and Amendments
City of Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan Updates and Amendments
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Preliminary Plat
Site Plan Review
PUD
Park Dedication
180
P,Ca"e r1—r2�Y rl`� 1Ca1f�� SC�11 it\i N�^ e`i ,3"%—d
Q
Lake Elmo Village AUAR
Authorize Distribution of Final AUAR
City Council Meeting
March 17, 2009
The Decision Before the City Council
■ Consider releasing the Lake Elmo Village Area
Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan for final 10-day
public comment period.
Where can the public get a copy of the
Draft AUAR once its released?
s Posted on city's website: www,lakeelmo.org
■ Hard copy available for review at City Hall
■ Hard copy available at the local library - Rosalie E.
Wahl Library on Lake Elmo Avenue
Presentation Overview
■ Decision before
the City Council
■ Village AUAR
Purpose and
Process
■ AUAR Comments
Received
■ Responses and
Revisions to
Address FAUAR
Comments
■ Next steps
What is the result of this decision?
■ Official notice will he sent to the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB)
■ 10-day (business days) comment period begins
upon receipt of the document
■ Publish notice in the Lake Elmo Leader
■ Post notice on city's web site
■ Transmit document to those on EQB's distribution
list (state agencies, watershed district, county, etc.)
and persons who commented on the Draft AUAR.
Where does the public submit comments?
■ Anyone who wants to comment on the Final AUAR
document is invited to send written comments to
the city at 3800 LaVerne Avenue, Lake Elmo or
email comments to:AUARdrahcommen[s®lakeelm rg
1
Now will the city respond to
comments?
■ Mn Rules gives state agencies and the
Metropolitan Council the authority to formally
"object" to the final document
— If an objection is filed with the City, then the objecting
agency and the City must follow a formal process of
resolving the objection.
— If an objection is not filed, then the environmental
review process is over and the City can adopt the Final
AUAR and Mitigation Plan
■ The public can comment on the final document,
but they cannot file an objection.
do an AVAN on the
■ The AUAR on the Village will provide the city with
information about potential environmental impacts
from future development that is being considered,
but has not been decided, by the city.
■ This approach to planning is consistent with the
city's long standing interest in understanding and
protecting its natural environment.
■ It also gives the city information early in the
planning process and keeps the city in charge of its
future development options rather than reacting to
proposals from developers.
What is an example of an issue
identrled in the VZllaye AUAR?
Reid Park
Potential Impacts to Reid Park:
■ "Primary" ecologically
sensitive areas (forest &
wetlands) adjacent to Reid
Park are proposed for
development in all scenarios
(Comp Plan & Village Master
Plan).
■ This would impact wetlands
and wildlife habitat and may
interfere with current passive
uses of the park (i.e.,
quiet/solitude)
Village AUAR Purpose and Process
Now will the in&rmation that !
extensive environmental sNdy
■ The AUAR information is used in updating the
city's plans and official controls like the
comprehensive plan, parks and trail plans, water
plan, transportation plan, sewer plan, surface
water management plan and zoning and
subdivision ordinances.
■ These plans and official controls will protect
environmentally and historically sensitive areas and
habitats and offer guidance on the provision of
infrastructure to serve existing and future
development.
Development Scenario
Description
Village Master Plan -
Composite Land Use Map
(Scenarios A, B, & C) Adopted Comprehensive Plan (Scenario U)
Reid Park
2
Now does the Mitigation Plan address
the potettUalimpacts to Reid Park?
Reid Park
Mitigation Strategy Summary:
• Revisit the location of the
Buffer Zone/Open Space
(Scenarios A, B, & C) or
Greenbelt (Scenario D) to
include unprotected primary
ecologically sensitive areas
adjacent to Reid Park.
■ Avoid wetland impacts
■ Create a tree/woodland
preservation policy
When is the Mitigation Plan
implemented to establish the buffw?
■ The areas adjacent to Reid Park will be
examined for appropriate and feasible
buffering of ftmd Park, treelwoodland
preservation, and wetland protection.
— The Lake Elmo Parks Commission,
Environmental Committee, and
Planningg Commission will review
furore developments plications
and make recommendations to the
City Council regarding the buffer
to Reid Park and resource
protection in environmentally
sensitive areas
— VRWD administers the Wetland
(bo mmental)tleiviewprocessis
• The city plans to have some or all of the development
scenarios evaluated for their financial feasibility.
• Once a development scenario is selected, if it is a scenario
that reflects the Village master plan (or a variation on this),
the city will begin the process of amending the future land
use plan in the comprehensive plan for the Village. This will
take the plan and turn it into the legal document guiding
future development in the Village.
• Developing zoning, subdivision and design regulations to
implement the comprehensive plan according to the Village
master plan principles will fallow amending the
comprehensive plan.
When is the Mitigation Pian
implemented to establish the buffer?
P ,' ».� ■ The city's conservation
objections will be adopted in
the AUAR Mitigation Plan.
i% ■ The AUAR Mitigation Plan
recommendations will be set
forth in future plans and
ordinances and
_ implementation of these
Reid Park objectives will largely take
place through the
development review and
approval process.
How will mitigation be
applied and assured?
• Implement mitigation recommendations In future plans and ordinance
updates
• Development will net be allowed to occur until relevant plans and
regulatlow have been updated to incorporate the recommendation in
the Mitigation Plan
• Mitigation will be regulated through the dws development approval
and permitting process and required agency reviews and approvals
• Proposed master development plans, planned unit development and
subdivision applications, plats, and/or site plans must address relevant
mitigation measures prior to final approval by the city
IN Implementation of mitigation measures will be assured through
developer agreements with the city, which will require a financial
security for land and Infrastructure improvements and/or retake the
right to acquire building permits until all relevant mitigation measures
have been addressed
What opportunities have their been for
review and comment on the information
Presented in the AVAR ?
2007: Understanding Existing Conditions in the Village
■ Agency Meeting — July 2007
■ Village AUAR Advisory Panel Meetings — July &
August 2007
■ City Council Workshop — September 2007
■ Public comment periods at Council meetings
3
What opportunities have their been for
reviewand comment on the information
presented in the AUAR ?
2008: AUAR Development Scenarios
■ Village AUAR Advisory Panel Meeting — Feb 2008
le Public Open House —February 2008
s Public comment periods at Council meetings, mail,
and e-mail
■ City Council selected development scenarios and
ordered the preparation of the AUAR — April 1,
2008
What opportunities have their been for
review and comment on the information
oresented in the AUAR ?
2009: Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan
■ City Council Workshop — February 17, 2009 (citizen
comments received at workshop)
■ Received E-mail comments from Councilmember
Emmons and VBWD — March 16, 2009
Row will the cityrespond to comments?
■ Mn Rules requires that the city respond to "timely
and substantive' comments received. Comments
received are included as Appendix J to the AUAR.
■ The Final AUAR includes a section (Appendix K)
that provides proposed responses to "timely and
substantive" comments.
■ The Draft AUAR comment letters and proposed
response to comments was included in the
Council's packet and posted on the project website
on February 12, 2009: www lakelmo mu
What opportunities have theirbeen for
review and comment on the information
presented in the AUAR ?
2008: Preliminary Drft AUAR& Narration Plan (voluntary)
■ Agency Meeting —September 2008
■ Village AUAR Advisory Panel — Sept.&October 2008
■ Public comment periods at Council meetings, mail, and e-
mail (citizens and agencies)
■ City Council workshop — October 2008
■ Preliminary Draft AUAR revised to address comments
received to date - City Council authorizes distribution for
official 30-day comment period — November 18, 2008
■ Official 30-day comment period December 1 —31, 2008
Who submitted comments during the
offlcia/DraftAUAR comment period?
Agencies:
Citizens:
■ Metropolitan Council
r Richard Mathaus
s Washington County
■ Screaton Family
■ MN Pollution Control
■ Judith Blackford
Agency
■ Todd Williams
e Washington Conservation
r Ann Bucheck
District
■ Valley Branch Watershed
• Brett H. Emmons
District
■ Steve DeLapp
■ Metropolitan Airports.
Commission
When did the city prepare the Fina/AUAR
and Mitigation plan?
■ The Draft AUAR was revised after the close of the
30-day public comment period to address
comments received —this revised draft is
considered the proposed "Final AUAR. and
Mitigation Plan"
■ The proposed Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan was
provided to the Council on CD and posted on the
project website on February 12, 2009: www lakelmo om
4
Draft AUAR Comments
Revisions made to the Proposed
Final AUAR to Address Additional
Comments Received
MAC Comments
K
Explain safety Unie process•.
I
-3
MnoaT 9uldelines used to create
initial safety zones ruraddedro
!
y
AUAR
t
{
_ Joint Areal all Hard will
r
r—
determine final safety zones and
restrictions on land use and frght
rextabeassi AUARandurach r
Bun sup,
nv-
1
lard will have two ropresentatives
fmm fake Elmo Boytown township,
West handout Township,
J
x
"L
Washni Cou dy and MAC with a
!
y j9.
T-
chairperson selected by all
repeaantarves hotAr arq,n
AUAR
Figure 9-4 Future
Haight Restrictions
Draft AUAR Comments
Received
■ Six agencies and seven citizens
■ 82 comments summarized with individual
responses provided (Appendix K)
■ Similar comments were combined (consistent with
EQB guidance).
■ Presentation at the February 17, 2009 Council
Workshop highlighted the comments received
regarding wetlands, surface water management, &
traffic that warranted major revisions to the AUAR
& Mitigation Plan
Additional AUAR Comments
Received
Tonight:
■ Highlight the comments received from the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) that warranted revisions to the
AUAR & Mitigation Plan
— MAC's letter was submitted In December and
discovered by staff on March 4, 2009
■ Address comments received at February 17, 2009 Council
Workshop
e Highlight respponses to comments received from
Councllin=er Emmons and VBWD via e-mail on March
16, 2009 regarding the proposed Final AUAR
MAC Comments
jIN
Development Restrictions:
vw
- ALVop Zoriln90rdmanre must be
-- ^
adopted prar to derah. and o[muln,
ut r lerymnen narenen,
ab arstreAreH
f J �
nanmt davemWne,rnwces,
proletlran NesPer coretrRossour,
Sweeny,
FAA alipasals needed far anodes$at
Jdue elyltrasld<donsand by
t
lAzdt ref1. has resonance,
Mllgnllon Plan
aura ake'llyhs M Mai Acesci
creetw llneetl mbsreiewe�bY fA4
f #
I
t
adMAe dh admdro
deagrobe P/
i
❑rywlic Ip d' rd',a
mr
suuau 1 r Bare
insurance lP t It mse
pad Tie
,rns"tth"'i soc.'9.6
Figure 9-1 Existing Lan I Use
5
T3'
MAC Comments
e Waterfowl Habitat:
Prone cuatwr of uoW waMdowl
habitat with Mre,00 of airport lentre
AUAftarra) vvMMA*,osaRooW
A]
- Rom FAA gdJeWl F ooiagwlldlRe
haiandsarJmnsult MA(9"A,.
p mN,o'urtlothat could oat In
a �abllshing whale hot tat mn ra.
haaam,Y, to alttraR MY(daHMb
Assr000n Aan
o, eowwamtr`ctanv ee of a m'. M.
"'am `wlrm eyz
Ay ponds would reed to have.eme t
` m`WM�nnwrsn;'ririi
y Council Workshop - Revisions
1r-. al
Go Green!
>; III Reaffirm through new
Mitigation Strategy 11.14
_
Require the use of
conservation design and/or
Low ImpactDewlapment
j
principles andenmuiage
d•$�'
neighborhood development
t
andbuildiogs to incorporate
Leadership in Energy
rc' -.
ENiciencyandDesign(LEED)
_•
"k
principles,
Councilmember EmmonsNBWD
Comments
Surface Water Analysis:
IN Handout with comments received
and technical response regarding
CN and documentation of annual
runoff coefficients
■ City Code requires existing
conditions for discharge rates to be
defined as pre -settlement conditions
(prairie/meadow) vs. existing
conditions (agriculture)
■ Revised analysis results In needing
additional storage (ponding) to
meet pre -settlement comfit itlions than
previously presented In the Final
AUAR
City Council Workshop - Revisions
% — Go Green
,,s Village Principle#11
t{ — "Become a great
model... Encourage other
i communities to 'raise the
barby demonstrating low
impact development, best
practices and sustainability."
x' ■ LID and BMPs are discussed
throughout the AUAR &
-- - Mitigation Plan
Council Workshop - Revisions
Character of Stillwater Blvd (TH 5)
■ Traffic calming addressed in AUAR
■ Signals/roundabouts required to mitigate
increases in background traffic will make TH 5
less desirable for commuter traffic
■ New Mitigation Strategy 21.11 to reaffirm the
City's intended character for TH 5
— Work to enhance the character or Sallwater Mud as a
keycommuMryroadway
Councilmember EmmonslvBWD
Comments
A _
Surface Water Analysis:
■ Are existing depresslonal storage
areas Included in the AUAR
calculations?
— AHAR presents a"planning level"
analysts; thererare, major
depressional areas were Included
— All depresslonal storage areas will
need to be Included in a more
relined °site level" analysis at the
lime of development revlew and
permlBing by the City and VBWD
C
Councilmember EmmonsNOWD
Comments
Surface Water Analysis:
Is there enough area for adequate
BM Ps? (estimated to require 10%of
developmentarea)
Ihavefoped areahe Proposed
— Minutest am.(Greemadlinpen
spare)Is available under any scenario
m establish fie proposed "natural'
surface water management system
— Site specific BMPs will be determined
during thedevelopment review and
approval process to address actual
development proposals — not the
hypotheucal mamasios analyzed
through the AUAR peaces,
Councilmember EmmonslVBWD
Comments
♦,a..
(w�, .,.
Surface Water Analysis:
■ Does the AUAR provide enough
details to know that adequate
BMPs are feasible?
— Ves —AUAR provides a"planning
level" analysis
— Site spxlfir hall will be designed,
reviewed, and permitted at the
time of development and will need
to be consistent with the
recommendations in the Mitigation
Plan and will all applicable rules
and regulations (M PCA, VRWe,
city)
The Decision Before the City Council
■ Consider releasing the Lake Elmo Village Area
Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan for 10-day comment
(objection) period.
- Official notice will be sentto the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB)
- Publish notice in the Lake Elmo Leader
- Post notice on city's web site
- Transmit document to those on EQB's distribution list
(state agencies, watershed district, county, etc.) and
those who commented on Draft AUAR
Councilmember EmmonslVBWD
Comments
Surface Water Analysis:
■ Are adequate BM Ps
feasible?
- Yes - soils(HSG B),
topography (generally
flat), depth to bedrock (>
50') are appropriate,
a.�fw,�r o.woMw
Next Steps in the AUAR Process
What if no objections are filed?
■ The environmental review process is over.
■ The City Council can formally adopt the Lake Elmo
Village Area Final AUAR & Mitigation.
7
What if an objection is filed?
s A formal process established by the EQB must be followed
to resolve an objection.
■ Within five days of receiving the objection, the City must
consult with the objecting agency about the Issues raised
and must advise the EQB of its proposed response.
e Within 30 days of receiving the objection, the City must
provide a written response to the objection.
Is Within five days of receiving the City's response to the
objection, the objecting agency will advise the EQB If they
accept the response and withdraw the objection, or if they
Will continue to object.
Questions
I
What if the agency continues to object?
■ If they continue to object, then the matter is placed on the
EQB's agenda and the EQB will determine if the City's
response is adequate, conditionally adequate, or
inadequate.
e If determined adequate by EQB, then the City can adopt the
final AUAR & Mitigation Plan
■ If determined conditionally adequate by EQB, then the City
must revise the document as directed by EQB.
■ If determined inadequate by EQB, then the City has 30 days
to revise the document and send it out for a second 10-day
objection period.