HomeMy WebLinkAbout#14 City Council Report - Boulder Ponds PUD Amendment 9.6.16MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 9/6/2016
REGULAR
ITEM #: 14
AGENDA ITEM: Boulder Ponds PUD Amendment/Rezoning
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consultant Senior Planner
Emily Becker, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC is requesting approval of a rezoning/PUD amendment to the Boulder Ponds
PUD to rezone Outlots B (PID#34.029.21.33.0023) and C (PID# 34.029.21.33.0024), Boulder Ponds
from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD, respectively to HDR-PUD.. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on 7/25/16 and recommended approval. The City Council discussed the request at its
meeting on 8/16/2016 and tabled it until the 9/16/2016 meeting in order to further research the issues.
Staff sent a letter to the developer extending the 60 day review to 120 days.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
The Council shall determine whether to approve the rezoning/PUD amendment.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC believes the MDR/PUD was the incorrectly zoning for the proposed 64-unit
senior facility proposed for Outlot C. The existing zoning is MDR/PUD whereas the desired zoning is
HDR/PUD. Boulder Ponds would also like to add the adjacent Commercial/PUD outlot, Outlot C, to the
development site with the same HDR/PUD zoning.
The zoning for Boulder Ponds occurred on 4/21/15 and was based on a density analysis presented during
the Concept PUD process. The area guided for Medium Density Residential, which is approximately
10.1 acres, contains 17 single family dwellings and a planned 64 senior facility, which has a planned
gross density of 7.98 units per acre; the appropriate density for Medium Density Residential land use
guide.
The norther portion of the area was developed into 17 single family dwellings and was zoned LDR/PUD.
The southern portion of the area was platted as Outlot C (2.24 acres) and zoned MDR/PUD for the
planned 64-unit senior residential use. With MDR zoning, the maximum allowed density is only 7 units
per acre, whereas with HDR, the maximum allowed density is 15 units per acre.
City Council Meeting 9/6/16 Consent/Regular Agenda Item #14
Page 2
Correction from the Planning Commission Report. A 64-unit residential development on
Outlot C would have a density of 25.91 units per acre which exceeds the allowed HDR
density. However, after consultation with Consultant Planner, Ben Gozola, Staff now
understands that this density, 64 dwelling units on 2.24 acres was approved as part of the
concept plan and anticipated at preliminary plat. By adding the 1.44 acre-Outlot B to the
development site, rezoning it from Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD, an additional density of 26
additional dwelling units could be allowed based on the HDR zoning, or 31 additional dwelling
units if 20% density bonus was applied through the PUD (for a total potential density of 90
dwelling units over both Oultots B and C together, or 95 if density bonus is applicable
through the PUD).
No additional density would be allowed, as suggested by the Developer, for unused density
in the other portions of the development, north of 5th Street.
The Developer has suggested that they might want to be allowed additional density if providing
senior congregate care facilities with services, as was done with the Arbor Glen project in the
Village area. If you recall, the memory care units were not counted towards the overall density
count because these units are recognized as being different from standard multi-family
residential development. In addition, the City Council slightly increased the maximum allowed
density up to a maximum of 16 units per acre within the VMX District area. These provisions
required a comprehensive plan amendment and did not include any other areas besides the VMX
Zoning District. Without a similar comprehensive plan amendment, any memory care units would
be considered as dwelling units.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS:
at the Public Hearing, no one spoke from the public and there was no written correspondence.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about approving the rezoning to HDR/PUD without
a specific plan and was concerned that the senior living project could end up as a market rate high
density multi-family rental housing. The Planning Commission made a motion that they are in
support of congregate care with services not counting as dwelling units as was approved in the
VMX District. Todd Williams and Tom Kreimer are in support of more high density residential and
that the Boulder Ponds site is an appropriate location. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning/PUD amendment with a 7-0 vote.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be no direct fiscal impact by the rezoning/PUD Amendment, however, it will
improve the marketability of Outlots B and C, which will provide development fees and building
permit fees to the City when developed.
City Council Meeting 9/6/16 Consent/Regular Agenda Item #14
Page 3
OPTIONS:
The City Council should consider whether to approve the Rezoning/PUD Amendment from MDR/PUD
and Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD for Outlots C and B, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ordinance 08-149 Rezoning/PUD
Amendment with the following motion:
“Move to approve a zoning map amendment/PUD Amendment, Ordinance O8-149, to rezone Outlots B
(PID 34.029.21.33.0023) and C (PID 34.029.21.33.0024), Bolder Ponds from Commercial/PUD and
MDR/PUD respectively to HDR/PUD”.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Minutes 7-25-16
Planning Commission Report Packet
Ordinance 08-149
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 25, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dunn, Larson, Griffin, Fields, Dodson, Kreimer, Lundquist
and Williams.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Dodson/Griffin, move to approve the agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried.
Approve Minutes: June 27, 2016
M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to approve the June 27, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote:
7-0, motion carried.
Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment OP4 Boulder Ponds
Wensman started his presentation regarding the Boulder Ponds PUD amendment which
is processed as a rezoning. They would like to rezone outlots B & C from Commercial
PUD and MDR-PUD to HDR-PUD. Wensman went through some of the history of the
site and explained what the developer is trying to do. Wensman provided draft findings
as follows 1) The rezoning/PUD amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the subject property 2) The proposed land use, Senior Housing is a
conditional use in both the Commercial and HDR zoning districts, so the underlying land
use will remain unchanged 3) The proposed HDR/PUD zoning is appropriate for the
proposed senior housing density. 4) The proposed PUD/Amendment is consistent with
the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary PUD Plans.
Wensman stated that in order to develop the site as senior living, the area would need
final plat/final PUD plan approval, outlot B & C would need to be combined into a single
lot and a conditional use permit approval is required for congregate housing.
Dodson is wondering why the CUP application is not with this. Wensman stated that
they are trying to market the property, but there is no plan. Dodson is wondering if
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
they rezone the property, what would stop them from putting in a differnet type of High
density housing. Wensman stated that there would be no guarantee that a differnet
plan wouldn’t come forward.
Fields asked if the senior housing is the motivation for rezoning this property, why
wouldn’t we wait until there is a plan for a CUP for the senior housing. Fields feels that
making the change could have the City end up with something that is unintended.
Larson is wondering if there could be a condition attached to this request stating that it
is for Senior Housing. Wensman stated that he does not believe there can be conditions
on a rezoning.
Deb Ridgeway, Excelsior Group, stated that they do not have a buyer yet for the
property. She feels it is to clean up the zoning for the marketing of the property. She
said that they need a larger lot in order to market this as smaller lots are not desirable.
They are currently marketing the site as a senior housing project.
Williams asked about the combined parcels and how many units they need to make it
viable. Deb Ridgeway stated that they feel they need 100 units for it to be a viable
senior housing project. Williams stated that it is only approximately 4 acres and at 15
units/acre maximum, that still only gives them approximately 60 units. Ridgeway stated
that based on it being a PUD and looking at the entire site, they would be allowed 210
units. They would be platting 98 units at this time with a difference of 112 units.
Wensman does not agree with Ridgeways calculations. The underlying zoning is the t ool
to enforce the comprehensive plan. There are bonuses allowed, however, once the
zoning is set for a parcel, that is how it needs to be developed. The LDR could have
been developed more dense, and just because it wasn’t, doesn’t mean that it can be
shifted to another area. The PUD is not an open door for density.
Williams wanted to confirm the allowed density for this site for HDR zoning. Wensman
stated that it would be 64 units for this project or 76 units if they achieve the 20%
bonus. He asked Ridgeway if that is the case, would they still want to proceed with the
rezoning request. Ridgeway confirmed that they would.
Dunn asked what qualified for a 20% bonus. Wensman stated that there is the base
zoning and then with a PUD there are highlights that qualify for bonuses. Dunn stated
that it is very hard to keep track of these issues if the developer keeps changing things
as they go along. Wensman stated that the deviations are spelled out at the time of
preliminary plat.
Fields thinks that rezoning this now without a project opens the door for market rate
multi-family rental housing.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
Public hearing opened at 7:38 pm
No one spoke and there was no written correspondence.
Public hearing closed at 7:38 pm
M/S/P: Willimans/Dodson, move to add finding number 5 that there is disagreement
between the applicant and staff as to how many units would be allowed with the new
zoning, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Fields/Williams, move to add finding number 6 that to change the zoning to HDR
would allow the site to be marketed as a market rate mulit-family housing site, Vote: 7-
0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/, move to add finding number 7 that unit counts for the congregate
care as found in the senior housing in the Old Village area, should also be applied City
wide. There was no second and this was added to the approval motion.
Ridgeway wanted to clarify that the preliminary plat was approved to have a 64 unit
senior facility, but the zoning was not put into place correctly. They would just like to
expand the acreage so that they can market this better. The existing residents know
that this is intended to be a senior living project.
Ben Schmidt, Excelsior Group, their understanding based on th e original PUD is that
they could do a 64 unit senior facility on the 2.4 acres, but they would not be able to do
it under the MDR zoning. This needs to change to HDR to get to what was approved
with the PUD. Based on the original density of the 2.4 acre parcel, by adding the
additional acreage, 100 units is easy to get to. He agrees with using the same language
that was used in the Old Village.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the rezoning/PUD
Amendment for Outlots B and C, Boulder Ponds, rezoning from Commercial/PUD and
MDR/PUD, respectively, to HDR/PUD based on the findings in the staff report and the
additional findings voted on and further recommend that the counts that apply to
senior housing in the Old Village, be applied to this site, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Williams stated that the City needs more HDR in the City as we have virtually none right
now. He feels this is an appropriate place for HDR. Kreimer also agrees that this was
always shown as a multi-family building.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment Open Space Development
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
Wensman started his presentation regarding the Open Space ordinance. He went
through the recommendations that the Planning Commission had. There was also
recommendations from the City Council. This version takes into consideration the
Comments of the City Council. This ordinance is currently not in the Zoning Code, and
this will move it back to the zoning Code.
Wensman went through the specifics of the changes in this version. This version
articulates what the City is looking for in these PUD’s. One significant change is
eliminating the super majority vote for deviations to allow more flexibility. The
Comprehensive Plan is very clear that the density is 18/40 acres. The Buffer language
was updated, septic sites need to be identified first, roadway standards were eliminated
in favor of City Standards, lot sizes were left at 1 acre and ½ acre, building area was
clarified and open space configuration can be reduced on a case by case basis. The City
attorney added language regarding failing septic systems so that the City does not incur
costs for failure. Individual septic systems must be on the individual lots and are not
allowed in outlots. There will no longer be a public hearing at the concept phase. Now
there will be a public hearing at the final plat to memorial ize the agreement via
ordinance so that it is a lot cleaner and easier to track. Wensman also stated that the
City Engineer did not put a number on the number of homes that would be needed to
support a community septic.
Williams would like the 154.650 purpose to be modified to say “wildlife corridor” or
“natural corridor” instead of just corridor.
Williams is concerned about the number of homes necessary to support a community
drainfield. Dodson feels that the critical language is that the C ity be able to do the work
and bill back the affected residents, rather than relying on the HOA to do the work and
collect. Williams pointed out some grammer issues on page 8 item 4 and Dunn would
like the (as much as possible) removed. Leaves too much room for interpretation.
Would also like to change “strive to” to “shall”.
Williams is wondering about on page 9 (6) v., the association owned stormwater
management facilities. He thought that the engineer is insisting that the City own these
in other subdivisions. Wensman said that he will discuss with contract planner and City
Engineer. Williams is wondering why the code is silent regarding signage and doesn’t
just refer to the City sign code. Wensman stated that city sign code would apply and
would not need to be put in this section.
The Planning Commission is not comfortable with page 11 1 (b) 2, the City holding the
conservation easements and would like them to be held by an outside agency.
Williams is wondering if there is a list of purposes that the open space can be set aside
for. He thinks that it is not clear enough what the purposes should be. Wensman stated
that it does talk about agriculture and natural habitat, but it does not say that those are
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
the only 2 things it can be used for. Kreimer is wondering if language could be added if
the land trust doesn’t accept the land, the City may consider it. Williams stated that he
believes the MN land trust typically wants open space that is 10 acres and this could be
problematic with the reduction to 20 acres. Dunn feels that there seems to be
unintended consequences for coming down to a 20 acre minimum.
Williams is wondering if there should be a setback for trails when there is a wetland.
Wensman stated that VBWD reviews the plans when a wetland is present and the
review process protects that. Williams thinks that 154.660 (3) for deviations, there
should be the word “and” after a & b so that all 3 criteria need to be met to get the
deviations.
Williams thinks that on page 18 (3) is left over from the commercial PUD and should be
taken out. Williams suggested some other changes that were clean up items that
applied more to commercial PUD’s.
Public hearing opened at 9:25 pm
No one spoke and there was no written correspondence
Public hearing closed at 9:25 pm
M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to postpone consideration of the OP Ordinance until staff
can return a cleaned up copy for consideration, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment to opt out of requirements for Temporary
Health Care Dwellings
Wensman started his presentation by giving an overview of the Temporary Health Care
Dwelling legislation. Staff drafted an ordinance to opt out of the state statute. The
Building Official had a number of concerns such as septic systems, anchoring, water
access, insulation, etc. Staff drafted an ordinance to opt out of the state statute based
on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Public hearing opened at 9:30 pm
No one spoke and there was no written correspondence
Public hearing closed at 9:30 pm
M/S/P: Dunn/Williams, move to recommend approval of the ordinance to opt out of the
requirements of Minnesoat Statutes Section 462.3593 , Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
Dodson is concerned that if the state felt strongly enough to enact this, should we be
willing to provide a mechanism for people to provide for loved ones.
Larson feels that this legislation does not seem to fit in our community. Wensman
stated that this is really to care for an aging population which is a valid concern, but is
not sure that this is the best solution. This has been talked about in many different
states. Wensman knows of at least a dozen cities around us that have opted out and
only 1 that he knows of that have opted in.
Business Item – Ordinance amendment for the keeping of pigeons
Wensman gave a brief update on the pigeon ordinance. This item was talked about a
while back and he has incorporated the suggestions of the Planning Co mmission from
previous discussions. This is not an item that is in the zoning code, so a public hearing
would not be required. This item will move forward to the City Council at a future date.
City Council Updates – July 5, 2016 Meeting
i) Vacation of watermain easement for Auto Owners – passed.
ii) Amend Fence regulations in regards to encroachment agreements – passed.
iii) Hunting Ordinance – Tabled.
iv) CPA for Rural Single Family in regards to sanitary sewer – passed.
v) Moratorium extension – passed.
vi) Neighborhood park in Savona neighborhood – request for Park Commission
to review.
City Council Updates – July 19, 2016 Meeting
i) Hunting Ordinance – Input given to Planning Director to bring back to future
meeting.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. August 8, 2016
b. August 22, 2016
Commission Concerns
Dunn is wondering if there is any way to get a feel for what the costs will be to the City
for these additional developments that come forward. Be it for police, fire, lighting, etc.
Dunn also mentioned that Baytown and West Lakeland are really concerned about Lake
Elmo not taking a stand against the airport expansion. She would like it to be taken to
the City Council for a resolution.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16
M/S/P: Dunn/Larson, move to bring a request to the City Council to support Baytown
and West Lakeland in their opposition to the airport expansion , Vote: 6-1, motion
carried unanimously.
Williams stated that the current design has no impact on the Neal ave and 30 th Street
intersection. Larson stated that the last set of meetings that they had come to an
agreement with Baytown. Kreimer stated that he just doesn’t feel that he has enough
information to vote on this issue.
Fields was wondering if there was any update on the land purchased by Prairie Island
and put into trust. Wensman stated that he can check with Kristina.
Dunn is wondering when discussions will start regarding lowering the forecast
population numbers. Wensman stated that he has not gotten further direction from the
City Council.
Meeting adjourned at 9:57 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 7/25/16
AGENDA ITEM: 4b– PUBLIC HEAR ITEM
CASE # 2016-24
ITEM: Rezoning/PUD Amendment – Boulder Ponds
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC is requesting approval of a rezoning/PUD amendment to the Boulder Ponds
PUD to rezone Outlots B (PID#34.029.21.33.0023) and C (PID# 34.029.21.33.0024), Boulder
Ponds from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD, respectively to HDR-PUD.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC
Property Owners: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC
Location: Jade Trail North, South of 5th Street
Request: rezoning/PUD amendment to the Boulder Ponds PUD to rezone Outlots B and
C, Boulder Ponds from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD, respectively to
HDR-PUD
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped outlots - Commercial PUD/MDR PUD
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: LDR to the north, vacant - Commercial PUD outlot to the east,
BP to the west, vacant Commercial PUD outlot to the south
Comprehensive Plan: MDR/Commercial
History: Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat was approved on 7/28/14. The subject parcels were
rezoned from RT to Commercial PUD/MDR PUD on 4/21/15.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/27/16
60 Day Deadline – 8/26/16
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Regulations: Article XVI, Chapter 154, Sections 750-760, PUD Regulations
Article X – Urban Residential Districts
Planning Commission Meeting 7/25/16 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
REQUEST DETAILS:
OP4 Boulder Ponds is requesting a Rezoning/PUD Amendment of two parcels, Outlot B and C, from
Commerical/PUD and MDR/PUD respectively, to HDR/PUD in order to better market the parcels for
a future Senior Housing Development.
Outlot B is presently zoned for Commercial/PUD and is 1.44 acres in size. Outlot C is presently
zoned for MDR/PUD and is 2.24 acres in size. The applicant would like to rezone both parcels to
HDR/PUD and market them together for a proposed senior housing project.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
According to Article XVI, Chapter 15, Section 757, Subd C of the Planned Unit Development Code,
PUD Amendments shall be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under the
procedures for zoning amendment in Article III of the City Code of Ordinances.
The rationale for the housing density in the MDR portion of Boulder Ponds was described in the
12/09/13 Planning Report for the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan:
The medium density area, which is approximately 10.1 acres, contains 81 residential units (17
single family, 64 multi-family), resulting in a gross density of 7.98 units per acre. It should be
noted that this density figure is slightly higher than what is guided by the Comprehensive Plan.
However, given that the proposed development is a PUD, and that the amount of land guided
for medium density residential development on these parcels by the Comprehensive Plan is
much greater, Staff has determined that the proposed Concept Plan meets the spirit and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. To explain Staff’s reasoning for this determination in another
way, the proposed Concept Plan decreases the amount of total land guided for medium density
development by over 20 acres by moving the collector road south. The slight increase in
density above the allowed range per the Comp Plan is balanced by the significant reduction in
the amount of land guided medium density. To put it in simple terms, by using the low end of
gross density ranges in the Comp Plan, these parcels were guided to have 195 total residential
units (not accounting for road right-of-way), whereas the proposed PUD Concept Plan includes
157 total units. Overall, the proposed PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the
land use and density requirements as guided by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The rationale for the density is sound, however, when it recommending subsequent zoning for the
sites, Staff had recommended LDR/PUD for the single family cul-de-sac, Jade Circle North, and
MDR/PUD for the senior housing parcel (Outlot C). Outlot B was zoned Commercial PUD. The
LDR/PUD zoning is the correct zoning for the single family housing on Jade Circle North just
south of 5th Street, but the remaining 2.240 acre parcel (Outlot C) was zoned MDR/PUD for a
planned 64 unit Senior Housing project. The zoning code, Section 154.453, Subdivision A,
allows:
Averaging of Lot Area. When lots are clustered within a development to provide common
open space, the open space may be used to calculate an average density per lot to
determine compliance with the individual lot area requirements.
To determine the allowed density for Outlot C, A 64-unit project on a 2.240 acres site (and 0.23
acres of corresponding open space) would have a density of 25.91 units per acre, exceeding the 7-
unit per acres allowed by the underlying MDR zoning, or 8.4-units per acre if 20% density bonus
Planning Commission Meeting 7/25/16 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
was applied through the PUD. The HDR zoning would provide a 15-units per acre base density, or
18-units per acre if 20% density bonus was applied through the PUD. Even with HDR/PUD
zoning, the 64-unit project would exceed the density allowable on the 2.47 acre site (.23 acres of
open space). Therefore, OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC is proposing to rezone Outlot B (1.44 acres)
from Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD to add to the Senior Housing project area. With the addition
of Outlot B, the 64-unit senior housing project be 4.18 acres (3.68 acres outlot area + .5 acres of
open space) in size with a density of 15-units per acre. HDR/PUD is the appropriate zoning
district for the proposed use on Outlots B and C combined.
Senior housing (congregate housing) is a conditional use in both the Commercial and HDR Zoning
Districts, so although the request is for a rezoning from Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD, the
proposed underlying land use remains essentially the same.
In order to proceed with a senior housing project on the Oulots B and C the following would be
required:
•Final PUD Plans and Final Plat (combining the two outlots into a single lot)
•Conditional Use Permit
DRAFT FINDINGS:
In order to approve a rezoning, the Planning Commission shall consider findings are shall submit the
same with its recommendation to the City Council. Staff suggests the following findings:
1. The Rezoning/PUD Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for
the subject property.
2. The proposed land use, Senior Housing, is a conditional use in both the Commercial and
HDR zoning districts, so the underlying land use will remain unchanged.
3. The proposed HDR/PUD zoning is appropriate for the proposed senior housing density.
4. The proposed PUD/Amendment is consistent with the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan and
Preliminary PUD Plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning/PUD Amendment for Outlots B and C, Boulder Ponds,
rezoning from Commercial/PUD and MDR/PUD, respectively, to HDR/PUD with the following
motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Rezoning/PUD Amendment for Outlots B and C, Boulder
Ponds from Commercial/PUD and MDR/PUD, respectively, to HDR/PUD with the following
motion based on the findings in the Staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Meeting 7/25/16 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – ACTION ITEM
•Application and Narrative
•Planning Commission Report – Boulder Ponds PUD – Concept Plan 12/09/16
•Housing Density Analysis (from 12/09/16 Concept Plan)
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
Boulder Ponds Preliminary PUD Amendment & Zoning Amendment Application
1
NARRATIVE
Zoning Amendment & Preliminary PUD Amendment
Project Representatives and Contact Information.
LANDOWNER/ OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC
DEVELOPER c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC
1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Ben Schmidt, Vice President
952.525.3225
Ben.Schmidt@ExcelsiroLLC.com
Deb Ridgeway, Asset Manager
952.525.3223
Deb.Ridgeway@ExelsiorLLC.com
Property Address, Zoning, Parcel Size, PID and Legal Description
Outlot B, Boulder Ponds Outlot C, Boulder Ponds
ADDRESS XXXX Hudson Blvd XXXX Hudson Blvd
CURRENT
ZONING
Commercial - PUD MDR - PUD
PARCEL SIZE
Acres 1.72 2.46
Sq. Ft 2,591,320.2 6,098.4
PIDs 34-029-21-33-0023 34-029-21-33-0024
Boulder Ponds Preliminary PUD Amendment & Zoning Amendment Application
2
Boulder Ponds is a Planned Unit Development that was approved to include a
variety of land uses, including single family residential, multifamily residential and
commercial. The first phase of street and utility installation is complete to serve 20
Villa lots, 27 single family lots and 10 acres of commercial and multifamily.
During the preliminary plat process, the 2.42 multifamily site (Outlot C) was
presented as a 64-unit multifamily building. Based on the current zoning of medium
density residential (7 units per acre), Outlot C is allowed only 15.4 units, which is
inconsistent with the PUD approval. In addition to remedying this inconsistency,
there is a desire to rezone Outlot B to allow multifamily on the entire 4.18 acres.
Therefore, this application requests approval to amend the zoning of Outlots B & C,
Boulders Ponds from Commercial and MDR-PUD to HDR-PUD and allow for a
maximum 112 multifamily units. This is based on the analysis of the current
approved plan with 98 units versus the 210.4 units that could be allowed per the
zoning code. The accompanying plan further illustrates this. There is no proposed
layout at this time, but when a plan is created, Final Plat, Final PUD and Conditional
Use Permit approvals will be required providing adequate oversight of the specific
site plans.
In conclusion, Boulder Ponds offers a uniquely planned mixed-use neighborhood
where the land uses provide a seamless transition from commercial to low density
residential. The high density use between the commercial and lower density homes
creates a complementary buffer and generally a more desirable and overall more
viable neighborhood for Lake Elmo.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-149
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE
BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ordains that Lake Elmo City Code, Section
154.032 Zoning District Map, of the Municipal Code, shall be amende d by adding
Ordinance No. 08-149, as follows:
Section 1: Zoning Map Amendment. The following properties, Outlot B, Boulder
Ponds (PID#34.029.21.33.0023) and Outlot C, Boulder Ponds (PID#34.029.21.33.0024)
are hereby rezoned from C-Commercial/PUD and MDR-Medium Density
Residential/PUD, respectively, to HDR-High Density Residential/PUD.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo also hereby ordains that the
Zoning Administrator shall make the applicable changes to the official zoning map of the
City of Lake Elmo.
Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
This Ordinance No. 08-149 was adopted on this 19th day of August 2016, by a vote of
_ Ayes and _ Nays.
_____________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk