Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080916CCPCity of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North A. CALL TO ORDER September 16, 2008 7:00 p.m. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. ATTENDANCE: __ Jolmston __ DeLapp __ Johnson __ 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. September 2, 2008 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 claims 3. Adopt Ordinance 08-009 amending the 2008 fee schedule to include new fees for signs as required by the new sign ordinance. 4. Approve a settlement subject to conditions to Joan and Steve Ziertman for claims against the City 5. Consider a request to allow construction of a new home to be located further from the road right-of-way than an existing barn by 40 feet and detached garage by 117 feet on the 9.94 acre parcel at 11311 50t11 Street North., Resolution no. 2008-044 6. Accept donations for the Fall Festival J. REGULAR AGENDA: 7. Consider an application for a 25 foot yard setback variance to allow the construction of a detached garage five feet from the front property line where 30 feet is required at 11002 Upper 33rd Street North; Resolution no. 2008-046 8. Consider an application for Conditional Use permit to establish a Beauty Salon/Day Spa at 8925 Highway 5; Resolution no. 2008-047 9. MnDOT will provide an informational update on the TH 5 and Jamaca Avenue/Stillwater Boulevard roundabout and the TH 5 improvements from Manning Avenue to 55"' Street JO. Consider a request for an extension of the submission of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan Council; Resolution no. 2008-045 K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor and Council members Administrator 8. UPCOMING DATES OF NOTE: • September 18 -Village AUAR Advisory Panel, 7 PM • October 2 -Village AUAR Advisory Panel, 7 PM • November 4 -General Election • November 5 -City Council Meeting • November 11 -No City Council workshop • December 1 -Hearing on budget • December 2 -Cancel City Council meeting (tentative) • December 9 -Adopt budget at City Council workshop M. Adjourn City of Lake Elmo City Council Minutes September 2, 2008 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Present: Mayor Johnston and Council Members DeLapp, Johnson, Park and Smith Also present: City Administrator Hoyt, Planning Director Klatt, City Engineer Griffin, City Attorney Filla, Finance Director Bouthilet, KDV auditor Joe Rigdon and City Clerk Lumby. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve t,f:l#September 2, 2008 agenda as presented. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. ''the motio'npassed · unanimously. ORDER OF BUSIJNESS; GROUND RULES: APPROVE MINUTES: The minutes of August 19, 2008 wt~ approved by consensus. PUBLIC CO MMENTS/INQlJIRIES; Susan Dunn, l 1018 Upmfr33rd St., inquired again if the City would discuss its debt reduction schedule and whel1 and who would update the City's comprehensive plan. She felt she did not,,et these questions answered from the prior council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Delapp moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. • Approval of disbursements in the amount of $70,643.86. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2008 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Hold public hearing and consider two grading permit applications from the Valley Branch Watershed District to repair eroding ravines and to prevent sediment from washing into Goose Lake and Goetschel Pond, Resolution No. 2008-041, Resolution No. 2008-042 Jeff Weiss, Valley Branch Watershed District, presented the two grading permit requests submitted by the Valley Branch Watershed District to repair eroding ravines and to prevent sediment from washing into Goose Lake and Goetschel Pond. The projects will take place at the private property of 9200 1 oth Street North and the second site is located on five private properties in the Fields of St. Croix subdivision. The VBWD is seeking temporary project easements on all private properties to obtain access to do the work. Mayor Johnston called the public hearing to order at 7 :25 p.m; Susan Dunn, 11018 Upper 33 rd Street, supported the City:1l::ouncilW()rking with the Valley Branch Watershed District and to approve thei\vo grading permits. ,,A Mayor Johnston closed the public hearing at 7 :261p,m. MOTION: Council Member Johnson moir!i!dtoapprove 15,esolution No. 2008-041 and 2008-042 approving grading permits subm}t1edbyfhe Valley Branch Watershed District to restore ravines and to prevent sediment ftom washinJj,l!into Goose Lake and Goe ts he! Pond. Council Member Park secof?lfd the motion. The motion passed unanimously. REGULAR AGENDA: Donation from Rasmussen College Jason Rudnick, Rasmusserr!?ollege, presented a donation of $157.00 made in the name of the Lake Elmo fire Department to Second Harvest in recognition of the department's valuable contributions to the Teddy Bear Drive on July 26, 2008. Accept donation of Polaris vehicle and authorize use of capital funds and/or donations for ancillary equipment Fire Chief Greg Malmquist asked the City Council to accept the donation of the Polaris fire rescue unit that was applied for through a grant application and awarded to the City because it provides a public safety benefit for off road fire suppression, rescue operations and patient transport from remote locations and to authorize the purchase of equipment for the vehicle at a cost of$13,750 from the City's 2008 capital improvement plan and from funds raised outside of the CIP, if possible. This request was recommended by the Maintenance Advisory Commission. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2008 2 MOTION· Council Member Delapp moved to accept the donation of a Polaris Fire Rescue Unit valued at $12,500 and apply for grants to fund some or all of the ancillary equipment; and, if grants and donations do not cover the $13,750 (maximum) equipment costs, authorize the administrator to approve the use of capital funds according to the following amounts and priority: 1) the remaining balance in the laptop (estimated $700), 2) turnout gear budget savings (est. $4,500) and 3) from savings in station 1 and station 2 remodeling projects (est. $8,550). Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Consider adoption of a preliminary 2009 property tax levy of $2,332,130 City Administrator, Susan Hoyt explained the City Council is being asked to approve a preliminary property tax levy. Joe Rigdon, Finance Consultant, summarized the property tax levy of$2,332,130 to fund a proposed 2009 general fund opetafing budget of $2,892,060. The preliminary property tax levy adopted by the City Council represents that maximum levy permitted. The final tax levy and budget are scheduled for a public hearing on December I, 2008, 7 PM and adoption of the final levy and budget are planned for December 9, 2008. Administrator Hoyt explained that the capital improvement plan and the enterprise funds woulcJ;be budgetect in the coming months of October and November and this would be the tim'ethat a .. report on the status of the City's debt funds would be addressed. MOTION: Council Member Johnson mo~ied td'approve Resolution No. 2008-043 adopting a preliminary 2009 tax levy of $2,708,203. Coil,;cil Member Park seconded the motion. Mayor Johnston and CounAgl Members Johnson, Smith and Park voted/or the motion and Council Member DeLappvoted against the motion. Direct the Planning Commi~sionto ~iscuss srntrctures for domesticated animals and pets Council Member Smith asked the City Council to direct the planning commission to consider changji!1g the code as it pertains to such structures for the maximum square footage allowed before the Cityis asked to enforce many potential violations. Council Member Park agreed with Smith that the Planning Commission should be directed to review this item and recommend if the Council should look at changing the code. Council Member Johnson didn't see requests for variances for this kind of thing coming forward from multiple directions and, therefore, found no reason to move ahead with revisiting the city code related to one individual's non compliance issue. Mayor Johnston shared Johnson's concern especially when City staff said they saw no significant problems with the ordinance as written. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2008 3 Planning Commission Chair Todd Ptacek said the Council should be responsive to the citizens, but it is important to avoid asking the planning commission to consider items when they arise due to one property owner when commissioners are volunteers and are very conscientious in their consideration of any code amendments. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to refer considering changing the code as it pertains to structures for domesticated animals and pets to the planning commission. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Council Members Smith and Park voted/or the motion and Mayor Johnston and Council Members Johnson and Delapp voted against the motion. The motion failed. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2008 4 City Council Date: 09/16/2008 CONSENT Item: ITEM: Approve disbursements in the amount of$110,329.19 SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finauce Director Claim# 32987 -32990 479 480 DD1811-DD1837 33136-33150 33151-33192 33193-33196 Amount $ 3,880.00 $ 8,983.65 $ 1,346.41 $21,513.92 $ 3,310.58 $54,263.66 $17,030.97 Total: $ 110,329.19 Description Fall Festival Expenditures Payroll Taxes to IRS Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept. of Revenue Payroll Dated 9/11/2008 (Direct Deposit) Payroll Dated 9/11/2008 (Payroll) Accounts Payable Dated 09/16/2008 Payroll Dated 9/1112008 (Benefits) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements in the amount of$ 110,329.19 City of Lake Elmo Accounts Payable Printed: 09111/08 13:58 User: brenda Checks for Approval Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount 33151 09/16/2008 General Fund Contract Services Animal Control Services 821.34 Check Total: 821.34 33152 09/1612008 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Aramark 19.43 33152 09/16/2008 General Fund Unifonns Aramark 36.49 33152 09/16/2008 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Aramark 67.37 33152 09/1612008 General Fund Uniforms Aramark 35.06 Check Total: 158.35 33153 09/1612008 General Fund Software Support Atomic-Colo, LLC 5,400.00 33153 09/16/2008 General Fund Hardware Support Atomic-Coto, LLC 181.03 Check Total: 5,581.03 33154 09116/2008 General Fund Newsletter/Website AVENET,LLC 636.00 33155 09/1612008 General Fund Equipment Parts Check Total: 636.00 Batteries Plus Woodbury 169-34 Check Total: 169.34 33156 09116/2008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Biffs Jnc. 61.26 33156 09/1612008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Biffs foe. 122.52 33156 09/1612008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Bifrs Inc, 61.26 33156 09/16/2008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Bifrs Inc. 61.26 33156 09/16/2008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Biff's Inc. 81.26 33156 09/16/2008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Biff's Jnc. 61.26 33156 09/)612008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Biffs Jnc. 61.26 33156 091)612008 General Fund Rentals~ Buildings Bift's Inc. 61.26 33156 09/16/2008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Biff'slnc. 81.26 33156 09/16/2008 General Fund Rentals -Buildings Bifrs Inc. 6!26 Check Total: 713.86 33157 09/1612008 General Fund Small Tools & Minor Equipment Century Power Equipment 198.68 Ch.eek Total: 198.68 33158 09/16/2008 General Fund Telephone· CP Telecom 82.83 33158 09116/2008 General Fund Telephone CP Telecom 438.69 33158 09/1612008 General Fund Telephone CP Telecom 449.26 Check Total: 970.78 33159 09/1612008 General Fund Equipment Parts Fastenal 5.04 33159 09116/2008 General Fund Sign Repair Materials Fastenal 31.95 Check Total: 36.99 33160 09/1612008 General Fund Miscellaneous Hagbcrgs Country Market 21.45 33160 09/16/2008 General Fund Miscellaneous Hagbergs Country Market 36.48 Check TotaJ: 57.93 33161 09/1612008 General Fund Repairs/Maint Imp Not Hldgs HSBC Business Solutions 30"54 33161 09116/2008 Water SmaIJ Tools & Minor Equipment HSBC Business Solutions 9.90 33162 09/16/2008 General Fund Equipment Parts Check Tota!: 40.44 Interstate AH Battery Ctr 79.68 Pagel City of Lake Elmo Accounts Payable Printed: 09/ll/08 13:58 User: brenda Checks for Approval Check Number Ch_~_ck Da,~ Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount Check Total; 79.68 33163 09/16/2008 General Fund Legal Services Jardine, Logan & O'Brien 739.00 Check Total: 739.00 33164 09/16/2008 General Fund Small Tools & Equipment Jefferson Fire & Safety 77.45 Check Total: 77.45 33165 09/16/2008 General Fund Assessing Services Kern DeWenter Viere 6,563.50 Check Total: 6,563.50 33166 091)6/2008 General Fund Equipment Knox Company 2,868.05 33166 09/16/2008 General Fund Use Tax Payable Knox Company -175.05 Check Total: 2,693.00 33167 09/1612008 General Fund Shop Materials Lake Elmo Oil, Inc. 1,911.25 Check Tota.I: 1,911.25 33168 09/16/2008 General Fund Dues & Subscriptions League of MN Cities 6,610.00 Check Total; 6,610.00 33169 09/16/2008 General Fuud FICA Tax Withholding Greg Malmquist 8,712.15 Check Total: 8,712.15 33170 09/16/2008 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation, Inc 103.09 33170 09/16/2008 General Fund Refuse Maroncy's Sanitation, Inc 45.37 33170 09/1612008 General fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation, Inc 197.77 33170 09/1612008 General Fund Refuse Maroney's Sanitation, Inc 103.09 Check Total: 449.32 33171 09/16/2008 Water Small Tools & Minor Equipment Marv's Professsional Tools 46.40 33171 09/16/2008 Water Small Tools & Minor Equipment Marv's Professsional Tools 37.07 Check Total: 83.47 33172 09/1.612008 Water Water Utility MDH 1,405.00 Check Total: 1,405.00 33173 09/16/2008 General Fund Sign Repair Materials Menards w Oakdale 9.98 33173 09/16/2008 General FWld Landscaping Materials Menards -Oakdale 31.00 33173 09/16/2008 City Facilities Buildings and Structures Menards -· Oakdale 24.81 33173 09/16/2008 General Fund Sign Repair Materials Menards -Oakdale 32.33 Check Total: 98.12 33174 09/16/2008 Sewer Sewer Utility -Met Council Metropolitan Council 1,081.72 Check Total: 1,081.72 33175 09/16/2008 Fall Festival Contract Services Midway Party Rental 414.19 Check Total: 414.19 33176 09/16/2008 General Fund Contract'Services Miller Excavating, Inc. 990.00 33176 09/16/2008 General Fund Landscaping Materials MUler Excavating, Inc. 71.14 Check Total: 1,061.14 33177 09/1612008 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 121.35 33177 09/16/2008 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 188.65 33177 09/16/2008 GeneraJ Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 64.06 Page 2 City of Lake Elmo Accounts Payable Printed: 09/11/08 13:58 User: brenda Checks for Approval Check Number Check ~ate Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Amount 33177 09/16/2008 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 90,93 33177 09/J6/2008 General Fund Telephone Nextel Communications 133,56 Check Tota!: 598.55 33178 09/16/2008 Manning Ave/Hwy 36 Improvements Other Than Bldgs Northern Water Works Supply 369.89 Check Total: 369.89 33179 09/16/2008 General Fund Contract Services Gopher State One~Ca!I One Call Concepts, 248,00 Check Total: 248.00 33180 09/16/2008 General Fund Sign Repair Materials Parts Associates Inc. 114.42 Check Tota!: 114.42 33181 09/16/2008 General Fund Contract Services PLANT HEALTH ASSOC!ATES, INC 1,692.00 33181 09/16/2008 Development Fund Contract Services PLANT HEAL TH AS SOCIA TES, INC 47.00 Check Total: 1,739,00 33182 09/16/2008 General Fund Repalfs/Maint Contractual Bldg Plunkett's Pest CQntrol 79,88 Check Tola!: 79,88 33183 09/16/2008 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt Pomp's Tire Service, Inc. 933.00 Check Total: 933,00 33184 09/16/2008 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 7,36 33184 09/16/2008 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Steven Press 58.88 33184 09/16/2008 General Fund Cable Operation Expense Ste.ven Press 58.88 Check Total: 125.12 33185 09/16/2008 Fall Festival Miscellaneous Printing Plus 338.28 33185 09/16/2008 General Fund Use Tax Payable Printing Plus -20.65 Check Total: 317.63 33186 09/16/2008 General fund Miscel1ancous RiverTown Newspaper Group 20.65 33186 09/16/2008 General fund Miscellaneous RiverTown Newspaper Group 14.75 33186 09/16/2008 General Fund Legal Publishing RiverT own Newspaper Group 32.45 Check Total: 67.85 33187 09/16/2008 General fund Prlnted Forms Rogers Printing Services 99.05 Check Total: 99,05 33188 09/16/2008 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Diane Rud 240.00 33188 09/16/2008 General Fund Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg Diane Rud 240.00 Check Total: 480.00 33189 09/16/2008 General Fund Telephone USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. 21.39 Check Total: 21.39 33190 091)6/2008 General Fund Telephone Verizon Wireless 123,71 Check Total: 123,71 33191 09/16/2008 Fall Festival Contract Services VISA 100,00 33191 09/16/2008 General Fund Conferences & Training VISA 250,00 Check Total; 350.00 33192 09/16/2008 Sewer Electric Utility Xcel Energy 67,25 33192 09/16/2008 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 140.97 Page 3 City of Lake Elmo Accounts Payable Printed: 09/11108 13:58 User: brenda Checks for Approval CJJ~J::k Number Check Date Fund NH me Account Name Vendor Name Amount 33192 09/1612008 General Fund Street Lighting Xcel Energy 30.18 33192 09/1612008 General Fund Street Lighting , Xcel Energy 53.25 33192 09/16/2008 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 184,16 33192 09/1612008 General Fund Street Lighting Xcel Energy 26.00 33192 09/16/2008 General fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 501.92 33192 091!612008 General Fund El,cctric Utility Xcel Energy 12.46 33192 0911612008 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 39.16 33192 0911612008 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 33.07 33192 09/1612008 Water Electric Utility Xcel Energy 3,298.58 33192 09/1612008 Gener.3ffund Street Lighting Xcel Energy 37.83 33192 09/l6/W08 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 125.62 33192 09/16/2008 Sewer Electric Utility Xcel Energy 15.19 33192 09/1612008 General Fund Street Lighting Xcel Energy 28.14 33192 09/1612008 Sewer Electric Utility Xcel Energy 14.83 33192 09/16/2008 General fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 294.09 33192 09/1612008 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 66.02 33192 09/16/2008 General Fund Street Lighting Xcel Energy 1,739.32 33192 09/1612008 General Fund Electric Utility Xcel Energy 46.38 33192 09/16/2008 General Fund Electri.c Utility Xcel Energy 447.16 33192 09/1612008 Water Electric Utility Xcel Energy 21.00 33192 0911612008 General Fund Street Lighting Xcel Energy 9.86 Check Total: 7,232.44 Report Total; 54,263.66 Page4 City Council Date: 09/16/08 CONSENT Item: 3 ITEM: Adopting Ordinance 08-009 amending the 2008 fee schedule to include new fees for signs as required by the new sign ordinance SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Susan Hoyt, Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to amend the fee schedule to include fees for signs, which is a result of the recently adopted modified sign ordinance. The new fee schedule consists of three individual sign categories and is based on the labor and overhead expenses to issue the corresponding permits .. o PERMANENT SIGN $175 plus surcharge to state of 50cents o TEMPORARY SIGN $ 70 plus surcharge to state of 50 cents o TEMPORARY SIGN RENEWAL$ 20 plus surcharge to state of 50 cents 0 Calculations for fees being charged Permanent Sign ► Planner Site 0.5 Hrs ► Processing 0.5 Hrs ► Plan Review 1.0 Hrs ► Preparation 0.5 Hrs Total 2.5 Hrs @ $50.00/hour = $125.00 ► Overhead at 37% (electricity, gas, copying) $125.00 X 1.37% = $171.25 or $175.00 Temporary ► Plan Review ► Preparation Total 0.5 Hrs 0.5 Hrs 1.0 Hrs @ $50.00 = $ 50.00 o Overhead at 37% = $50.00 X 1.37% = $ 68.50 or $70.00 Temporary Sign Renewal ► Review 0.15 Hrs ► Processing 0.10 Hrs Total .25 Hrs@ $50.00/hr = $12.50 ► Overheadat37% $12.50X1.37%= $17.13or$20.00 ATTACH: ORDINANCE 2008-09 -Amending the fee schedule CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.08-009 AN ORDINANCE SETTING MUNICIPAL FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008 The Lake Elmo City Council hereby adopts the following fee schedule for calendar year 2008 and directs that it be added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. PERMANENT SIGN TEMPORARY SIGN TEMPORARY SIGN RENEWAL $175 plus surcharge to state of 50 cents $ 70 plus surcharge to state of 50 cents $ 20 plus surcharge to state of 50 cents ADOPTION DATE: Passed by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 16th day of September, 2008. ATTEST Susan Hoyt City Administrator CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Dean Johnston Its: Mayor EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be effective the day of. PUBLICATION DATE: Published on the_ day of ______ , 2008. ITEM: REQUESTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Council Date: 9.16.08 CONSENT Item i.,f Motion· Approve a settlement subject to conditions to Joan and Steve Ziertman for claims against the City of Lake Elmo Jim Golembeck, Attorney representing the City of Lake Elmo Jerry Filla, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to approve a settlement payment of $12,500 subject to conditions to Steve and Joan Ziertman of 5761 Keats Avenue for claims against the city. ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Accept Donations for Fall Festival Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Susan Hoyt, Administrator City Council Date: 09/16/08 CONSENT Item: 6 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to formally accept cash & donated items for the Fall Festival in the total amount/value of$ 6220.02. Last fall, in celebration of a half century of community service, the Lake Elmo Fire Department organized a 50th Anniversary Celebration. The event stimulated interest in a broader annual community event. The Lake Elmo Fall Festival committee was formed and planning began in May of 2008. The Fall Festival committee determined that additional funding would be necessary to support many of the free activities. As a result, the committee decided to solicit both cash and items for a silent auction. Through the efforts of Council Member Smith and the assistance of the Fire Department, Six Thousand and Two Hundred Twenty Dollars in cash and donated items were collected. The first annual Fall Festival was held on September 5 & 6. Due to the many donations and the efforts of volunteers, the first annual Fall Festival was tremendous success. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to accept cash and donated item in the total amount/value of $6220.02 Introduction/Report Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Questions from council to staff Mayor facilitates Questions/comments from the public to the City Council (a maximum of Mayor facilitates three minutes per question/statement) Discussion Mayor and Council members Direction City Council ATTACHMENT: Lake Elmo Fall Festival Donation Roster Company Stillwater Auto Clinic Time For Me Referred Carpet Care Joan Ziertman Ziengo Agency Leslies Carpet Hair Afflair Lake Elmo Pharmacy St: Croix Sensory Belle Amie State Farm Insurance Lake Elmo Barber U.S. Restoration & Remodeling Lake Elmo Dental WildwOod Lodge Wildwood Lodge Oakdale Village Sports Clips Hairatage Lawson Marshall Mcdonald Galowitz & Wolle Valley Ridge Dental City & County Credit Union Cost Cutter German's Olive Garden-Oakdale SHestone Rassemun Bufflo Wings Hilton Garden Inn Village Hair Car Fine Line Or. Dennis Grabowski Dentist Jardine, Logan & O'Brien Two Rivers Community Land High Point Surgery Center Lake Elmo Inn ExitCare LLC East Metro LLC Xcel Energy Lake Elmo Fire Dept. Lamberts Lake Elmo Bank Herberger's Retail Construction National Reprographics Country Air Country Air Total Cash & Value $6,220.02 City of Lake Elmo Fall Festival · Donation Roster Description 3 Oil Changes Children's Basket 200 sq ft carpet cleaning Fall Deco Display Cash towards the purchase of Pig (1/2) 2-$200.00 Discount Gift Set Basket Food Basket Massage I Facial CASH Hair Cut CASH Professional Strengh Teeth Whitening System Romance Package~One Night Stay in a Whirlpool Suite 2-Night Stay includes Breakfast Vouchers one year free haircuts 2-Baskets 40.00 Each CASH CASH CASH Two Free Haircuts 4-25.00 Gift Cert. 2-30.00+ 2 kids eat free package Gift Cert. for Vanity 1300.00-500.00 Off any Counter Top. Golf Club -2 Carts -4 Players at Oak Marsh 50 wings packet with sauce kit One Standard Night Room Family Hair Combo 1 Framed Painting CASH 4 Gopher Tickets @ 30.00 CASH CASH Silent Auction 2 $75.00 Gift Cert CASH CASH Portable Grill Beach Pack-Cooler, towels & beer 2 Carharts Jackets -50.00 Each CASH Gift Basket Set CASH CASH Two Thirty Minutes Session in heated driving range Two Medium Buckets & 2 9 hole rounds on wedge course ITEM: City Council Date: 9/16/08 CONSENT Resolution No. 2008 -044 Item: 1-5 Consider a request to allow construction of a new home to be located further from the road right-of-way than an existing barn by 40 feet and detached garage by 117 feet on the 9.94 acre parcel at 11311 50th Street North. REQUESTED BY: Mary O'Brien, Property Owners Kelli Matzek, City Planner Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to consider approving a resolution to allow the construction of a primary structure to be located 573.5 feet from the road right-of-way at 11311 soth Street North. This location, while it meets the setback requirements of the RR zoning district, would place the new home at a location further from the road right of way than the existing accessory buildings. The zoning ordinance only allows a detached accessory building to be located closer to a front lot line than a principal building upon approval by the City Council. In this case, the property owner will be tearing down an existing home that is in a conforming location and rebuilding a new home in a new location behind the existing accessory buildings on the property. This action does not require planning commission consideration nor does it require notifying adjacent property owners. The existing barn is 533 feet from the road right-of-way and the existing detached garage is 456 feet. The proposed new home would be 573.5 feet. The existing home is currently located closer to the road right-of-way than the detached accessory buildings. The applicant's submittal to allow the new home to be built further back on the lot than the existing accessory buildings would not be out of character for the neighboring properties nor would it impact traffic. Staff finds that this request is permissible under the code and that the location of the new home would not negatively impact neighboring properties as it is in a rural area with large lots. This is not a request for a variance, so the applicant does not need to demonstrate a hardship. RECOMMENDATION Based on our analysis of the request, staff is recommending approval of Resolution 2008-044 to allow the construction of a new home 573.5 feet from the right-of-way at 11311 50th Street North. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF CODE • Section 154.092, Subd.l "No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR, and R1 districts where detached garages may be permitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution of the City Council, except in planned unit developments or cluster developments." 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2008 -044 2. Area map showing the location of the subject property 3. Site Plan 4. Aerial image of site. 2 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-044 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLACEMENT OF A NEW HOME FURTHER FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AT 11311 50TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 154.092 Subd. I of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, Mary O'Brien, the property owner, has requested approval to place a new home further from the road right-of-way than an existing barn by 40 feet and detached garage by 117 feet at 11311 50th Street North, in accordance with plans received by staff Augnst 29, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council for the City of Lake Elmo hereby grants permission for construction of a new home 573.5 feet from the road right-of-way, further from the two existing accessory buildings on the property at 11311 50th Street North. ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 16th day of September, 2008. Dean Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator 11311 50th Street North N + City Council Date: 9/16/08 Regular Resolution No. 2008 -046 Item: 7 ITEM: Consider an application for a 25 foot front yard setback variance to allow the construction of a detached garage five feet from the front property line where 30 feet is required at 11002 Upper 33'' Street North. REQUESTED BY: Jill Martin, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from resident Jill Martin to allow construction of a one car, detached garage on her property at 11002 Upper 33'' Street North to serve the existing residential home. The proposed garage would be located five feet from the front property line where thirty feet is required and would therefore need a twenty-five foot variance. The small residential lot (0.14 acres) currently does not have any covered parking and a conforming location does not exist for a detached garage. The addition of a garage to the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing residential home. The addition of the proposed garage and driveway could exceed the maximum impervious surface allowed on the site, which is 25 percent of the lot size. Therefore, staff is recommending as a condition of approval that a portion of the existing hardcover be removed as necessary to retain compliance with this requirement while maintaining the required three off-street parking spaces required by code. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • City staff received responses of support from two neighbors for the application. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT • The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as part of its review and did not receive any public testimony regarding the proposed variance. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance by a vote of 5 to 1. The Commissioner that voted against the variance expressed concern over the future implications if Upper 33'' Street were to ever be expanded and extended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as it meets the variance criteria with the following findings: 1) The addition of a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing home. 2) The size and shape of the property as well as the location of the existing home, septic system, and setback requirements prevent a conforming location for a detached garage on the lot. 3) The property was platted in its current configuration in 1848, pre-dating the existing city code requirements. And with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the city issuing a building permit, a portion of the existing hardcover must be removed to retain the property's conformance with the impervious surface requirement of twenty-five percent of the lot. 2) Three off-street parking spaces must be accommodated on the lot. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Move to approve the requested 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback for a detached garage at 11002 Upper 33'' Street based on the findings provided by staff and with the conditions identified in the staff report. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction .................................................................... Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Report by staff ................................................................... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 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 ............................................................... Mayor facilitates Discussion ........................................................................................... Mayor facilitates Action on motion ................................................................................................. Council ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2008-046 2. Area map showing the location of the subject property 3. Detailed staff report on the request 4. Site Plan 5. Aerial image of site. CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-046 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 25 FOOT VARIAN CE TO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AT 11002 UPPER 33RD STREET NORTH WHEREAS, Jill Martin has made application to the City of Lake Elmo for a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback to construct a detached garage at 11002 Upper 33rd Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission considered the variance request and held a public hearing at its September 8, 2008, meeting and recommended that the variance be granted based on the following Findings: 1. The addition of a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing home. 2. The size and shape of the property as well as the location of the existing home, septic system, and setback requirements prevent a conforming location for a detached garage on the lot. 3. The property was platted in its current configuration in 1848, pre-dating the existing city code requirements. WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council has reviewed the 25 foot front yard variance request by Jill Martin, 11002 Upper 33rd Street North at the September 16, 2008 meeting. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the approval of the requested variance shall include the following conditions: I. Prior to the city issuing a building permit, a portion of the existing hardcover must be removed to retain the property's conformance with the impervious surface requirement of twenty-five percent of the lot. 2. Three off-street parking spaces must be accommodated on the lot. ADOPTED by the Lake Elmo City Council on September 16, 2008. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator 11002 Upper 33rd Street N N __ J ... t-- City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Review To: City Council From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Kelli Matzek, City Planner Meeting Date: 9/16/08 Applicant: Jill Martin Owner: Jill Martin Location: 11002 Upper 33rd St N Zoning: Rl -Single Family Residential Introductor In ormation Request Jill Martin, 11002 Upper 33rd Street north, is requesting that the City consider a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage on the property. The proposed single car garage would be located five feet from the front property line. Site Data: Property ldent{fzcation No. l 3-029-21-32-0054 Area 6,137 square feet (0.14 Acres) Use Residential Dwelling The applicant's property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. There is an existing single family home located in the center of the property. The septic tanks are located in the rear yard of the lot. App~:::!~ Section 154.041 R-1 One-Family Residential Zoning District Subd. C. Minimum District Requirements The R-1 Zoning District has a building setback of 30 feet from the front property line, IO feet from the side (interior) property lines, and 40 feet from the rear property line. The maximum impervious surface coverage is 25 percent of the property. Section 154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures (I) No detached garages or other accessory buildings in residential districts shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot, except in AG, RR, and R-1 Districts where detached garages may be pennitted nearer the front lot line than the principal building by resolution of the City Council, except in planned unit developments or duster [sic] developments. Applicable ACCESSORY BUILDING. A subordinate building, or a portion of the main building, Code which is located on the same lot as the main building and the purpose of which is Definitions: el early incidental to that of the principal building. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. BUILDING LINE. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. BUILDING SETBACK LINE. A line 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 SETBACK. The minimum horizontal distance between 1 building and the lot line. 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. CARPORT. An automobile shelter having I or more sides open. DWELLING UNIT. A residential accommodation including complete kitchen and bathroom facilities, permanently installed, which is an-anged, designed, used, or intended for use exclusively as living quarters for one (I) family. GARAGE, PRIVATE. A detached 1 story accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used primarily for the storage of passenger vehicles, trailers, or farm trucks. 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. LOT, INTERIOR. A lot other than a corner lot, including through lots. LOT LINE, FRONT. The boundary of a lot which abuts a public street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner. In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. LOT LINE, REAR. The boundary of a lot which is opposite to the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than 10 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. LOT LINE, SIDE. Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. LOT LINE. A lot line is the property line bounding a lot except that where any portion of a lot extends into a public right-of-way or a proposed public right-of-way, the line of the public right-of-way shall be the lot line. LOT. A parcel ofland designated by plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by the description for the purpose of sale, lease or separation. SETBACK. The minimmn horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top 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. 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 Section 300.06, Subd. 3. Economic considerations along shall not constitute a hardship. [sic] Variance Review Variance The applicant is requesting that the City consider a 25 foot variance from the required Request: 30 foot front yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage on the --------1 property. Variance By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can Criteria: successfully address the following three criteria: ______ _j 1. 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 applicant is proposing to add a single-car detached garage on the property. The 0.14 acre lot currently does not have an enclosed garage space, but instead has a driveway located along the east property line. The property's size and shape prohibits the addition of a detached garage in a conforming location anywhere on the lot. While a more-conforming location is available for a garage on the site, the location would place the garage closer to the existing home. There is a six foot required separation between the home and the garage for safety reasons. Attaching a garage to the west side of the house may present structural challenges. The request to build a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request. Therefore, staff finds this condition is 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; As mentioned previously, the size and shape of the property, the location of the existing home, and the applicable setbacks do not allow the building of a detached garage in a conforming location anywhere on the property. The property is 0.14 acres in size -one of just a handful of properties under 0.15 acres in size with a single family detached home on the property in the city. The property has been in existence in its current fonn since 1848. Therefore, staff finds this condition is 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 property has been in existence in its current form since 1848. At that time, this area was unincorporated. Since then, Oakdale Township became the city of Lake Elmo and the city's land use regulations have undergone a number ofrevisions. Therefore, the land owner did not cause this property to be in it's current form. ------~ Therefore, staff finds this condition is met. Variance Based on the analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff would recommend Conclusions: approval of the front yard variance to allow construction of a detached garage five feet _____ __, from the front property line. Resident Staff is not aware of any resident concerns regarding the requested variance. Staff Concerns: received a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor and a phone call of support ______ _j from an additional neighbor. Review Comments: Planning The site plan identifies the proposed garage to be located five feet from the front Issues: property line and seventeen feet from the edge of Upper 33rd Street, a dead-end city road. Fire The city code requires three off-street parking spaces for each residential property. This code is currently being met through the existing driveway located on the property. However, with the proposed garage and new driveway, the property will likely be over the maximum impervious surface allowed on the lot which is 25 percent. Therefore, staff will request that a condition of approval be the removal of a portion of the existing hardcover to maintain the site's conformance with that regulation. Two off-street parking spaces (in addition to the proposed one-car garage) will also need to be maintained on the site. Department The fire department has not expressed any significant concern with the proposed Comments: garage location and it's proximity to a nearby fire hydrant. Engineer The City Engineer has not expressed any significant concerns with the proposed Comments: garage. VBWD The Valley Branch Watershed District did not have any concerns with the application Comments: as the project would be disturbing less than one acre or 6,000 cubic feet of dirt. Conclusion: The applicant is seeking approval of a 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback for a one-car, detached garage. Sr-\ Cowu Commission Options Presented: The Planning Commission was presented with the following options: A) Recommend approval of the requested variance as it will not adversely impact adjacent neighbor's views or water runoff and that a conforming location for a detached garage on the property does not exist. B) Recommend denial of the requested variance based on the findings identified by the commission. The deadline for a Council decision on this item is November 8, 2008. Sta.ff Rec: Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the following: Approval Motion Template: 1) The addition of a single car garage on the property is a reasonable request as accessory to the existing home. 2) The size and shape of the property as well as the location of the existing home, septic system, and setback requirements prevent a conforming location for a detached garage on the lot. 3) The property was platted in its current configuration in 1848, pre-dating the existing city code requirements. Provided the following conditions are met I) P1ior to the city issuing a building permit, a portion of the existing hardcover must be removed to retain the property's conformance with the impervious surface requirement of twenty-five percent of the lot. 2) Three off-street parking spaces must be accommodated on the lot. To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: I move to approve the requested 25 foot variance from the required 30 foot front yard setback for a detached garage at 11002 Upper 33rd Street based on the findings provided by staff and with the conditions identified in the staff report. ... (use staff's.findings provided above or cite your own) Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: I move to deny the requested variance at 11002 Upper 33rd Street based on the following fmdings ... (p/ease site reasons for the recommendation) cc: Jill Martin, 11002 Upper 33'd Street North ' . . 4S,G4' PROP=Rn-l.1NE /---------7 I I I I I I t1/ I, ; l"t.lfil;F0!=::7:J ,:;.,;RA(;.E AODrT!CN I 1 .. 1,, I I I 0-I I G-fj ffi & f1 -I a, gl I . 1 7 I I I ''""'"· I ORlVEU!A'f I I J; UPPER 33RD.. 6 TREET N .. PURPOSED ADDITION FOR, JILL MARTIN 11002 UPPER 33RD $T. N, LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 PROJECT NO, DRAWN S'f, 01--lEET, DA7E REV. ITEM: REQUESTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Council Date: 9/16/08 Regular ResolutiQ!1 No. 2008-'-17 Item: i:5 Consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Beauty Salon/Day Spa at 8925 Highway 5. FLF Properties, Applicant ,...,_ / Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning. r ,_ J Planning Commission Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Lake Elmo City Council is being asked to consider a request from FLF Properties to establish a day spa at 8925 H°lghway 5, which is located within the Prairie Ridge Office Park complex at the intersection of Highway 5 and Stillwater Boulevard North. The use would occupy 1,540 square feet of the 2,500 square foot building at this address and would make use of the current parking that has been provided for the office park. The remaining area of the building is vacant as is the adjacent building. Other uses in the park are offices and low-impact services businesses. The proposed site is located in a LB -Limited Business District, a district that is intended for low impact uses in areas without sanitary sewer service. Beauty Salons and Day Spas are permitted as a conditional use, and based on the attached analysis, the proposed use does meet the C.U.P. standards in the code. If the City Council finds that a Conditional Use meets all the requirements, it is required to grant approval for the proposed use. Approval is therefore recommended. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • The applicant has provided architectural plans for the proposed use and a description of the services presently offered by the business at its present location. This information supports the designation of the use as a "Day Spa" and the findings documented in the attached report. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT • The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as part of its review and did not receive any public testimony regarding the proposed Conditional Use. • The Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use by a vote of 5 to 1. The dissenting vote expressed concern over the present condition of the business park and specifically the presence of weeds and noxious vegetation on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Approval is recommended because the request meets the requirements for approving a Conditional Use Permit and has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: I move we approve the requested conditional use permit for a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the findings provided by staff. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction ........... .. ..................................... Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Report by staff ................................................................... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director 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: 1. Resolution No. 2008-47 .. ............................. Mayor facilitates . ............................... Mayor facilitates . ............................................. Council 2. Area map showing the location of the subject property 3. Detailed staff report on the request 4. Prairie Ridge Office Park site plan and plat 5. Architectural diagrams for building and proposed use 6. List of services provided by Belle Amie Spa 7. Aerial image of site. CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BEAUTY SALON AND DAY SPA AT 8925 HIGHWAY 5 WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, FLF Properties, 8921 Highway 5, ("Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Beauty Salon and Day Spa at 8925 Highway 5; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Seetion 154.018, Subd. (D); and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on September 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation as part of a memorandum to the City Council from Planning Director Kyle Klatt for its September 16, 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its September 8, 2008 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit amendment is to allow the establishment of a Beauty Salon and Day Spa in a LB -Limited Business Zoning District. 4) That the proposed use will be located on property legally described as Lot 13, Block 1, Common Interest Document No. 249, Prairie Ridge Office Park, Washington County, Minnesota. Commonly known as 8925 Highway 5. 5) That the proposed Conditional Use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 6) That the proposed Conditional Use would not affect traffic or parking conditions. 7) That the proposed Conditional Use would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities. 8) That the proposed Conditional Use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 9) That the proposed Conditional Use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1. Based on the foregoing, the Applicant's application for a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Passed and duly adopted this I 6th day of September, 2008 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator 8925 Highway 5 N .-1~ City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Request To: City Council From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Kelli Matzek, City Planner Meeting Date: 9-16-08 Applicant: FLF Properties and Belle Amie Spa Owner: FLF Properties Location: 8925 Highway 5 Zoning: Limited Business (LB) Introducto Requested The applicant is seeking to allow a day spa establishment to be located at 8925 Conditional Highway 5. The business would be located within an existing building that is part of Use Permit: the Prairie Ridge Office Park on the western portion of this site. Property The Prairie Ridge Office Park is currently zoned Limited Business, where beauty Information: salons are listed as a conditional use and day spas are an accessory use to a beauty salon. The subdivision for the office park was approved in early 2004, and subsequently, all of the buildings planned have been constructed. The site was approved as a planned unit development; however, there are no specific requirements on file pertaining to the future uses within the overall office park, which is regulated by the current LB zoning designation. Access into the office park is provided via a private road that connects between the westbound lane of State Highway 5 and Stillwater Boulevard North (County Rd. 6). Parking has been provided in accordance with the previous PUD review, therefore, no additional stalls are provided for the proposed day spa. The proposed use is consistent with the overall businesses that are presently located within the park and the LB Zoning of the property. Applicable Section 154.018 Administration. Codes: Subd 4. Conditional Use Permits. Outlines the general requirements for all conditionally permitted uses in Lake Elmo. Section I 1.02 Definitions BEAUTY SALON. Any commercial establishment, residence, or other ('UP' l/2rrur;.,;1· FIF Prr:rner·tie, and Belle /lrnie /'fo11ni1w Commission 9-8···08 establishment, place, or event wherein cosmetology, including hair care, nail care, and skin care, is offered or practiced on a regular basis for compensation. DAY SP A. A safe, clean commercial establishment, which employs professional licensed therapists whose services include massage and body or facial treatments. Treatments may include body packs and wraps, exfoliation, cellulite and heat treatments, electrolysis, body toning, waxing, aromatherapy, cleansing facials, medical facials, nonsurgical face lifts, electrical toning, and electrolysis. Services may also include Hydrotherapy and steam and sauna facilities, nutrition and weight management. No services or facilities may be offered or constructed that would include customer over night stay. Section 154.057 LB -Limited Business District Contains the standards and uses permitted in the LB District with the following purpose statement: "The purpose of the Limited Business District is to establish a comprehensive planned framework for development where municipal sanitary sewer does not exist. The city has determined that it is in the best interest of the city and the region to responsibly manage growth in this district. It is the intent of this district to promote a high quality of business design and development that produces a positive visual image and minimizes adverse impacts from traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare, and similar problems." Findin s & General Site Overview Site Data: Overall Business Park Size: 16. 98 Acres Size of Lot 13: 3,263 square feet Buildings: Seven (7) building with a total of approximately 35,000 square feet of area Existing Use: Office/Limited Services/Vacant Existing Zoning: LB -Limited Business Property Identification Number (P ID): l 6-029-21-41-0025 A lication Review: Existing None of the conditions that were attached to the approval of the PUD for Prairie Ridge Conditions: Office park are applicable to the future tenants within the office park buildings. The site has been developed in accordance with the approved plans, including the provision of any required parking for the future tenants, the installation of storm water management improvements, and other site work. The City does still have an active developer's agreement in place for the Office Park development, and a few outstanding close-out items need to be completed before all of the improvements can be accepted by the City. CUP Review: The plans that have been submitted by the applicant include an overall site plan for the 2 ( 'UP He,rue-1·1: FL/'. Fn•nertres and /Jelle l'la,•ma1e Cr)lnmission 9-8-08 Conditional Use Permit Criteria: business park, a building schematic diagram, the Prairie Ridge Office Park Plat, and plans for the portion of the building at 8925 Highway 5 that will be used for the day spa. The application materials also include a listing of the current services offered by the business from its present location along Lake Elmo A venue. Based on the information submitted, it appears that the proposed use is consistent with the activities defined by the City Code for a Day Spa. The City's process for the review of a Conditional Use specifies that before a C.U.P. may be issued, the City must consider certain findings as they pertain to the proposed use. For these types of applications, the burden is on the City to show why the use should not be permitted due to impacts that cannot be controlled by reasonable conditions. Impacts the City must review are as follows: I. Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. Traffic & Parking conditions. 3. Effects on utility and school capacities. 4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. The proposed Day Spa is compatible with the other uses within the Prairie Ridge Office Park, which include offices and low-impact service businesses. There have been no comments received to date that indicate any concern from neighboring property owners regarding the proposed use. Given the limited types of businesses that can be conducted in the LB District, the proposed Day Sap will not create any anticipated impacts that would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. Therefore, staff finds this criteria is met. 2. Traffic & Parking conditions. The City reviewed potential traffic issues as part of the PUD review for the Office Park, and determined the appropriate number of parking stalls for the entire site at this time as well. The parking needs for the Day Spa are consistent with the expected demand for parking throughout the project area. Staff finds this criteria is met. 3. Effects on utility and school capacities. A day spa use will have minimal impacts on the existing utilities at the site. The use of the utilities would be consistent with the expectations for the overall planned development area. The utilities are previously been installed on the site and would not l,a!ld /,:se'CUPBcl!e Amie Council 9-fo-08 doc } Cl IP Re1111e.\'I. FU;' rn•ner!ie., and Hd!e Amie rtm,,nn,r C''cm1mission 9--8-08' be greatly impacted by this use. The number of school age children would not be impacted by this use. There would be no impact on the school capacities, therefore staff finds this criteria is met. 4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands. Given the small-scale service and the primary function of the business as a salon, the surrounding land values would not be depreciated due to this use. Therefore, staff would find this criteria is met. 5. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. The Prairie Ridge Office Park area is guided for limited business uses in the Comprehensive Plan and as noted above, the proposed use is listed as a Conditional Use in this district. The addition of a day spa to the business park is consistent with the future land use plan for the area. Staff finds this criteria is met. Conditional Based on the above analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff is recommending Use Permit approval of the conditional use permit request to allow a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 Conclusions: based on the following: I. The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site for over one year and staff is not aware of any complaints. 3. The use would have no effect on utility or school capacities. 4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Resident Staff is not aware of any concerns surrounding the requested conditional use permit. Concerns: The other property owners within Prairie Ridge Office Park were provided with notice of the public hearing in accordance with City Code. Additional I Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the Information: proposed conditional use permit. Conclusion: The applicants are seeking approval of the following conditional use permit application: To allow a day spa at 8925 Highway 5. 4 CUP Ne1me,'il,' IF Prc,,nm-11,,, and !Jdle Amie P/a1miJ1c C'ornmission · 9-•8-08 Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit at its Report: September 8, 2008 meeting and recommended approval of the request with a vote of 5 ayes and I nay. The dissenting vote expressed concern that the business park site was not being well-maintained due to the presence of weeds and un-mowed vegetation on the site. Sta.ff Rec: Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit request to allow a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the following: I. The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site for one year and no complaints were received. 3. The use would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities. 4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: Approval Motion Template: I move to deny the requested conditional use permit for a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the following findings ... (please site reasons for the recommendation) To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide: I move to approve the requested conditional use permit for a day spa at 8925 Highway 5 based on the following findings ... (use staff's findings provided above or cite your own) cc: FLF Properties, 8921 Highway 5 1/e;,-h'c/!e Amie S/:;u Council 9 .. / 6-08 doc 5 0 E ul '" -"' "' ..; .s 'o .2: "' ~ ili 1 ;3 "'- lJ :3 "' E j!~ l "' ~ -!l I @I ,., r;; f j,i f >- 1H I $ lfJ J 6 f;J l .; Ji Vl £ "" "' ~ "' "C ------------" .·\ •,'-.... 1 ·' ) I \ ( \ / i L._f-_"\.._ l!l "' u .2 -;: "' "-'" u iE 0 '" 01 "C 0: '" -~ ·~ "- I ;: I@' I !! ~ C ~ C 01 .gi ·~ ., N •mi • • ' ZiJNZA r r:J/'Y.P/Yr ~i ~I /:' i/ I ' ( ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I I ' I ' I ' I / ' I ' I ' I ' I I ' I ' I I ~ "'R \) f\ ,i.<,f:-_-1 -"' ,, ~ ·61·~ "'-1 z: ' \) tf' ' j; [) ~ ,. 'lf 'vj ~ f~c;.,~ l II .1,,,.. ..-,-~ rl----· ,-i~ r HIN / l--c MIN ----1-7 ' ..______,_ . . ·> •• --• ~ -. -,;.;c_ -~--'!'-. ~ I ' • t)J ~ . = : ''=> .. , -.J II I ___, • I • ' ~ ' I 1! 112.1 ,, -, I j: I i I -i: (jl 11~i~Ii I & I> , 0 tr, r I -ff !~ ;,:.1s:,: fo .1 ii\ !µ~i~ D I ,; ~ -., ' 1T ,. o, :t f ,.-;,;; "'!JI' ~ ,-J ';;' .r> ;;, 'ift >,_;,:-1>--,,i::· 1J ' ! 0 ,-p;t\. as v\;"U'C/l 0 " ' I. 1/) . if/ ~ : I ! ~ I . • .(JV ' I ., V: i[ . ',_\~ ,, I ~ I <1' p 11 11) ,;''l\EJ r· \·-It . gf.z./V>7''. ,·,U1-z' ~5 . I~-.. :GJ- I ,; . ' ' .. ' ' '' -~-~ I \__-f-'-·.i···,, ··~·-s.~2.'!' r -~ _,, s.LZ:' ~-..J ~ s" "' ,-~-lr ~1-~ '(~ ' h "', .. ti]~. U) ' ,, Ll :,;== ' I -w~it"tt ui, j'" "'~ I ~" -1~"' I '+' ' ><t¾,:;~~ I 7•11!. T•il:. JI - I \fl I 0 § k I .1 ! 6 ,,. ["'\ I i }61i ~ ' .• ' -]~iil ~B ~[3 Q \'. '-;.l I "1 -~ C -:, :1 I, ;...< I I r--,. t"jy [ ,l\ >-t J:: jJ f~l 0 I 0 '" "' v ~ e I ur· , _.v.:!j I ' l ' I I \l1 -~~ __, I ,-LY __ J -->----~. I '.f .. , , ... ,. ,. ... --- ' k.i'-c." -~~i ,,,.·.tJ r 3"1 '~(a:>'( 1111"-' MIN I < 25 • .,, . }f[lj~:' I' ~ ~i.B1, G.z: l'7 b l1' ,, j; U'~li-+, 1il •·' ~--::J:E=:~__E;_-:_~/:"J<;:;.E_ E'~P~l~ .. -;;o;L..re:is.NAT.8. · ft.:. .... -½--c-At.-;;;-: A.S, f,./"'1TE)'.) :;s· 1-tl't HWA '1 bl,?' ~ - ·p E;:l.:.i:1C>;.:l"'\ll',Ji,;,,.l;,i_$!;:_rA ,/_ '-•1:t•:t,Jc[;, h;d:l,,O,:;>E,----cc~ j d d ~ ' ' ' i i ! i ' ~ c:,:.J! ' . - 11 ,...., ! <C ~ ., l II i ! i r ~, ! i ! ! ~--·t lo ;' ' 't~ l i i \I) (\\ ,,,_ V t:,o -l.i I --+-.,,. ~ ' ~ 1,-u ' ~ ~ "' rn...ro W/\ITlNG ROOM ' DRY :iO' I i ::::::::::\i WASH! I ~:=c·'o"-~] o' !3xl5 ~:: j i 6: 15'-W ---. -,,f.1--c+,j ~··=''-Gl~Jf"'-!u ~cal iD r,;;;; : ! ! ' - ~="--1" c~ "~'""1~-~rc~t" ~c !OxU C i J ,, iLL'4rnc._l __ 'I t j '-. '1_ 1a rz::11 'j ----w,sc,· Ir:; I Til~FN'T ~ : l 1------,,"c,--n, .. •·n . ._½~M ,,c,N,"- ROOM _ 0 :I I J WOJ7i rn ~""--t ' 'IL......... 'Y'Y I' 1 ! i :~::---·· ----.. ~~--~::3~:;·· c==:-·c:"" L,.1-- I I ,.,,,.. HM.c °''' ",.,-"'"' I' I i, /1?=\tF"-1-~·~_-i~~c .,, ~I , 1oxi'o" • ' , I 10xl3 ! ;_ i_l/ ~ r.~\ ~il_ [~~" ~ l ,, --~ -, 1 1 .[ 1 'I -~ [] c::•· e-i I '"'" 1_ ij• \se~n; _ i ·r~. STEAM \ ' L-------.-~ ' g\ ~ / i LI ROOM 11 j i71TT"j ! ' r-;:i_,..-, i ' ('I . J _'"!"_-=--=, ---::':;,,"' ----, = -':':1_kJ 1 ~ ---1[[ "\\•ALI. BY u"·I OTilliRS j -D,IS'l)N(; WALL FUTURE TENANT ,_, rr --J Manicure . belle amie spa manicure manicure plus hand and arm exfoliat'ion & massage belle amie spa pedicure pedicure pius foot and iawer leg exfoiiation & massage. Polish changes all polish changes include clipping, filing and polish opplica/Jon Hands Feet, 35.00 60.00 20.00 25.00 Gel nails Classic . French 45.00 and up 50.00 and up initial gel overlay Classic . French Nail repair Nail art 55.00 60.00 5.00 and up 5.00 and up 'iili' 3515 Lake Elmo Ave, N., Upper Suite I Lak!c Elmo, MN I 550,,2 hours; Tue: 11-5 I Wed: 11·8 I f'.ri: 10-5 I Sat: by appt. .f·/' '· / / All facials include the finest natural marine and botanical ingredients combined with the latest technology. We will customize your facial to your specific skin type. belle amie . 6omin. $70.00 Freeze-dried collagen . 75 min, 85.00 Oxy-Vita/. , 75 min. 100.00 Vitamin C . 75 min, 100.00 Sea and "C". . 75 min, 125.00 Plantomer (algae) . 75 min, , 85.00 Rosacea , . 6omin. 85.00 Lightening. . 75 min. 100.00 Myoxy-Cavair . . 75 mfn. 125.00 Acne or problematic . . 6omin. 70.00 Essential. .45 min. 60.00 J d;fee.d Angel peel treatments are customized to your j slon type. Peel . 45 min . 85.00 -100.00 Booster treatment . Eye"renewal treatment. Eye stress relief, Caviar hand or foot. Lymphatic massage Stress-relieving foot treatment. 15.00 20.00 15.00 25.00 , 35,00 20.00 spa eku11uu~«je Tension-releasing massage for people on the go. Also a great introduction to massage. 1r; min /;f //Ulfi:yZ"'" , $20.00 25.00 Soothes sore muscles while relaxing the whole body. Each massage is customized to meet individual needs. 30 min. 60 min. , 45.00 . 75.00 90 min. 100.00 ,sltHZb m£l1!Y & Ease tension and relieve stress with this soothing massage combined with deep heat therapv. 75 min. With deep tissue 105.00 130.00 ,. ,/' ,/ Eyebrow shaping Lio . Chin Underarms . Arms, Bikini Lower legs Fu!/ leg. Fu// leg/bikini. Back. Brows . Eyelashes. Application . Bridal includes complimenlary lipstick . C51-74S-J777 $17.00 12.00 12.00 . 20.00 . 30.00 . 25.00 . 30.00 . 55.00 . 75.00 '45.00 . 20.00 . 20.00 . 30.00 . 50.00 3515 Lai(e Elmo Ave. N., Upper Suite I Lake Elmo, MN I 55042 hours: lue: 11-5 I Wed: 1:l·S i Fr\: 10•5 I Sat: by appt. Aerial View of Site: 8972 Highway 5 City Council Date: September 16, 2008 REGULAR Item: q INFORMATION ITEM: MnDOT will provide an informational update on the TH 5 and Jamaca Avenue/Stillwater Boulevard Roundabout and the TH 5 Improvements from Manning Avenue to 55th Street SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to receive an informational update from Paul Kachelmyer, Mn DOT Project Manager, regarding the Trunk Highway 5 and Jamaca Avenue/Stillwater Boulevard Roundabout scheduled for 201 O construction. This project consists of the construction of a roundabout on Trunk Highway 5. A portion of Stillwater Boulevard to the south will be reconstructed and a portion of Jamaca Avenue to the north will be reconstructed to accommodate the roundabout. The total project cost is $1,400,000. Please refer to the attached MnDOT description of this project. Adam Josephson, MnDOT East Area Engineer, will also be providing an informational update on the proposed Trunk Highway 5 Improvements from Manning Avenue to 55th Street. The roadway will be reconstructed and a continuous center lane for left turns will be added. The estimated project cost is $2,500,000 and the schedule is not yet finalized. Please refer to the attached MnDOT description of this project. No further action from the council is requested at this time. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Trunk Highway 5 and Jamaca Avenue/Stillwater Boulevard Roundabout: Municipal Consent is not required for this project, however the project will require the city, county and MnDOT to enter into a cooperative agreement for cost sharing and maintenance. MnDOT anticipates a total cost of $1,400,000 for this project and has identified through the state cost participation policy that the city's portion of the project is estimated at $230,000. This estimate is based on complete reconstruction of all pavement areas shaded on the plan for the north intersection leg of Jamaca Avenue that resides within city owned right-of-way. This estimate will be refined through the final design phase of the project and will reflect the actual scope of work included in the final plans. Because Jamaca Avenue is a Municipal State Aid designated street, the city may elect to use city state aid funds for this project. The existing width of Jamaca Avenue is 40 feet and it was last paved in 1992, crack sealed in 1996, and sea/coated in 1999. The MnDOT plan being presented tonight is a preliminary design. MnDOT has requested formal review comments from the City Engineer by September 30, 2008. Design items and issues that will be addressed in the City Engineer's review include; reducing the median and taper length along Jamaca Avenue, lane and shoulder widths, maintenance and location of the required approach lighting, landscaping replacement and improvement location and type, offsets of the required trail-crossing details and connectivity, property impact mitigation, acquiring a VBWD permit, and a request for a public involvement and communications plan. Review comments will focus on minimizing the city cost share and resident impacts while providing a functional and safe intersection. Trunk Highway 5 Improvements (Manning Avenue to 55th Street): MnDOT is proposing to add left and right turn lanes as safety improvements to Highway 5 from Manning Avenue to 55th Street. These improvements are to be fully funded by MnDOT. Municipal Consent is not required for this project. The City Engineer will coordinate public communication, construction scheduling, and maintaining access during the project with MnDOT. The project will be contained within MnDOT right-of-way and there are no proposed modifications to city streets. 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) ATTACHMENTS: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Adam Josephson, Mn DOT East Area Engineer Paul Kachelmyer, MnDOT Project Manager Mayor and council members Mayor facilitates 1. MnDOT TH 5 and Jamaca Avenue/Stillwater Boulevard Roundabout Project Description 2. MnDOT TH 5 Reconstruction from Manning Avenue to 55th Street Project Description Highway 5 -Reconstruction [State Project #8214-142] Location: Hwy 5 -Manning (CSAH 15) to 55th Street (1.2 miles) Contract Letting date: November 2012 -construction in 2013 (Note: Potential Letting date: February 2009 -construction in 2009) Estimated Project cost: $2.SM Project Description: Add left and right turn lanes at the following intersections; 44th (County Fair grounds), Linden/McDonald, 50'\ and Marquess/53'd by reconstructing the roadway and adding a continuous center lane for left-turns. Extra width is provided on both sides of Hwy 5. There is no additional right-of-way needed and no access changes proposed. Project Background: A Hwy 5 Community Task Force met in 2003 to discuss ways of improving safety along Hwy 5, following fatal crash in December 2002 at 50th Street. Reduced speeds, bypass lanes, signing, signal changes were discussed and implemented, also discussed was need and concepts for a long-term solution which was to provide tum-lanes at each intersection. Construction Staging: Hwy 5 will need to be closed and traffic detoured during the project. It will take approximately three months to rebuild roadway and make improvements. Proposed Detours and Access: • Posted Detour Route -Lake Elmo Ave (CSAHl 7) and Hwy 36. • Provide additional signing to encourage traffic to use 1-694 and Hwy 36. • Local Access -we will try to maintain cross Hwy 5 city street connections to facilitate local access. • Driveway access along Hwy 5 will need to be maintained. Construction Conflict Dates in 2009 • Last Day of School June 10th • Washington County Fair July 30th -August 3rd • First Day of School September 8th • Other? Next Steps: • Resolve Project Funding-Oct 2009 • TH5 Task Force Meeting -Fall 2009 • Public Open House Meeting -Late 2009 Contact: Adam Josephson Mn/DOT East Area Engineer 651/234-7719 adam.josephson@dot.state.mn.us 9/9/08 State Project 8214-145 TH 5 at Stillwater Road/Jamaca, in Lake Elmo. Reconstruct Intersection to be a Roundabout. By Paul Kachelmyer P .E. Mn/DOT Project Manager 651-234-7640 September 2008 The Problem: Severe right angle crashes have resulted in an average of approximately five people per year being injured at this intersection. Proposed Project: Construction ofa roundabout is expected to reduce the serious crashes by approximately 90%. Schedule: Construction in late spring and early summer of 2010. Approximately 4 months to complete. Estimated Cost: Total Cost: Mn/DOT: City: County: $1,400,000 $880,000 $230,000 $290,000 Detour during Construction: The intersection will be closed during construction, with the main highway traffic detoured to TH 36 and I-694. Right of Way: A small amount of property will need to be purchased from the three property owners on the northeast, northwest and southwest comers of the intersection. The layout drawing of the proposed roundabout shows the anticipated construction limits. Traffic Volumes: Approximately 15,100 vehicles go through this intersection each day. Traffic count records show a 0% change in traffic volume on TH 5 in the last 10 years, a 0% change in traffic volume on Stillwater Road in the past 6 years, and a 20% decline in traffic volume on Jamaca Avenue in the past 10 years. Frequently asked questions: What are "Modern Roundabouts" ? How do they differ from other circular intersections ? Intersections in a circular shape have existed in the United States for over 100 years, and are common in many eastern cities. There are many different types of those intersections, and many of them have traffic flow problems and accident problems. "Modem Roundabouts" have only been built in the United States in the past 15 years. Their main characteristics are that: I. They tend to be fairly small in size. 2. All traffic in them drives in one direction, to the right. 3. Traffic typically drives through them at speeds below 25 mph. 4. Yield signs exist at all of the entries to the circle. Traffic in the circle has the "right of way". Accidents at Roundabouts: Accidents that do occur at roundabouts, rarely produce serious injuries. This is because they usually occur at slow speeds, and involve vehicles going in the same direction, or nearly the same direction. Why a roundabout for this intersection, why not a signal light? Different possible alternatives were evaluated for this intersection. It was determined that a roundabout will result in a far greater reduction in serious crashes than a signal light, and that it will result in far less delays to drivers than a signal light. Is it safe to have a roundabout at the intersection of high speed highways ? TH 5 is posted for 55mph, Stillwater Road 50 mph, and .Tamaca Avenue 50 mph. Experience has found tbat roundabouts at the intersections of high speed highways can be extremely safe ( see information on the roundabout on Minnesota Trunk Highway 13 near New Prague). A number of features are designed into the roundabout, and the roadways approaching it, to compel drivers to slow down as they approach it. Is a roundabout going to be confusing to drivers ? Well designed modem roundabouts should be very simple for drivers to understand and drive. Low accident rates at many existing roundabouts are an indication of the lack of confusion for drivers at them. Can large trucks, farm equipment, or house movers go through roundabouts ? This roundabout is designed to accommodate the largest trucks which all Minnesota State Highways are designed to allow. Farm equipment and house movers can also easily travel through them .. What kind of delay in traffic flow is expected for drivers coming to the roundabout ? A yield sign will exist at all of the entrances. With existing traffic volumes at this intersection, it is anticipated that approximately 75% of the traffic approaching the roundabout will not have to stop at the yield signs. The average amount of time that vehicles that do have to stop, will have to wait, will typically be less than 10 seconds. If traffic volumes increase, will the roundabout still function ? The existing design should enable traffic volumes of nearly twice as high as currently exists, to use the roundabout with less average time delay than would be expected at a signalized intersection. If traffic volumes increase beyond that amount, the roundabout can be modified relatively easily to have an additional lane, which will greatly increase its traffic flow capacity. Other Issues: Night time lighting: Overhead lighting will be placed on the approaches to the roundabout, and right at the entrances to it. Pedestrians/Bicyclists: No sidewalks or pathways currently lead up to the existing intersection. However, shoulders do exist on the existing roads which could accommodate pedestrians or bicyclists. Sidewalks will be built in the immediate vicinity of the roundabout to accommodate any pedestrians or bicyclists who may be using the shoulders of the existing roadways. Landscaping: No special landscaping will be added to the roundabout with the exception of lilac bushes being planted in the center area of the roundabout. The bushes have the functional purpose of increasing the visibility of the roundabout, to drivers approaching it. Specifics of this Design: TH 5 at this intersection, and to the west, is currently a 4 lane divided expressway. Approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection, it merges to be a two lane highway. Because the roundabout has only one lane of circulating traffic, the existing four lane road allowed for the construction of right tum bypass lanes in the northwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection. These right tum bypass lanes will reduce the number of vehicles needing to stop for the roundabout. Recent Tragic Accident: On May 2, 2008 a tragic accident occurred approximately¼ of a mile east of the intersection. During a heavy downpour, a westbound driver crossed over the centerline of the two lane highway, and collided head on with an eastbound vehicle. Both drivers were killed. The specifics of this accident are mentioned here just to clarify that the configuration of the existing intersection was not associated with the accident. Maintenance: A minimal amount of maintenance will be required for the intersection. This includes snow plowing, and maintenance of signs and lights. A maintenance agreement will need to be developed between the State, City and County, stipulating who will be responsible for what. This is similar to agreements involving signalized intersections. Mn/DOT 2942 1rev 9-11 -92 l COLLISION DIAGRAM Minnesota Department of Transportation Location: TH 5 © STILLWATER BLVD (CSAH 5)/ JAMACA N RP 195+00.015 Time Period: 01/01/00 -12/31/05 Dote: _ _,0'--"i'--'-/_,0"'5'--'-/-"0'--'7 __ No. of Crashes Prepared By: -~M~J=R~--F oto I a 0 A Injury= 0 CD North z w > <t <t u ::, <t 8 Injury 0 C Injury• 11 Injury Total 0 15 Property Damage• 11 Total Crashes• 26 2 MNTH 5 <t -, ' " B ~-9=1~2~1~1~0~1 ~'z~o~i~D~-~c~-~o- ~ 4/28/02 [ 3] (]7~' 11 14100 <23J o-c-wc I J ',;±5 02101105 (14) 312)102 !23) !J -C-D c , / KEY 6/29100 04J L-C-P )Cf,/ 2/12/01 (!6J L-C-W )Cf,/ 2122/01 (14) L-C-0 )c&" _ / 8119101 122) D-C-D 1-c-p ~ ZJ B D > _J co er: w f- <t s: _J _J f- (/) NOTES (l 7J l -C-D MNTH 5 ~ Motor Vehicle Out of Control (/ff--, Motor Vehicle Bocking Up ir Pedestrian lll MC WENT DOWN AVOIDING LEFT-TURN VEHICLE [ZJ DWI RELATED -1JUU7 Motor Vehicle Roi lover ~ Motor Vehicle Sideswipe 0 Fixed Object 9 Fatal Crash @ A Injury Crash ® B Injury Crash © C Injury Crash ---1® 0 Property Damage Crash ,f, 8 Bicycle db M Motorcycle db 0 Parked Vehicle Rear End Property Oam:Jge Right Angle 8 Injury [31 I. VI Towing V2, Tow strop broke. V3 struck VZ. Light, L = Doy I i ght ! l l ON= Down (2l Du= OusK l3 l DJ= Dork, lighted (4J Do= Dark, Lights Off (5) D= DorK, Unlighted (6) X = Unknown ( 99 J !X), NU{Wer of Vehicles In Crash { X ) Weather, Surface, C = CI eor or CI oudy ( I or 2 ) D = Dry { 1 l R= Rain (3) W= Wet (2l S= Snow or Sleet (4 or 5) F = Fog, Smg, Srroke (6l B= Blowing Sand/Dust (7) W= Severe Crosswinds (8) X= Other or Unknown (99) S= Snow or lee (3or4) M• Muddy (51 Db= Debris (Gl Qa 01 ly (7J X= Other or Unknown (99) [Dote] -[ T !me thrs > J -{ L l9ht -Weather -SurfoceJ 5@Jamaca-Stillwater Blvd(CSAH6)_dgn.dgn 4/5/2007 12:56:37 PM MINNESOTA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION -METRO TH-5 AT JAMACA AVE/STILLWATER BLVD REF.PT.: 196.015 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : TH-5 AT JAMACA AVE 2007 : 00000000 JAMAR# 631 RE : 5/2/2007 TURN MOVEMENT COUNT :2 I JAMACA AVE. N. TH-5 I STILLWATER BLVD N. TH-5 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time I Left i Thru I Right I Peds I App. Tolal Left I Tt"1ru ! Right i Peds i App_ To1a1 i Left I Thru i Right I Peds I Acp. ro1a1 0 eak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45 -Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07·00 Lett i Thru ) Ri(;l~t ! Peds I Aop To1a1 07:00 7 13 23 1 44 57 139 2 0 198 3 0 15 0 18 0 56 0 0 56 07:15 10 5 9 1 25 78 120 5 0 203 3 1 30 0 34 1 73 3 0 77 07:30 6 7 14 0 27 68 124 4 0 196 6 0 40 0 46 2 85 3 0 90 07:45 4 10 6 0 20 87 138 2 0 227 7 1 41 0 49 2 85 4 0 91 Total Volume 27 35 52 2 116 290 521 13 0 824 19 2 126 0 147 5 299 10 0 314 ~ Total PHF / .675 .673 .565 .500 .659 • .833 .937 .650 .000 .907 .679 .500 .768 .000 .750 I .625 .879 .625 .000 .863 vr,;v,.-,,._,,. rive:. J\J. I Out In Total I ~ I ,"!.! ~ I ~21 27[~ 351 Jht Thcu Left Peds l 4 Peak Hour Data !~ ~ -~" . • w ~ c_J I ~ ~o J ~-~ -~ ~ NOrtn ~ ~ t'B-g :: -; N.c-► t---~<> rliJ" 1 ,-2 ':, ~ jPeak Hour Begins at 07:00 I f-o-" -~ • Cars & Trucks r h l(tllN -~ 'a. ? :r I~;;: 6~ u -ru :l.[J @:i" Q_ •o -- •7 T r> I left Thcu Right Peds I 19 I 2[ 1261 o I I ' i 335; dm Q,g Out In Total <::Tll.1 WATER P.I VD N Int. Total i 316 339 359 387 1401 .905 MINNESOTA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION -METRO fH-5 AT JAMACA AVE/STILLWATER BLVD ~EF.PT.: 196.015 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : TH-5 AT JAMACA AVE 2007 : 00000000 JAMAR # 631 RE fURN MOVEMENT COUNT JAMACAAVE. N. Southbound TH-5 Westbound : 5/2/2007 :3 STILLWATER BLVD N. TH-5 Northbound Eastbound Start Time i Left Thru , Right · Peds Aop 101.i Left Thru ' Ri ht Ped.e..s L'°'""'''°'"'"-' L.cL-ceft"-, L, Tcch,,,ru'-1.cRce;g"-h'-t LPcoee'.ds'-L,0!!1"C.''.e.""""-L' .,cLeecft.c..LI T,.._h"'ru,_l'-'R"';g,cht,Ji_,P:.cee"'·sct...,,,ee,2'""''"-1--''"°'·-"T'sc.."' :,eak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak 1 of 1 :ieak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30 16:30 6 8 4 0 18 34 78 5 0 117 2 10 61 0 73 12 151 2 0 165 373 16:45 4 8 4 0 16 47 76 6 1 . 130 3 15 53 1 72 13 176 6 0 195 413 17:00 6 6 8 0 20 51 88 4 0 143 6 13 68 0 87 12 132 1 0 145 395 17:15 2 8 10 1 21 47 78 8 0 133 1 17 74 0 92 12 151 3 a 166 412 Total Volume ta 30 26 1 75 179 320 23 1 523 12 55 256 1 324 49 610 12 0 671 1593 ~ otal PHF .750 .938 .650 .250 .893, .877 .909 .719 .250 .914 .500 .809 .865 .250 .880 .942 .866 .500 .000 .860 .964 Out In Total o.m 1751 i-C2D21 r-1,s 30[ 18 11 Right Thru Left Peds .,J l 4 Peak Hour Data ~~ ~i<::'._j t ~~ 'ru ~ .,..., .J ' oi::-,; NOrth t':J -;, i'oj,2-"► 4--2!~ ,r- [15eak Hour Begins at 16:30 1]-0 • r ' Cars & T11Jcks r•-~ V ;;, ci ;51D 0,, r;:Jc1 OM 'D u 0 L'3J,z ID ~ a_ •,- 'l i ,. Left Thru Right Pe_ds 12' 55~ 2561 =:TI i . I r 221! l b11 I 5451 Out In Total Tl WATER 8' VON ROUNDABOUT State Highway 13 and Connty Road 2 -Scott County, Minnesota Problem: State Highway 13 is a 55 mph highway and County Road 2 is a 55 mph road that intersected in a rural environment with 2-way stop control. Annual daily volumes are approximately 5,000 for State Highway 13 and 2,000 for County Road 2. In a 5-year period before the intersection was reconstructed, there were 2 fatalities and approximately 50 people injured at the site. At this site in that 5-year period (2000-2004) there were 26 injury type crashes, 9 property damage crashes, and 2 crashes involving fatalities. Proiect Description: A traffic signal was considered for safety at this location, but it would have meant added delay for the mainline traffic by causing them to stop for cross street traffic. The solution for this intersection was to construct a roundabout, allowing free flow traffic from all legs. Safety increased at this location by reducing conflict points and eliminating right angle crashes, which was the root cause of the problem. Results: The roundabout was opened to traffic in September 2005. The roundabout operations were observed during a rush hour period accommodating approximately 700 vehicles, with about 90% of the approaching traffic not having to yield before entering the roundabout. *Since the roundabout opened there have been 4 reported crashes. Two injury crashes involved motorcycles; one driver that apparently was traveling at too high of an entry speed for the roundabout and the other driver tipped his motorcycle as a result of not seeing vehicle ahead of him had yielded at the roundabout entrance. One injury crash involved a vehicle not yielding to the oncoming traffic. The property damage crash was a rear end type. Prepared by M_nDOT Metro Division Traffic Office *Calculated 10/01/05-12/31/07 (data incomplete) -Updated May 2 I, 2008 City Council Date: 9-16-08 REGULAR Item ID Resolution ITEM: Consider a request for an extension of the submission of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan Council SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Susan Hoyt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to authorize a request to the Metropolitan Council for an extension of the city of Lake Elmo's update to its comprehensive plan to December 2010 to complete the still remaining required plan elements. Currently, according to state statute, updates are due by December 31, 2008. The statute allows for the Metropolitan Council to allow cities to request for an extension to the comprehensive plan deadline. The Metropolitan Council has granted cities the opportunity to request extensions. Because the city is requesting an extension beyond May 29, 2009, a city council resolution is required to be considered by the Metropolitan Council Board. The staff recommends proceeding with this resolution. The planning commission reviewed this request to get its input and to inform the planning commission about the work ahead. The city of Lake Elmo's current Comprehensive Land Use Plan was finalized in 2006. The Metropolitan Council is not anticipating that the city will re-work the entire 2030 plan. As of this writing the Metropolitan Council understands that the city has been proceeding with implementing the Village portion of the Comprehensive Plan and that this has absorbed significant time since the comprehensive plan was approved in 2006. This work has been a priority to meet the terms of the MOU and the adopted comprehensive plan for sewered development. The anticipated submittal date of December 2010 for the three required comprehensive plan elements -water, surface water and transportation -is believed to provide the city with time to accomplish all of the required plans including a public input part of the process, which in the transportation element will be substantial. If the city proceeds with a change in the future land use of the Village based upon the Village Master plan, this is also included in the timeline. According to the extension rules, it is the staff's understanding that the city is encouraged to submit all the plan elements together through the review process. The city cannot request a plan amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, other than those identified in the resolution, until the required plan elements are completed and submitted unless these additional amendments are submitted at the same time as the plan elements required for the update. In developing the time line for th is process of updating the 2030 comprehensive plan, the transportation plan is the only plan element that may not be ready for adoption prior to an amendment to the Village future land use map based on a scenario related to the Village Master plan being completed and ready to go to the Metropolitan Council. BACKGROUND In December 2007 the city council received a tentative schedule for moving ahead with the plan updates for water, surface water and transportation that anticipated finishing the city's work in mid-summer 2009, with the six month comment period following. However, this schedule was put on hold for several reasons. These included: 1) The work going into the Village planning, sewer infrastructure study and 1-94 to 30th Street project dominated the city council, city engineer and staff time and would not allow for a comprehensive analysis of the required plans (water, surface water, transportation) including the public information sharing and opportunity for input that these studies will require. 2) The start of a new planning director in late December 2007, who will be an integral part of updating the comprehensive plan elements. 3) It was found that the funding sources for the water, surface water and transportation funds were not adequate to cover these costs and it would be necessary to complete the city's financial reconciliation to meet government accounting standards and at the auditor's recommendation; this was completed in June, 2008. Proceeding with these studies with negative fund balances and no immediate revenue sources would be fiscally imprudent. a) the negative fund balance in the surface water fund and the lack of incoming revenue being collected that would be required to cover the surface water plan costs; b) the -$565,000 in the infrastructure fund did not provide any funds for the transportation study and needed to be taken care of before proceeding with a transportation plan; 4) The absence of information on the PFC health based values stopped the City from proceeding with the water plan until this was released by MDH in May of this year 5) Critical information for the transportation plan was not available and would be available in the future: a) traffic analysis associated with the Village plans and potential development scenarios being done as part of the AUAR was not underway (the development scenarios had not been selected) b) the Washington County study on Highway 36/17 was getting underway and will provide useful information for the city's local transportation plan when it is completed. PLAN ELEMENTS AND TIMING - The proposed timeline and plan elements (Attachment 1) The proposed timeline anticipates completing these plans over a series of months by staggering them so they come at the appropriate time in the city's planning cycle and so the process can be managed and allow for public information and input along the way. Every effort will be made to complete more efficiently than the timeline suggests. However, it is a good practice to be conservative in estimating timelines rather than underestimating the timeline and fail to meet the terms of the request to the Metropolitan Council. It is also important to keep these as close to reality from a public information and staff work plan perspective. (The Metropolitan Council wants these submitted together after the six month review by neighboring cities and the county.) 2 PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR PLAN ELEMENTS Element* Status Estimated Start Estimated * Required Date Completion date *Water Underwav now that PFC data available 2005 March 2009 *Surface water City Council needs to request RFP from January 2009 October 2009 TKDA *Transportation RFQ being prepared; March 2009 March 2010 Waiting for Village AUAR and H, 36/17 (possibly /Lake Elmo Avenue) studv information earlier) Village masterplan Development scenario AUAR final draft being April 2009 November 2009 development presented to AUAR advisory panel; scenario, if Highway 36/17 study options being different from explained to Design Review Committee comp plan future members before public open house in land use plan that November has been adooted In sum, the plan elements include: 1) a local water plan (required by statute) in process 2) a local surface water plan (required by statute) wil! incorporate the three watershed district plans, the surface water in formation in the AUAR, the storm water plan for the Village done by TKDA and other required plan elements 3) a local transportation plan (needed to incorporate other transit/transportation improvements In to our local transportation framework that are within the region as well as to do some local planning for roads and transit that the city independently wanted to undertake to prepare for the future and be able to respond to county, state, adjacent city proposals; wflf include Washington County transportation plan information that is being updated now; the Highway 36/17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) study, the traffic studies from the Village AUAR, the Safe Routes to School information as well as look carefully at the city's local street connections and needs.} 4) When the city selects a preferred development scenario for the Village, if that development scenario varies from the future land use of the Village in the current comprehensive plan, the city will need to amend the future land use to reflect the preferred development scenario. (At this time, the city does not plan to select a preferred development scenario until after the completion of the AUAR (environmental review) and a financial analysis of some or all of the scenarios evaluated in the AUAR is completed sometime next year.) REASONS FOR DELAY IN COMPLETING PLAN UPDATE The Metropolitan Council is asking for reasons for the delay in submitting an application, These are included in the resolution, 1) One of the primary reasons for the delay in these elements was the time and thought that went into creating the current 2030 comprehensive plan and getting Metropolitan Council approval of it This plan encompasses most of the required information for this update, as well as the work that is going into implementing the first phase of sewered development In addition, the city, under the leadership of the planning commission, brought the two areas in the city planned for future sewered growth into conformance with the zoning code through holding districts, 3 2) The comprehensive plan required the city to proceed with sewered development with the Village as the highest priority for this work according to both the MOU requirements and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This effort requires land use planning, environmental, financial and engineering studies to gather information that will allow the city to make the associated decisions to accomplish these required goals. This work has been a priority since the adoption of the 2030 plan in 2006 3) A major environmental review process (AUAR) involving the Village is underway at this time. The outcome of this analysis will provide important information related to water, surface water and transportation needs for the city to incorporate into its future plan elements. 4) The city undertook a water plan in 2005, but put the plan on hold until the outcome of the PFC contamination work on health based values that was done by the Minnesota Department of Health and released in the spring of 2008. The city is now working on the water plan. 5) The city was functioning without a planning director from December, 2006 through December, 2007. Once hired, the new planning director requires getting acquainted with the community and land use actions and history; 6) It was important to determine the true status of the city's financial resources before proceeding with major studies in surface water and transportation without confidence that the city had the resources to pay for this work since fund balances at year end were in the negative for these funds. Between January 2008 and June 2008 upon the advice of the city auditor, the city worked with a financial consultant to bring the city's financial records into conformance with best practices in local government. 7) The city is committed to an open public process including opportunities for public input throughout these studies. This requires coordinating the activities so that there is time for input on all of the systems in a meaningful way. IN SUMMARY: o All plans are proposed for completion by March 2010 o No amendments to the comprehensive plan can be made by the city until the update is completed (in other words until the water, surface water and transportation plans are submitted) o Review by neighboring cities and Washington County (April, 2010 -October, 2010) A review period for neighboring jurisdictions of six months is required. These jurisdictions often comment prior to the end of the six months. o Public hearing, adoption and submission (November, 2010 -December, 2010) The city must hold a public hearing, adopt and submit the comprehensive plan update. o Penalty The penalty for not updating the comprehensive plan within nine months after the Metropolitan Council makes a decision and orders the plan update in conformance to the systems statement the Metropolitan Council may pursue civil action against the city. (Statute 473.175 Subd. 3) SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Move to approve resolution 2008-45 requesting an extension for a Comprehensive plan update from the Metropolitan Council until December 2010. ATTACHMENTS 1 Proposed timeline for plan elements 2 Draft Resolution requesting an extension 2008--c, 4 S 4 City of Lake Elmo Proposed Timeline for Completion of Comprehensive Plan Elements The steps for completing these plan elements may be modified as necessary and the dates for the steps under each plan element will be completed as they become available. Plan Element Estimated Start Dale Estimated Comoletion Date Water Plan (Reauiredl Underwav March 2009 Gather data on water aualitv and sources; incoroorate new PFC data Meet with neiqhborinq cities about onnortunities for shared water delivery Develop and implement a communication plan involving MOH and PCA where and when annropriate Evaluate water auantity and water auality Develop capital improvement plan with priority needs to serve current and future needs -timina and fundina AP[:Jroach funding agencies/organizations/3M Adopt water plan Water Resources Plan (surface water) (Required) Januarv 2009 October 2009 Receive and accept proposal from city enqineerinq firm Develop communication Plan/Public process Plan Gather data from Brown Creek, South Washington, Valley Branch watersheds and intearate Villaqe storm sewer plan and AUAR information Evaluate water auality and auantitY information Address water auality requirements and initiatives lncoroorate floodolain, lake and recreation information Prioritize stormwater manaaement oondina and infrastructure Address water auality in lakes Ensure comoliance with NPDES Phase II MS4 permit Assure compliance with watershed and other relevant plans Develop policies governing public and private management of surfacewater Develop imProvement caoital imorovement Plan Review and revise fees for surfacewater utility Adoot surface water manaaement plan 3 September 2008 City of Lake Elmo Proposed Timeline for Completion of Comprehensive Plan Elements The steps for completing these plan elements may be modified as necessary and the dates for the steps under each plan element will be completed as they become available. Plan Element Estimated Start Date Estimated Comcletion Date Transcortation Plan (Reauiredl March 2009 March 2010 Send out RFQ Select Consultant Provide communication/oublic inout plan (siQnificant part of timelinel Gather data from Washington County, Transportation Plan, MnDOT studies, other Incorporate AUAR data and gather other local data on trip generation, traffic and roadway volumes and caoacitv-deficiency Address future road svstems, connectivitv Address transit options Address Develop priorities and fundina for transportation CIP Adopt transportation plan Villaae Future land Use Comcrehensive Plan Amendment /if new develooment scenario selected different than como plan) Complete AUAR Aoril 2008 Januarv 2009 Complete Financial review of options February 2009 March 2009 Select development scenario March 2009 Amil 2009 Comprehensive plan amendment to capture new development scenario Amil 2009 November 2009 Hire a consultant to assist the planning commission/planning director to lead the orocess Develop and imr:;lement a communication plan with all stakeholders Proceed with process/review Include AUAR mitigation olan where annropriate Adopt comorehensive plan amendment Proceed with zoning code changes to reflect Comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision reaulations Airport zonina will become oar! of Villaae official controls . 3 September 2008 2 City of Lake Elmo Proposed Timeline for Completion of Comprehensive Plan Elements The steps for completing these plan elements may be modified as necessary and the dates for the steps under each plan element will be completed as they become available. Review, adootion and submission with other elements if timina is riaht Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date Review, adoption and submission timeline for reauired plan elements: • Release for comment lo neiahboring cities/county (assumes 6 months) Aoril 2010 October 201 O* • Public hearing on the clan amendment November 2010 • Adoot plan amendment November 2010 • Submit to Metrooolitan Council December 2010 * This 6 month review period is often shorter than required. 3 September 2008 3 CITY OF LAKE ELMO RESOLUTION NO. 2008-45 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "DECENNIAL" REVIEW OBLIGATIONS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires local governmental units to review and, if necessary, amend their entire comprehensive plans and their fiscal devices and official controls at least once eve,y ten years to ensure comprehensive plans conform with metropolitan system plans and ensnre fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with comprehensive plans or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their "decennial" reviews by December 31, 2008; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 authorizes the Metropolitan Council to grant extensions to local governmental units to allow local governmental units additional time within which to complete the "decennial" review and amendments; and WHEREAS, any extensions granted by the Metropolitan Council must include a timetable and plan for completing the review and amendment; and WHEREAS, the City will not be able to complete its "decennial" review by December 31, 2008, for the following reasons: WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is appropriate to request from the Metropolitan Council an extension so the City can have additional time to complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for review an updated comprehensive plan and amend its fiscal devices and official controls. 1) One of the primary reasons for the delay in these elements was the time and thought that went into creating the current 2030 comprehensive plan and getting Metropolitan Council approva of it. This plan encompasses most of the required information for this update, as well as the work that is going into implementing the first phase of sewered development. In addition, the city, under the leadership of the planning commission, brought the two areas in the city planned for future sewered growth into conformance with the zoning code through holding districts. 2) The comprehensive required the city to proceed with sewered development with the Village as the highest priority for this work according to both the MOU requirements and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This effort requires land use planning, environmental, financial and engineering studies to gather information that will allow the city to make the associated decisions to accomplish these required goals. This work has been a priority since the adoption of the 2030 plan in 2006 3) A major environmental review process (AUAR) involving the Village is underway at this time. The outcome of this analysis will provide important information related to water, surface water and transportation needs for the city to incorporate into its future plan elements. 4) The city undertook a water plan in 2005, but put the plan on hold until the outcome of the PFC contamination work on health based values that was done by the Minnesota Department of Health and released in the spring of 2008. The city is now working on the water plan. 5) The city was functioning without a planning director from December, 2006 through December, 2007. Once hired, the new planning director requires getting acquainted with the community and land use actions and history; 6) It was important to determine the true status of the city's financial resources before proceeding with major studies in surface water and transportation without confidence that the city had the resources to pay for this work since fund balances at year end were in the negative for these funds. Between January 2008 and June 2008 upon the advice of the city auditor, the city worked with a financial consultant to bring the city's financial records into conformance with best practices in local government. 7) The city is committed to an open public process including opportunities for public input throughout these studies. This requires coordinating the activities so that there is time for input on all of the systems in a meaningful way. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: I. 2. For: The Planning Director is directed to submit to the Metropolitan Council no later than November I, 2008, an application requesting an extension to December 2010. The Planning Director must include with the request a reasonably detailed timetable and plan for completing: (a) the review and amendment by December 2010 and (b) the review and amendment of the City's fiscal devices and official controls. Against: