HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-16 Council Meeting Packet 2 of xSTAFF REPORT
DATE: September 6, 2016
CONSENT
ITEM #: 11
MOTION
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Julie Johnson, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM: HAIRitage ‘Hous Massage Therapy Premises Permit
BACKGROUND:
The City has received an application for a massage therapy premises permit from owner Bobbi
Gray to provide massage therapy services at the HAIRitage ‘Hous located at 9242 Hudson Road,
Lake Elmo. City ordinance requires that the City conduct a background check and hold a Public
Hearing prior to granting the license. Washington County Sheriff’s Office has conducted the
background check on both the applicant and the massage therapist and there are no adverse
findings in either report. The Notice of Public Hearing has been published in the City’s official
newspaper as required.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the city approve the application for a premises permit for massage therapy?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
HAIRitage ‘Hous has been located in Lake Elmo approximately ten years and has offered
massage services in the past, prior to the City’s creation of an ordinance for licensing massage
therapy. The premises permit covers the business location and one therapist; both have passed a
background check conducted by the Washington County Sheriff’s office. Applications,
insurance, training certifcations and other required information have been reviewed and accepted
by staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The prorated fee for the license and fee for the background check has been paid by the applicant
in the amount of $166.66.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the license. If Council chooses
to approve the license, the following motion may be used:
Motion to approve the HAIRitage ‘Hous application for a massage therapy premises
permit.
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
PUD Concept Plan Review
To: City Council
From: Ben Gozola, City Planner
Meeting Date: September 6, 2016
Applicants: HC Golf Course Development, LLC
Location: 11455 20th Street North
Introductory Information
Request: The applicants are seeking feedback on a PUD concept plan for redevelopment of the
Tartan Park Golf Course into the Royal Golf Club. As presented, the redevelopment
would include significant upgrades to the golf course itself, and the introduction of
residential housing on the periphery of the course and property.
NOTE: This Concept Plan phase of development is specifically designed as an avenue to
provide a developer with feedback on what steps must be taken to allow a proposed
development to proceed. The Planning Commission, City Council, and surrounding land
owners are asked to recognize that nothing is set in stone as of yet, and the design of this
development (if it moves forward) will be largely predicated on the feedback and direction
received at this stage of the development process.
Site Data: Existing Zoning – PF (Public Facility)
Land Use Guidance – Public/Park
Approximate Existing Parcel sizes – 159.01 acres, 74.84 acres, and 39.6 acres, 37.4
acres, 37.04 acres, 37.01 acers, 26.38 acres, and 13.25 acres (424.53 gross acres)
Property Identification Numbers (PIDs): 25-029-21-12-0001, 25-029-21-13-0001,
25-029-21-14-0001, 25-029-21-21-0001, 25-029-21-31-0001, 25-029-21-42-0001,
25-029-21-43-0001, and 25-029-21-43-0002
Various
Prelim Calcs
(in acres):
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA ........................................................477 gross acres
UPLAND (less open water) ..............................................≈ 424 acres
LAND WITHIN SHORELAND ..........................................≈ 206 acres
NON SHORELAND ..........................................................≈ 218 acres
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 2
(cont.) UPLAND SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE FOR
RESIDNETIAL DEVELOPMENT .....................................≈ 205 acres
– WETLANDS ................................................................≈ 16 acres
– WETLAND BUFFERS ................................................≈ 9.75 acres
– BLUFFS ......................................................................≈ 0.75 acres
– ROW DEDICATIONS (func class rds) .......................≈ 3.5 acres
– OPEN WATER ............................................................≈ 1.5 acres
– ANTICIPATED TRAIL EASEMENTS .........................≈ 1.25 acres
NET RESIDENTIAL SITE AREA ......................................≈ 173 acres
– 40 acres of private open space would cut the actual developed land
down to approximately 133 acres; however, the Met Council
measures minimum net density by taking the minimum number of
planned housing units and dividing by the net acreage. Net acreage
does not include land covered by wetlands, water bodies, public
parks and trails, public open space, arterial road rights-of-way, and
other undevelopable acres identified in or protected by local
ordinances such as steep slopes.
TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS ...............................................301
Review
Initial
Background:
Applicant Comments on Background and Guiding Considerations: Tartan Park, 3M’s
private 27-hole golf course and recreational facility was purchased by HC Golf Course
Development, LLC in March of 2016. Since that time, the golf course reconstruction and
proposed clubhouse renovation have begun with an expected opening Summer of 2017.
The purpose of the Development Sketch review is to gain feedback on a proposed
concept to develop the remaining land, consisting of 205.66 gross acres, contained in
the 477 acre site.
The site has 17 different wetland basins. While the exact fill impacts to these are
unknown, it is suspected that the vast majority of “impacts” will by means of dredging
or deepening the basins to accommodate water quality measures and floodplain
creation. The applicant is keenly aware of the need to preserve and protect these
features and has designed the development proposal to allow for this.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 3
(cont.)
Of prime concern is the preservation of the vegetated surrounding road corridors.
Wooded buffers are maintained along all exterior boundaries of the site, maintaining the
character of the existing roads and providing buffers adjacent existing residential
development. In areas of wooded slopes, care has been taken to “ride the ridge” of
these features to minimize disruption and retain the beauty of these topographic
amenities. Extensive retaining walls are planned to further minimize grading impacts.
The need for a PUD is in large part driven by the fact that a significant portion of the
site is within Shoreland Districts created by Lake Elmo, Rose Lake, and Horseshoe
Lake. There is also an unnamed wetland (82-417W) in the NE portion of the site; this is
not on the DNR list of environmental lakes but shows up in the City’s Shoreland
regulations. This is currently being addressed. With this narrative, we are submitting
our analysis and basis for the DNR PUD for City review.
As mentioned, the site has many natural and man-made features that guide the form and
shape of the development and contribute to its beauty. These features also add design
constraints, particularly in the area vehicular circulation. To mitigate this, the plan
contemplates numerous access points and “forks” in the spline roads to minimize the
risk of an area being blocked from access in an emergency.
Staff Comments: The applicant correctly recognizes that the conceptual development
does not fit the current land use guidance or zoning for the property. This report
outlines a recommended process to follow if the community supports the concept, and
identifies ways the plans would need to be amended moving forward.
Comp Plan &
Zoning:
While all Cities do their best to plot out a vision for the future in a comprehensive plan,
the fact is that no plan is set in stone and there will always be factors which require a
community to rethink portions of a plan from time to time. The 3M Golf Course, Tartan
Park (founded in 1966), has been a fixture in Lake Elmo for half a century and was
therefore likely not a focal point of discussion during the last comprehensive plan
update. The sale of the property, its proposed redevelopment into a premiere golfing
venue, and the scale of the land in question (over 400 acres) is a unique event that begs
examination of the comprehensive plan guidance and zoning for the property to ensure
the land continues to thrive for another half-century.
Factors to consider:
Just over 200 acres of the approximately 477 acres that make up the old Tartan Park
Golf Course are in the Shoreland district. This land also includes roughly 17 acres
of wetlands and bluff lands, so from an environmental standpoint, the City has ample
reason to consider unique ways to protect this land that may or may not exist in
today’s regulatory framework.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 4
(cont.)
The land is situated just north of 10th Street along Lake Elmo Aveune, and is
directly adjacent to the new sewer line recently installed to service the Old Village.
This places the acreage directly north of the portion of the City guided for
urbanization, and south of the old Village which is guided for limited and specialized
urban growth.
Single family neighborhoods currently exist adjacent to this property to the north and
southwest at the following densities:
o The Homestead: 18 homes on approximately 38 acres (0.47 u.p.a.)
o Tartan Meadows: 39 homes on approximately 73.3 acres (0.53 u.p.a.)
o Legion Lane/Legion Avenue (“Eden Park” per a speaker at the public hearing):
47 units on approximately 52.2 acres (0.9 u.p.a.)
The Homestead appears to be an old OP development (clustering homes on smaller
lots to preserve open space), while Tartan Meadows and Eden Park are old Rural
Single-Family developments.
Based upon buildable land:
o As an OP development (if zoning were to allow for it), the land as a whole could
ostensibly support upwards of 170+ units if the entire property was developed
for residential purposes (half the acreage still preserved as open space, shared
communal septic facilities, etc).1
o As a low-density urbanized development (if zoning were to allow for it), the
developable land minus land needed for the golf course could ostensibly support
upwards of 600+ units.2
o If the Rural Single Family land use guidance and RS zoning were amended to
allow new areas to utilize both designations, the developable land minus land
needed for the golf course could ostensibly support upwards of 115 unsewered
units OR 310+ sewered units.3
1 After factoring in open water, wetlands, bluffs, func class road dedications etc, we estimate approximately 377 acres would be
available to support an OP development. 377/40 = 9.425*18 = 169 units.
2 After factoring in open water, wetlands, bluffs, func class road dedications, AND the land for the golf course, we estimate
approximately 173 acres would be available to support an LDR development. 173*3.5 = 605 units.
3 After factoring in open water, wetlands, bluffs, func class road dedications, AND the land for the golf course, we estimate
approximately 173 acres would be available to support an RS development. 173 acres/1.5 = 115 unsewered units. 173 acres *
43,560 sq ft/acre = 7,535,880 sq ft / 24,000 sq ft per sewered lot = 313 sewered units
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 5
(cont.)
While an OP scenario would result in an overall residential density similar to the
adjacent Homestead and Tartan Meadows neighborhoods, such a direction would
mean the complete elimination of one of the City’s defining features (the golf
course). Comparatively, taking the full next step to allow for urbanized low density
development as would be expected south of 10th Street would clearly allow for a
level of development that would likely be out-of-place in the context of the
surrounding areas.
The extension of sewer to existing developments along Lake Elmo Avenue will very
likely happen over time as individual and/or community septic systems fail and
neighborhoods request hook-ups. Given the amount of Shoreland district and
wetlands on the subject property, hooking new residential units up to sewer appears
to make sense.
Based on all of the factors above, staff believes there is ample reason for the City to
consider comprehensive plan and zoning updates at this time to accommodate a
proposed development on the subject property.
Would this change be considered “Spot Zoning?”
One concern that has already been voiced is whether a change on this property could
be considered “spot zoning.” To address this matter up front, staff requested the
City Attorney provide guidance on this question to the Commission and Council. In
summary, it was determined this would not quality as spot zoning for a number of
reasons:
1. The term “spot zoning” typically refers to changes on small pieces of land (i.e
one or two acres). The fact that the city is examining the use of 477 acres
immediately differentiates this action from what is typically considered spot
zoning.
2. In order to be spot zoning, all four of the following criteria must be met:
a. The rezoning must be unsupported by any rational basis relating to
promoting the public health and welfare
In this case, extending sewer to the area arguably accommodates two
community goals: it allows for sustainment and redevelopment of a long-
standing community destination, and sewer in general is a major tool in
protecting the long-term public health and welfare.
b. The rezoning must establish a use classification that is inconsistent with the
surrounding uses, and
c. The rezoning creates an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned
district.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 6
(cont.)
In this case, the surrounding areas are residential, and the subject property
would also be zoned for residential use. While densities would likely be
different, this would simply become the fourth amongst three different
residential districts which already exist in the area.
d. The rezoning must dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the
zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property.
In this case, a rezoning will most definitely increase the value of the rezoned
property. Regarding surrounding property, the use is not going to change (it
is a golf course today and it will be a golf course in the future). The
significant investments being placed into the property along with the
extension of available sewer lines for future hook-ups if needed should also
bring added value to surrounding areas.
Bottom line, it appears that any challenge against the City’s ability to consider
the comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Tartan Park land would
be very difficult to uphold. Staff finds the City has every right to consider what
is best for this land and make changes as needed at this time to accommodate the
desired outcome.
Decision #1:
The first thing the City Council must determine is whether taking action on a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is warranted at this time given
changes that have occurred since the current plan and zoning map were last adopted.
The City has its greatest amount of decision-making discretion when it comes to the
comprehensive plan, so there isn’t necessarily a wrong answer. Per the reasons
above, staff believes the City DOES has ample reason to consider and debate
this request at this time.
o If the City Council disagrees with staff’s assessment and finds that no changes
to the comprehensive plan are warranted, no further assessment of this concept
plan is necessary and Council may deny the concept plan application without
further analysis of the plan details.
o If Council concurs with staff’s assessment and believes this is the right time to
consider the proper land use guidance and zoning for the former Tartan Park
land, then continuing the review outlined in this report is the proper next step.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 7
(cont.)
Decision #2:
If a comp plan change and rezoning is being considered, the next question is what will
be the appropriate designations to achieve the desired outcomes. For the purposes of
this report, staff is assuming the desired outcomes expressed by the applicant will be
generally in the realm of the outcomes desired by the City. If the City Council
ultimately has a different vision for the land, the pathways to achieve such a vision may
be drastically different than what is outlined below.
In general, staff believes there are three (3) directions the City could go to accommodate
the type of development being proposed.
OPTION #1: Creation of a new land use designation and new zoning classification.
Pros: allowable density and ultimate zoning standards can be tailored specifically
for this large developable area
Cons: Costly and time consuming solution. The first decision, how to craft a land
use designation, may take upwards of 1 – 2 months followed by a zoning code
update which could take an additional 2 – 3 months. Not the best solution if a
similar outcome can be achieved through other means.
OPTION #2: Guiding the land for Urban Low Density development.
Pros: Proximity to planned urban development south of 10th Street makes this area
a logical extension for that land use type.
Cons: The minimum density of residential housing required in the Urban Low
Density is too high for this land; neither the applicant nor the Council are
anticipated to want 3.5+ units per acre in this area of the community.
OPTION #3: Guiding the land for Village Urban Low Density development.
Pros: The allowable density range for Village Urban Low Density (1.5 to 2.5 units
per acre) would likely fit the proposed residential area and would not require
significant changes to the comprehensive plan. Additionally, conditioning approval
of the amendment(s) and rezoning on an acceptable PUD being approved would
maintain the City’s authority over what is ultimately built.
Cons: As a very minor con (in staff’s opinion), the comp plan would need to
recognize that existing development adjacent to the sewer pipe along Lake Elmo
Avenue would be treated as a “Village Transition” area. While definitely a new
concept, staff would argue this is simply a reality that hasn’t been given a name as
of yet. The land between 10th Street and the Old Village along Lake Elmo Avenue is
largely developed utilizing on-site or community septic systems. As these systems
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 8
(cont.) fail and replacement sites become harder to identify, it is highly likely that requests
to hook into the municipal system will become the norm throughout this corridor. A
new “Village Transition” area would recognize this as an area where sewer could
POTENTIALLY be extended to existing homes for environmental purposes, or to
new developments if such extensions were deemed necessary to protect the public
health and welfare (i.e. in the case of the Royal Golf Club, to protect a significant
amount of acreage within the Shoreland Overlay District). Extension of sewer
would ultimately be subject to its availability (direct connections to the force main
will not work) and other conditions we would build into the plan.
Given the pros and cons of the three options outlined above, staff would
recommend the City pursue Option #3 if it wishes to help facilitate the proposed
development.
• Of the approximately 1100 acres between 10th Street and the Old Village, over ⅓ is
being considered by the subject application. Given the presumed desire of the
community to preserve & enhance the golf course along with the need to protect the
shorelands and wetlands on the property, this is clearly a unique situation that can be
distinguished from other development opportunities that exist in this same corridor.
• This approach proactively recognizes the potential for sewer hook-ups in this
corridor that would be considered if it is in the public’s best interest to do so (and
such requests will undoubtedly be made in the coming decades).
• Adjusting density ranges within the comp plan is avoided with this methodology as
the Village Urban Low Density classification could be used within the “Village
Transition” area when identified circumstances exist (i.e. sewer hookups are needed
by existing development for environmental reasons, developable land must be served
by sewer as part of a PUD to best protect area shorelands and wetlands, etc).
The decision of which course of action to follow will guide the specific edits that will be
needed to the comprehensive plan. Once staff has been given direction, we will begin
drafting recommended changes for consideration by the Planning Commission, Public,
and City Council.
PUD Standards Review
PUD Objective:
According to Section 154.751, the City must “…consider whether one or more of the
objectives [listed in this section] will be served or achieved.” Ten potential objectives
may be used to support a potential PUD. The applicant’s comments on their guiding
considerations can be seen on pages 2 & 3 of this report.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 9
(cont.)
Staff comment: The proposed development appears to meet a number of the City’s
identified objectives for PUDs:
Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain
areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be
achieved. Facilitating redevelopment of the golf course is clearly an objective for
a PUD.
Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful
and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities. Utilization of open space in the
golf course for stormwater management, clustering of homes to limit overall
disturbance on the site, and extending sewer service for the proposed homes are
all ways the PUD would seek to preserve and enhance environmental features
within the area.
Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater
compatibility with the development and surrounding land uses. The proposal
references four-sided architectural requirements ensuring that the front of
homes is not the only visually-desirable side of a home to look at.
Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given
parcel than conventional approaches. Protecting environmental features and
enhancing the existing golf course will likely only be achievable through a
specialized development process
Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational
amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development techniques. The PUD will facilitate the
preservation and enhancement of the golf course which would likely otherwise
not happen.
Given that only one (1) objective must be met before a PUD can be requested, it appears
there is ample reason for the City to consider this request.
Land Area: According to Section 154.753(A), a PUD must include a minimum of 5 acres for
undeveloped land or 2 acres for developed land;
Staff comment: The development is proposed on approximately 424 gross acres. The
concept plan appears to meet this criteria.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 10
Open Space:
(cont.)
According to Section 154.753(B), a PUD must preserve “…at least 20% of the project
area not within street rights-of-way…” in protected open space. “Other public or site
amenities may be approved as an alternative to this requirement…Land reserved for storm
water detention facilities and other required site improvements may be applied to this
requirement.”
Staff comment: The development is proposing to create and enhance a public golf course
to preserve open space on roughly 50% of the land being developed which is an acceptable
option to proceed per the City’s PUD ordinance. Focusing solely on the 205 acres
proposed to be used for residential development, approximately 33% of that land area is
intended to be preserved open space around wetlands, bluffs, open water, and private open
space. The concept plan appears to meet the open space criteria.
Street Layout: According to Section 154.753(C), streets in a PUD “…shall be designed to maximize
connectivity in each cardinal direction, except where environmental or physical
constraints make this infeasible. All streets shall terminate at other streets, at public land,
or at a park or other community facility, except that local streets may terminate in stub
streets when those will be connected to other streets in future phases of the development
or adjacent developments.”
Staff comment: The development includes streets in each direction, but the future
preliminary plan will need to include modifications to the proposed roadway and trail
network before staff can recommend approval of the design. Please see page 15 and the
report section on “Streets and Transportation” for complete details. With changes, the
future PUD could meet this criteria.
Density: According to Section 154.754, a PUD “…may provide for an increase in density of
residential development by up to 20% of that allowed in the base zoning district.”
Staff comment: An analysis of whether a density increase would be necessary cannot be
completed until a decision is made on whether and how to amend the comprehensive plan
to allow for redevelopment of this land. That said, we estimate based on the current
concept plan that the proposed density is currently around 1.74 units per acre4 (which
would fall within the allowed density range for Village Urban Low Density development
per the current comprehensive plan). No request for a density increase is anticipated.
Lot Design:
Applicant Comments on Land Uses and Lot Sizes: The development contemplates
detached, single family homes encompassing a broad range of lifestyles choices and price
4 205.66 acres – 1.33 acres for Manning Ave – 2.33 acres for Lake Elmo Ave – 15.99 acres of wetlands – 9.74 acres of wetland
buffers – 1.34 acres of open water – 1.21 acres of trail easement = 172.99 acres for 301 units = 1.74 units/acre
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 11
(cont.)
points. Anticipated homes will range from low maintenance villa products to high-end
homes. The locations of these products are largely determined by adjacent natural
features and proximity to the golf course. While we generally know where these uses will
occur (as illustrated on the sketch plan), as grading and development plans progress more
details will emerge.
Presently we are consulting with various custom builders to determine exact lot sizes and
widths. At this point we know that traditional single family lots will range from 80’ – 100’
in width with minimum depths anticipated to be 140’. As mentioned above, the exact
location of these lots will be determined by adjacent amenities, views, orientation, etc..
Front setbacks will be a minimum of 30’, rear setback will be 35’ and side setbacks at 15’
each side (30’ between homes)
The “villa” product will range in size from 55’ – 65’ in width. These will be located on
private, HOA maintained streets. The front setback is expected to be 30’ from curb, 7.5’
from each side (15’ between homes).
Staff comment: Given that this is a proposed PUD, multiple styles and sizes of lots are
anticipated. Most important from a City perspective are on-going and future maintenance
concerns that involve the City (i.e. street plowing, street reconstruction, utility
replacements, etc.), and the look/feel of the proposed housing areas from other
surrounding lands in Lake Elmo. As the development progresses, the applicant will need
to address engineering concerns about roadway design and future maintenance (very
likely through elimination of private roads and adherence to adopted City standards), and
show how berming and/or plantings along with four-sided architecture will help to
alleviate visual impacts to adjacent lands.
Structures /
Builders:
Applicant Comments on Builders: Builders for the development have not been chosen.
Presently we are considering a pool of 5-7 custom builders for the traditional homes and
2 custom home builders for the villa product.
Staff comment: Moving forward, the applicant should be prepared to provide elevation
drawing examples of the various product types so Council, the Commission, and public
know what can be expected in the various portions of the proposed development.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 12
In General
Adjacent
parcel dev.:
Roads surrounding the proposed development largely create natural buffers between
this development and surrounding developable lands, but the two parcels marked
with stars in the graphic below deserve consideration as the development plans for
this area are drawn up. Further comments below.
The four numbered circles identify connections that either must be made or should
be considered moving forward:
#1: As will be discussed in detail in the transportation section of this report, it will
be critical that each neighborhood be connected to at least two peripheral roads.
Providing a link between these two neighborhoods (within circle #1) would be one
option to address access concerns on the west side of the development.
#2: Whenever possible, alignment of roads is far preferred to off-set intersections
like the one currently proposed, and the proposed off-set may not meet City access
management guidelines. Aligning the proposed road with Legion Avenue North is
recommended.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 13
(cont.)
#3: The seventy-five homes in the NE of the proposed development currently have
only one exit point on to Manning Trail. A connection to 20th Street will be needed.
#4: It is highly advised that the applicants find a way to complete a connection for
this development down to 10th Street in the area of Circle #4. If agreement cannot
be reached with the neighboring landowner, usable right-of-way to the neighboring
property must still be provided to facilitate a future road connection. If a connection
to 10th Street is not feasible at this time, two things will need to occur:
(A) The connection in Circle #1 must be completed to give the 169 homes
proposed in this area a secondary outlet
(B) Any future submittal will need to include a ghost plat of the adjacent property
showing how the proposed dead-end right-of-way alignment can be
successfully utilized to eventually facilitate a connection to 10th Street.
Connections to The Homestead and Tartan Meadows are not feasible due to lack of
right-of-way in both developments.
Buffers: There are no specific buffer requirements for PUDs, but the applicant should be
prepared to show berms, landscaping, and/or other features as may be necessary to
soften the transition between current golf course property and adjacent residential
areas.
Buffers were a major concern expressed by speakers at the public hearing and by the
Planning Commission.
Lot Access: Per the sketch plan, a majority of lots would have direct access to a public road, but
nearly one-third of all parcels (107) are proposed to access off of private roads. The
applicant indicated verbally during the Planning Commission meeting that future
submittals would show all roads as public meeting City standards.
Driveways should be located so as to preserve existing trees in as much as possible.
Addresses for the individual homes should be posted at each driveway entrance.
Future parcel
development:
The proposed subdivision would fully divide the property until/unless the golf
course use was discontinued and the land redeveloped.
Easements: All standard drainage and utility easements will need to be shown on the future
preliminary plan document(s).
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 14
All easements intended for public utilities shall be a minimum of 15 feet on each side
of the utility and shall be shown on the future plans. All easements will be as wide as
necessary to address access and/or maintenance objectives.
Landscaping: Any future preliminary PUD submittal shall provide documentation as may be
necessary to show compliance to City landscaping standards (including but not limited
to entrance monuments, boulevard plantings, plantings in private open space, etc).
Trails: ROW dedications along 10th Street, Lake Elmo Avenue and 20th Street must be
sufficient enough to accommodate trails as shown on the City’s Comprehensive Parks
& Recreation Plan’s map of Trails and Greenways (Map 11). If trails within the rights-
of-way are not feasible, off-road trail easements must be identified for dedication as
part of the final development plans.
An internal trail system linking the proposed neighborhoods should be explored and
incorporated into future plans if feasible. Indications as to whether sidewalks will be
provided should also be noted.
Golf course trails, if not accessible to the general public without a paid fee to be on
the course, will not be credited towards required park dedication.
Resident
Concerns:
Written comments received leading up to the planning commission meeting are
attached to this report. As of 8/15/16, a majority of the written feedback centered on
the need for a trail along 20th Street.
A lack of buffering was raised by a non-resident landowner in West Lakeland
Township. Lake Elmo code does not include buffering requirements from adjacent
jurisdictions.
A summary of public feedback from the planning commission public hearing can be
found on page 28 of this report.
Infrastructure
In General: All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed
and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual
available on the City website.
The Engineer’s memo is attached to this report for reference. The following is a
melding of Planning and Engineering feedback relating to the proposed infrastructure
within this development.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 15
Streets and
Transportation:
(cont.)
Applicant Comments on Streets and Trails: With the exception of the private streets
for the villa product, streets are anticipated to be 28’ feet (back of curb to back of curb)
within a 60’ right-of-way. The exact locations of sidewalks and trails have yet to be
determined but sidewalks will generally be placed on one side of the street. Trails will
connect neighborhoods to the golf course as we see this development working as a “golf
cart” community emphasizing the clubhouse, exercise facility, youth course and pool as
part of the community amenity. Additional trails will be planned as further City review
moves forward.
Discussions with County officials will begin as soon as we receive feedback from the
City. A Transportation Study has been initiated and will be included as part of the EAW,
which has also begun. When complete, we expect to review the traffic counts to
determine what intersection improvements will be needed on Lake Elmo Boulevard,
20th, and Manning Trail.
NOTE: As indicated throughout this revised report, the applicant verbally stated at the
Planning Commission public hearing that all future roads would be public and be
designed to conform to City standards. Analysis herein regarding private roads is still
relevant should the applicant’s elect to propose such again in the future.
Staff Comments:
In General. The national Complete Streets Coalition states that well‐designed,
connected Street Networks are the backbone upon which communities are built. Good
street network designs reduce land consumption, provide greater accessibility through
more direct routes, and increase overall network efficiency and reliability through
added redundancy. They also affect several factors that relate to building more
sustainable communities such as travel patterns, road safety, and public health.
Generally speaking, more compact and connected street networks tend to have
significantly higher levels of people walking and biking and fewer vehicle miles
traveled as compared to sparser, tree‐like designs. Connected streets can reduce traffic
congestion by dispersing traffic and offering travel options. Grid networks create a
safer road system.
ROW Dedications. The Plat must dedicate right‐of‐way to the City of Lake Elmo
along the entire length of 20th Street N. (40 feet R/W) and Manning Trail N. (50 feet
R/W) to provide a minimum R/W from the existing roadway centerline. The concept
plan shows R/W dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way width cannot be verified
based on the plan scale provided. The Plat must also dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way
along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue), CSAH 10 (10th Street North), and CSAH 15
(Manning Avenue) as required by Washington County. The concept plan shows this
dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way widths must be reviewed and approved
by the County.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 16
(cont.)
Access Management. Access to the development is proposed in four locations: one
access onto Lake Elmo Avenue, two access points onto 20th Street North (MSA
collector street), and one access onto Manning Trail North.
It is strongly recommended that additional access points and interconnections be
thoroughly pursued to enhance the street network safety and accessibility. The
proposed concept plan shows three separate neighborhoods all requiring direct access
to a collector or County roadway without interconnection or secondary roadway
connection. Area 1 proposes 170 lots with a single point of access to CSAH 17 (Lake
Elmo Avenue). The 170 lots are placed along a dead end cul‐de-sac over 4,500 feet
long. The city standard cul‐de‐sac length is 600 feet while many communities have a
maximum length of 1,000 feet. Area 2 proposes 57 lots with two points of access to
20th Street N. Area 3 proposes 76 lots with a single point of access to Manning Trail
placed along a dead end cul‐de‐sac over 2,300 feet long.
An interconnection between Street A and Street E is extremely important to
provide a secondary access for Area 1 to 20th Street N., and to provide a secondary
access roadway connection for Area 2 to CSAH 17. A box culvert or bridge
structure should be investigated.
The south end of Street E should be connected to 10th Street N. to eliminate a
proposed cul‐de‐sac over 7.5 times the maximum allowed length. Staff recognizes
that this connection may be difficult to make but all efforts should be pursued. If
a connection cannot be physically made, any and all other emergency access
options or future connection opportunities must be addressed (i.e. a trail
connection to 10th Street to be used for emergency and future roadway
construction purposes, right‐of‐way dedication to the edge of the plat for a future
roadway connection, loop the south end of Street E to connect to Street H, etc).
Street J should be align to connect to both 20th Street N. and Manning Trail to
provide access to two separate collector roadways. If this is found to be unfeasible
then two connections to Manning Trail should be made to eliminate the long dead
end cul‐de‐sac.
Prior to the City receiving and accepting a preliminary plat proposal it is
recommended that all development access points be reviewed and approved by the
City and Washington County to verify acceptable access management spacing and
adequate sight triangles for each entrance. The proposed access locations and
considerations for the development are as follows:
1) Street E access to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17). Location to be approved by
Washington County.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 17
(cont.)
2) Street A access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Access is 550
feet east of Lake Elmo Avenue vs. the required spacing of 660 feet. Proposed
access location aligns with the existing intersection for 20th Street Court N.
3) Street B access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Proposed access
is located 350 feet offset from the existing intersection of Legion Avenue.
Consideration should be given to relocating this access to align with the
intersection of Legion Avenue or increase the offset to 660 feet.
4) Street J access to Manning Trail North. Access is 550 feet south of 20th Street
N. Location needs to be reviewed in the field to verify access as an acceptable
location.
Pedestrian Facilities. The following pedestrian improvements must be considered
when preparing preliminary plat documents:
The City should review potential bituminous trail requirements to be incorporated
along CSAH 17, 20th Street N. and/or Manning Trail N. to improve pedestrian
safety and work toward future trail connectivity.
Per the City Engineer, six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential
streets and as may be required for connectivity.
Private Streets. Private owned HOA streets have been proposed in areas of this
development including Streets D, F, I and K. Privately owned HOA streets should
not be allowed. Typically private streets are proposed for the purpose of decreasing
street and boulevard design standards including setbacks for the structures. The City
design standards have been established as “minimums” for the purpose of serving as
public access, drainage, sanitary sewer, and municipal water service. The boulevard
corridor also provides a dedicated location for small utilities such as gas, electric,
cable, telephone and fiber optics. Reducing the R/W width and structure setbacks
greatly increases the public cost for maintaining underground utilities by constricting
work zone areas when the infrastructure requires maintenance and/or replacement.
Private streets will only be considered when public infrastructure is not installed
below the private streets.
Streets (in general). Unless utilities are to be located elsewhere, all streets must be
shown as public streets when submitting for preliminary plat. All public streets must
be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width
(60‐feet), street width (28‐feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii.
Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family
residential areas with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance
roadways and roadway stretches with no lots.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 18
(cont.)
Street intersections must approximate 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent
with maximum slopes of 2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 8%
with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 18 feet wide from back or
curb to back of curb. The development street plan indicates landscaped medians at
two of the development entrance points.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
Other Responsibilities. Other transportation related improvements that will fall to
the developer include:
The applicant will be responsible to construct all intersection and turn lane
improvements along CSAH 17 as required by Washington County. These
improvements must be completed at the developer’s cost.
The applicant will be responsible to construct right and left turn lane improvements
along 20th Street N (both access locations) and long Manning Trail as required by
the City. These improvements must be completed at the developer’s cost.
UPDATE: Since the Planning Commission report was penned, the City has also received
the following comments from Washington County:
The Regional Functional Classification of CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue is an "A"
Minor Arterial Roadway. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030,
identifies 150 feet for the future right-of-way requirement along this section of
roadway. Currently, the right-of-way varies but ultimately, there should be 75 feet
from the centerline of the roadway.
The proposed access points on CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue are acceptable to the
County. Transportation staff is currently reviewing the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as
part of the environmental review process and will be coordinating the recommended
roadway improvements as this development is processed through the city. Once more
specific development plans are prepared, the County will review the specific plans
prior to the issuance of Washington County Access and Right Of Way permits.
The City should consider requiring that the two neighborhoods along the eastern edge
of the site be connected and access be provided to 10th Street on the south.
A Right Of Way permit will be required for any work in the CSAH 15/Manning
Avenue right-of-way as it relates to the development. A plan set is required with the
application and include any grading, installation of culverts, installation of water and
sewer services, left and right turn lanes on CSAH 15/Manning Avenue, parallel trail
grading, signage and any landscaping and other improvements within county right-of-
way.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 19
Water
System(s):
The application and sketch plans do not address water supply; however, it is staff’s
understanding that the intent is to serve the proposed development with municipal
water.
Tartan Park, the proposed development area, is excluded from the 2030
Comprehensive Water System Plan, being identified as an area to not be served by
municipal water. However, municipal water infrastructure exists immediately
adjacent to Tartan Park (16‐inch trunk watermain line has been constructed along
Lake Elmo Avenue).
If municipal water is extended to serve this development, a water service capacity and
hydraulic study must be completed to verify system capacity, operating pressures, and
water main pipe sizing and looping requirements. For example, it may be necessary
to move up the construction timeframe for the new water tower to be located in the
city’s lower pressure zone. Also, given the varied topography of the site it may be
necessary to identify acceptable water pressure operating conditions based on the
varied elevations to establish areas that will require pressure regulating valves for
individual homes.
The applicant would be responsible to extend municipal water into the development
at its cost, and would be required to construct a looped watermain network based on
the results of the water service hydraulic study.
Sanitary
System(s):
The applicant is responsible to provide wastewater infrastructure to support the
proposed development.
All sewer infrastructure must be provided at the developer’s cost.
The application and sketch plans do not address sanitary sewer service; however, it is
staff’s understanding that the intent is to serve the proposed development with
municipal sewer.
The proposed development is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban
Service Area (MUSA) for sanitary sewer service. In order to extend municipal sewer
to serve this development, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required to alter the
sewer service boundaries for the City.
Sewer service could be provided by constructing a lift station at the south end of
Tartan Park with a forcemain constructed along 10th Street N. to connect to the
existing 16‐inch forcemain along Lake Elmo Avenue. The sewer system should be
designed so that the 10th Street lift station can be eliminated in the future when gravity
sanitary sewer is extended to serve Cimarron and Oakland Junior High School.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 20
Interior to the development multiple lift stations may be required due to the varied
topography of the property. The sewer system must be designed City standards and
must minimize lift stations and future ongoing operational costs.
Storm water
/Grading:
Staff Comments:
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and
City rules and regulations.
Storm water and storm sewer facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State
and VBWD permitting requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City
Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website. The plans shown
do not meet many of these requirements.
All storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, wetlands and wetland buffers,
must be placed in
Outlots deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots
must fully incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10 foot maintenance bench and all
maintenance access roads. It appears that some of the proposed ponding facilities are
located outside of the development limits.
All storm water bonds must have both a 10:1 aquatic bench and a 10:1 maintenance
bench.
Designated maintenance access roads, 20 feet in width, must be provided for all storm
water facilities with slope no greater than 10%.
The maximum curb run prior to a catch basin is 350 feet.
All storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width. Additional width
may be required to adjust for greater pipe depths.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum
pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low
points in the street.
Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements
at low points.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order
to ensure a drainage system that provides positive storm water drainage across the
development.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 21
(cont.)
Overland emergency overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
Storm water pond facilities should be combined together to the greatest extent possible
to ensure adequate hydrology for efficient facility treatment operations.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration to avoid
negative impacts to downstream properties. The storm water management plan will
need to address changes to the downstream drainage system to the extent alterations
are proposed. To the extent adjacent properties are impacted, written permission from
those properties must be submitted as part of the development applications.
The grading plan indicates significant use of retaining walls. Retaining walls should
be placed within private lots or Outlots to be owned and maintained by the HOA.
Retaining walls should be placed on City R/W or Outlots dedicated to the City.
Retaining walls should also not be placed within lot drainage and utility easements.
Washington County Comments:
The developer or the city must submit the drainage report and calculations to our office
for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the
drainage calculations, we will request written conclusions that the volume and rate of
stormwater run-off into the county right-of way will not increase as part of the project.
Development
Phasing:
Applicant Comments: The anticipated phasing of the project will be generally in a west
to east manner due to sewer and water considerations. The number of phases will be
determined by market demand and absorption. Presently we anticipate a 3-5 year build
out (60 units a year) although this might be slightly longer considering the increased
length of time to build custom homes.
A detailed phasing plan should be provided with the preliminary plat application that
clearly indicates the phasing of the construction for each public infrastructure
component and addresses both construction access to the site and public access for
new residents. Temporary cul‐de‐sacs should be part of the phasing plans and are be
required for any street with a platted lot with driveway access.
Additional phasing plan information as may be needed must also be provided to
demonstrate that stormwater management requirements will be met with each phase
of the project.
Certain transportation improvements may need to be constructed as part of the first
phase of the project regardless of their location. Staff will work with the applicant
moving forward to identify all such requirements.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 22
Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply
systems to be located in the flood plain district shall be flood-proofed in accordance
with the building code or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
Telephone, electric, and/or gas service lines are to be placed underground in
accordance with the provisions of all applicable City ordinances.
Parking
Facilities:
(cont.)
Plans for the golf course redevelopment must show how off-street parking
requirements for a golf course are being met.
Plans for the residential portion of the development must demonstrate that required
off-street parking spaces can be provided for each of the proposed units.
Required
Signage:
New street signs will be required at all intersections at the developer’s expense.
Entrance
Monument:
Designs and locations for entrance monuments should be identified as part of any
future preliminary plan submittal. The applicant should consult with the City
Engineer as to whether such signs must be placed on outlots or if they can be
accommodated within easements.
Fire Hydrants: The applicant will be required to work with the Fire Chief, City Engineer, and Public
Works to identify the proper locations for future fire hydrants. Such work should be
completed prior to submittal of the future preliminary plat application.
Streetlights: Street lighting fixtures shall be installed in accordance with city standards
Monuments: In accordance with Section 153.13(F); reference monuments shall be placed in the
subdivision as required by state law.
Environmental & Other Neighborhood Impacts
Environmental
Impacts:
A voluntary EAW is currently being prepared by the applicant and is anticipated to
be ready for a 30-day public comment period in the upcoming weeks.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 23
Wetlands: The site contains approximately 15.99 acres of wetlands and 9.74 acres of required
wetland buffers.
The Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) is the Local Government Unit (LGU)
responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The developer
will need to follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the WCA, and acquire
the needed permit from the VBWD.
Review and comment by the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) will be
needed with any future preliminary plat/plan application. The applicant is encouraged
to meet with the VBWD prior to any future submittal.
Shoreland
District:
Shorelands should be a major consideration in the development of this land as over
200 acres is included within multiple Shoreland overlays from various waterbodies on
and around this property.
The City’s current Shoreland Ordinance has not been approved by MnDNR as
required by State Statute, and a new draft ordinance is currently undergoing State
review. Regardless, the property IS subject to Shoreland district requirements for
PUDs which mandate access to municipal sewer and water facilities. Staff requested
that the DNR review the proposed plans and provide direction on two things: 1)
whether the plans conform to minimum State rules, and 2) how the City must proceed
with this application given the pending ordinance updates. Because these new
regulations could dramatically impact how this land can be developed, the applicant
is hereby put on notice that preparing preliminary plans will be “at their own risk” if
they choose to do so prior to adoption of the new ordinance. Additionally, no
preliminary approvals will be given by the City until the new ordinance has been
adopted, or until the DNR specifically finds the proposed development is in
conformance with minimum State requirements.
Importantly, the Shoreland overlay district PUD regulations specifically require such
developments to be connected to the municipal sewer and water systems.
Open space requirements largely mimic the City’s standard requirements for PUDs
outlined on page 10 of this report. Staff will continue to coordinate review of this
development with DNR staff to ensure all requirements are upheld.
The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to ensure that Shoreland specific
Stormwater management requirements are met with future plans.
UPDATE: DNR comments have been received and are attached to this report for review
by Council. The following is a summary of their feedback:
The underground portion of the unnamed public watercourse that flows through the
golf course will not be considered Shoreland.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 24
(cont.)
Unnamed public water wetland 82041800 will not be part of the future Shoreland
district ordinance, so it will not being considered as protected Shoreland for review of
potential development scenarios on this property.
The DNR is requesting more information from the developer before it can adequately
evaluate the proposed PUD. Specifically, a site density evaluation will need to be
completed to show how proposed density relates to tiers around each protected water
body.
The concept PUD plan appears to meet or closely meet the 50 percent open space
requirement, but a more detailed analysis of the open space calculations is needed to
complete the Shoreland residential PUD analysis.
The bluff areas and wetlands within the shoreland districts for the public waters will
need to be mapped. These areas must be located so that they are not included in the
calculation for the area suitable for development in each tier. Also the bluff setback
standard should be taken into account when planning the location of structures near
bluffs.
Additional design planning is required to develop a stormwater management plan. As
part of the PUD analysis, the size and location of stormwater ponds will be required.
The DNR has provided a map that shows the location of the 100-year floodplain.
Because proposed lots are located in the 100-year floodplain, development in such
areas will need to follow state and local floodplain regulations.
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations must be followed for the WCA-
delineated wetland basins on the site.
Additional comments will be provided by MNDNR on the EAW for this proposed
project.
Erosion
Control:
The future grading plan should indicate proposed erosion control methodologies to be
utilized during the development process.
The applicant is advised to consult with the City Engineer to ensure that future plan
sets are to an appropriate scale which allows adequate review of proposed plans.
Silt fencing should be shown at the construction limits for the proposed houses or
driveways with the future building permit application.
Traffic: The EAW currently underway will include a traffic study to determine the potential
traffic impacts of this development.
Transportation improvements needed to mitigate impacts may be identified as a result
of the EAW.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 25
Flood Plain &
Steep Slopes:
(cont.)
According to the February 3, 2010 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, there are areas
of floodplain on this property (mostly Zone A).
Of biggest concern is floodplain identified in the NE corner of the property which
seems to coincide with one of the proposed areas for residential development. The
applicant must delineate all FEMA floodplains on future plan sets and demonstrate
how such areas will be addressed by the future development.
All areas of steep slopes should be identified with any future submittal.
Docks: The project does not proposed any docks or deeded access to Rose or Horseshoe Lake.
Noise: Washington County Comments:
Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility
between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often
result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed
noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible
for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's
Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result
in violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a
exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds.
County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The
developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right
of way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
Other Permits: All necessary permits must be provided to the City (VBWD, MPCA, NPDES, MDH,
etc).
Charges, Fees, and Responsibilities
In General: As always, the applicant is responsible for all fees related to the review of this
application (including but not limited to planning, legal, engineering, wetland,
environmental consultants, or other such experts as required by this application).
Park
Dedication:
Applicant Comments on Parks: While the golf course is public, no public parks are
proposed within the development. Use of the exercise facility, pool and youth course
will be included in the HOA dues. There have been discussions about the existing ball
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 26
(cont.)
field lighting being used in other parts of city; the exact nature of this is still under
discussion. We expect a park dedication fee will likely be paid.
Included in the development plan are 74.27 acres of private open space which is used
for environmental preservation, water quality protection, storm water management and
buffers from adjacent uses.
Section 153.14 of City Code requires all subdivisions of land to dedicate a
reasonable portion of land to the City for public use as parks, trails, or open space.
The percentage for an LDR development would be 10%.
205.66 residential acres * 10% = 20.6 acres
The concept plan is currently not proposing dedication of any land for public parks.
The Parks Commission was to review this area in August, but did not have a quorum.
Therefore no formal recommendation was made. Informal discussions were about
addressing the trail needs identified in the comprehensive trail plan. This item will be
discussed again at the September meeting.
Should this development move forward, the City will determine the fair market value
of the land by hiring a licensed appraiser (at the developer’s expense) prior to final
plat approval. The required cash-in-lieu of land payment shall be the fair market value
of the acreage not provided in land or trail easement dedication less the cost of trail
construction and other improvements.
Sewer Charges: Sanitary sewer service charges will consist of a $3,000 Sewer Availability Charge
(SAC) per REC unit plus $1,000 Sewer Connection Charge per REC unit. A Met
Council REC determination must be completed to verify the number of REC units
for the project.
Water Charges: Water service charges will consist of a $3,000 Water Availability Charge (WAC) per
REC unit plus $1,000 Water Connection Charge per REC unit. The number of REC
units will be as determined for SAC charges
Initial Feedback
Planning
Commission:
The Planning Commission was given an opportunity to orient themselves with the
proposal on 8/8/16, and conducted a subsequent public hearing on 8/22/16.
Summary of feedback from that meeting was as follows:
− DEVELOPER COMMENTS:
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 27
(cont.)
1. City initially examined option to add the land to the Lake Elmo Regional
Park, but found that 95% of the land must be used for non-active recreation
so a golf course would not be allowed.
2. Golf course remodel will include 18 professionally designed holes and an
updated clubhouse. Housing needed to make the overall development
economically sustainable; the success of the clubhouse will be linked to the
success of the development.
3. Guiding conditions are to create a high quality, high amenity neighborhood
with recreational facilities providing a strong sense of identity; and respect
for existing site conditions. PUD needed to shift density away from
Shoreland district areas.
4. Five (5) different price points/lot sizes; two (2) different lifestyle choices
(villas and single family homes). Specialized design standards will ensure
high quality construction.
5. Proposed private streets will be eliminated in favor of public streets.
6. Transportation study and EAW nearly complete.
7. Golf course would be turned from a private course into a public course, and
will include a swimming pool & fitness center. Sustainability will be a
major component of the golf course design. Opening in 2017 is the target.
8. Trails and parkland dedication are open for discussion, but they would like
to approach it via cash in lieu of land. Private parks may be provided for
the proposed homes.
9. Phasing will be from west to northwest to east.
10. Access to 10th Street is being designed, and the intent would be to include
that with any future submittal.
11. Plans will continue to preserve/create vegetative buffers and/or distance
buffers from surrounding neighborhoods.
12. SAC/WAC fees will result in over $2.5M to the City, and building permit
fees anticipated to generate in excess of $1.5M in fees.
13. Two entry points for the golf course are being worked out with City staff,
and will be addressed in a future submittal.
− PUBLIC COMMENTS (summarized):
1. Make them follow the comprehensive plan and only allow them to develop
as an OP development (or at a rural standard similar to surrounding
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 28
(cont.)
neighborhoods) if they wish to build homes. Sewer and the proposed small
lot sizes are not appropriate north of 10th Street.
2. Protect existing homes in The Homestead and Tartan Meadows by
preserving golf course frontage (or open park space) for homes that have
enjoyed such views over the years. Buffers for all surrounding lands was
raised by multiple speakers.
3. Redesign of the golf course should be on the periphery of the property with
the new homes central to the property. On-going investments in the golf
course are at the developer’s own risk, and should not be taken into
consideration when deciding what type of development (if any) is
appropriate on this land.
4. If an exception is made to the plan, then the City does not have a plan.
Rural character of this property should be preserved.
5. EAW needs to be completed before anything moves forward, and the
resulting development should be designed around environmental
protection. Concern was expressed that the existing plan will take out
significant areas of trees, and that traffic impacts will be too much for
surrounding roads to handle, and/or will create significant safety concerns
for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
6. City is not obligated to make any changes to the Comprehensive Plan. City
should not rush into any decision.
7. Loss of wildlife habitat is a concern.
8. Small setbacks raise concerns about fire safety if proper siding materials
are not used.
9. A trail on the south side of 20th Street is needed for safety.
− COMMISSION FINDINGS:
Following discussion and input from each of the Planning Commissioners, the
following findings were voted on and approved by the Commission:
1. Density at 2.2 D.U.A., if such were to move forward, would require
municipal sewer.
2. Any form of residential development will require a comprehensive plan
amendment.
3. The property could be developed under the City’s OP or RE development
standards.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 29
(cont.)
4. The City has no need to guide for more sewered residential development
based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Councils
population forecast for 2040.
5. The proposed concept plan has multiple unresolved issues including
buffers, access points, cul-de-sac lengths, and connectivity; each would
need to be addressed in any future plan regardless of the density.
6. Changing zoning to allow development like that which is proposed by the
Concept PUD will increase the City’s tax base and lessen the tax burden on
the rest of Lake Elmo.
7. Existing residential development north of 10th Street, South of 30th St and
east of Lake Elmo Ave is not expected to need sewer connection to address
failing septic systems until at least 2040.
8. The total number of homes in the current proposal exceeds by 30% the total
number of homes that could potentially be created using OP development
standards.
9. The golf course is a significant asset to the City of Lake Elmo.
Other General
Staff Concerns:
Detailed work on the public/private portions of this development will still need to be
worked out (i.e. stormwater ponds are required to be on public land, but areas within
the golf course are proposed to handle the residential stormwater. Are the
applicant’s comfortable having the golf course potentially cut up into Outlots and
subject to easements for stormwater purposes?)
Will trails from the residential neighborhood to the golf course be public? What
about other neighborhood facilities such as a pool, internal trails, fitness center, and
kids golf course? How will access to the golf course land be managed?
The long southern cul-de-sac should extend to the neighboring property whether the
road continues to 10th Street or not.
Conclusion
The City Council is asked to examine the proposed PUD Concept Plan and provide
guidance to the applicant on if and how to proceed. Keep in mind that a conditional
approval at this point simply allows the applicant to proceed to the preliminary plan
stage, and does NOT carry with it any assurances of future success or approvals. Denial
of the concept plan at this point WILL require the applicant to reassess the approach and
return with a revised/new concept plan before proceeding to a preliminary plan.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 30
Council
Options:
(cont.)
The City Council has the following options:
A) APPROVAL of the requested Concept Plan based on the applicant's submission,
the contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the
Council.
B) DENIAL of the requested Concept Plan based on the applicant's submission, the
contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the
Council.
C) TABLE the request for further study.
Review
Roadmap:
Per code, the concept plan is simply an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan
showing the basic intent and general nature of the entire development, and there are no
specific criteria to guide approval or denial of a concept plan. Staff would recommend
using the following as a guide for discussion.
(1) Is taking action on a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning
warranted at this time given changes that have occurred since the current
plan and zoning map were last adopted?
a. If no, Council should deny this application and review of the plan details
would become unnecessary.
b. If YES, provide direction to staff on which comp plan/rezoning methodology
is preferred moving forward:
i. New comp plan designation and new corresponding zoning district (could
take upwards of 3 to 5 months to complete);
ii. Guiding land for Urban Low Density Development (easy solution, but
requires the applicant to return with a plan showing 3.5+ units per acre
within the residential areas); or
iii. Create the potential for guidance of the property to Village Urban Low
Density if certain criteria are met; or
iv. Another option not listed in this report (i.e. utilization of Rural Single
Family and RS zoning).
Once a direction is recommended, proceed to the next review point.
(2) Have the applicant’s demonstrated the proposal fulfills at least one of the
identified objectives in Section 154.751 to permit development as a PUD?
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 31
(cont.)
a. If NO, deny the concept plan and provide findings to support the denial.
Further review of the plan details would become unnecessary, so no further
action on this application would be needed.
b. If YES, proceed to the next review point.
(3) What changes would need to be included with any future preliminary
submittal before it could be accepted for approval?
Approval to proceed should be conditioned upon the applicant addressing the
issues documented within the staff report, and other items as listed by the City
Council.
Staff Guidance: The City’s discretion on the comprehensive plan guidance for this property and the
corresponding zoning is very broad, so we recommend basing a decision on whether
the proposal is best for this property, best for the surrounding properties, and best for
the City as a whole. If the Council believes a comprehensive plan change IS
warranted at this time and would like to accommodate the current application, we
are recommending utilizing the third option presented in the staff report: create the
potential to use the Village Urban Low Density classification if certain criteria are
met.
Regarding needed changes to the development if the proposal moves forward, staff
has provided an extensive list of things to address within this report. Accordingly,
we would recommend including the following as part of any motion:
“Adherence to the staff recommendations listed within the staff report as may have
been amended here tonight.”
Likewise, we would recommend conditioning any approval of the concept plan on
the applicant’s successfully gaining approval of the needed comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning prior to approval of any future preliminary PUD
application. At the applicant’s own risk, such applications may run concurrently
with offset review dates before the City Council.
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 5, 2016
To: Ben Gonzola, Planning Consultant Re: The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo (Tartan Park) Concept Plan. The
submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson McCain.
Preliminary Civil Site Plans, including residential development sketch plan and sketch grading plans, dated
July 15, 2016.
Project Narrative dated July 15, 2016.
ALTA Survey dated January 13, 2016.
We have the following review comments:
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in accordance
with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
The Plat must dedicate right‐of‐way to the City of Lake Elmo along the entire length of 20th Street N. (40
feet R/W) and Manning Trail N. (50 feet R/W) to provide a minimum R/W from the existing roadway
centerline. The concept plan shows R/W dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way width cannot be
verified based on the plan scale provided.
The Plat must dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue), CSAH 10 (10th Street
North), and CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue) as required by Washington County. The concept plan shows this
dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way widths must be reviewed and approved by the County.
Access Management. Access to the development is proposed in four locations accessing Lake Elmo Avenue,
20th Street North (MSA collector street), and Manning Trail North. Additional development access points
are strongly recommended (see the Secondary Access and Street Interconnections bullet under
RESIDENTIAL STREETS). Prior to the City receiving and accepting a preliminary plat proposal it is
recommended that all development access points be reviewed and approved by the City and Washington
County to verify acceptable access management spacing and adequate sight triangles for each entrance.
The proposed access locations and considerations for the development are as follows:
1) Street E access to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17). Location to be approved by Washington County.
2) Street A access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Access is 550 feet east of Lake Elmo
Avenue vs. the required spacing of 660 feet. Proposed access location aligns with the existing
intersection for 20th Street Court N.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 4
3) Street B access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Proposed access is located 350 feet
offset from the existing intersection of Legion Avenue. Consideration should be given to relocating this
access to align with the intersection of Legion Avenue or increase the offset to 660 feet.
4) Street J access to Manning Trail North. Access is 550 feet south of 20th Street N. Location needs to be
reviewed in the field to verify access as an acceptable location.
The applicant will be responsible to construct all intersection and turn lane improvements along CSAH 17
as required by Washington County. These improvements must be completed at the developer’s cost.
The applicant will be responsible to construct right and left turn lane improvements along 20th Street N.
(both access locations) and long Manning Trail as required by the City. These improvements must be
completed at the developer’s cost.
Pedestrian facilities: The City should review potential bituminous trail requirements to be incorporated
along CSAH 17, 20th Street N. and/or Manning Trail N. to improve pedestrian safety and work toward future
trail connectivity.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
The national Complete Streets Coalition states that well‐designed, connected Street Networks are the
backbone upon which communities are built. Good street network designs reduce land consumption,
provide greater accessibility through more direct routes, and increase overall network efficiency and
reliability through added redundancy. They also affect several factors that relate to building more
sustainable communities such as travel patterns, road safety, and public health. Generally speaking, more
compact and connected street networks tend to have significantly higher levels of people walking and biking
and fewer vehicle miles traveled as compared to sparser, tree‐like designs. Connected streets can reduce
traffic congestion by dispersing traffic and offering travel options. Grid networks create a safer road system.
Secondary Access and Street Interconnections: It is strongly recommended that additional access points
and interconnections be thoroughly pursued to enhance the street network safety and accessibility. The
proposed concept plan shows three separate neighborhoods all requiring direct access to a collector or
County roadway without interconnection or secondary roadway connection. Area 1 proposes 170 lots with
a single point of access to CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). The 170 lots are placed along a dead end cul‐de‐
sac over 4,500 feet long. The city standard cul‐de‐sac length is 600 feet while many communities have a
maximum length of 1,000 feet. Area 2 proposes 57 lots with two points of access to 20th Street N. Area 3
proposes 76 lots with a single point of access to Manning Trail placed along a dead end cul‐de‐sac over
2,300 feet long.
An interconnection between Street A and Street E is extremely important to provide a secondary
access for Area 1 to 20th Street N., and to provide a secondary access roadway connection for Area
2 to CSAH 17. A box culvert or bridge structure should be investigated.
The south end of Street E should be connected to 10th Street N. to eliminate a proposed cul‐de‐sac
over 7.5 times the maximum allowed length. Staff recognizes that this connection may be difficult
to make but all efforts should be pursued. If a connection cannot be physically made, any and all
other emergency access options or future connection opportunities must be addressed (i.e. a trail
connection to 10th Street to be used for emergency and future roadway construction purposes,
right‐of‐way dedication to the edge of the plat for a future roadway connection, loop the south end
of Street E to connect to Street H, etc).
Street J should be align to connect to both 20th Street N. and Manning Trail to provide access to two
separate collector roadways. If this is found to be unfeasible then two connections to Manning Trail
should be made to eliminate the long dead end cul‐de‐sac.
Private owned HOA streets have been proposed in areas of this development including Streets D, F, I and
K. Privately owned HOA streets should not be allowed. Typically private streets are proposed for the
purpose of decreasing street and boulevard design standards including setbacks for the structures. The City
design standards have been established as “minimums” for the purpose of serving as public access,
drainage, sanitary sewer, and municipal water service. The boulevard corridor also provides a dedicated
location for small utilities such as gas, electric, cable, telephone and fiber optics. Reducing the R/W width
PAGE 3 of 4
and structure setbacks greatly increases the public cost for maintaining underground utilities by constricting
work zone areas when the infrastructure requires maintenance and/or replacement. Private streets should
be considered only with public infrastructure is not installed below the private streets.
All streets must be shown as public streets when submitting for preliminary plat. All public streets must be
designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width (60‐feet), street width (28‐
feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii.
Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family residential areas with future
driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways and roadway stretches with no lots.
Street intersections must approximate 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent with maximum slopes
of 2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 8% with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 18 feet wide from back or curb to back of curb. The
development street plan indicates landscaped medians at two of the development entrance points.
Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential streets and as may be required for connectivity.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
The application and sketch plans do not address water supply. However, it is staff’s understanding that it is
intended for the development to be served by municipal water.
Tartan Park, the proposed development area, is excluded from the 2030 Comprehensive Water System
Plan, being identified as an area to not be served by municipal water. However, municipal water
infrastructure exists immediately adjacent to Tartan Park (16‐inch trunk watermain line has been
constructed along Lake Elmo Avenue).
If municipal water is extended to serve this development, a water service capacity and hydraulic study
should be completed to verify system capacity, operating pressures and watermain pipe sizing and looping
requirements. For example, it may be necessary to move up the construction timeframe for the new water
tower to be located in the city’s lower pressure zone. Also, given the varied topography of the site it may
be necessary to identify acceptable water pressure operating conditions based on the varied elevations to
establish areas that will require pressure regulating valves for individual homes.
The applicant would be responsible to extend municipal water into the development at its cost and would
be required to construct a looped watermain network based on the results of the water service hydraulic
study.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
The applicant is responsible to provide wastewater infrastructure to support the proposed development.
All sewer infrastructure must be provided at the developer’s cost.
The application and sketch plans do not address sanitary sewer service. However, it is staff’s understanding
that it is intended for the development to be served by municipal sewer.
The proposed development is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)
for sanitary sewer service. In order to extend municipal sewer to serve this development, a Comprehensive
Plan amendment is required to alter the sewer service boundaries for the City.
Sewer service could be provided by constructing a lift station at the south end of Tartan Park with a
forcemain constructed along 10th Street N. to connect to the existing 16‐inch forcemain along Lake Elmo
Avenue. The sewer system should be designed so that the 10th Street lift station can be eliminated in the
future when gravity sanitary sewer is extended to serve Cimarron and Oakland Junior High School.
Interior to the development multiple lift stations may be required due to the varied topography of the
property. The sewer system must be designed City standards and must minimize lift stations and future
ongoing operational costs.
PAGE 4 of 4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE AND GRADING
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations.
Storm water and storm sewer facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and VBWD permitting
requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual
available on the City website. The plans shown do not meet many of these requirements.
All storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, wetlands and wetland buffers, must be placed in
Outlots deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully
incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10 foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. It
appears that some of the proposed ponding facilities are located outside of the development limits.
All storm water bonds must have both a 10:1 aquatic bench and a 10:1 maintenance bench.
Designated maintenance access roads, 20 feet in width, must be provided for all storm water facilities
with slope no greater than 10%.
The maximum curb run prior to a catch basin is 350 feet.
All storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width. Additional width may be required
to adjust for greater pipe depths.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street.
Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage
system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development.
Overland emergency overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
Storm water pond facilities should be combined together to the greatest extent possible to ensure
adequate hydrology for efficient facility treatment operations.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration to avoid negative impacts to
downstream properties. The storm water management plan will need to address changes to the
downstream drainage system to the extent alterations are proposed. To the extent adjacent properties are
impacted, written permission from those properties must be submitted as part of the development
applications.
The grading plan indicates significant use of retaining walls. Retaining walls should be placed within private
lots or Outlots to be owned and maintained by the HOA. Retaining walls should be placed on City R/W or
Outlots dedicated to the City. Retaining walls should also not be placed within lot drainage and utility
easements.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A detailed phasing plan should be provided with the preliminary plat application that clearly indicates the
phasing of the construction for each public infrastructure component and addresses both construction
access to the site and public access for new residents. Temporary cul‐de‐sacs should be part of the phasing
plans and are be required for any street with a platted lot with driveway access.
From:Gwen Welch
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:Walking/bike path
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:36:23 AM
Hi Stephen,
With the future Increased traffic on 20th St. N. due to the development of Tarten Park, we would like the developer
to consider a walking/ biking path on the south side of 20th for the safety of pedestrians going between Manning
Trail and Lake Elmo Avenue.
Thank you,
Bob and Gwen Welch
From:Jim Burns
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:Walking path along 20th Street
Date:Monday, April 25, 2016 10:14:08 AM
Hello,
We have lived on 20th St. Ct. N. for over 40 years. We have always wished for better walking/biking conditions
along 20th Street. When our boys were young, it was some time before we allowed them to ride their bikes to
friends' homes on Legion Avenue, and even then, I watched from the end of our street until they were safely around
the corner on Legion. We walk with our grandchildren down to our shared lake frontage during the summer. Each
time 20th Street was repaved, we hoped for a paved shoulder. Now, with the purchase and anticipated construction
of new homes on the former Tartan Park property, might be the time to consider a walking path along 20th St., with
the new owners perhaps funding it.
We have been chatting about this possibility with neighbors, including Mike Tate and Chris and Karen Cook, and
we agree that with the already heavy walking and jogging use of 20th St. and most likely, greater use in the future,
that a walking path would be a wonderful safety feature in this area. We hope that the planning department and
planning commission will look into this.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Beth and Jim Burns
Sent from my iPad
From:Karen Cook
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:Biking/walking path along 20th St
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:46:18 PM
Dear Steve,
I am writing to you in regards to the need for a biking/walking path along 20th Street in Lake
Elmo, I have lived on this street for the past 25 years and it has amazed me that the street has
no shoulder, is hilly, and the speed limit is 45 MPH. My husband, three young daughters, dog,
and I have walked, run and biked on this street, but always with the danger of being hit by a
motorist. Many motorists would move into the opposite lane to allow us space, but with the
hills on that road, the chance of a head on collision are great.
Now we live here with young grandchildren, and the same safety issues are present.
With the sale of Tartan Park to Arnold Palmer and Annika Sorenstam, it seems like prime time
to request a biking/walking path along 20th Street (and along Lake Elmo Ave South of 20th
and also along Manning Trail) so that we can keep people safe that are walking/biking along
those roads. With the development of the park and the addition of 350 homes, the traffic is
only going to increase along these roads.
Please consider this biking/walking path for the safety of our residents as you proceed with
city planning.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Cook
From:Mike Tate
To:Stephen Wensman
Cc:Bonnie Moris; Jo Tate
Subject:Walking/ Bike path on 20th
Date:Monday, April 25, 2016 3:59:34 PM
Hi Stephen.
I am following up our visit at your office earlier this spring with our request for a path along the south side of 20th
Street for all the pedestrian traffic between Manning Trail & Lake Elmo Avenue.
You had mentioned now is the time to discuss this safety consideration with the new Tartan ownership. It is already
an "adventure" running, walking, & biking on this street.
Thank you for moving this idea forward.
Mike and Jo Tate
Sent from my iPhone
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 22, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fields, Dodson, Williams, Larson, Griffin, Kreimer, and
Lundquist
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard & Dunn
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
Agenda accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: August 8, 2016
M/S/P: Dodson/Fields, move to approve the August 8, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote:
7-0, motion carried Unanimously.
Public Hearing – Concept PUD Plans
Wensman started his presentation for the Concept PUD Plan from HC Golf Course
Develepment LLC for the Tartan park site which is nearly 500 acres. The residential
development would surround the golf course. This would be roughly 300 residential
housing units. The biggest question is should the comprehensive plan be updated in
response to the unforeseen event of the sale of Tartan Park. Tartan Park was a fixture in
Lake Elmo for over 50 years and was thought to remain so. It was not on the City radar
as far as the Comprehensive Plan. This is not just a blanket yes or no, and it is not
approving anything at this time. It is just providing feedback for the applicant.
This site is currently guided as public facility and is 8 parcels that make up 477 gross
acres. A PUD is required because much of the site is in the Shoreland area and is
environmentally sensitive. There are a number of considerations for reguiding this
property 1) environmental considerations 2) the land is between 2 sewered districts 3)
variable densities surrounding the site 4) OP & LDR are not realistic options 5) extension
of sewer to properties along Lake Elmo will likely happen over time.
A decision that needs to be made is should the site be reguided and rezoned. If
reguided and rezoned, there are three options to do that. 1) new land use designation
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
and new zoning district 2) guide for urban low density 3) guide for village urban low
density.
Wensman stated that the density for Urban low density is 1.5-2.5 and LDR is 2.5-4.0
units per acre. Dodson asked if the golf course area would be split out as separate from
the residential. Wensman stated that it is not, but is being considered through the PUD
process. Dodson asked why OP was not an option if the golf course fails, it could be
used for open space. Wensman stated that this development would not be profitable as
an OP and to convert a golf course would be very expensive. Staff feels that the Village
low density is the best option for the Tartan Park site. For a PUD, one or more of the 10
potential objectives needs to be met. Staff feels that there is justification related to 5
objectives. 1) protecting the environmental features 2) the preservation and
enhancement of the golf course 3) Utilization of open space in golf course for storm
water management, cluster of homes to limit site disturbance and extending sewer to
preserve and enhance environmental features 4) facilitate the redevelopment of the
golf course 5) four sided architecture. Wensman went through the PUD standards that
were met by this proposal. They meet the required minimum area, the open space
requirements, street layout can be met with some changes, density depends on future
comp plan designation, lot design and structures. Connectivity is important and there
are some options to provide connections.
In regards to the development moratorium, Royal Golf is outside the limits of the
moratorium. Over 200 acres of the site is within the shoreland district. Shoreland
regulations require developments to be connected to municipal sewer & water. There
is an unnamed wetland on the site that is included in the cities shoreland ordinance,
that is not recognized by the DNR. It should be removed from the ordinance. This
development appears to comply with shoreland ordinance tiering, but the development
is subject to DNR approval. At this point, not enough information has been submitted to
determine if the plans conform to the Shoreland PUD rules. There are no buffer
requirements for PUD’s. There are buffers in the comprehensive plan for sewered
areas, but this was never planned as a sewered area.
Fields asked if we had the authority to require buffers. Wensman stated that since it is a
PUD, that could be negotiated.
Wensman stated that of the 205 acres for residential, roughly 33% is open space with
wetlands, bluffs, open water and private open space. The concept plans have not
addressed screening, entrance monuments, boulevard plantings or private open space
plantings. The preliminary PUD plans will need to comply with the City’s landscaping
standards.
Wensman talked about parkland dedication and trails. This will need to be looked at
closely to see what is feasible. Interconnectivity of streets needs to be addressed.
There are issues regarding access management and proposed private streets that need
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
to be worked out along with a few other things. The concept plan does not address the
water supply. Tartan Park is exluded from the 2030 Comp water supply plan, although
water is nearby. A water service capacity and hydraulic study is needed to evaluat the
ability to service Royal Golf. This new service could move up the timeframe to construct
a new water tower. All improvements are at the developers expense.
The sanitary system is not addressed in the concept PUD plans. They do intend to
connect the golf course and development to sanitary sewer. This development area is
outside of the MUSA area and a comprehensive plan amendment would be needed.
There are some issues with lift stations and concerns of the City Engineer that will need
to be addressed.
Stormwater and grading are all subject to state, VBWD and City regulations. Some of
the plans do not meet those regulations. Wensman went through some of those items.
Wensman went through the developments phasing plan. It is anticipated to be a 3-5
year phasing or 60 units per year. The phasing plan will need to be addressed ahead of
time at the time of the preconstruction meeting.
The developer is working on an EAW that will be submitted to City and adjacent
jurisdictional review prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat.
The site contains 15.99 acres of wetland and 9.74 acres of wetland buffer. These need
to located outside of lot areas. The VBWD is responsible for administering the wetland
concervation act requirement and a VBWD permit is required.
The golf course is required to have 2 entrances for emergency access, but only has 1
now. They will also need to comply with off-street parking requirements. There are a
number of amenities being proposed for the golf course area which include a pool,
fitness center, trails and a childrens golf course.
Other considerations for this PUD application are that signage plans should be
submitted with preliminary plat, fire hydrant and streetlight locations will be required
on the plans, erosion control and floodplain issues will need to be addressed.
Dodson asked if the golf course should be zoned commercial. Wensman stated that is is
a private golf course open to the public. He said that the public facility zoning is
appropriate. Dodson asked if this could be construed as spot zoning. Wensman stated
that according to the City attorney, it is not spot zoning as it is a large enough area with
lots of lots, etc.
Kreimer asked about the stormwater ponds being dedicated to the City. He said the
developer indicated that they wanted to use the ponds for irrigation and such. How
would that affect the dedication. Wensman stated that Inwood is doing the same thing
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
and there would be a whole host of approvals that would need to happen for it to move
forward.
Clark Schroeder, works for Hollis Cavner, and gave a history of what got them to this
place. When 3M wanted to sell, options were looked at to see if there were options to
keep it a park. That did not transpire, so 3M actively marketed the property. Since
purchasing the property, they have started grading to restore the golf course. They
want to create a sustainable development that will help keep the golf course open.
Rick Packer, HC Golf, went through the Concept PUD Plans for the development. They
are dedicated to creating a high quality and high amenity neighborhood with
recreational facilities, forming a strong sense of identity. Packer stated that they have
changed all of the private roads to public streets. For density, they are not including the
golf course, but only the residential component. They are working on a transportation
study along with the EAW. The EAW is expected to be completed Mid-August.
Build out is expected to occur within 5 years based on market demand. The golf course
is expected to open in 2017. They are working on a proposed connection to 10th street
with Mr. Emerson. There are no buffers required, however, they plan to be good
neighbors and work with the residents. There are also mature trees that provide a
screened buffer. Packer talked about city fees and trails throughout the development.
Hollis Cavner, owner, his intent was to sell off the residential portion of land to a
developer. After talking to developers, he decided to do it himself, because he wants
this to be a spectacular place. He is not going to give this to a national builder because
he wants to have control over the finished product.
Williams asked about their response to the need for 2 entrances to the golf course.
Schroeder stated that they met with the Fire Chief and Building Official and they have a
couple of plans that would work. They will be working out the details for preliminary
plat.
Lundquist asked if they have any intentions of improving 20th street. Schroeder stated
that they have been studying that.
Larson was wondering if there were opportunites for other non-golf related activities.
Schroeder stated that they would like to put in a pocket park or community park for the
HOA. Packer stated that they are looking at the ballfield as a possible location.
Public Hearing opened at 8:45 pm
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, she is happy that they are going to keep the homes and
thinks that they should be able to build homes, however, they need to follow the
comprehensive plan and meet the future land use plan. She says that the
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
comprehensive plan states that the City is committed to preserving rural character and
that areas north of 10th street and outside the village area would be in the form of Open
Space Development Cluster neighborhoods. Ms. Bucheck touched on other aspects of
the Comprehensive Plan that she feels this development does not meet. She urges the
Planning commission to require the development to choose density that is consistent
with the surrounding properties.
Dan Rice, 11364 14th Street, President of the Homestead Development HOA. This
development went in with 18 homes and was developed in 1997 as an open space
development. He feels this development represents a substantial and dramatic
departure from the current Comprehensive Plan. Businesses and Homeowners rely on
the comp plan and zoning when purchasing their property. They are prepared to
support residential development as long as it is designed in a way this is not detrimental
to their neighborhood.
Jim Voeller, 11314 12th Street, he is very disappointed in the progress of this
development. He feels there has been very little consideration for the existing
neighborhoods that have been there for years. The design that was shown back in
march showed a significant buffer of 125 foot buffer and a lot less houses.
Louis Speltz, 11326 14th Street, he shares the concerns raised by the previous speakers.
He feels if an exception is made to the Comprehensive Plan, there never was a plan to
begin with. The developer purchased the property knowing full well that all of the land
was targeted for recreation, not residential property. Is rural character something we
just give lip service to with no buffers to existing neighbors.
Ellen Johnson, 11050 14th Street, concerned that the they do not have the EAW and
traffic study that should have been done for today. She wants this to move slow enough
that they are very careful with this sensitive site.
Tim Mandel, 2479 Lisbon, this area was never mandated for high density development
and sewer was never intended for this area. This development looks like solid
impervious. He would like to see this developed as RE or R1. He is concerned that if
sewer is brought to this property, it won’t stop there.
Michael Zueffel, 2055 Manning Trail, would like to reinforce that Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as rural. There are 21 residents that live off of Manning Trail and
there is no buffering. There is no obligation to approve this.
Michael Biebl, 12020 18th Street, agrees with prior statements. He is concerned about
the buffers and statements are misleading. The access points on Manning Trail are on
West Lakeland township and he doesn’t believe they have been contacted yet. It will
probably come out in the traffic study, but Washington County is concerned about the
traffic impact with this development. He is concerned with the density. He is concerned
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
with how close the homes are being built. He is also concerned with how the water will
flow. He is also concerned with the intersections on 20th Street. He doesn’t feel that
the West Lakeland residents have been kept informed regarding this project.
Shelli Wilk, 11253 14th Street, ould like to echo the concerns regarding density, rural
character and zoning.
Jeffrey Kluge, 11234 14th Street, concerned with the added traffic along Lake Elmo Ave.
Bob Schwartz, 12040 18th Street, West Lakeland resident, he is wondering why would
would they do this when it goes against zoning and comprehensive plan. This density is
so out of whack with surrounding properties and the Comprehensive plan.
Tom & Pam Barnes, 1734 Manning Trail, concerned because a number of years after
purchasing their home, they discovered that the property line was not where they
thought it was. They came up with an easement agreement with 3M. The new plan
looks like there is very little buffer other than the narrow easement that they
negotiated. Their garage and home is only about 10 feet from the new homes. They
want to have a decent buffer in there. They would also like to see some open space left
for the wildlife on the property.
Audrey Kopp, 2040 Manning Trail N, she is concerned with the intersection. She feels it
is not a safe intersection now, and with more traffic, will be much more dangerous. She
is also concerned about the wildlife in the area.
There were some written statements that were submitted as well and were in the
packet.
There were also additional that were submitted after the packet went out. Kreimer
summarized those statements Bonnie & Glen Welch, Karen Cook, Mike Tate & Jim
Burns would like to see a trail on south side of 20th street for safety. Vicky Johnston
would like to see public walking paths. Judy Toft is concerned about 1 entrance and
small lot sizes.
Public hearing closed at 9:41 pm.
Williams stated that the number one question to answer is if this number of houses that
will require public sewer and water is an appropriate change. He feels that it is not
appropriate. There is nothing distinguishing this property form others in the area. He
does not feel that they should expand the sewer area north of 10th street. He supports
redevelopment and housing on this property, but not at this density.
Dodson wants to understand why Williams feels that way and how would it be different.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
Lundquist is thinking if developed as an open space it would be developed at about 230-
240 homes. Wensman stated that this was the case. Fields has concerns about the lack
of interconnectivity and access points, regardless of concerns with density. He feels
that when there is no obligation to rezone the property at all, the developer should have
come to the city with something in between park land and Open Space to be respectful
of existing neighbors and the Comprehensive Plan.
Lundquist is concerned that on every boundry of this proposal there are significant
concerns with buffers and streets not being adequate. Williams stated that if you drove
into Tartan Meadows and Homestead and looked at the layout and the lots and then
drove to Savona, you would see a significant difference. This proposal is similar to
Savona in density and he does not feel that it is appropriate for this area. The City does
not have a need to add any additional sewered development. He feels that 10th street is
somewhat of the sacred border, with the exception of the Village area, for sewered
development. Williams does not buy the argument that an OP development is not
economically viable. Wensman stated that the DNR requires sewer in the shoreland
area. There are roughly 200 acres are within the Shoreland district in this development.
Larson is wondering what it would take to increase the buffers. Some of the issues
seem to relate to privacy and space. He feels there are a lot of creative tools that could
be used to help with buffers.
Hollis Cavner stated that there is a huge misconception about the buffers around the
surrounding property. They are transplanting trees to create a buffer and they are not
taking out any trees. They are willing to build berms for the Homestead and put trees
in. Unfortunately, with the shoreland buffer setbacks, they are forced to go to the
perimiters of the land. The infrastructure alone on this project will be upwards of 32
million dollars and unfortunately, that does dictate how much density they need to
make this work.
Larson hopes that some middle ground can be found. This development has good
things and is trying to keep some of the history there. He hopes with some creativity,
some middle ground can be found.
Kreimer thinks it is appropriate that this area be sewered because of the shoreland and
the area that needs to be protected. He does not feel that the buffering is acceptable.
He would like to see at least 100 feet of buffering. The plans do not show distances. He
feels in order to preserve this golf course, sewer is necessary. Fields stated that on
Olson Lake Trail, there are properties slated to be sewered. Those properties are all
approximately 150 feet wide and are of a value that can afford a higher assessment. He
feels that with this property there can be lower density with sewer, with homes that
could afford the higher assessment.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
Dodson would like to see a study of what the lowest density is that can have sewer. He
is also concerned about the buffers. He doesn’t like the design in the Homestead area.
He is concerned about that density of homes in this area. He also doesn’t like the buffer
area against West Lakeland.
Griffin agrees that sewer is something that is necessary because of the lakes on this
property. She is also concerned about the traffic. She would like to see the density
lowered and the buffers expanded. She wants to make sure that the City is doing the
right thing. She does not believe that individual septic will perk on the soils that are on
this property. She wants us to work with West Lakeland on what buts up against that
property.
Williams wants to give some findings. He feels the staff report is biased. It assumes that
the desired outcome is sewering this area and he feels that is false. He does not feel
that there is adequate findings in the staff report.
M/S/: Williams/Dodson, move to propose the following findings of fact:
1) The housing density proposed, approximately 2.2 units per acre, would require
service by a municipal sewer and water.
2) Any form of residential development will require a comprehensive plan
amendment.
3) The property could be developed under the citys OP or RE development
standards.
4) The City has no need to guide for more sewered residential development based
on the Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Councils population forecast
for 2040
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to amend the findings to include a 5th finding of fact
to include that there are unresolved issues of buffer, access points, cul-de-sac lengths
and connectivity, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
/P: Orginal motion with 5 findings of fact, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Larson asked why the golf course and housing development were not treated as
separate entities.
M/S/P: Fields/Lundquist, propose a finding that changing the zoning from a park to
housing consistent with this proposal will increase the citys tax base and lessen the tax
burden on the rest of Lake Elmo. Vote: 6-1, motion carried.
Dodson does not think this is a finding as it isn’t the current situation. Williams also
doesn’t agree with the finding because they don’t have knowledge of where that break
point is for net gain. The information he has seen is that residential does not pay for
itself.
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, proposed an additional finding that any area between 10th
Street and 30th Street, East of Lake elmo Ave, with existing residences is not expected to
require sewer before 2040, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Williams, proposed an additional finding that the total number of
houses proposed for the residential portion, exceeds by 30% the total number of houses
that would be allowed if the entire property, including the golf course, was developed
in OP, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, proposed an additional finding that the golf course is an
amenity to the City of Lake Elmo, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
The Commission decided that the first question that they needed to answer is if taking
action on a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is warranted at this time
given changes that have occurred since the current plan and zoning map were last
adopted.
Dodson believes that it is warranted because he feels that when the Comprehensive
Plan is reviewed, this area will need to be dealt with anyway. Fields does not agree. He
feels they do not need to do that at this time based on the findings and this proposal. If
the proposal changes, or the findings are no longer relevant, they can do so at a later
date.
Larson thinks that the golf course and residential should be separated and dealt with as
separate entities. Fields does not understand why a comp plan amendment is necessary
when it was privately owned before and is privately owned now. Wensman stated that
it could remain as parkland. He stated that the residential and golf course are together
because the 2 are inter-related as trails and some amenities for housing development
are on the golf course property. They also share some shoreland and ponding and it
gets really hard to separate them. Usually when there are different uses on a property
owned by the same entity, a PUD is the way to address it such as Inwood with
residential and Commercial.
Fields stated that he feels the key elements of this question is “at this time” and
“changes that have occurred”, meaning the sale of the property and also the proposal
that is before them. He would prefer to wait to recommend a comp plan amendment
until there is a proposal that serves a broad public purpose. He does not feel that this
proposal does that. Dodson agrees that at this time the comp plan amendment is
premature until it goes to preliminary plat.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, motion to not recommend approval for a comprehensive
plan amendment to accommodate the current development proposal at this time, Vote:
7-0, motion carried unanimously.
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
M/S/P: Fields/Kriemer, the applicant has demonstated that the application meets at
least one of the objectives to be considered for a PUD, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
The Planning Commission gave these issues as areas of concern: The buffer areas, lower
density, cul-de-sac lengths, trails, especially on 20th Street, significant improvements on
20th street, improvements at the intersections of both Manning Trail and 20th Street and
Lake Elmo Ave and 20th Street , access areas (discussion with West Lakeland),
demonstration from a regulatory vs. economic standpoint that non-sewered
development is not viable, alignment of intersections especially on 20th street,
engineering report to be followed, minimum of 100 or 150 foot buffer from property
line to property line, and 2 access points for the golf course.
Public Hearing – Easement Vacation – GWSA Land Development
Wensman stated that there was a drainage and utility easement on outlots. Now those
outlots are being developed into residential lots, and the easements need to be vacated
in order to record the plats. New easements will go into place where appropriate on the
new plat. This is really just a housekeeping matter.
Public Hearing opened at 11:22 pm
There were no written or electronic comments received
Public Hearing closed at 11:23 pm
M/S/P: Dodson/Griffin, move to recommend approval of a request to vacate drainage
and utility easements of Outlots C, G, & H as recorded on the Final Plat of Village
Preserve, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment Open Space Development
Wensman stated that this is the same information that was presented at the last
meeting. He would like to point out something that he did not highlight at the last
meeting. On page 8 of 27 in the green notes it was speaking in favor of more vague
language and the reason it was changed. That was because being a PUD, everyone will
probably ask for changes.
Williams likes the more specific language because these are all areas we want to
monitor very carefully and calling them out specifically developers know they have to
pay attention. If they ask for modifications, at least they are highlighted.
Lundquist asked if the intent of going through this code was just to clean it up.
Wensman stated that the Council asked the Commission to address some issues in the
11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
ordinance. The Commission responded and the Council wasn’t quite satisfied and the
whole structure was questioned. It was thought that a PUD was more appropriate tool
than a CUP for this ordinance.
M/S/P: Fields/Dodson, move to recommend approval of ordinance 08-__, repealing the
existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, adopting new open
space planned unit development regulations in chapter 154, and reorganizing and
renumbering Chapter 154 to fit the new open space regulations, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Business Item – Fence Orinance Discussion
Wensman stated that the council would like the Commission to consider if a portion of
the fence code that is highlighted on the copy that was handed out, should be repealed.
Dodson asked why this item came up. Wensman stated that there is an issue with a
residence where this is being questioned.
Fields said that he was at the City Council meeting, but he couldn’t figure out what it
was they were looking for. Wensman stated that there is a specific property that feels
that the ½ acre provision is not fair. The Council wanted the Commission to give their
feedback. Dodson stated that he feels it is appropriate for the
M/S/P: Dodson/Lundquist, move to recommend staff to draft an ordinance and conduct
a public hearing, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Ann Buchek, 2301 Legion Ave, spoke regarding the 1% rule. She wanted to point out
that the state guidelines are adequate for average situations across the state, however,
Lake elmo has many un-outleted low areas and ponds which are not average. She
would like the City Council to reinstate the more stringent stormwater rules that were
rescinded on October 13, 2013 and calling for NO increase in runoff compared to pre-
construction.
City Council Updates – August 16, 2016 Meeting
i) Boulder Ponds rezoning – Tabled
ii) Temporary Health Care Facilities – Passed
iii) Pigeon Ordinance – Denied
iv) Developer Agreements for Village Preserve 2nd and Hammes Estates – Passed
with changes
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. September 12, 2016
12
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
b. September 26, 2016
Commission Concerns
Meeting adjourned at 11:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 8-22-16
AGENDA ITEM: 4A– BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEAR ITEM
CASE # 2016-28
ITEM: PUD Concept Plan Review: Application from HC Golf Course
Development, LLC requesting approval of a PUD concept plan that would
redevelop the former Tartan Park Golf Course and create 300+ lots on 477
gross acres.
SUBMITTED BY: Ben Gozola, Consultant City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant & Owner: HC Golf Course Development, LLC
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Public Facilities
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: OP, Rural Single Family and Rural Residential
Comprehensive Plan: Public Facilities
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 7/15/16
60 Day Deadline –9/13/16
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
Summary: The applicants are seeking feedback on a PUD concept plan for
redevelopment of the Tartan Park Golf Course into the Royal Oaks Golf
Club. As presented, the redevelopment would include significant
upgrades to the golf course itself, and the introduction of residential
housing on the periphery of the course and property. Many issues must
be overcome before this development moves forward including a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the residential portion
of the proposed project. Concept Plan is the stage where all such issues
are identified for the applicant so they can decide whether or not to
proceed. Approval at this stage does not guarantee any future approvals,
but rather grants the applicant the right to file a preliminary plan
submittal.
Guidance: The review criteria for concept plans is very broad and subjective, so
Planning Commission Meeting 8/22/16 Page 2
BUSINESS ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
approval or denial at this stage is less about compliance with specific
standards, and more about determining whether the proposal is best
for this property, best for the surrounding properties, and best for the
City as a whole.
The commission is asked to consider all facts outlined in the report,
and make a recommendation of approval or denial for Council
consideration. Recommended changes should also be brought up at
this time.
Any recommendation of approval for the concept plan should be
conditioned on the applicant successfully gaining approval of the
needed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning prior to
approval of any future preliminary PUD application. At the
applicant’s own risk, such applications may run concurrently with
offset review dates before the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Staff Report
3. Engineering Memo
4. FIRMettes (flood plain panels)
5. Neighbor Feedback
6. Applicant’s Submittals
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction .................................................................................................. Planner
- Report by Staff ............................................................................................. Planner
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Questions to the Applicant ..................................... 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
120 Day Deadline – N/A
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION
1200 WARNER ROAD
SAINT PAUL, MN 55106
651-259-5800
Date: 08/19/2016
Steve Wensman
Planning Director, City of Lake Elmo
Lake Elmo City Hall
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: DNR Comments on the Concept PUD Plan for the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo
Steve:
The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo is a residential planned unit development (PUD) located at the site of
the former Tartan Golf Course. The site includes shoreland district areas from four public waters: Lake
Elmo (82010600), Horseshoe Lake (82007400), Rose Lake (82011200), and Downs Lake (82011000).
There is an unnamed public watercourse that flows through the golf course. Since at least half of this
public watercourse is in a pipe and the above ground section of the stream is entirely within the
boundary of the golf course, this public watercourse has not been included in this shoreland concept
PUD review. Unnamed public water wetland 82041800 is included in the City of Lake Elmo’s current
shoreland ordinance. However, the City is in the process of revising its shoreland ordinance and it is
anticipated that this wetland, which has not been assigned a shoreland classification by MNDNR, will be
removed from the City’s shoreland district. Therefore, this wetland has also not been included in this
shoreland concept PUD plan review.
Not enough information has been submitted with the concept plan to determine if the plan conforms to
State shoreland PUD rules. In order to evaluate the PUD, a shoreland residential PUD analysis will need
to be completed by the applicant. The PUD analysis is a site density evaluation (see the attached PUD
evaluation sheet from DNR and MN Rules 6120.3800 for shoreland PUD standards). Please encourage
the applicant to contact me prior to submittal of the preliminary PUD application for assistance on how
to complete the residential PUD analysis, as a number of factors must be considered.
For the PUD analysis, the project parcel is divided into tiers (see the attached project sketch plan with
tiers shown for the shoreland district areas in the PUD). First, the area in each tier that is suitable for
development is calculated. Stormwater ponds may be included within the suitable area; wetlands and
bluffs cannot be included in the suitable area calculation. Based on the suitable area and average lot size
in each tier, the allowable base density is calculated. If there is 50 percent or more open space within
the PUD, a density multipler may be used to increase density in each tier. Wetlands without a DNR
shoreland classification may be included as open space; stormwater ponds and public waters and public
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION
1200 WARNER ROAD
SAINT PAUL, MN 55106
651-259-5800
water wetlands with shoreland classifications cannot be included in the open space calculation. In
addition, 70 percent of the shore impact zone (SIZ) must also be in open space.
The following are MNDNR’s comments on the concept PUD plan:
• The concept PUD plan appears to meet or closely meet the 50 percent open space requirement,
but a more detailed analysis of the open space calculations is needed to complete the shoreland
residential PUD analysis.
• The bluff areas and wetlands within the shoreland districts for the public waters will need to be
mapped. These areas must be located so that they are not included in the calculation for the
area suitable for development in each tier. Also the bluff setback standard should be taken into
account when planning the location of structures near bluffs.
• Additional design planning is required to develop a stormwater management plan. As part of the
PUD analysis, the size and location of stormwater ponds will be required.
• The attached map shows the location of the 100-year floodplain in yellow. Proposed lots are
located in the 100-year floodplain. Development within the floodplain will need to follow state
and local floodplain regulations.
• Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations must be followed for the WCA-delineated wetland
basins on the site.
• Additional comments will be provided by MNDNR on the EAW for this proposed project.
Both the City of Lake Elmo’s current shoreland ordinance and the draft shoreland ordinance amendment
(currently being reviewed by DNR) require that DNR review and approve shoreland PUDs. DNR will work
with the applicant on the residential PUD analysis and work with the City of Lake Elmo through the PUD
review and approval process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this PUD concept plan. If you have additional questions
on these comments, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Sorensen
East Metro Area Hydrologist
DNR Central Region
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754
jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
cc: Daniel Petrik, DNR
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
1
PUD/CLUSTER EVALUATION SHEET
Part 1. DNR In-house Information:
DNR Region and Area Number Region____ Area__________
Checklist Preparer _________________________
(Name)
Date Prepared _________________________
DNR PUD Approval Required?* ___Yes ___No
Date of Field Inspection _________________________
(DNR field inspection required when
the PUD is subject to DNR approval)
*In shoreland areas, DNR approval is required when the local unit of
government has not yet adopted planned unit development (PUD)
standards compliant with 1989 Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 -
6120.3900 for shoreland areas. DNR approval is required for all wild
& scenic rivers planned cluster developments (PCD). This form does
not apply to the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic Riverway Designation.
Part 2. General Project Information:
Project Name ________________________
Is this a Shoreland District PUD? ___Yes ___No
Is this a Wild & Scenic River District PCD? ___Yes ___No
Lake/Stream Involved ________________________
(Include shoreland or wild &
scenic rivers classification.) ________________________
(Classification)
City &/or County Name ________________________
________________________
The Project Proposal is for:
New Development ____
Resort Conversion ____
Redevelopment of existing site ____
2
Is the project one of the following:
A "residential" PUD?
nature of residency is nontransient and the major or primary focus of the development
Residential planned unit development means a use where the ___Yes ___No
is not service- oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks,
townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as
residential planned unit developments.
A "commercial" PUD?
provide transient, short-term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are
Commercial planned unit developments are typically uses that ___Yes ___No
essentially service-oriented. For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts,
recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service- oriented activities
are commercial planned unit developments.
NOTE: An expansion to an existing commercial PUD involving 6 or less
new dwelling units or sites since the date the community adopted land use
regulations compliant with the revised shorelandPUD standards in
Part 6120.3800 is permissible as a permitted use (under DNR's shoreland rules),
provided the total project density does not exceedthe density calculated in the
project density evaluation calculations which follows in Part 5.
A combined "residential and commercial" PUD?
this is a development with a mixture of uses and a combination of residential/
For the purposes of this checklist, ___Yes ___No
commercial dwelling units or sites. The total project acreage must be divided
between the respective tables on page 6 for residential density analysis and page 8
for commercial density analysis. If a portion of the project area is set aside for a
strictly commercial activity not involving dwelling unitsor dwelling sites
(e.g., a proposed/existingmarina, restaurants, etc.), then a portion of the lot must
be excluded from the density evaluation noted in the preceding sentence - this would
be an area equal to creating a hypothetical lot for these facilities such that all
dimensional, sewage treatment and water supply, and performance standards could
be satisfied assuming this development was standing on its own.
Conversion of a resort or other land use to a residential PUD?
uses may be converted to a residential PUD provided:
Resorts and other land ___Yes ___No
1) the proposed conversion has been initially evaluated in accordance with the criteria
in Parts 5 and 6 which follow; and 2) remedial measures have been taken to correct
project deficiencies as determined by the evaluation in Parts 5 and 6, all in accordance
with Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (D) (See Attachment A, Part A).
___Yes ___No If this is a resort/other land conversion, have items 1 and 2 in the preceding
paragraph been satisfied?
This checklist is designed so that an affirmative answer to the following questions will indicate that
the PUD proposal meets applicable DNR shoreland/wild and scenic rivers rules. If a question is
not applicable to a given PUD proposal, then an "N/A" should be entered into the "Yes" column
(with an explanation, if necessary).
3
Part 3. Land Use District Compatibility:
Is the proposed land use permissible in the applicable zoning district? ___Yes ___No
If this is a residential PUD in a Shoreland District, does the development have at ___Yes ___No
least 5 dwelling units or sites? If not, the proposal does not qualify as a residential PUD.
If this is a shoreland PUD, is the community requiring a Conditional Use application? ___Yes ___No
Part 4. Project Development Information:
Have the following project development documents been provided:
Documents that explain how the PUD will be designed and will function, as ___Yes ___No
approved by the DNR/local unit of government (specify which of the following
have been provided):
____ A master plan/drawing
structures to be occupied.
describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial
____ A property owners association agreement
(for residential PUD's) with mandatory membership and
all in accordance with the requirements of Part 6120.3800, subpart 5. (C) (See Attachment A, Part B); and
____ Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements
or other instruments that: 1) properly address
future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, (uncontrolled) beaching
of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUD'S; and 2) ensure the long-term
preservation and maintenance of open space (in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in Part 6.
A. of this checklist).
A site plan and/or plat
surface water features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land
for the project showing locations of property boundaries, ___Yes ___No
alterations, sewage treatment and water supply systems (where public systems will
not be provided), and topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less. When a PUD
is a combined commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat
must indicate and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential,
commercial or a combination of the two (see discussion on combined residential and
commercial PUD’s ).
The PUD applicant has satisfied all the necessary environmental assessment
(EAW) or environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements. The DNR/local unit of
worksheet ___Yes ___No
government approval cannot occur until the environmental review process is complete.
If an EAW/EIS is required, do not answer this question "Yes" unless the required
environmental review process is complete.
In accordance with A.-C. below, attach a map or drawing
which shows:
- how the project has been divided into tiers, and
- those areas 'unsuitable" for inclusion in the density calculation.
4
A. In a shoreland district, divide the parcel into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately
parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals,
proceeding landward:
SHORELAND TIER DIMENSIONS
Unsewered Sewered
(feet) (feet)
General development lakes-first tier 200 200
General development lakes-second and additional tiers 267 200
Recreational development lakes 267 267
Natural environment lakes 400 320
All river classes* 300 300
B. In a wild and scenic river district, determine the tier depth dimensions for all tiers by dividing
the minimum lot size by the minimum lot width requirement (NOTE: Certain urban reaches of
wild and scenic rivers are managed by use of shoreland provisions which will require
identifying tier depths as specified in A. above).
C. Calculate the "suitable area" for development within each tier, excluding all unsuitable areas
such as wetlands bluffs, land below the ordinary high water level of public waters, controlled
access lot type areas** , and the area set aside for commercial facilities not involving dwelling
units or sites. This suitable area is then subjected to either the residential (subpart D below) or
commercial (subpart E below) PUD density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of
dwelling units or sites. Include this suitable area figure in column 2 of the Residential PUD
Table in subpart D or column 4 of the Commercial PUD Table in subpart E, as appropriate.
The total site acreage equals _______________________
Specify the total square feet/acreage of the site which is unsuitable due to:
Wetlands ________________
Bluffs __________________
Land below the Ordinary High Water Level _________________
Controlled Access Lot Area ________________________
The area set aside for strictly commercial facilities __________________.
** See the discussion in Part 6. C. (4) of this checklist if it is desired to provide over-water mooring spaces for nonriparian
residential lot owners. To do this, additional riparian open space area will have to be provided consistent with the controlled access
lot sizing calculations in the shoreland rules and as explained in Attachment A, Part C.
D. For Residential PUD’s, determine the allowable density by tier in accordance with Steps 1-3 below:
1. In a Shoreland District, divide the suitable area within each tier by the single residential lot size
standard for lakes or, for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth
(unless the local unit of government has specified an alternative minimum lot size for rivers
which shall then be used) to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier.
Complete columns 2 and 3 in the Residential PUD Table on the following page;
2. In a wild and scenic river district, divide the suitable area within each tier by the single
residential lot size. Complete columns 2 and 3 in the Residential PUD Table in subitem 3 which
follows; and
5
3. Complete the remainder of the table on the following page to the degree necessary to determine
final allowable project density.
RESIDENTIAL PUD ANALYSIS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tier Suitable
area/sq. ft*
Required
Lot Size/ in
sq. ft.
Allowable Base
Density: divide
Column 3 into
Column 2
Density
Increase
Multiplier
**
Total
Allowable
Density with
Multiplier
Total
Density
Proposed
Cumulative
Density
Allowed ***
Cumulative
Density
Proposed ***
1 1.5
2 2.0
3 3.0
4 3.0
5 3.0
Column
Totals
*Do not include as suitable area any wetlands, bluffs, land below the ordinary high water level, any land designated as controlled
access lot area, or any land set aside for strictly commercial facilities.
**The total site acreage equals_______, and give the total square feet/acreage of the site which is unsuitable due to:
Wetlands______________; Bluffs______________; Land below Ordinary High Water Level __________; Controlled access lot
area_____________________: Land used strictly for Commercial Facilities________________ The density increase multiplier in
this column can only be applied to the preceding column if the provisions of Subpart F. are satisfied.
***Use this column only if allowable density is being transferred from a given tier to another tier farther back from the waterbody.
Please note that density may not be transferred from a tier farther back to a tier closer to the waterbody.
4. The proposed project density is consistent with the ___Yes ___No
Residential PUD Analysis Table.
E. For commercial PUD’s
determine the allowable density of dwelling units or sites by completing the
Commercial PUD Analysis Table in item 2 on the next page. Complete the Commercial PUD table, if
necessary, concurrently with the more detailed explanation in item 1 below:
1. Density/base dwelling unit or dwelling site calculation:
a) Determine the average inside living area size (i.e., average unit floor area) of
dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units
and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks, patios,
stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space.
Fill in column 2 of the table on the next page.
b) Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the table included as Attachment B to
this checklist and complete column 3 of the table below.
c) Multiply the suitable area within each tier (in column 4) by the floor area ratio (in
column 3) to yield a total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling
units or sites and put the answer in column 5 of the table.
d) Divide the "total floor area" for each tier in column 5 by the average inside living
area size in column 2 to yield a base number of dwelling units or sites for each tier,
put the answer in column 6.
e) Complete the remainder of the Commercial PUD Analysis Table, as appropriate.
6
2. COMMERCIAL PUD ANALYSIS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Tier Average Unit
Floor Area/
sq. ft.
Floor
Area
Ratio/
From
Appendix
B
Suitable
Tier Area/
sq. ft.*
Total Floor
Area Pier Tier*
Column 3
multiplied by
Column 4 **
Base Density/
Divide
Column 5 by
Column 2
***
Density
Increase
Multiplier
****
Total
Allowable
Dwelling
Units/Sites
with Multiplier
Total
Number of
Units/Sites
Proposed
Cumulative
Number of
Units/Sites
Allowed
******
Cumulative
Number of
Units/Sites
Proposed
******
1 1.5
2 2.0
3 3.0
4 3.0
5 3.0
Column Totals
* Do not include as suitable area any wetlands, bluffs, land below the Ordinary High Water lever, any land designated as controlled
access lots, or any land set aside for strictly commercial facilities.
The Total Site Area equals: ________________
Give the total square footage/acreage of the site, which is unsuitable due to:
Wetlands: _____________; Bluffs:_____________________; Land below the OHW level:___________;
Controlled Access Lot area:_____________; Land for strictly Commercial Facilities: _____________.
** This is the total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites.
*** This is the total number of dwelling units or sites allowable per tier without a density increase.
**** The density increase multiplier in this column can only be applied to the preceding column if the provisions of Subpart F,
which follow, are satisfied.
***** Use this column only if allowable density is being transferred from a given tier farther back from the waterbody. Please note
that density may not be transferred from a tier farther back to a tier closer to the waterbody.
3. The proposed project density is consistent with the Commercial ___Yes ___No
PUD Analysis Table.
F. Density Increases:
the density multiplier in the tables in subparts D and E above are
Maximum density increases consistent with ___Yes ___No
permissible only when all of the design standards in Part 6 of this
checklist are fully satisfied and one of the following provisions is satisfied:
The actual proposed structure setback(s) identified in Part 6. B. 5. c. ___Yes ___No
of this checklist are equivalent to 150 percent of the minimum
required structure structure setback; or
The actual proposed structure setback(s) identified in Part 6. B. 5. c. ___Yes ___No
of this checklist are 125 percent of the required structure setback and
the impact of reducing the structure setback from a 150 percent
increase to a 125 percent increase is mitigated or reduced an equivalent
amount through vegetative management, topography, or other methods
acceptable to the local unit of government.
7
Part 6. Design and performance standards.
All PUD’s must meet the following design and performance standards prior to final approval by the
DNR/responsible local unit of government:
A. Open Space Preservation and Management
___Yes ___No
1. At least 50 percent of the total project area is preserved as open space and the following
additional standards are met:
a) Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking
areas, or structures, except water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, are
developed areas and are not included in the computation of minimum open space.
b) Open space does not include commercial facilities or uses (except open space may
contain water-oriented accessory structures or facilities consistent with Part 6120.3300,
Subpart 3, (H) (See Attachment A, Part D.) or recreational facilities for use by owners
or occupants of the dwelling units or sites, or the public).
c) Open space includes areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in
their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries.
d) The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable
uses, is preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public
dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means.
e) All required open space areas are clearly identified or described in all final project
drawings/plats and related project documents.
NOTE: Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse
impacts on the systems.
2. The shore impact zone (SIZ), based on normal structure setbacks, is included as open space
subject to the following:
a) Determine SIZ depth by multiplying the normal minimum building setback of
________ feet by one-half to give a shore impact zone depth back from the
ordinary high water level of__________ feet; and
b) reserve the SIZ as open space as follows:
- For new residential PUD'S, at least 70 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in its
natural state.
- For new commercial PUD'S, at least 50 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in
its existing or natural state.
- For existing developments/conversions, at least 50 percent of this SIZ area is
preserved in its natural or existing state.
B. Centralization of Utilities and Structures ___Yes ___No
1. The PUD is connected to a publicly-owned sewer or water supply system, if available.
2. If publicly-owned utility systems are not available, the on-site water supply and sewage
treatment systems are centralized and will meet the applicable requirements of the State
Department of Health or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, respectively.
3. The PUD applicant has either: 1) received any required State Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) permit for the sewage treatment system; or 2) the applicant has received a
written statement from the MPCA indicating that it is likely that there will be no anticipated
problems in issuing a permit.
4. Sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors has been set aside for a replacement soil treatment
system for each sewage treatment system that is constructed.
8
5. For residential PUD'S, all dwelling units or sites are clustered into one or more groups on
suitable sites and are designed and located to meet or exceed the following standards for the
relevant shoreland or wild and scenic river district classification:
(1) (2) (3)
Requirement Percentage of
of local Actual that required
ordinance Proposal by local ordinance
a) Minimum structure elevation _____ _____ NA_____
above OHW*
b) Maximum structure height _____ _____ N/A_____
c) Minimum structure setback _____ _____ ______%**
from the OHW
d) Minimum structure setback _____ _____ ______%**
from top of bluff, if applicable
*Either state in number of feet or specify an elevation using a national geodetic vertical datum or assumed datum.
**Divide column 2 by column 1 and multiply by 100.
C. Placement of Shore Recreation Facilities
1. All swimming areas, docks and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps are centralized in
suitable locations.
2. The number of spaces provided for continuous over-water mooring, beaching or docking of
watercraft does not exceed one for each first tier residential or commercial dwelling unit or site
allowable in the applicable table in Part 5. D. or E. Commercial PUD'S can also include
mooring sites authorized under a DNR protected water's permit for a commercial marina.
Indicate the number of over-water spaces in this proposed development, and of this the number
authorized under DNR permit for a commercial marina ________________ ______________.
3. Access to the lake or river for non-first tier property owners or for occupants of non-first tier
commercial dwelling units or sites is provided only by a launching ramp. The launching ramp
may include a small dock for the loading and unloading of equipment.
4. As an alternative to item 3 immediately above and for residential PUD'S only, nonriparian
owners have been provided over-water mooring, beaching, or docking spaces in addition to
those allowed for riparian first tier owners in item 2 immediately above. This is accomplished
by providing additional "open space" in an amount (area) equal to the "controlled access lot"
sizing requirements in the shoreland rules in Part 6120.3300, Subp. 2. E. (1) for the number of
additional spaces proposed (complete the calculations in Attachment A, Part C). The additional
open space also meets the following:
a) A separate [controlled access] "lot of record" has not been created/subdivided, but: 1)
the riparian area used for the controlled access lot sizing calculation has been clearly
shown on the PUD drawings; and 2) the allowable project densities determined in Part
5. D. and E. have been redetermined to reflect the reduced riparian tier area now
available for dwelling unit or dwelling site density calculations;
b) This additional open space is treated consistent with the provisions of Part 6. A.1. a - e
of this checklist; and
c) If nonriparian dwelling units or sites are being provided with over-water mooring
spaces, then indicate the total number of mooring spaces, and of this total the number
9
for: 1) residential/commercial first tier dwelling units or sites________ ; 2) the number
authorized under DNR permit for a commercial marina; and 3) the number of spaces for
non first tier/nonriparian residential dwelling units or sites calculated on Attachment A,
Part C of this checklist.
5. All launching ramps and on-water mooring structures/facilities for residential uses, within the
meaning of Minnesota Rules, Parts 6115.0170, Subp. 20; 6115.0210; and 6115.0211, shall be
exempt from a DNR permit if: 1) approved as part of a PUD consistent with Parts 6120.2500-
6120.3900; and 2) designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria of the applicable
DNR agency rule cited in this subpart.
D. Visibility. Structures, parking areas and other facilities will be ___Yes ___No
treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the public water and
adjacent shoreland. A specific plan/planning statement has been
submitted by the applicant showing how this is to be accomplished
by use of vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other
means acceptable to the local unit of government/DNR, assuming
summer, leaf-on conditions.
E. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management. To prevent erosion: ___Yes ___No
1) If necessary, time restrictions have been specified that limit the length of time bare ground
can be exposed.
2) Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips or other
appropriate techniques will be used to minimize erosion potential to surface waters.
3) If necessary because of special site conditions, an erosion control plan approved by the soil
and water conservation district was required.
4) The project has been designed to effectively manage the quantity and quality of runoff. The
project will not result in increased erosion, sedimentation or flood discharges or stages for
runoff events up to and including the 100-year frequency event.
5) Impervious surface within any tier does not exceed 25 percent of the tier area (except that
35 percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general
development lakes with approved storm water management and vegetative control plans).
F. Accessory Structures: ___Yes ___No
1) All accessory structures and facilities, except those that are water-oriented, meet or exceed
the normal structure setback standards.
2) Water-oriented accessory structures allowed within the normal building setback area are
centralized and meet the standards in Parts 6120.3300, Subpart 3. B. (3) and 6120.3300,
Subpart 3. (H) (See Attachment A, Part D).
10
Appendix 7B - Attachment A
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATORY PROVISIONS
A. Resort Conversions B. Provisions for Property Owners
Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (D). Association Agreement Documents
Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (C).
C. Nonriparian Over-Water D. Accessory/Water Oriented
Mooring/Controlled Access Lot Structures
Sizing Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (B)(3).
Part 6120.3300, Subpart E. Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (H).
A. Conversions
Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures and standards for developments
involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these
standards must be identified.
Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage open space,
and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional
use permit.
Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of
the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following:
___ Removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore
or bluff impact zones.
___ Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings
and other facilities as viewed from the water.
___ If existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to
approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial
alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible,
to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced.
Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed the standards in Part 5 of this checklist may be
allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future.
Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use,
improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment
systems or other means.
B. Provisions for Property Owners Association Agreement Documents
Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and
acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long term
reservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections:
11
____ Commercial uses are prohibited.
____ Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance are prohibited.
____ Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials is prohibited.
____ Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft is prohibited.
Development, organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework
is established when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association
with the following features:
____ Membership is mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchases.
____ Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can
become liens on units or sites.
____ Assessments are adjustable to accommodate changing conditions.
____ The association are responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned
property and facilities.
C. Controlled Access for Nonriparian Owners/Over-Water Mooring Spaces
Nonriparian/non-first tier owners in residential PUD'S can be provided over-water mooring or docking
spaces. Provisions of Part 6 C. of this checklist and the following provisions are satisfied.
Additional riparian open space equivalent to the width and size of a standard single residential lot is
provided for the first six additional watercraft allowed for nonriparian lots. For each additional watercraft
above six, the width of the above-noted standard residential lot (using the same depth must be increased by
the percentage from the following table and the calculations which follow:
CONTROLLED ACCESS FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Ratio of lake size Required increase
to shore length in frontage
acres/mile) (percent)
Less than 100 25
100-200 20
201-300 15
301-400 10
Greater than 400 5
12
CONTROLLED ACCESS SIZING REQUIREMENTS
1. Indicate the number of nonriparian/ non-Tier 1 over-water mooring spaces to be provided__________
2. Indicate the standard minimum single residential lot dimensions for this lake's classification. If 6 or less
additional non-Tier 1 over-water mooring spaces are to be provided, the additional riparian open space
to be provided must meet these dimensions and area. Recalculate the suitable area and allowable first
tier densities in the table in Part 5. D. of this checklist to reflect the loss of suitable area due to this
additional dedication of open spaces.
Width ____________ Depth ______________ Area __________________
3. If more than 6 additional spaces are to be provided, then:
a) Select the appropriate percentage increase multiplier from the table above ____%
b) Multiply this multiplier in a) by the difference between the number of spaces proposed and six ___%
c) Increase the lot width in 2. above by the total percentage multiplier calculated in b) immediately
above. Assume the same lot depth in 2. above and recalculate the lot area. This is the area and
dimensions for the additional open space and recalculate the figures in the table in Part 5. D of this
checklist. Width ____________ Depth ______________ Area __________________
D. Water-Oriented Accessory Structures
The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and detached decks
must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point.
The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet.
The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent
shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit
of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area.
The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water
supply or sewage treatment facilities.
The structure cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. As an alternative for general development
and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely tor watercraft
storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area
up to 400 square feet, provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 teet as measured parallel to the
configuration of the shoreline.
NOTE: Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the flood
protection elevation determined if the structure is constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation,
electncal and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is
anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris.
13
Attachment B
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FLOOR AREA RATIOS*
Public waters classes
Sewered general Second and
development additional tiers
first on unsewered
tier on general
unsewered development
general lakes;
development recreational
lakes; urban, development Natural
Average agricultural, lakes; environment
unit floor tributary transition and lakes;
lakes; river forested river remote river
area (sq.ft.) segments segments segments
200 .040 .020 .010
300 .048 .024 .012
400 .056 .028 .014
500 .065 .032 .016
600 .072 .038 .019
700 .082 .042 .021
800 .091 .046 .023
900 .099 .050 .025
1,000 .108 .054 .027
1,100 .116 .058 .029
1,200 .125 .064 .032
1,300 .133 .068 .034
1,400 .142 .072 .036
1,500 .150 .075 .038
* For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For floor
areas greater than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use
the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a
ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet.
82041800
Lake Elmo82010600
Downs Lake (Off of Map to the North)82011000
Horseshoe Lake82007400
Rose Lake82011200
Tier 3
Tie r 1
Tie r 2
Tier 3
Tie r 1
Tie r 3
Tie r 3
Tie r 2
Tie r 2
Tier 4
Tie r 1
100 Year Floodplain
Public Water Waterc ourse
Public Water Basin
Public Water Wetland
PUD Shoreland Tier
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
1000 Ft Shoreland District
±0 500 1,000250 Fee t
Shoreland PUD Tiers forRoyal Golf Club, Lake Elmo
Lake SL Classification
Lake Elmo Recreational DevelopmentHoreshoe Lake Natural EnvironmentDowns Lake Natural E nvironmentRose Lake Natural Environment
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 22, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fields, Dodson, Williams, Larson, Griffin, Kreimer, and
Lundquist
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard & Dunn
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
Agenda accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: August 8, 2016
M/S/P: Dodson/Fields, move to approve the August 8, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote:
7-0, motion carried Unanimously.
Public Hearing – Concept PUD Plans
Wensman started his presentation for the Concept PUD Plan from HC Golf Course
Develepment LLC for the Tartan park site which is nearly 500 acres. The residential
development would surround the golf course. This would be roughly 300 residential
housing units. The biggest question is should the comprehensive plan be updated in
response to the unforeseen event of the sale of Tartan Park. Tartan Park was a fixture in
Lake Elmo for over 50 years and was thought to remain so. It was not on the City radar
as far as the Comprehensive Plan. This is not just a blanket yes or no, and it is not
approving anything at this time. It is just providing feedback for the applicant.
This site is currently guided as public facility and is 8 parcels that make up 477 gross
acres. A PUD is required because much of the site is in the Shoreland area and is
environmentally sensitive. There are a number of considerations for reguiding this
property 1) environmental considerations 2) the land is between 2 sewered districts 3)
variable densities surrounding the site 4) OP & LDR are not realistic options 5) extension
of sewer to properties along Lake Elmo will likely happen over time.
A decision that needs to be made is should the site be reguided and rezoned. If
reguided and rezoned, there are three options to do that. 1) new land use designation
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
and new zoning district 2) guide for urban low density 3) guide for village urban low
density.
Wensman stated that the density for Urban low density is 1.5-2.5 and LDR is 2.5-4.0
units per acre. Dodson asked if the golf course area would be split out as separate from
the residential. Wensman stated that it is not, but is being considered through the PUD
process. Dodson asked why OP was not an option if the golf course fails, it could be
used for open space. Wensman stated that this development would not be profitable as
an OP and to convert a golf course would be very expensive. Staff feels that the Village
low density is the best option for the Tartan Park site. For a PUD, one or more of the 10
potential objectives needs to be met. Staff feels that there is justification related to 5
objectives. 1) protecting the environmental features 2) the preservation and
enhancement of the golf course 3) Utilization of open space in golf course for storm
water management, cluster of homes to limit site disturbance and extending sewer to
preserve and enhance environmental features 4) facilitate the redevelopment of the
golf course 5) four sided architecture. Wensman went through the PUD standards that
were met by this proposal. They meet the required minimum area, the open space
requirements, street layout can be met with some changes, density depends on future
comp plan designation, lot design and structures. Connectivity is important and there
are some options to provide connections.
In regards to the development moratorium, Royal Golf is outside the limits of the
moratorium. Over 200 acres of the site is within the shoreland district. Shoreland
regulations require developments to be connected to municipal sewer & water. There
is an unnamed wetland on the site that is included in the cities shoreland ordinance,
that is not recognized by the DNR. It should be removed from the ordinance. This
development appears to comply with shoreland ordinance tiering, but the development
is subject to DNR approval. At this point, not enough information has been submitted to
determine if the plans conform to the Shoreland PUD rules. There are no buffer
requirements for PUD’s. There are buffers in the comprehensive plan for sewered
areas, but this was never planned as a sewered area.
Fields asked if we had the authority to require buffers. Wensman stated that since it is a
PUD, that could be negotiated.
Wensman stated that of the 205 acres for residential, roughly 33% is open space with
wetlands, bluffs, open water and private open space. The concept plans have not
addressed screening, entrance monuments, boulevard plantings or private open space
plantings. The preliminary PUD plans will need to comply with the City’s landscaping
standards.
Wensman talked about parkland dedication and trails. This will need to be looked at
closely to see what is feasible. Interconnectivity of streets needs to be addressed.
There are issues regarding access management and proposed private streets that need
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
to be worked out along with a few other things. The concept plan does not address the
water supply. Tartan Park is exluded from the 2030 Comp water supply plan, although
water is nearby. A water service capacity and hydraulic study is needed to evaluat the
ability to service Royal Golf. This new service could move up the timeframe to construct
a new water tower. All improvements are at the developers expense.
The sanitary system is not addressed in the concept PUD plans. They do intend to
connect the golf course and development to sanitary sewer. This development area is
outside of the MUSA area and a comprehensive plan amendment would be needed.
There are some issues with lift stations and concerns of the City Engineer that will need
to be addressed.
Stormwater and grading are all subject to state, VBWD and City regulations. Some of
the plans do not meet those regulations. Wensman went through some of those items.
Wensman went through the developments phasing plan. It is anticipated to be a 3-5
year phasing or 60 units per year. The phasing plan will need to be addressed ahead of
time at the time of the preconstruction meeting.
The developer is working on an EAW that will be submitted to City and adjacent
jurisdictional review prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat.
The site contains 15.99 acres of wetland and 9.74 acres of wetland buffer. These need
to located outside of lot areas. The VBWD is responsible for administering the wetland
concervation act requirement and a VBWD permit is required.
The golf course is required to have 2 entrances for emergency access, but only has 1
now. They will also need to comply with off-street parking requirements. There are a
number of amenities being proposed for the golf course area which include a pool,
fitness center, trails and a childrens golf course.
Other considerations for this PUD application are that signage plans should be
submitted with preliminary plat, fire hydrant and streetlight locations will be required
on the plans, erosion control and floodplain issues will need to be addressed.
Dodson asked if the golf course should be zoned commercial. Wensman stated that is is
a private golf course open to the public. He said that the public facility zoning is
appropriate. Dodson asked if this could be construed as spot zoning. Wensman stated
that according to the City attorney, it is not spot zoning as it is a large enough area with
lots of lots, etc.
Kreimer asked about the stormwater ponds being dedicated to the City. He said the
developer indicated that they wanted to use the ponds for irrigation and such. How
would that affect the dedication. Wensman stated that Inwood is doing the same thing
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
and there would be a whole host of approvals that would need to happen for it to move
forward.
Clark Schroeder, works for Hollis Cavner, and gave a history of what got them to this
place. When 3M wanted to sell, options were looked at to see if there were options to
keep it a park. That did not transpire, so 3M actively marketed the property. Since
purchasing the property, they have started grading to restore the golf course. They
want to create a sustainable development that will help keep the golf course open.
Rick Packer, HC Golf, went through the Concept PUD Plans for the development. They
are dedicated to creating a high quality and high amenity neighborhood with
recreational facilities, forming a strong sense of identity. Packer stated that they have
changed all of the private roads to public streets. For density, they are not including the
golf course, but only the residential component. They are working on a transportation
study along with the EAW. The EAW is expected to be completed Mid-August.
Build out is expected to occur within 5 years based on market demand. The golf course
is expected to open in 2017. They are working on a proposed connection to 10th street
with Mr. Emerson. There are no buffers required, however, they plan to be good
neighbors and work with the residents. There are also mature trees that provide a
screened buffer. Packer talked about city fees and trails throughout the development.
Hollis Cavner, owner, his intent was to sell off the residential portion of land to a
developer. After talking to developers, he decided to do it himself, because he wants
this to be a spectacular place. He is not going to give this to a national builder because
he wants to have control over the finished product.
Williams asked about their response to the need for 2 entrances to the golf course.
Schroeder stated that they met with the Fire Chief and Building Official and they have a
couple of plans that would work. They will be working out the details for preliminary
plat.
Lundquist asked if they have any intentions of improving 20th street. Schroeder stated
that they have been studying that.
Larson was wondering if there were opportunites for other non-golf related activities.
Schroeder stated that they would like to put in a pocket park or community park for the
HOA. Packer stated that they are looking at the ballfield as a possible location.
Public Hearing opened at 8:45 pm
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, she is happy that they are going to keep the homes and
thinks that they should be able to build homes, however, they need to follow the
comprehensive plan and meet the future land use plan. She says that the
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
comprehensive plan states that the City is committed to preserving rural character and
that areas north of 10th street and outside the village area would be in the form of Open
Space Development Cluster neighborhoods. Ms. Bucheck touched on other aspects of
the Comprehensive Plan that she feels this development does not meet. She urges the
Planning commission to require the development to choose density that is consistent
with the surrounding properties.
Dan Rice, 11364 14th Street, President of the Homestead Development HOA. This
development went in with 18 homes and was developed in 1997 as an open space
development. He feels this development represents a substantial and dramatic
departure from the current Comprehensive Plan. Businesses and Homeowners rely on
the comp plan and zoning when purchasing their property. They are prepared to
support residential development as long as it is designed in a way this is not detrimental
to their neighborhood.
Jim Voeller, 11314 12th Street, he is very disappointed in the progress of this
development. He feels there has been very little consideration for the existing
neighborhoods that have been there for years. The design that was shown back in
march showed a significant buffer of 125 foot buffer and a lot less houses.
Louis Speltz, 11326 14th Street, he shares the concerns raised by the previous speakers.
He feels if an exception is made to the Comprehensive Plan, there never was a plan to
begin with. The developer purchased the property knowing full well that all of the land
was targeted for recreation, not residential property. Is rural character something we
just give lip service to with no buffers to existing neighbors.
Ellen Johnson, 11050 14th Street, concerned that the they do not have the EAW and
traffic study that should have been done for today. She wants this to move slow enough
that they are very careful with this sensitive site.
Tim Mandel, 2479 Lisbon, this area was never mandated for high density development
and sewer was never intended for this area. This development looks like solid
impervious. He would like to see this developed as RE or R1. He is concerned that if
sewer is brought to this property, it won’t stop there.
Michael Zueffel, 2055 Manning Trail, would like to reinforce that Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as rural. There are 21 residents that live off of Manning Trail and
there is no buffering. There is no obligation to approve this.
Michael Biebl, 12020 18th Street, agrees with prior statements. He is concerned about
the buffers and statements are misleading. The access points on Manning Trail are on
West Lakeland township and he doesn’t believe they have been contacted yet. It will
probably come out in the traffic study, but Washington County is concerned about the
traffic impact with this development. He is concerned with the density. He is concerned
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
with how close the homes are being built. He is also concerned with how the water will
flow. He is also concerned with the intersections on 20th Street. He doesn’t feel that
the West Lakeland residents have been kept informed regarding this project.
Shelli Wilk, 11253 14th Street, ould like to echo the concerns regarding density, rural
character and zoning.
Jeffrey Kluge, 11234 14th Street, concerned with the added traffic along Lake Elmo Ave.
Bob Schwartz, 12040 18th Street, West Lakeland resident, he is wondering why would
would they do this when it goes against zoning and comprehensive plan. This density is
so out of whack with surrounding properties and the Comprehensive plan.
Tom & Pam Barnes, 1734 Manning Trail, concerned because a number of years after
purchasing their home, they discovered that the property line was not where they
thought it was. They came up with an easement agreement with 3M. The new plan
looks like there is very little buffer other than the narrow easement that they
negotiated. Their garage and home is only about 10 feet from the new homes. They
want to have a decent buffer in there. They would also like to see some open space left
for the wildlife on the property.
Audrey Kopp, 2040 Manning Trail N, she is concerned with the intersection. She feels it
is not a safe intersection now, and with more traffic, will be much more dangerous. She
is also concerned about the wildlife in the area.
There were some written statements that were submitted as well and were in the
packet.
There were also additional that were submitted after the packet went out. Kreimer
summarized those statements Bonnie & Glen Welch, Karen Cook, Mike Tate & Jim
Burns would like to see a trail on south side of 20th street for safety. Vicky Johnston
would like to see public walking paths. Judy Toft is concerned about 1 entrance and
small lot sizes.
Public hearing closed at 9:41 pm.
Williams stated that the number one question to answer is if this number of houses that
will require public sewer and water is an appropriate change. He feels that it is not
appropriate. There is nothing distinguishing this property form others in the area. He
does not feel that they should expand the sewer area north of 10th street. He supports
redevelopment and housing on this property, but not at this density.
Dodson wants to understand why Williams feels that way and how would it be different.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
Lundquist is thinking if developed as an open space it would be developed at about 230-
240 homes. Wensman stated that this was the case. Fields has concerns about the lack
of interconnectivity and access points, regardless of concerns with density. He feels
that when there is no obligation to rezone the property at all, the developer should have
come to the city with something in between park land and Open Space to be respectful
of existing neighbors and the Comprehensive Plan.
Lundquist is concerned that on every boundry of this proposal there are significant
concerns with buffers and streets not being adequate. Williams stated that if you drove
into Tartan Meadows and Homestead and looked at the layout and the lots and then
drove to Savona, you would see a significant difference. This proposal is similar to
Savona in density and he does not feel that it is appropriate for this area. The City does
not have a need to add any additional sewered development. He feels that 10th street is
somewhat of the sacred border, with the exception of the Village area, for sewered
development. Williams does not buy the argument that an OP development is not
economically viable. Wensman stated that the DNR requires sewer in the shoreland
area. There are roughly 200 acres are within the Shoreland district in this development.
Larson is wondering what it would take to increase the buffers. Some of the issues
seem to relate to privacy and space. He feels there are a lot of creative tools that could
be used to help with buffers.
Hollis Cavner stated that there is a huge misconception about the buffers around the
surrounding property. They are transplanting trees to create a buffer and they are not
taking out any trees. They are willing to build berms for the Homestead and put trees
in. Unfortunately, with the shoreland buffer setbacks, they are forced to go to the
perimiters of the land. The infrastructure alone on this project will be upwards of 32
million dollars and unfortunately, that does dictate how much density they need to
make this work.
Larson hopes that some middle ground can be found. This development has good
things and is trying to keep some of the history there. He hopes with some creativity,
some middle ground can be found.
Kreimer thinks it is appropriate that this area be sewered because of the shoreland and
the area that needs to be protected. He does not feel that the buffering is acceptable.
He would like to see at least 100 feet of buffering. The plans do not show distances. He
feels in order to preserve this golf course, sewer is necessary. Fields stated that on
Olson Lake Trail, there are properties slated to be sewered. Those properties are all
approximately 150 feet wide and are of a value that can afford a higher assessment. He
feels that with this property there can be lower density with sewer, with homes that
could afford the higher assessment.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
Dodson would like to see a study of what the lowest density is that can have sewer. He
is also concerned about the buffers. He doesn’t like the design in the Homestead area.
He is concerned about that density of homes in this area. He also doesn’t like the buffer
area against West Lakeland.
Griffin agrees that sewer is something that is necessary because of the lakes on this
property. She is also concerned about the traffic. She would like to see the density
lowered and the buffers expanded. She wants to make sure that the City is doing the
right thing. She does not believe that individual septic will perk on the soils that are on
this property. She wants us to work with West Lakeland on what buts up against that
property.
Williams wants to give some findings. He feels the staff report is biased. It assumes that
the desired outcome is sewering this area and he feels that is false. He does not feel
that there is adequate findings in the staff report.
M/S/: Williams/Dodson, move to propose the following findings of fact:
1) The housing density proposed, approximately 2.2 units per acre, would require
service by a municipal sewer and water.
2) Any form of residential development will require a comprehensive plan
amendment.
3) The property could be developed under the citys OP or RE development
standards.
4) The City has no need to guide for more sewered residential development based
on the Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Councils population forecast
for 2040
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, move to amend the findings to include a 5th finding of fact
to include that there are unresolved issues of buffer, access points, cul-de-sac lengths
and connectivity, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
/P: Orginal motion with 5 findings of fact, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Larson asked why the golf course and housing development were not treated as
separate entities.
M/S/P: Fields/Lundquist, propose a finding that changing the zoning from a park to
housing consistent with this proposal will increase the citys tax base and lessen the tax
burden on the rest of Lake Elmo. Vote: 6-1, motion carried.
Dodson does not think this is a finding as it isn’t the current situation. Williams also
doesn’t agree with the finding because they don’t have knowledge of where that break
point is for net gain. The information he has seen is that residential does not pay for
itself.
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, proposed an additional finding that any area between 10th
Street and 30th Street, East of Lake elmo Ave, with existing residences is not expected to
require sewer before 2040, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Williams, proposed an additional finding that the total number of
houses proposed for the residential portion, exceeds by 30% the total number of houses
that would be allowed if the entire property, including the golf course, was developed
in OP, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Williams, proposed an additional finding that the golf course is an
amenity to the City of Lake Elmo, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
The Commission decided that the first question that they needed to answer is if taking
action on a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is warranted at this time
given changes that have occurred since the current plan and zoning map were last
adopted.
Dodson believes that it is warranted because he feels that when the Comprehensive
Plan is reviewed, this area will need to be dealt with anyway. Fields does not agree. He
feels they do not need to do that at this time based on the findings and this proposal. If
the proposal changes, or the findings are no longer relevant, they can do so at a later
date.
Larson thinks that the golf course and residential should be separated and dealt with as
separate entities. Fields does not understand why a comp plan amendment is necessary
when it was privately owned before and is privately owned now. Wensman stated that
it could remain as parkland. He stated that the residential and golf course are together
because the 2 are inter-related as trails and some amenities for housing development
are on the golf course property. They also share some shoreland and ponding and it
gets really hard to separate them. Usually when there are different uses on a property
owned by the same entity, a PUD is the way to address it such as Inwood with
residential and Commercial.
Fields stated that he feels the key elements of this question is “at this time” and
“changes that have occurred”, meaning the sale of the property and also the proposal
that is before them. He would prefer to wait to recommend a comp plan amendment
until there is a proposal that serves a broad public purpose. He does not feel that this
proposal does that. Dodson agrees that at this time the comp plan amendment is
premature until it goes to preliminary plat.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundquist, motion to not recommend approval for a comprehensive
plan amendment to accommodate the current development proposal at this time, Vote:
7-0, motion carried unanimously.
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
M/S/P: Fields/Kriemer, the applicant has demonstated that the application meets at
least one of the objectives to be considered for a PUD, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
The Planning Commission gave these issues as areas of concern: The buffer areas, lower
density, cul-de-sac lengths, trails, especially on 20th Street, significant improvements on
20th street, improvements at the intersections of both Manning Trail and 20th Street and
Lake Elmo Ave and 20th Street , access areas (discussion with West Lakeland),
demonstration from a regulatory vs. economic standpoint that non-sewered
development is not viable, alignment of intersections especially on 20th street,
engineering report to be followed, minimum of 100 or 150 foot buffer from property
line to property line, and 2 access points for the golf course.
Public Hearing – Easement Vacation – GWSA Land Development
Wensman stated that there was a drainage and utility easement on outlots. Now those
outlots are being developed into residential lots, and the easements need to be vacated
in order to record the plats. New easements will go into place where appropriate on the
new plat. This is really just a housekeeping matter.
Public Hearing opened at 11:22 pm
There were no written or electronic comments received
Public Hearing closed at 11:23 pm
M/S/P: Dodson/Griffin, move to recommend approval of a request to vacate drainage
and utility easements of Outlots C, G, & H as recorded on the Final Plat of Village
Preserve, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item – Zoning Text Amendment Open Space Development
Wensman stated that this is the same information that was presented at the last
meeting. He would like to point out something that he did not highlight at the last
meeting. On page 8 of 27 in the green notes it was speaking in favor of more vague
language and the reason it was changed. That was because being a PUD, everyone will
probably ask for changes.
Williams likes the more specific language because these are all areas we want to
monitor very carefully and calling them out specifically developers know they have to
pay attention. If they ask for modifications, at least they are highlighted.
Lundquist asked if the intent of going through this code was just to clean it up.
Wensman stated that the Council asked the Commission to address some issues in the
11
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
ordinance. The Commission responded and the Council wasn’t quite satisfied and the
whole structure was questioned. It was thought that a PUD was more appropriate tool
than a CUP for this ordinance.
M/S/P: Fields/Dodson, move to recommend approval of ordinance 08-__, repealing the
existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, adopting new open
space planned unit development regulations in chapter 154, and reorganizing and
renumbering Chapter 154 to fit the new open space regulations, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Business Item – Fence Orinance Discussion
Wensman stated that the council would like the Commission to consider if a portion of
the fence code that is highlighted on the copy that was handed out, should be repealed.
Dodson asked why this item came up. Wensman stated that there is an issue with a
residence where this is being questioned.
Fields said that he was at the City Council meeting, but he couldn’t figure out what it
was they were looking for. Wensman stated that there is a specific property that feels
that the ½ acre provision is not fair. The Council wanted the Commission to give their
feedback. Dodson stated that he feels it is appropriate for the
M/S/P: Dodson/Lundquist, move to recommend staff to draft an ordinance and conduct
a public hearing, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Ann Buchek, 2301 Legion Ave, spoke regarding the 1% rule. She wanted to point out
that the state guidelines are adequate for average situations across the state, however,
Lake elmo has many un-outleted low areas and ponds which are not average. She
would like the City Council to reinstate the more stringent stormwater rules that were
rescinded on October 13, 2013 and calling for NO increase in runoff compared to pre-
construction.
City Council Updates – August 16, 2016 Meeting
i) Boulder Ponds rezoning – Tabled
ii) Temporary Health Care Facilities – Passed
iii) Pigeon Ordinance – Denied
iv) Developer Agreements for Village Preserve 2nd and Hammes Estates – Passed
with changes
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. September 12, 2016
12
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-22-16
b. September 26, 2016
Commission Concerns
Meeting adjourned at 11:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
PUD Concept Plan Review
To: City Council
From: Ben Gozola, City Planner
Meeting Date: September 6, 2016
Applicants: HC Golf Course Development, LLC
Location: 11455 20th Street North
Introductory Information
Request: The applicants are seeking feedback on a PUD concept plan for redevelopment of the
Tartan Park Golf Course into the Royal Golf Club. As presented, the redevelopment
would include significant upgrades to the golf course itself, and the introduction of
residential housing on the periphery of the course and property.
NOTE: This Concept Plan phase of development is specifically designed as an avenue to
provide a developer with feedback on what steps must be taken to allow a proposed
development to proceed. The Planning Commission, City Council, and surrounding land
owners are asked to recognize that nothing is set in stone as of yet, and the design of this
development (if it moves forward) will be largely predicated on the feedback and direction
received at this stage of the development process.
Site Data: Existing Zoning – PF (Public Facility)
Land Use Guidance – Public/Park
Approximate Existing Parcel sizes – 159.01 acres, 74.84 acres, and 39.6 acres, 37.4
acres, 37.04 acres, 37.01 acers, 26.38 acres, and 13.25 acres (424.53 gross acres)
Property Identification Numbers (PIDs): 25-029-21-12-0001, 25-029-21-13-0001,
25-029-21-14-0001, 25-029-21-21-0001, 25-029-21-31-0001, 25-029-21-42-0001,
25-029-21-43-0001, and 25-029-21-43-0002
Various
Prelim Calcs
(in acres):
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA ........................................................477 gross acres
UPLAND (less open water) ..............................................≈ 424 acres
LAND WITHIN SHORELAND ..........................................≈ 206 acres
NON SHORELAND ..........................................................≈ 218 acres
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 2
(cont.) UPLAND SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE FOR
RESIDNETIAL DEVELOPMENT .....................................≈ 205 acres
– WETLANDS ................................................................≈ 16 acres
– WETLAND BUFFERS ................................................≈ 9.75 acres
– BLUFFS ......................................................................≈ 0.75 acres
– ROW DEDICATIONS (func class rds) .......................≈ 3.5 acres
– OPEN WATER ............................................................≈ 1.5 acres
– ANTICIPATED TRAIL EASEMENTS .........................≈ 1.25 acres
NET RESIDENTIAL SITE AREA ......................................≈ 173 acres
– 40 acres of private open space would cut the actual developed land
down to approximately 133 acres; however, the Met Council
measures minimum net density by taking the minimum number of
planned housing units and dividing by the net acreage. Net acreage
does not include land covered by wetlands, water bodies, public
parks and trails, public open space, arterial road rights-of-way, and
other undevelopable acres identified in or protected by local
ordinances such as steep slopes.
TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS ...............................................301
Review
Initial
Background:
Applicant Comments on Background and Guiding Considerations: Tartan Park, 3M’s
private 27-hole golf course and recreational facility was purchased by HC Golf Course
Development, LLC in March of 2016. Since that time, the golf course reconstruction and
proposed clubhouse renovation have begun with an expected opening Summer of 2017.
The purpose of the Development Sketch review is to gain feedback on a proposed
concept to develop the remaining land, consisting of 205.66 gross acres, contained in
the 477 acre site.
The site has 17 different wetland basins. While the exact fill impacts to these are
unknown, it is suspected that the vast majority of “impacts” will by means of dredging
or deepening the basins to accommodate water quality measures and floodplain
creation. The applicant is keenly aware of the need to preserve and protect these
features and has designed the development proposal to allow for this.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 3
(cont.)
Of prime concern is the preservation of the vegetated surrounding road corridors.
Wooded buffers are maintained along all exterior boundaries of the site, maintaining the
character of the existing roads and providing buffers adjacent existing residential
development. In areas of wooded slopes, care has been taken to “ride the ridge” of
these features to minimize disruption and retain the beauty of these topographic
amenities. Extensive retaining walls are planned to further minimize grading impacts.
The need for a PUD is in large part driven by the fact that a significant portion of the
site is within Shoreland Districts created by Lake Elmo, Rose Lake, and Horseshoe
Lake. There is also an unnamed wetland (82-417W) in the NE portion of the site; this is
not on the DNR list of environmental lakes but shows up in the City’s Shoreland
regulations. This is currently being addressed. With this narrative, we are submitting
our analysis and basis for the DNR PUD for City review.
As mentioned, the site has many natural and man-made features that guide the form and
shape of the development and contribute to its beauty. These features also add design
constraints, particularly in the area vehicular circulation. To mitigate this, the plan
contemplates numerous access points and “forks” in the spline roads to minimize the
risk of an area being blocked from access in an emergency.
Staff Comments: The applicant correctly recognizes that the conceptual development
does not fit the current land use guidance or zoning for the property. This report
outlines a recommended process to follow if the community supports the concept, and
identifies ways the plans would need to be amended moving forward.
Comp Plan &
Zoning:
While all Cities do their best to plot out a vision for the future in a comprehensive plan,
the fact is that no plan is set in stone and there will always be factors which require a
community to rethink portions of a plan from time to time. The 3M Golf Course, Tartan
Park (founded in 1966), has been a fixture in Lake Elmo for half a century and was
therefore likely not a focal point of discussion during the last comprehensive plan
update. The sale of the property, its proposed redevelopment into a premiere golfing
venue, and the scale of the land in question (over 400 acres) is a unique event that begs
examination of the comprehensive plan guidance and zoning for the property to ensure
the land continues to thrive for another half-century.
Factors to consider:
Just over 200 acres of the approximately 477 acres that make up the old Tartan Park
Golf Course are in the Shoreland district. This land also includes roughly 17 acres
of wetlands and bluff lands, so from an environmental standpoint, the City has ample
reason to consider unique ways to protect this land that may or may not exist in
today’s regulatory framework.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 4
(cont.)
The land is situated just north of 10th Street along Lake Elmo Aveune, and is
directly adjacent to the new sewer line recently installed to service the Old Village.
This places the acreage directly north of the portion of the City guided for
urbanization, and south of the old Village which is guided for limited and specialized
urban growth.
Single family neighborhoods currently exist adjacent to this property to the north and
southwest at the following densities:
o The Homestead: 18 homes on approximately 38 acres (0.47 u.p.a.)
o Tartan Meadows: 39 homes on approximately 73.3 acres (0.53 u.p.a.)
o Legion Lane/Legion Avenue (“Eden Park” per a speaker at the public hearing):
47 units on approximately 52.2 acres (0.9 u.p.a.)
The Homestead appears to be an old OP development (clustering homes on smaller
lots to preserve open space), while Tartan Meadows and Eden Park are old Rural
Single-Family developments.
Based upon buildable land:
o As an OP development (if zoning were to allow for it), the land as a whole could
ostensibly support upwards of 170+ units if the entire property was developed
for residential purposes (half the acreage still preserved as open space, shared
communal septic facilities, etc).1
o As a low-density urbanized development (if zoning were to allow for it), the
developable land minus land needed for the golf course could ostensibly support
upwards of 600+ units.2
o If the Rural Single Family land use guidance and RS zoning were amended to
allow new areas to utilize both designations, the developable land minus land
needed for the golf course could ostensibly support upwards of 115 unsewered
units OR 310+ sewered units.3
1 After factoring in open water, wetlands, bluffs, func class road dedications etc, we estimate approximately 377 acres would be
available to support an OP development. 377/40 = 9.425*18 = 169 units.
2 After factoring in open water, wetlands, bluffs, func class road dedications, AND the land for the golf course, we estimate
approximately 173 acres would be available to support an LDR development. 173*3.5 = 605 units.
3 After factoring in open water, wetlands, bluffs, func class road dedications, AND the land for the golf course, we estimate
approximately 173 acres would be available to support an RS development. 173 acres/1.5 = 115 unsewered units. 173 acres *
43,560 sq ft/acre = 7,535,880 sq ft / 24,000 sq ft per sewered lot = 313 sewered units
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 5
(cont.)
While an OP scenario would result in an overall residential density similar to the
adjacent Homestead and Tartan Meadows neighborhoods, such a direction would
mean the complete elimination of one of the City’s defining features (the golf
course). Comparatively, taking the full next step to allow for urbanized low density
development as would be expected south of 10th Street would clearly allow for a
level of development that would likely be out-of-place in the context of the
surrounding areas.
The extension of sewer to existing developments along Lake Elmo Avenue will very
likely happen over time as individual and/or community septic systems fail and
neighborhoods request hook-ups. Given the amount of Shoreland district and
wetlands on the subject property, hooking new residential units up to sewer appears
to make sense.
Based on all of the factors above, staff believes there is ample reason for the City to
consider comprehensive plan and zoning updates at this time to accommodate a
proposed development on the subject property.
Would this change be considered “Spot Zoning?”
One concern that has already been voiced is whether a change on this property could
be considered “spot zoning.” To address this matter up front, staff requested the
City Attorney provide guidance on this question to the Commission and Council. In
summary, it was determined this would not quality as spot zoning for a number of
reasons:
1. The term “spot zoning” typically refers to changes on small pieces of land (i.e
one or two acres). The fact that the city is examining the use of 477 acres
immediately differentiates this action from what is typically considered spot
zoning.
2. In order to be spot zoning, all four of the following criteria must be met:
a. The rezoning must be unsupported by any rational basis relating to
promoting the public health and welfare
In this case, extending sewer to the area arguably accommodates two
community goals: it allows for sustainment and redevelopment of a long-
standing community destination, and sewer in general is a major tool in
protecting the long-term public health and welfare.
b. The rezoning must establish a use classification that is inconsistent with the
surrounding uses, and
c. The rezoning creates an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned
district.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 6
(cont.)
In this case, the surrounding areas are residential, and the subject property
would also be zoned for residential use. While densities would likely be
different, this would simply become the fourth amongst three different
residential districts which already exist in the area.
d. The rezoning must dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the
zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property.
In this case, a rezoning will most definitely increase the value of the rezoned
property. Regarding surrounding property, the use is not going to change (it
is a golf course today and it will be a golf course in the future). The
significant investments being placed into the property along with the
extension of available sewer lines for future hook-ups if needed should also
bring added value to surrounding areas.
Bottom line, it appears that any challenge against the City’s ability to consider
the comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Tartan Park land would
be very difficult to uphold. Staff finds the City has every right to consider what
is best for this land and make changes as needed at this time to accommodate the
desired outcome.
Decision #1:
The first thing the City Council must determine is whether taking action on a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is warranted at this time given
changes that have occurred since the current plan and zoning map were last adopted.
The City has its greatest amount of decision-making discretion when it comes to the
comprehensive plan, so there isn’t necessarily a wrong answer. Per the reasons
above, staff believes the City DOES has ample reason to consider and debate
this request at this time.
o If the City Council disagrees with staff’s assessment and finds that no changes
to the comprehensive plan are warranted, no further assessment of this concept
plan is necessary and Council may deny the concept plan application without
further analysis of the plan details.
o If Council concurs with staff’s assessment and believes this is the right time to
consider the proper land use guidance and zoning for the former Tartan Park
land, then continuing the review outlined in this report is the proper next step.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 7
(cont.)
Decision #2:
If a comp plan change and rezoning is being considered, the next question is what will
be the appropriate designations to achieve the desired outcomes. For the purposes of
this report, staff is assuming the desired outcomes expressed by the applicant will be
generally in the realm of the outcomes desired by the City. If the City Council
ultimately has a different vision for the land, the pathways to achieve such a vision may
be drastically different than what is outlined below.
In general, staff believes there are three (3) directions the City could go to accommodate
the type of development being proposed.
OPTION #1: Creation of a new land use designation and new zoning classification.
Pros: allowable density and ultimate zoning standards can be tailored specifically
for this large developable area
Cons: Costly and time consuming solution. The first decision, how to craft a land
use designation, may take upwards of 1 – 2 months followed by a zoning code
update which could take an additional 2 – 3 months. Not the best solution if a
similar outcome can be achieved through other means.
OPTION #2: Guiding the land for Urban Low Density development.
Pros: Proximity to planned urban development south of 10th Street makes this area
a logical extension for that land use type.
Cons: The minimum density of residential housing required in the Urban Low
Density is too high for this land; neither the applicant nor the Council are
anticipated to want 3.5+ units per acre in this area of the community.
OPTION #3: Guiding the land for Village Urban Low Density development.
Pros: The allowable density range for Village Urban Low Density (1.5 to 2.5 units
per acre) would likely fit the proposed residential area and would not require
significant changes to the comprehensive plan. Additionally, conditioning approval
of the amendment(s) and rezoning on an acceptable PUD being approved would
maintain the City’s authority over what is ultimately built.
Cons: As a very minor con (in staff’s opinion), the comp plan would need to
recognize that existing development adjacent to the sewer pipe along Lake Elmo
Avenue would be treated as a “Village Transition” area. While definitely a new
concept, staff would argue this is simply a reality that hasn’t been given a name as
of yet. The land between 10th Street and the Old Village along Lake Elmo Avenue is
largely developed utilizing on-site or community septic systems. As these systems
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 8
(cont.) fail and replacement sites become harder to identify, it is highly likely that requests
to hook into the municipal system will become the norm throughout this corridor. A
new “Village Transition” area would recognize this as an area where sewer could
POTENTIALLY be extended to existing homes for environmental purposes, or to
new developments if such extensions were deemed necessary to protect the public
health and welfare (i.e. in the case of the Royal Golf Club, to protect a significant
amount of acreage within the Shoreland Overlay District). Extension of sewer
would ultimately be subject to its availability (direct connections to the force main
will not work) and other conditions we would build into the plan.
Given the pros and cons of the three options outlined above, staff would
recommend the City pursue Option #3 if it wishes to help facilitate the proposed
development.
• Of the approximately 1100 acres between 10th Street and the Old Village, over ⅓ is
being considered by the subject application. Given the presumed desire of the
community to preserve & enhance the golf course along with the need to protect the
shorelands and wetlands on the property, this is clearly a unique situation that can be
distinguished from other development opportunities that exist in this same corridor.
• This approach proactively recognizes the potential for sewer hook-ups in this
corridor that would be considered if it is in the public’s best interest to do so (and
such requests will undoubtedly be made in the coming decades).
• Adjusting density ranges within the comp plan is avoided with this methodology as
the Village Urban Low Density classification could be used within the “Village
Transition” area when identified circumstances exist (i.e. sewer hookups are needed
by existing development for environmental reasons, developable land must be served
by sewer as part of a PUD to best protect area shorelands and wetlands, etc).
The decision of which course of action to follow will guide the specific edits that will be
needed to the comprehensive plan. Once staff has been given direction, we will begin
drafting recommended changes for consideration by the Planning Commission, Public,
and City Council.
PUD Standards Review
PUD Objective:
According to Section 154.751, the City must “…consider whether one or more of the
objectives [listed in this section] will be served or achieved.” Ten potential objectives
may be used to support a potential PUD. The applicant’s comments on their guiding
considerations can be seen on pages 2 & 3 of this report.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 9
(cont.)
Staff comment: The proposed development appears to meet a number of the City’s
identified objectives for PUDs:
Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain
areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be
achieved. Facilitating redevelopment of the golf course is clearly an objective for
a PUD.
Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful
and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities. Utilization of open space in the
golf course for stormwater management, clustering of homes to limit overall
disturbance on the site, and extending sewer service for the proposed homes are
all ways the PUD would seek to preserve and enhance environmental features
within the area.
Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater
compatibility with the development and surrounding land uses. The proposal
references four-sided architectural requirements ensuring that the front of
homes is not the only visually-desirable side of a home to look at.
Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given
parcel than conventional approaches. Protecting environmental features and
enhancing the existing golf course will likely only be achievable through a
specialized development process
Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational
amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under
conventional land development techniques. The PUD will facilitate the
preservation and enhancement of the golf course which would likely otherwise
not happen.
Given that only one (1) objective must be met before a PUD can be requested, it appears
there is ample reason for the City to consider this request.
Land Area: According to Section 154.753(A), a PUD must include a minimum of 5 acres for
undeveloped land or 2 acres for developed land;
Staff comment: The development is proposed on approximately 424 gross acres. The
concept plan appears to meet this criteria.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 10
Open Space:
(cont.)
According to Section 154.753(B), a PUD must preserve “…at least 20% of the project
area not within street rights-of-way…” in protected open space. “Other public or site
amenities may be approved as an alternative to this requirement…Land reserved for storm
water detention facilities and other required site improvements may be applied to this
requirement.”
Staff comment: The development is proposing to create and enhance a public golf course
to preserve open space on roughly 50% of the land being developed which is an acceptable
option to proceed per the City’s PUD ordinance. Focusing solely on the 205 acres
proposed to be used for residential development, approximately 33% of that land area is
intended to be preserved open space around wetlands, bluffs, open water, and private open
space. The concept plan appears to meet the open space criteria.
Street Layout: According to Section 154.753(C), streets in a PUD “…shall be designed to maximize
connectivity in each cardinal direction, except where environmental or physical
constraints make this infeasible. All streets shall terminate at other streets, at public land,
or at a park or other community facility, except that local streets may terminate in stub
streets when those will be connected to other streets in future phases of the development
or adjacent developments.”
Staff comment: The development includes streets in each direction, but the future
preliminary plan will need to include modifications to the proposed roadway and trail
network before staff can recommend approval of the design. Please see page 15 and the
report section on “Streets and Transportation” for complete details. With changes, the
future PUD could meet this criteria.
Density: According to Section 154.754, a PUD “…may provide for an increase in density of
residential development by up to 20% of that allowed in the base zoning district.”
Staff comment: An analysis of whether a density increase would be necessary cannot be
completed until a decision is made on whether and how to amend the comprehensive plan
to allow for redevelopment of this land. That said, we estimate based on the current
concept plan that the proposed density is currently around 1.74 units per acre4 (which
would fall within the allowed density range for Village Urban Low Density development
per the current comprehensive plan). No request for a density increase is anticipated.
Lot Design:
Applicant Comments on Land Uses and Lot Sizes: The development contemplates
detached, single family homes encompassing a broad range of lifestyles choices and price
4 205.66 acres – 1.33 acres for Manning Ave – 2.33 acres for Lake Elmo Ave – 15.99 acres of wetlands – 9.74 acres of wetland
buffers – 1.34 acres of open water – 1.21 acres of trail easement = 172.99 acres for 301 units = 1.74 units/acre
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 11
(cont.)
points. Anticipated homes will range from low maintenance villa products to high-end
homes. The locations of these products are largely determined by adjacent natural
features and proximity to the golf course. While we generally know where these uses will
occur (as illustrated on the sketch plan), as grading and development plans progress more
details will emerge.
Presently we are consulting with various custom builders to determine exact lot sizes and
widths. At this point we know that traditional single family lots will range from 80’ – 100’
in width with minimum depths anticipated to be 140’. As mentioned above, the exact
location of these lots will be determined by adjacent amenities, views, orientation, etc..
Front setbacks will be a minimum of 30’, rear setback will be 35’ and side setbacks at 15’
each side (30’ between homes)
The “villa” product will range in size from 55’ – 65’ in width. These will be located on
private, HOA maintained streets. The front setback is expected to be 30’ from curb, 7.5’
from each side (15’ between homes).
Staff comment: Given that this is a proposed PUD, multiple styles and sizes of lots are
anticipated. Most important from a City perspective are on-going and future maintenance
concerns that involve the City (i.e. street plowing, street reconstruction, utility
replacements, etc.), and the look/feel of the proposed housing areas from other
surrounding lands in Lake Elmo. As the development progresses, the applicant will need
to address engineering concerns about roadway design and future maintenance (very
likely through elimination of private roads and adherence to adopted City standards), and
show how berming and/or plantings along with four-sided architecture will help to
alleviate visual impacts to adjacent lands.
Structures /
Builders:
Applicant Comments on Builders: Builders for the development have not been chosen.
Presently we are considering a pool of 5-7 custom builders for the traditional homes and
2 custom home builders for the villa product.
Staff comment: Moving forward, the applicant should be prepared to provide elevation
drawing examples of the various product types so Council, the Commission, and public
know what can be expected in the various portions of the proposed development.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 12
In General
Adjacent
parcel dev.:
Roads surrounding the proposed development largely create natural buffers between
this development and surrounding developable lands, but the two parcels marked
with stars in the graphic below deserve consideration as the development plans for
this area are drawn up. Further comments below.
The four numbered circles identify connections that either must be made or should
be considered moving forward:
#1: As will be discussed in detail in the transportation section of this report, it will
be critical that each neighborhood be connected to at least two peripheral roads.
Providing a link between these two neighborhoods (within circle #1) would be one
option to address access concerns on the west side of the development.
#2: Whenever possible, alignment of roads is far preferred to off-set intersections
like the one currently proposed, and the proposed off-set may not meet City access
management guidelines. Aligning the proposed road with Legion Avenue North is
recommended.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 13
(cont.)
#3: The seventy-five homes in the NE of the proposed development currently have
only one exit point on to Manning Trail. A connection to 20th Street will be needed.
#4: It is highly advised that the applicants find a way to complete a connection for
this development down to 10th Street in the area of Circle #4. If agreement cannot
be reached with the neighboring landowner, usable right-of-way to the neighboring
property must still be provided to facilitate a future road connection. If a connection
to 10th Street is not feasible at this time, two things will need to occur:
(A) The connection in Circle #1 must be completed to give the 169 homes
proposed in this area a secondary outlet
(B) Any future submittal will need to include a ghost plat of the adjacent property
showing how the proposed dead-end right-of-way alignment can be
successfully utilized to eventually facilitate a connection to 10th Street.
Connections to The Homestead and Tartan Meadows are not feasible due to lack of
right-of-way in both developments.
Buffers: There are no specific buffer requirements for PUDs, but the applicant should be
prepared to show berms, landscaping, and/or other features as may be necessary to
soften the transition between current golf course property and adjacent residential
areas.
Buffers were a major concern expressed by speakers at the public hearing and by the
Planning Commission.
Lot Access: Per the sketch plan, a majority of lots would have direct access to a public road, but
nearly one-third of all parcels (107) are proposed to access off of private roads. The
applicant indicated verbally during the Planning Commission meeting that future
submittals would show all roads as public meeting City standards.
Driveways should be located so as to preserve existing trees in as much as possible.
Addresses for the individual homes should be posted at each driveway entrance.
Future parcel
development:
The proposed subdivision would fully divide the property until/unless the golf
course use was discontinued and the land redeveloped.
Easements: All standard drainage and utility easements will need to be shown on the future
preliminary plan document(s).
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 14
All easements intended for public utilities shall be a minimum of 15 feet on each side
of the utility and shall be shown on the future plans. All easements will be as wide as
necessary to address access and/or maintenance objectives.
Landscaping: Any future preliminary PUD submittal shall provide documentation as may be
necessary to show compliance to City landscaping standards (including but not limited
to entrance monuments, boulevard plantings, plantings in private open space, etc).
Trails: ROW dedications along 10th Street, Lake Elmo Avenue and 20th Street must be
sufficient enough to accommodate trails as shown on the City’s Comprehensive Parks
& Recreation Plan’s map of Trails and Greenways (Map 11). If trails within the rights-
of-way are not feasible, off-road trail easements must be identified for dedication as
part of the final development plans.
An internal trail system linking the proposed neighborhoods should be explored and
incorporated into future plans if feasible. Indications as to whether sidewalks will be
provided should also be noted.
Golf course trails, if not accessible to the general public without a paid fee to be on
the course, will not be credited towards required park dedication.
Resident
Concerns:
Written comments received leading up to the planning commission meeting are
attached to this report. As of 8/15/16, a majority of the written feedback centered on
the need for a trail along 20th Street.
A lack of buffering was raised by a non-resident landowner in West Lakeland
Township. Lake Elmo code does not include buffering requirements from adjacent
jurisdictions.
A summary of public feedback from the planning commission public hearing can be
found on page 28 of this report.
Infrastructure
In General: All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed
and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual
available on the City website.
The Engineer’s memo is attached to this report for reference. The following is a
melding of Planning and Engineering feedback relating to the proposed infrastructure
within this development.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 15
Streets and
Transportation:
(cont.)
Applicant Comments on Streets and Trails: With the exception of the private streets
for the villa product, streets are anticipated to be 28’ feet (back of curb to back of curb)
within a 60’ right-of-way. The exact locations of sidewalks and trails have yet to be
determined but sidewalks will generally be placed on one side of the street. Trails will
connect neighborhoods to the golf course as we see this development working as a “golf
cart” community emphasizing the clubhouse, exercise facility, youth course and pool as
part of the community amenity. Additional trails will be planned as further City review
moves forward.
Discussions with County officials will begin as soon as we receive feedback from the
City. A Transportation Study has been initiated and will be included as part of the EAW,
which has also begun. When complete, we expect to review the traffic counts to
determine what intersection improvements will be needed on Lake Elmo Boulevard,
20th, and Manning Trail.
NOTE: As indicated throughout this revised report, the applicant verbally stated at the
Planning Commission public hearing that all future roads would be public and be
designed to conform to City standards. Analysis herein regarding private roads is still
relevant should the applicant’s elect to propose such again in the future.
Staff Comments:
In General. The national Complete Streets Coalition states that well‐designed,
connected Street Networks are the backbone upon which communities are built. Good
street network designs reduce land consumption, provide greater accessibility through
more direct routes, and increase overall network efficiency and reliability through
added redundancy. They also affect several factors that relate to building more
sustainable communities such as travel patterns, road safety, and public health.
Generally speaking, more compact and connected street networks tend to have
significantly higher levels of people walking and biking and fewer vehicle miles
traveled as compared to sparser, tree‐like designs. Connected streets can reduce traffic
congestion by dispersing traffic and offering travel options. Grid networks create a
safer road system.
ROW Dedications. The Plat must dedicate right‐of‐way to the City of Lake Elmo
along the entire length of 20th Street N. (40 feet R/W) and Manning Trail N. (50 feet
R/W) to provide a minimum R/W from the existing roadway centerline. The concept
plan shows R/W dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way width cannot be verified
based on the plan scale provided. The Plat must also dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way
along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue), CSAH 10 (10th Street North), and CSAH 15
(Manning Avenue) as required by Washington County. The concept plan shows this
dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way widths must be reviewed and approved
by the County.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 16
(cont.)
Access Management. Access to the development is proposed in four locations: one
access onto Lake Elmo Avenue, two access points onto 20th Street North (MSA
collector street), and one access onto Manning Trail North.
It is strongly recommended that additional access points and interconnections be
thoroughly pursued to enhance the street network safety and accessibility. The
proposed concept plan shows three separate neighborhoods all requiring direct access
to a collector or County roadway without interconnection or secondary roadway
connection. Area 1 proposes 170 lots with a single point of access to CSAH 17 (Lake
Elmo Avenue). The 170 lots are placed along a dead end cul‐de-sac over 4,500 feet
long. The city standard cul‐de‐sac length is 600 feet while many communities have a
maximum length of 1,000 feet. Area 2 proposes 57 lots with two points of access to
20th Street N. Area 3 proposes 76 lots with a single point of access to Manning Trail
placed along a dead end cul‐de‐sac over 2,300 feet long.
An interconnection between Street A and Street E is extremely important to
provide a secondary access for Area 1 to 20th Street N., and to provide a secondary
access roadway connection for Area 2 to CSAH 17. A box culvert or bridge
structure should be investigated.
The south end of Street E should be connected to 10th Street N. to eliminate a
proposed cul‐de‐sac over 7.5 times the maximum allowed length. Staff recognizes
that this connection may be difficult to make but all efforts should be pursued. If
a connection cannot be physically made, any and all other emergency access
options or future connection opportunities must be addressed (i.e. a trail
connection to 10th Street to be used for emergency and future roadway
construction purposes, right‐of‐way dedication to the edge of the plat for a future
roadway connection, loop the south end of Street E to connect to Street H, etc).
Street J should be align to connect to both 20th Street N. and Manning Trail to
provide access to two separate collector roadways. If this is found to be unfeasible
then two connections to Manning Trail should be made to eliminate the long dead
end cul‐de‐sac.
Prior to the City receiving and accepting a preliminary plat proposal it is
recommended that all development access points be reviewed and approved by the
City and Washington County to verify acceptable access management spacing and
adequate sight triangles for each entrance. The proposed access locations and
considerations for the development are as follows:
1) Street E access to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17). Location to be approved by
Washington County.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 17
(cont.)
2) Street A access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Access is 550
feet east of Lake Elmo Avenue vs. the required spacing of 660 feet. Proposed
access location aligns with the existing intersection for 20th Street Court N.
3) Street B access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Proposed access
is located 350 feet offset from the existing intersection of Legion Avenue.
Consideration should be given to relocating this access to align with the
intersection of Legion Avenue or increase the offset to 660 feet.
4) Street J access to Manning Trail North. Access is 550 feet south of 20th Street
N. Location needs to be reviewed in the field to verify access as an acceptable
location.
Pedestrian Facilities. The following pedestrian improvements must be considered
when preparing preliminary plat documents:
The City should review potential bituminous trail requirements to be incorporated
along CSAH 17, 20th Street N. and/or Manning Trail N. to improve pedestrian
safety and work toward future trail connectivity.
Per the City Engineer, six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential
streets and as may be required for connectivity.
Private Streets. Private owned HOA streets have been proposed in areas of this
development including Streets D, F, I and K. Privately owned HOA streets should
not be allowed. Typically private streets are proposed for the purpose of decreasing
street and boulevard design standards including setbacks for the structures. The City
design standards have been established as “minimums” for the purpose of serving as
public access, drainage, sanitary sewer, and municipal water service. The boulevard
corridor also provides a dedicated location for small utilities such as gas, electric,
cable, telephone and fiber optics. Reducing the R/W width and structure setbacks
greatly increases the public cost for maintaining underground utilities by constricting
work zone areas when the infrastructure requires maintenance and/or replacement.
Private streets will only be considered when public infrastructure is not installed
below the private streets.
Streets (in general). Unless utilities are to be located elsewhere, all streets must be
shown as public streets when submitting for preliminary plat. All public streets must
be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width
(60‐feet), street width (28‐feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii.
Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family
residential areas with future driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance
roadways and roadway stretches with no lots.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 18
(cont.)
Street intersections must approximate 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent
with maximum slopes of 2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 8%
with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 18 feet wide from back or
curb to back of curb. The development street plan indicates landscaped medians at
two of the development entrance points.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
Other Responsibilities. Other transportation related improvements that will fall to
the developer include:
The applicant will be responsible to construct all intersection and turn lane
improvements along CSAH 17 as required by Washington County. These
improvements must be completed at the developer’s cost.
The applicant will be responsible to construct right and left turn lane improvements
along 20th Street N (both access locations) and long Manning Trail as required by
the City. These improvements must be completed at the developer’s cost.
UPDATE: Since the Planning Commission report was penned, the City has also received
the following comments from Washington County:
The Regional Functional Classification of CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue is an "A"
Minor Arterial Roadway. The Washington County Comprehensive Plan 2030,
identifies 150 feet for the future right-of-way requirement along this section of
roadway. Currently, the right-of-way varies but ultimately, there should be 75 feet
from the centerline of the roadway.
The proposed access points on CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue are acceptable to the
County. Transportation staff is currently reviewing the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as
part of the environmental review process and will be coordinating the recommended
roadway improvements as this development is processed through the city. Once more
specific development plans are prepared, the County will review the specific plans
prior to the issuance of Washington County Access and Right Of Way permits.
The City should consider requiring that the two neighborhoods along the eastern edge
of the site be connected and access be provided to 10th Street on the south.
A Right Of Way permit will be required for any work in the CSAH 15/Manning
Avenue right-of-way as it relates to the development. A plan set is required with the
application and include any grading, installation of culverts, installation of water and
sewer services, left and right turn lanes on CSAH 15/Manning Avenue, parallel trail
grading, signage and any landscaping and other improvements within county right-of-
way.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 19
Water
System(s):
The application and sketch plans do not address water supply; however, it is staff’s
understanding that the intent is to serve the proposed development with municipal
water.
Tartan Park, the proposed development area, is excluded from the 2030
Comprehensive Water System Plan, being identified as an area to not be served by
municipal water. However, municipal water infrastructure exists immediately
adjacent to Tartan Park (16‐inch trunk watermain line has been constructed along
Lake Elmo Avenue).
If municipal water is extended to serve this development, a water service capacity and
hydraulic study must be completed to verify system capacity, operating pressures, and
water main pipe sizing and looping requirements. For example, it may be necessary
to move up the construction timeframe for the new water tower to be located in the
city’s lower pressure zone. Also, given the varied topography of the site it may be
necessary to identify acceptable water pressure operating conditions based on the
varied elevations to establish areas that will require pressure regulating valves for
individual homes.
The applicant would be responsible to extend municipal water into the development
at its cost, and would be required to construct a looped watermain network based on
the results of the water service hydraulic study.
Sanitary
System(s):
The applicant is responsible to provide wastewater infrastructure to support the
proposed development.
All sewer infrastructure must be provided at the developer’s cost.
The application and sketch plans do not address sanitary sewer service; however, it is
staff’s understanding that the intent is to serve the proposed development with
municipal sewer.
The proposed development is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban
Service Area (MUSA) for sanitary sewer service. In order to extend municipal sewer
to serve this development, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required to alter the
sewer service boundaries for the City.
Sewer service could be provided by constructing a lift station at the south end of
Tartan Park with a forcemain constructed along 10th Street N. to connect to the
existing 16‐inch forcemain along Lake Elmo Avenue. The sewer system should be
designed so that the 10th Street lift station can be eliminated in the future when gravity
sanitary sewer is extended to serve Cimarron and Oakland Junior High School.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 20
Interior to the development multiple lift stations may be required due to the varied
topography of the property. The sewer system must be designed City standards and
must minimize lift stations and future ongoing operational costs.
Storm water
/Grading:
Staff Comments:
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and
City rules and regulations.
Storm water and storm sewer facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State
and VBWD permitting requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City
Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website. The plans shown
do not meet many of these requirements.
All storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, wetlands and wetland buffers,
must be placed in
Outlots deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots
must fully incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10 foot maintenance bench and all
maintenance access roads. It appears that some of the proposed ponding facilities are
located outside of the development limits.
All storm water bonds must have both a 10:1 aquatic bench and a 10:1 maintenance
bench.
Designated maintenance access roads, 20 feet in width, must be provided for all storm
water facilities with slope no greater than 10%.
The maximum curb run prior to a catch basin is 350 feet.
All storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width. Additional width
may be required to adjust for greater pipe depths.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum
pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low
points in the street.
Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements
at low points.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order
to ensure a drainage system that provides positive storm water drainage across the
development.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 21
(cont.)
Overland emergency overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
Storm water pond facilities should be combined together to the greatest extent possible
to ensure adequate hydrology for efficient facility treatment operations.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration to avoid
negative impacts to downstream properties. The storm water management plan will
need to address changes to the downstream drainage system to the extent alterations
are proposed. To the extent adjacent properties are impacted, written permission from
those properties must be submitted as part of the development applications.
The grading plan indicates significant use of retaining walls. Retaining walls should
be placed within private lots or Outlots to be owned and maintained by the HOA.
Retaining walls should be placed on City R/W or Outlots dedicated to the City.
Retaining walls should also not be placed within lot drainage and utility easements.
Washington County Comments:
The developer or the city must submit the drainage report and calculations to our office
for review of any downstream impacts to the county drainage system. Along with the
drainage calculations, we will request written conclusions that the volume and rate of
stormwater run-off into the county right-of way will not increase as part of the project.
Development
Phasing:
Applicant Comments: The anticipated phasing of the project will be generally in a west
to east manner due to sewer and water considerations. The number of phases will be
determined by market demand and absorption. Presently we anticipate a 3-5 year build
out (60 units a year) although this might be slightly longer considering the increased
length of time to build custom homes.
A detailed phasing plan should be provided with the preliminary plat application that
clearly indicates the phasing of the construction for each public infrastructure
component and addresses both construction access to the site and public access for
new residents. Temporary cul‐de‐sacs should be part of the phasing plans and are be
required for any street with a platted lot with driveway access.
Additional phasing plan information as may be needed must also be provided to
demonstrate that stormwater management requirements will be met with each phase
of the project.
Certain transportation improvements may need to be constructed as part of the first
phase of the project regardless of their location. Staff will work with the applicant
moving forward to identify all such requirements.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 22
Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply
systems to be located in the flood plain district shall be flood-proofed in accordance
with the building code or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation.
Telephone, electric, and/or gas service lines are to be placed underground in
accordance with the provisions of all applicable City ordinances.
Parking
Facilities:
(cont.)
Plans for the golf course redevelopment must show how off-street parking
requirements for a golf course are being met.
Plans for the residential portion of the development must demonstrate that required
off-street parking spaces can be provided for each of the proposed units.
Required
Signage:
New street signs will be required at all intersections at the developer’s expense.
Entrance
Monument:
Designs and locations for entrance monuments should be identified as part of any
future preliminary plan submittal. The applicant should consult with the City
Engineer as to whether such signs must be placed on outlots or if they can be
accommodated within easements.
Fire Hydrants: The applicant will be required to work with the Fire Chief, City Engineer, and Public
Works to identify the proper locations for future fire hydrants. Such work should be
completed prior to submittal of the future preliminary plat application.
Streetlights: Street lighting fixtures shall be installed in accordance with city standards
Monuments: In accordance with Section 153.13(F); reference monuments shall be placed in the
subdivision as required by state law.
Environmental & Other Neighborhood Impacts
Environmental
Impacts:
A voluntary EAW is currently being prepared by the applicant and is anticipated to
be ready for a 30-day public comment period in the upcoming weeks.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 23
Wetlands: The site contains approximately 15.99 acres of wetlands and 9.74 acres of required
wetland buffers.
The Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) is the Local Government Unit (LGU)
responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The developer
will need to follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the WCA, and acquire
the needed permit from the VBWD.
Review and comment by the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) will be
needed with any future preliminary plat/plan application. The applicant is encouraged
to meet with the VBWD prior to any future submittal.
Shoreland
District:
Shorelands should be a major consideration in the development of this land as over
200 acres is included within multiple Shoreland overlays from various waterbodies on
and around this property.
The City’s current Shoreland Ordinance has not been approved by MnDNR as
required by State Statute, and a new draft ordinance is currently undergoing State
review. Regardless, the property IS subject to Shoreland district requirements for
PUDs which mandate access to municipal sewer and water facilities. Staff requested
that the DNR review the proposed plans and provide direction on two things: 1)
whether the plans conform to minimum State rules, and 2) how the City must proceed
with this application given the pending ordinance updates. Because these new
regulations could dramatically impact how this land can be developed, the applicant
is hereby put on notice that preparing preliminary plans will be “at their own risk” if
they choose to do so prior to adoption of the new ordinance. Additionally, no
preliminary approvals will be given by the City until the new ordinance has been
adopted, or until the DNR specifically finds the proposed development is in
conformance with minimum State requirements.
Importantly, the Shoreland overlay district PUD regulations specifically require such
developments to be connected to the municipal sewer and water systems.
Open space requirements largely mimic the City’s standard requirements for PUDs
outlined on page 10 of this report. Staff will continue to coordinate review of this
development with DNR staff to ensure all requirements are upheld.
The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to ensure that Shoreland specific
Stormwater management requirements are met with future plans.
UPDATE: DNR comments have been received and are attached to this report for review
by Council. The following is a summary of their feedback:
The underground portion of the unnamed public watercourse that flows through the
golf course will not be considered Shoreland.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 24
(cont.)
Unnamed public water wetland 82041800 will not be part of the future Shoreland
district ordinance, so it will not being considered as protected Shoreland for review of
potential development scenarios on this property.
The DNR is requesting more information from the developer before it can adequately
evaluate the proposed PUD. Specifically, a site density evaluation will need to be
completed to show how proposed density relates to tiers around each protected water
body.
The concept PUD plan appears to meet or closely meet the 50 percent open space
requirement, but a more detailed analysis of the open space calculations is needed to
complete the Shoreland residential PUD analysis.
The bluff areas and wetlands within the shoreland districts for the public waters will
need to be mapped. These areas must be located so that they are not included in the
calculation for the area suitable for development in each tier. Also the bluff setback
standard should be taken into account when planning the location of structures near
bluffs.
Additional design planning is required to develop a stormwater management plan. As
part of the PUD analysis, the size and location of stormwater ponds will be required.
The DNR has provided a map that shows the location of the 100-year floodplain.
Because proposed lots are located in the 100-year floodplain, development in such
areas will need to follow state and local floodplain regulations.
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations must be followed for the WCA-
delineated wetland basins on the site.
Additional comments will be provided by MNDNR on the EAW for this proposed
project.
Erosion
Control:
The future grading plan should indicate proposed erosion control methodologies to be
utilized during the development process.
The applicant is advised to consult with the City Engineer to ensure that future plan
sets are to an appropriate scale which allows adequate review of proposed plans.
Silt fencing should be shown at the construction limits for the proposed houses or
driveways with the future building permit application.
Traffic: The EAW currently underway will include a traffic study to determine the potential
traffic impacts of this development.
Transportation improvements needed to mitigate impacts may be identified as a result
of the EAW.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 25
Flood Plain &
Steep Slopes:
(cont.)
According to the February 3, 2010 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, there are areas
of floodplain on this property (mostly Zone A).
Of biggest concern is floodplain identified in the NE corner of the property which
seems to coincide with one of the proposed areas for residential development. The
applicant must delineate all FEMA floodplains on future plan sets and demonstrate
how such areas will be addressed by the future development.
All areas of steep slopes should be identified with any future submittal.
Docks: The project does not proposed any docks or deeded access to Rose or Horseshoe Lake.
Noise: Washington County Comments:
Washington County's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility
between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often
result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed
noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible
for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's
Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result
in violations of established noise standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subpart 2a
exempts County Roads and County State Aid Highways from noise thresholds.
County policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The
developer should assess the noise situation and take any action outside of County right
of way deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
Other Permits: All necessary permits must be provided to the City (VBWD, MPCA, NPDES, MDH,
etc).
Charges, Fees, and Responsibilities
In General: As always, the applicant is responsible for all fees related to the review of this
application (including but not limited to planning, legal, engineering, wetland,
environmental consultants, or other such experts as required by this application).
Park
Dedication:
Applicant Comments on Parks: While the golf course is public, no public parks are
proposed within the development. Use of the exercise facility, pool and youth course
will be included in the HOA dues. There have been discussions about the existing ball
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 26
(cont.)
field lighting being used in other parts of city; the exact nature of this is still under
discussion. We expect a park dedication fee will likely be paid.
Included in the development plan are 74.27 acres of private open space which is used
for environmental preservation, water quality protection, storm water management and
buffers from adjacent uses.
Section 153.14 of City Code requires all subdivisions of land to dedicate a
reasonable portion of land to the City for public use as parks, trails, or open space.
The percentage for an LDR development would be 10%.
205.66 residential acres * 10% = 20.6 acres
The concept plan is currently not proposing dedication of any land for public parks.
The Parks Commission was to review this area in August, but did not have a quorum.
Therefore no formal recommendation was made. Informal discussions were about
addressing the trail needs identified in the comprehensive trail plan. This item will be
discussed again at the September meeting.
Should this development move forward, the City will determine the fair market value
of the land by hiring a licensed appraiser (at the developer’s expense) prior to final
plat approval. The required cash-in-lieu of land payment shall be the fair market value
of the acreage not provided in land or trail easement dedication less the cost of trail
construction and other improvements.
Sewer Charges: Sanitary sewer service charges will consist of a $3,000 Sewer Availability Charge
(SAC) per REC unit plus $1,000 Sewer Connection Charge per REC unit. A Met
Council REC determination must be completed to verify the number of REC units
for the project.
Water Charges: Water service charges will consist of a $3,000 Water Availability Charge (WAC) per
REC unit plus $1,000 Water Connection Charge per REC unit. The number of REC
units will be as determined for SAC charges
Initial Feedback
Planning
Commission:
The Planning Commission was given an opportunity to orient themselves with the
proposal on 8/8/16, and conducted a subsequent public hearing on 8/22/16.
Summary of feedback from that meeting was as follows:
− DEVELOPER COMMENTS:
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 27
(cont.)
1. City initially examined option to add the land to the Lake Elmo Regional
Park, but found that 95% of the land must be used for non-active recreation
so a golf course would not be allowed.
2. Golf course remodel will include 18 professionally designed holes and an
updated clubhouse. Housing needed to make the overall development
economically sustainable; the success of the clubhouse will be linked to the
success of the development.
3. Guiding conditions are to create a high quality, high amenity neighborhood
with recreational facilities providing a strong sense of identity; and respect
for existing site conditions. PUD needed to shift density away from
Shoreland district areas.
4. Five (5) different price points/lot sizes; two (2) different lifestyle choices
(villas and single family homes). Specialized design standards will ensure
high quality construction.
5. Proposed private streets will be eliminated in favor of public streets.
6. Transportation study and EAW nearly complete.
7. Golf course would be turned from a private course into a public course, and
will include a swimming pool & fitness center. Sustainability will be a
major component of the golf course design. Opening in 2017 is the target.
8. Trails and parkland dedication are open for discussion, but they would like
to approach it via cash in lieu of land. Private parks may be provided for
the proposed homes.
9. Phasing will be from west to northwest to east.
10. Access to 10th Street is being designed, and the intent would be to include
that with any future submittal.
11. Plans will continue to preserve/create vegetative buffers and/or distance
buffers from surrounding neighborhoods.
12. SAC/WAC fees will result in over $2.5M to the City, and building permit
fees anticipated to generate in excess of $1.5M in fees.
13. Two entry points for the golf course are being worked out with City staff,
and will be addressed in a future submittal.
− PUBLIC COMMENTS (summarized):
1. Make them follow the comprehensive plan and only allow them to develop
as an OP development (or at a rural standard similar to surrounding
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 28
(cont.)
neighborhoods) if they wish to build homes. Sewer and the proposed small
lot sizes are not appropriate north of 10th Street.
2. Protect existing homes in The Homestead and Tartan Meadows by
preserving golf course frontage (or open park space) for homes that have
enjoyed such views over the years. Buffers for all surrounding lands was
raised by multiple speakers.
3. Redesign of the golf course should be on the periphery of the property with
the new homes central to the property. On-going investments in the golf
course are at the developer’s own risk, and should not be taken into
consideration when deciding what type of development (if any) is
appropriate on this land.
4. If an exception is made to the plan, then the City does not have a plan.
Rural character of this property should be preserved.
5. EAW needs to be completed before anything moves forward, and the
resulting development should be designed around environmental
protection. Concern was expressed that the existing plan will take out
significant areas of trees, and that traffic impacts will be too much for
surrounding roads to handle, and/or will create significant safety concerns
for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
6. City is not obligated to make any changes to the Comprehensive Plan. City
should not rush into any decision.
7. Loss of wildlife habitat is a concern.
8. Small setbacks raise concerns about fire safety if proper siding materials
are not used.
9. A trail on the south side of 20th Street is needed for safety.
− COMMISSION FINDINGS:
Following discussion and input from each of the Planning Commissioners, the
following findings were voted on and approved by the Commission:
1. Density at 2.2 D.U.A., if such were to move forward, would require
municipal sewer.
2. Any form of residential development will require a comprehensive plan
amendment.
3. The property could be developed under the City’s OP or RE development
standards.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 29
(cont.)
4. The City has no need to guide for more sewered residential development
based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Councils
population forecast for 2040.
5. The proposed concept plan has multiple unresolved issues including
buffers, access points, cul-de-sac lengths, and connectivity; each would
need to be addressed in any future plan regardless of the density.
6. Changing zoning to allow development like that which is proposed by the
Concept PUD will increase the City’s tax base and lessen the tax burden on
the rest of Lake Elmo.
7. Existing residential development north of 10th Street, South of 30th St and
east of Lake Elmo Ave is not expected to need sewer connection to address
failing septic systems until at least 2040.
8. The total number of homes in the current proposal exceeds by 30% the total
number of homes that could potentially be created using OP development
standards.
9. The golf course is a significant asset to the City of Lake Elmo.
Other General
Staff Concerns:
Detailed work on the public/private portions of this development will still need to be
worked out (i.e. stormwater ponds are required to be on public land, but areas within
the golf course are proposed to handle the residential stormwater. Are the
applicant’s comfortable having the golf course potentially cut up into Outlots and
subject to easements for stormwater purposes?)
Will trails from the residential neighborhood to the golf course be public? What
about other neighborhood facilities such as a pool, internal trails, fitness center, and
kids golf course? How will access to the golf course land be managed?
The long southern cul-de-sac should extend to the neighboring property whether the
road continues to 10th Street or not.
Conclusion
The City Council is asked to examine the proposed PUD Concept Plan and provide
guidance to the applicant on if and how to proceed. Keep in mind that a conditional
approval at this point simply allows the applicant to proceed to the preliminary plan
stage, and does NOT carry with it any assurances of future success or approvals. Denial
of the concept plan at this point WILL require the applicant to reassess the approach and
return with a revised/new concept plan before proceeding to a preliminary plan.
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 30
Council
Options:
(cont.)
The City Council has the following options:
A) APPROVAL of the requested Concept Plan based on the applicant's submission,
the contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the
Council.
B) DENIAL of the requested Concept Plan based on the applicant's submission, the
contents of this report, public testimony and other evidence available to the
Council.
C) TABLE the request for further study.
Review
Roadmap:
Per code, the concept plan is simply an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan
showing the basic intent and general nature of the entire development, and there are no
specific criteria to guide approval or denial of a concept plan. Staff would recommend
using the following as a guide for discussion.
(1) Is taking action on a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning
warranted at this time given changes that have occurred since the current
plan and zoning map were last adopted?
a. If no, Council should deny this application and review of the plan details
would become unnecessary.
b. If YES, provide direction to staff on which comp plan/rezoning methodology
is preferred moving forward:
i. New comp plan designation and new corresponding zoning district (could
take upwards of 3 to 5 months to complete);
ii. Guiding land for Urban Low Density Development (easy solution, but
requires the applicant to return with a plan showing 3.5+ units per acre
within the residential areas); or
iii. Create the potential for guidance of the property to Village Urban Low
Density if certain criteria are met; or
iv. Another option not listed in this report (i.e. utilization of Rural Single
Family and RS zoning).
Once a direction is recommended, proceed to the next review point.
(2) Have the applicant’s demonstrated the proposal fulfills at least one of the
identified objectives in Section 154.751 to permit development as a PUD?
PUD Concept Plan Review: Royal Golf Club
City Council Report; 9-6-16
Page 31
(cont.)
a. If NO, deny the concept plan and provide findings to support the denial.
Further review of the plan details would become unnecessary, so no further
action on this application would be needed.
b. If YES, proceed to the next review point.
(3) What changes would need to be included with any future preliminary
submittal before it could be accepted for approval?
Approval to proceed should be conditioned upon the applicant addressing the
issues documented within the staff report, and other items as listed by the City
Council.
Staff Guidance: The City’s discretion on the comprehensive plan guidance for this property and the
corresponding zoning is very broad, so we recommend basing a decision on whether
the proposal is best for this property, best for the surrounding properties, and best for
the City as a whole. If the Council believes a comprehensive plan change IS
warranted at this time and would like to accommodate the current application, we
are recommending utilizing the third option presented in the staff report: create the
potential to use the Village Urban Low Density classification if certain criteria are
met.
Regarding needed changes to the development if the proposal moves forward, staff
has provided an extensive list of things to address within this report. Accordingly,
we would recommend including the following as part of any motion:
“Adherence to the staff recommendations listed within the staff report as may have
been amended here tonight.”
Likewise, we would recommend conditioning any approval of the concept plan on
the applicant’s successfully gaining approval of the needed comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning prior to approval of any future preliminary PUD
application. At the applicant’s own risk, such applications may run concurrently
with offset review dates before the City Council.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION
1200 WARNER ROAD
SAINT PAUL, MN 55106
651-259-5800
Date: 08/19/2016
Steve Wensman
Planning Director, City of Lake Elmo
Lake Elmo City Hall
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: DNR Comments on the Concept PUD Plan for the Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo
Steve:
The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo is a residential planned unit development (PUD) located at the site of
the former Tartan Golf Course. The site includes shoreland district areas from four public waters: Lake
Elmo (82010600), Horseshoe Lake (82007400), Rose Lake (82011200), and Downs Lake (82011000).
There is an unnamed public watercourse that flows through the golf course. Since at least half of this
public watercourse is in a pipe and the above ground section of the stream is entirely within the
boundary of the golf course, this public watercourse has not been included in this shoreland concept
PUD review. Unnamed public water wetland 82041800 is included in the City of Lake Elmo’s current
shoreland ordinance. However, the City is in the process of revising its shoreland ordinance and it is
anticipated that this wetland, which has not been assigned a shoreland classification by MNDNR, will be
removed from the City’s shoreland district. Therefore, this wetland has also not been included in this
shoreland concept PUD plan review.
Not enough information has been submitted with the concept plan to determine if the plan conforms to
State shoreland PUD rules. In order to evaluate the PUD, a shoreland residential PUD analysis will need
to be completed by the applicant. The PUD analysis is a site density evaluation (see the attached PUD
evaluation sheet from DNR and MN Rules 6120.3800 for shoreland PUD standards). Please encourage
the applicant to contact me prior to submittal of the preliminary PUD application for assistance on how
to complete the residential PUD analysis, as a number of factors must be considered.
For the PUD analysis, the project parcel is divided into tiers (see the attached project sketch plan with
tiers shown for the shoreland district areas in the PUD). First, the area in each tier that is suitable for
development is calculated. Stormwater ponds may be included within the suitable area; wetlands and
bluffs cannot be included in the suitable area calculation. Based on the suitable area and average lot size
in each tier, the allowable base density is calculated. If there is 50 percent or more open space within
the PUD, a density multipler may be used to increase density in each tier. Wetlands without a DNR
shoreland classification may be included as open space; stormwater ponds and public waters and public
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTRAL REGION
1200 WARNER ROAD
SAINT PAUL, MN 55106
651-259-5800
water wetlands with shoreland classifications cannot be included in the open space calculation. In
addition, 70 percent of the shore impact zone (SIZ) must also be in open space.
The following are MNDNR’s comments on the concept PUD plan:
• The concept PUD plan appears to meet or closely meet the 50 percent open space requirement,
but a more detailed analysis of the open space calculations is needed to complete the shoreland
residential PUD analysis.
• The bluff areas and wetlands within the shoreland districts for the public waters will need to be
mapped. These areas must be located so that they are not included in the calculation for the
area suitable for development in each tier. Also the bluff setback standard should be taken into
account when planning the location of structures near bluffs.
• Additional design planning is required to develop a stormwater management plan. As part of the
PUD analysis, the size and location of stormwater ponds will be required.
• The attached map shows the location of the 100-year floodplain in yellow. Proposed lots are
located in the 100-year floodplain. Development within the floodplain will need to follow state
and local floodplain regulations.
• Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations must be followed for the WCA-delineated wetland
basins on the site.
• Additional comments will be provided by MNDNR on the EAW for this proposed project.
Both the City of Lake Elmo’s current shoreland ordinance and the draft shoreland ordinance amendment
(currently being reviewed by DNR) require that DNR review and approve shoreland PUDs. DNR will work
with the applicant on the residential PUD analysis and work with the City of Lake Elmo through the PUD
review and approval process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this PUD concept plan. If you have additional questions
on these comments, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Sorensen
East Metro Area Hydrologist
DNR Central Region
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-259-5754
jenifer.sorensen@state.mn.us
cc: Daniel Petrik, DNR
mndnr.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER.
1
PUD/CLUSTER EVALUATION SHEET
Part 1. DNR In-house Information:
DNR Region and Area Number Region____ Area__________
Checklist Preparer _________________________
(Name)
Date Prepared _________________________
DNR PUD Approval Required?* ___Yes ___No
Date of Field Inspection _________________________
(DNR field inspection required when
the PUD is subject to DNR approval)
*In shoreland areas, DNR approval is required when the local unit of
government has not yet adopted planned unit development (PUD)
standards compliant with 1989 Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 -
6120.3900 for shoreland areas. DNR approval is required for all wild
& scenic rivers planned cluster developments (PCD). This form does
not apply to the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic Riverway Designation.
Part 2. General Project Information:
Project Name ________________________
Is this a Shoreland District PUD? ___Yes ___No
Is this a Wild & Scenic River District PCD? ___Yes ___No
Lake/Stream Involved ________________________
(Include shoreland or wild &
scenic rivers classification.) ________________________
(Classification)
City &/or County Name ________________________
________________________
The Project Proposal is for:
New Development ____
Resort Conversion ____
Redevelopment of existing site ____
2
Is the project one of the following:
A "residential" PUD?
nature of residency is nontransient and the major or primary focus of the development
Residential planned unit development means a use where the ___Yes ___No
is not service- oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks,
townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as
residential planned unit developments.
A "commercial" PUD?
provide transient, short-term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are
Commercial planned unit developments are typically uses that ___Yes ___No
essentially service-oriented. For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts,
recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service- oriented activities
are commercial planned unit developments.
NOTE: An expansion to an existing commercial PUD involving 6 or less
new dwelling units or sites since the date the community adopted land use
regulations compliant with the revised shorelandPUD standards in
Part 6120.3800 is permissible as a permitted use (under DNR's shoreland rules),
provided the total project density does not exceedthe density calculated in the
project density evaluation calculations which follows in Part 5.
A combined "residential and commercial" PUD?
this is a development with a mixture of uses and a combination of residential/
For the purposes of this checklist, ___Yes ___No
commercial dwelling units or sites. The total project acreage must be divided
between the respective tables on page 6 for residential density analysis and page 8
for commercial density analysis. If a portion of the project area is set aside for a
strictly commercial activity not involving dwelling unitsor dwelling sites
(e.g., a proposed/existingmarina, restaurants, etc.), then a portion of the lot must
be excluded from the density evaluation noted in the preceding sentence - this would
be an area equal to creating a hypothetical lot for these facilities such that all
dimensional, sewage treatment and water supply, and performance standards could
be satisfied assuming this development was standing on its own.
Conversion of a resort or other land use to a residential PUD?
uses may be converted to a residential PUD provided:
Resorts and other land ___Yes ___No
1) the proposed conversion has been initially evaluated in accordance with the criteria
in Parts 5 and 6 which follow; and 2) remedial measures have been taken to correct
project deficiencies as determined by the evaluation in Parts 5 and 6, all in accordance
with Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (D) (See Attachment A, Part A).
___Yes ___No If this is a resort/other land conversion, have items 1 and 2 in the preceding
paragraph been satisfied?
This checklist is designed so that an affirmative answer to the following questions will indicate that
the PUD proposal meets applicable DNR shoreland/wild and scenic rivers rules. If a question is
not applicable to a given PUD proposal, then an "N/A" should be entered into the "Yes" column
(with an explanation, if necessary).
3
Part 3. Land Use District Compatibility:
Is the proposed land use permissible in the applicable zoning district? ___Yes ___No
If this is a residential PUD in a Shoreland District, does the development have at ___Yes ___No
least 5 dwelling units or sites? If not, the proposal does not qualify as a residential PUD.
If this is a shoreland PUD, is the community requiring a Conditional Use application? ___Yes ___No
Part 4. Project Development Information:
Have the following project development documents been provided:
Documents that explain how the PUD will be designed and will function, as ___Yes ___No
approved by the DNR/local unit of government (specify which of the following
have been provided):
____ A master plan/drawing
structures to be occupied.
describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial
____ A property owners association agreement
(for residential PUD's) with mandatory membership and
all in accordance with the requirements of Part 6120.3800, subpart 5. (C) (See Attachment A, Part B); and
____ Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements
or other instruments that: 1) properly address
future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, (uncontrolled) beaching
of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUD'S; and 2) ensure the long-term
preservation and maintenance of open space (in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in Part 6.
A. of this checklist).
A site plan and/or plat
surface water features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land
for the project showing locations of property boundaries, ___Yes ___No
alterations, sewage treatment and water supply systems (where public systems will
not be provided), and topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less. When a PUD
is a combined commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat
must indicate and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential,
commercial or a combination of the two (see discussion on combined residential and
commercial PUD’s ).
The PUD applicant has satisfied all the necessary environmental assessment
(EAW) or environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements. The DNR/local unit of
worksheet ___Yes ___No
government approval cannot occur until the environmental review process is complete.
If an EAW/EIS is required, do not answer this question "Yes" unless the required
environmental review process is complete.
In accordance with A.-C. below, attach a map or drawing
which shows:
- how the project has been divided into tiers, and
- those areas 'unsuitable" for inclusion in the density calculation.
4
A. In a shoreland district, divide the parcel into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately
parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals,
proceeding landward:
SHORELAND TIER DIMENSIONS
Unsewered Sewered
(feet) (feet)
General development lakes-first tier 200 200
General development lakes-second and additional tiers 267 200
Recreational development lakes 267 267
Natural environment lakes 400 320
All river classes* 300 300
B. In a wild and scenic river district, determine the tier depth dimensions for all tiers by dividing
the minimum lot size by the minimum lot width requirement (NOTE: Certain urban reaches of
wild and scenic rivers are managed by use of shoreland provisions which will require
identifying tier depths as specified in A. above).
C. Calculate the "suitable area" for development within each tier, excluding all unsuitable areas
such as wetlands bluffs, land below the ordinary high water level of public waters, controlled
access lot type areas** , and the area set aside for commercial facilities not involving dwelling
units or sites. This suitable area is then subjected to either the residential (subpart D below) or
commercial (subpart E below) PUD density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of
dwelling units or sites. Include this suitable area figure in column 2 of the Residential PUD
Table in subpart D or column 4 of the Commercial PUD Table in subpart E, as appropriate.
The total site acreage equals _______________________
Specify the total square feet/acreage of the site which is unsuitable due to:
Wetlands ________________
Bluffs __________________
Land below the Ordinary High Water Level _________________
Controlled Access Lot Area ________________________
The area set aside for strictly commercial facilities __________________.
** See the discussion in Part 6. C. (4) of this checklist if it is desired to provide over-water mooring spaces for nonriparian
residential lot owners. To do this, additional riparian open space area will have to be provided consistent with the controlled access
lot sizing calculations in the shoreland rules and as explained in Attachment A, Part C.
D. For Residential PUD’s, determine the allowable density by tier in accordance with Steps 1-3 below:
1. In a Shoreland District, divide the suitable area within each tier by the single residential lot size
standard for lakes or, for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth
(unless the local unit of government has specified an alternative minimum lot size for rivers
which shall then be used) to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier.
Complete columns 2 and 3 in the Residential PUD Table on the following page;
2. In a wild and scenic river district, divide the suitable area within each tier by the single
residential lot size. Complete columns 2 and 3 in the Residential PUD Table in subitem 3 which
follows; and
5
3. Complete the remainder of the table on the following page to the degree necessary to determine
final allowable project density.
RESIDENTIAL PUD ANALYSIS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tier Suitable
area/sq. ft*
Required
Lot Size/ in
sq. ft.
Allowable Base
Density: divide
Column 3 into
Column 2
Density
Increase
Multiplier
**
Total
Allowable
Density with
Multiplier
Total
Density
Proposed
Cumulative
Density
Allowed ***
Cumulative
Density
Proposed ***
1 1.5
2 2.0
3 3.0
4 3.0
5 3.0
Column
Totals
*Do not include as suitable area any wetlands, bluffs, land below the ordinary high water level, any land designated as controlled
access lot area, or any land set aside for strictly commercial facilities.
**The total site acreage equals_______, and give the total square feet/acreage of the site which is unsuitable due to:
Wetlands______________; Bluffs______________; Land below Ordinary High Water Level __________; Controlled access lot
area_____________________: Land used strictly for Commercial Facilities________________ The density increase multiplier in
this column can only be applied to the preceding column if the provisions of Subpart F. are satisfied.
***Use this column only if allowable density is being transferred from a given tier to another tier farther back from the waterbody.
Please note that density may not be transferred from a tier farther back to a tier closer to the waterbody.
4. The proposed project density is consistent with the ___Yes ___No
Residential PUD Analysis Table.
E. For commercial PUD’s
determine the allowable density of dwelling units or sites by completing the
Commercial PUD Analysis Table in item 2 on the next page. Complete the Commercial PUD table, if
necessary, concurrently with the more detailed explanation in item 1 below:
1. Density/base dwelling unit or dwelling site calculation:
a) Determine the average inside living area size (i.e., average unit floor area) of
dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units
and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks, patios,
stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space.
Fill in column 2 of the table on the next page.
b) Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the table included as Attachment B to
this checklist and complete column 3 of the table below.
c) Multiply the suitable area within each tier (in column 4) by the floor area ratio (in
column 3) to yield a total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling
units or sites and put the answer in column 5 of the table.
d) Divide the "total floor area" for each tier in column 5 by the average inside living
area size in column 2 to yield a base number of dwelling units or sites for each tier,
put the answer in column 6.
e) Complete the remainder of the Commercial PUD Analysis Table, as appropriate.
6
2. COMMERCIAL PUD ANALYSIS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Tier Average Unit
Floor Area/
sq. ft.
Floor
Area
Ratio/
From
Appendix
B
Suitable
Tier Area/
sq. ft.*
Total Floor
Area Pier Tier*
Column 3
multiplied by
Column 4 **
Base Density/
Divide
Column 5 by
Column 2
***
Density
Increase
Multiplier
****
Total
Allowable
Dwelling
Units/Sites
with Multiplier
Total
Number of
Units/Sites
Proposed
Cumulative
Number of
Units/Sites
Allowed
******
Cumulative
Number of
Units/Sites
Proposed
******
1 1.5
2 2.0
3 3.0
4 3.0
5 3.0
Column Totals
* Do not include as suitable area any wetlands, bluffs, land below the Ordinary High Water lever, any land designated as controlled
access lots, or any land set aside for strictly commercial facilities.
The Total Site Area equals: ________________
Give the total square footage/acreage of the site, which is unsuitable due to:
Wetlands: _____________; Bluffs:_____________________; Land below the OHW level:___________;
Controlled Access Lot area:_____________; Land for strictly Commercial Facilities: _____________.
** This is the total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites.
*** This is the total number of dwelling units or sites allowable per tier without a density increase.
**** The density increase multiplier in this column can only be applied to the preceding column if the provisions of Subpart F,
which follow, are satisfied.
***** Use this column only if allowable density is being transferred from a given tier farther back from the waterbody. Please note
that density may not be transferred from a tier farther back to a tier closer to the waterbody.
3. The proposed project density is consistent with the Commercial ___Yes ___No
PUD Analysis Table.
F. Density Increases:
the density multiplier in the tables in subparts D and E above are
Maximum density increases consistent with ___Yes ___No
permissible only when all of the design standards in Part 6 of this
checklist are fully satisfied and one of the following provisions is satisfied:
The actual proposed structure setback(s) identified in Part 6. B. 5. c. ___Yes ___No
of this checklist are equivalent to 150 percent of the minimum
required structure structure setback; or
The actual proposed structure setback(s) identified in Part 6. B. 5. c. ___Yes ___No
of this checklist are 125 percent of the required structure setback and
the impact of reducing the structure setback from a 150 percent
increase to a 125 percent increase is mitigated or reduced an equivalent
amount through vegetative management, topography, or other methods
acceptable to the local unit of government.
7
Part 6. Design and performance standards.
All PUD’s must meet the following design and performance standards prior to final approval by the
DNR/responsible local unit of government:
A. Open Space Preservation and Management
___Yes ___No
1. At least 50 percent of the total project area is preserved as open space and the following
additional standards are met:
a) Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking
areas, or structures, except water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, are
developed areas and are not included in the computation of minimum open space.
b) Open space does not include commercial facilities or uses (except open space may
contain water-oriented accessory structures or facilities consistent with Part 6120.3300,
Subpart 3, (H) (See Attachment A, Part D.) or recreational facilities for use by owners
or occupants of the dwelling units or sites, or the public).
c) Open space includes areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in
their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries.
d) The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable
uses, is preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public
dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means.
e) All required open space areas are clearly identified or described in all final project
drawings/plats and related project documents.
NOTE: Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse
impacts on the systems.
2. The shore impact zone (SIZ), based on normal structure setbacks, is included as open space
subject to the following:
a) Determine SIZ depth by multiplying the normal minimum building setback of
________ feet by one-half to give a shore impact zone depth back from the
ordinary high water level of__________ feet; and
b) reserve the SIZ as open space as follows:
- For new residential PUD'S, at least 70 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in its
natural state.
- For new commercial PUD'S, at least 50 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in
its existing or natural state.
- For existing developments/conversions, at least 50 percent of this SIZ area is
preserved in its natural or existing state.
B. Centralization of Utilities and Structures ___Yes ___No
1. The PUD is connected to a publicly-owned sewer or water supply system, if available.
2. If publicly-owned utility systems are not available, the on-site water supply and sewage
treatment systems are centralized and will meet the applicable requirements of the State
Department of Health or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, respectively.
3. The PUD applicant has either: 1) received any required State Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) permit for the sewage treatment system; or 2) the applicant has received a
written statement from the MPCA indicating that it is likely that there will be no anticipated
problems in issuing a permit.
4. Sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors has been set aside for a replacement soil treatment
system for each sewage treatment system that is constructed.
8
5. For residential PUD'S, all dwelling units or sites are clustered into one or more groups on
suitable sites and are designed and located to meet or exceed the following standards for the
relevant shoreland or wild and scenic river district classification:
(1) (2) (3)
Requirement Percentage of
of local Actual that required
ordinance Proposal by local ordinance
a) Minimum structure elevation _____ _____ NA_____
above OHW*
b) Maximum structure height _____ _____ N/A_____
c) Minimum structure setback _____ _____ ______%**
from the OHW
d) Minimum structure setback _____ _____ ______%**
from top of bluff, if applicable
*Either state in number of feet or specify an elevation using a national geodetic vertical datum or assumed datum.
**Divide column 2 by column 1 and multiply by 100.
C. Placement of Shore Recreation Facilities
1. All swimming areas, docks and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps are centralized in
suitable locations.
2. The number of spaces provided for continuous over-water mooring, beaching or docking of
watercraft does not exceed one for each first tier residential or commercial dwelling unit or site
allowable in the applicable table in Part 5. D. or E. Commercial PUD'S can also include
mooring sites authorized under a DNR protected water's permit for a commercial marina.
Indicate the number of over-water spaces in this proposed development, and of this the number
authorized under DNR permit for a commercial marina ________________ ______________.
3. Access to the lake or river for non-first tier property owners or for occupants of non-first tier
commercial dwelling units or sites is provided only by a launching ramp. The launching ramp
may include a small dock for the loading and unloading of equipment.
4. As an alternative to item 3 immediately above and for residential PUD'S only, nonriparian
owners have been provided over-water mooring, beaching, or docking spaces in addition to
those allowed for riparian first tier owners in item 2 immediately above. This is accomplished
by providing additional "open space" in an amount (area) equal to the "controlled access lot"
sizing requirements in the shoreland rules in Part 6120.3300, Subp. 2. E. (1) for the number of
additional spaces proposed (complete the calculations in Attachment A, Part C). The additional
open space also meets the following:
a) A separate [controlled access] "lot of record" has not been created/subdivided, but: 1)
the riparian area used for the controlled access lot sizing calculation has been clearly
shown on the PUD drawings; and 2) the allowable project densities determined in Part
5. D. and E. have been redetermined to reflect the reduced riparian tier area now
available for dwelling unit or dwelling site density calculations;
b) This additional open space is treated consistent with the provisions of Part 6. A.1. a - e
of this checklist; and
c) If nonriparian dwelling units or sites are being provided with over-water mooring
spaces, then indicate the total number of mooring spaces, and of this total the number
9
for: 1) residential/commercial first tier dwelling units or sites________ ; 2) the number
authorized under DNR permit for a commercial marina; and 3) the number of spaces for
non first tier/nonriparian residential dwelling units or sites calculated on Attachment A,
Part C of this checklist.
5. All launching ramps and on-water mooring structures/facilities for residential uses, within the
meaning of Minnesota Rules, Parts 6115.0170, Subp. 20; 6115.0210; and 6115.0211, shall be
exempt from a DNR permit if: 1) approved as part of a PUD consistent with Parts 6120.2500-
6120.3900; and 2) designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria of the applicable
DNR agency rule cited in this subpart.
D. Visibility. Structures, parking areas and other facilities will be ___Yes ___No
treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the public water and
adjacent shoreland. A specific plan/planning statement has been
submitted by the applicant showing how this is to be accomplished
by use of vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other
means acceptable to the local unit of government/DNR, assuming
summer, leaf-on conditions.
E. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management. To prevent erosion: ___Yes ___No
1) If necessary, time restrictions have been specified that limit the length of time bare ground
can be exposed.
2) Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips or other
appropriate techniques will be used to minimize erosion potential to surface waters.
3) If necessary because of special site conditions, an erosion control plan approved by the soil
and water conservation district was required.
4) The project has been designed to effectively manage the quantity and quality of runoff. The
project will not result in increased erosion, sedimentation or flood discharges or stages for
runoff events up to and including the 100-year frequency event.
5) Impervious surface within any tier does not exceed 25 percent of the tier area (except that
35 percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general
development lakes with approved storm water management and vegetative control plans).
F. Accessory Structures: ___Yes ___No
1) All accessory structures and facilities, except those that are water-oriented, meet or exceed
the normal structure setback standards.
2) Water-oriented accessory structures allowed within the normal building setback area are
centralized and meet the standards in Parts 6120.3300, Subpart 3. B. (3) and 6120.3300,
Subpart 3. (H) (See Attachment A, Part D).
10
Appendix 7B - Attachment A
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATORY PROVISIONS
A. Resort Conversions B. Provisions for Property Owners
Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (D). Association Agreement Documents
Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (C).
C. Nonriparian Over-Water D. Accessory/Water Oriented
Mooring/Controlled Access Lot Structures
Sizing Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (B)(3).
Part 6120.3300, Subpart E. Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (H).
A. Conversions
Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures and standards for developments
involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these
standards must be identified.
Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage open space,
and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional
use permit.
Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of
the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following:
___ Removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore
or bluff impact zones.
___ Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings
and other facilities as viewed from the water.
___ If existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to
approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial
alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible,
to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced.
Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed the standards in Part 5 of this checklist may be
allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future.
Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use,
improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment
systems or other means.
B. Provisions for Property Owners Association Agreement Documents
Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and
acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long term
reservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections:
11
____ Commercial uses are prohibited.
____ Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance are prohibited.
____ Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials is prohibited.
____ Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft is prohibited.
Development, organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework
is established when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association
with the following features:
____ Membership is mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchases.
____ Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can
become liens on units or sites.
____ Assessments are adjustable to accommodate changing conditions.
____ The association are responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned
property and facilities.
C. Controlled Access for Nonriparian Owners/Over-Water Mooring Spaces
Nonriparian/non-first tier owners in residential PUD'S can be provided over-water mooring or docking
spaces. Provisions of Part 6 C. of this checklist and the following provisions are satisfied.
Additional riparian open space equivalent to the width and size of a standard single residential lot is
provided for the first six additional watercraft allowed for nonriparian lots. For each additional watercraft
above six, the width of the above-noted standard residential lot (using the same depth must be increased by
the percentage from the following table and the calculations which follow:
CONTROLLED ACCESS FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Ratio of lake size Required increase
to shore length in frontage
acres/mile) (percent)
Less than 100 25
100-200 20
201-300 15
301-400 10
Greater than 400 5
12
CONTROLLED ACCESS SIZING REQUIREMENTS
1. Indicate the number of nonriparian/ non-Tier 1 over-water mooring spaces to be provided__________
2. Indicate the standard minimum single residential lot dimensions for this lake's classification. If 6 or less
additional non-Tier 1 over-water mooring spaces are to be provided, the additional riparian open space
to be provided must meet these dimensions and area. Recalculate the suitable area and allowable first
tier densities in the table in Part 5. D. of this checklist to reflect the loss of suitable area due to this
additional dedication of open spaces.
Width ____________ Depth ______________ Area __________________
3. If more than 6 additional spaces are to be provided, then:
a) Select the appropriate percentage increase multiplier from the table above ____%
b) Multiply this multiplier in a) by the difference between the number of spaces proposed and six ___%
c) Increase the lot width in 2. above by the total percentage multiplier calculated in b) immediately
above. Assume the same lot depth in 2. above and recalculate the lot area. This is the area and
dimensions for the additional open space and recalculate the figures in the table in Part 5. D of this
checklist. Width ____________ Depth ______________ Area __________________
D. Water-Oriented Accessory Structures
The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and detached decks
must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point.
The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet.
The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent
shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit
of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area.
The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water
supply or sewage treatment facilities.
The structure cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. As an alternative for general development
and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely tor watercraft
storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area
up to 400 square feet, provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 teet as measured parallel to the
configuration of the shoreline.
NOTE: Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the flood
protection elevation determined if the structure is constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation,
electncal and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is
anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris.
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 5, 2016
To: Ben Gonzola, Planning Consultant Re: The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo
Stephen Wensman, Planning Director Concept Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo (Tartan Park) Concept Plan. The
submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Carlson McCain.
Preliminary Civil Site Plans, including residential development sketch plan and sketch grading plans, dated
July 15, 2016.
Project Narrative dated July 15, 2016.
ALTA Survey dated January 13, 2016.
We have the following review comments:
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in accordance
with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
The Plat must dedicate right‐of‐way to the City of Lake Elmo along the entire length of 20th Street N. (40
feet R/W) and Manning Trail N. (50 feet R/W) to provide a minimum R/W from the existing roadway
centerline. The concept plan shows R/W dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way width cannot be
verified based on the plan scale provided.
The Plat must dedicate sufficient right‐of‐way along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue), CSAH 10 (10th Street
North), and CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue) as required by Washington County. The concept plan shows this
dedication, however the actual right‐of‐way widths must be reviewed and approved by the County.
Access Management. Access to the development is proposed in four locations accessing Lake Elmo Avenue,
20th Street North (MSA collector street), and Manning Trail North. Additional development access points
are strongly recommended (see the Secondary Access and Street Interconnections bullet under
RESIDENTIAL STREETS). Prior to the City receiving and accepting a preliminary plat proposal it is
recommended that all development access points be reviewed and approved by the City and Washington
County to verify acceptable access management spacing and adequate sight triangles for each entrance.
The proposed access locations and considerations for the development are as follows:
1) Street E access to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17). Location to be approved by Washington County.
2) Street A access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Access is 550 feet east of Lake Elmo
Avenue vs. the required spacing of 660 feet. Proposed access location aligns with the existing
intersection for 20th Street Court N.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 4
3) Street B access to 20th Street North (MSA collector roadway). Proposed access is located 350 feet
offset from the existing intersection of Legion Avenue. Consideration should be given to relocating this
access to align with the intersection of Legion Avenue or increase the offset to 660 feet.
4) Street J access to Manning Trail North. Access is 550 feet south of 20th Street N. Location needs to be
reviewed in the field to verify access as an acceptable location.
The applicant will be responsible to construct all intersection and turn lane improvements along CSAH 17
as required by Washington County. These improvements must be completed at the developer’s cost.
The applicant will be responsible to construct right and left turn lane improvements along 20th Street N.
(both access locations) and long Manning Trail as required by the City. These improvements must be
completed at the developer’s cost.
Pedestrian facilities: The City should review potential bituminous trail requirements to be incorporated
along CSAH 17, 20th Street N. and/or Manning Trail N. to improve pedestrian safety and work toward future
trail connectivity.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
The national Complete Streets Coalition states that well‐designed, connected Street Networks are the
backbone upon which communities are built. Good street network designs reduce land consumption,
provide greater accessibility through more direct routes, and increase overall network efficiency and
reliability through added redundancy. They also affect several factors that relate to building more
sustainable communities such as travel patterns, road safety, and public health. Generally speaking, more
compact and connected street networks tend to have significantly higher levels of people walking and biking
and fewer vehicle miles traveled as compared to sparser, tree‐like designs. Connected streets can reduce
traffic congestion by dispersing traffic and offering travel options. Grid networks create a safer road system.
Secondary Access and Street Interconnections: It is strongly recommended that additional access points
and interconnections be thoroughly pursued to enhance the street network safety and accessibility. The
proposed concept plan shows three separate neighborhoods all requiring direct access to a collector or
County roadway without interconnection or secondary roadway connection. Area 1 proposes 170 lots with
a single point of access to CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). The 170 lots are placed along a dead end cul‐de‐
sac over 4,500 feet long. The city standard cul‐de‐sac length is 600 feet while many communities have a
maximum length of 1,000 feet. Area 2 proposes 57 lots with two points of access to 20th Street N. Area 3
proposes 76 lots with a single point of access to Manning Trail placed along a dead end cul‐de‐sac over
2,300 feet long.
An interconnection between Street A and Street E is extremely important to provide a secondary
access for Area 1 to 20th Street N., and to provide a secondary access roadway connection for Area
2 to CSAH 17. A box culvert or bridge structure should be investigated.
The south end of Street E should be connected to 10th Street N. to eliminate a proposed cul‐de‐sac
over 7.5 times the maximum allowed length. Staff recognizes that this connection may be difficult
to make but all efforts should be pursued. If a connection cannot be physically made, any and all
other emergency access options or future connection opportunities must be addressed (i.e. a trail
connection to 10th Street to be used for emergency and future roadway construction purposes,
right‐of‐way dedication to the edge of the plat for a future roadway connection, loop the south end
of Street E to connect to Street H, etc).
Street J should be align to connect to both 20th Street N. and Manning Trail to provide access to two
separate collector roadways. If this is found to be unfeasible then two connections to Manning Trail
should be made to eliminate the long dead end cul‐de‐sac.
Private owned HOA streets have been proposed in areas of this development including Streets D, F, I and
K. Privately owned HOA streets should not be allowed. Typically private streets are proposed for the
purpose of decreasing street and boulevard design standards including setbacks for the structures. The City
design standards have been established as “minimums” for the purpose of serving as public access,
drainage, sanitary sewer, and municipal water service. The boulevard corridor also provides a dedicated
location for small utilities such as gas, electric, cable, telephone and fiber optics. Reducing the R/W width
PAGE 3 of 4
and structure setbacks greatly increases the public cost for maintaining underground utilities by constricting
work zone areas when the infrastructure requires maintenance and/or replacement. Private streets should
be considered only with public infrastructure is not installed below the private streets.
All streets must be shown as public streets when submitting for preliminary plat. All public streets must be
designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width (60‐feet), street width (28‐
feet) and cul‐de‐sac radii.
Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family residential areas with future
driveways and B618 curb installed along entrance roadways and roadway stretches with no lots.
Street intersections must approximate 90 degrees and maintain 50 feet of tangent with maximum slopes
of 2.5%. Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 8% with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
Parkway or divided roadways must be a minimum of 18 feet wide from back or curb to back of curb. The
development street plan indicates landscaped medians at two of the development entrance points.
Six (6) foot sidewalks must be provided along all residential streets and as may be required for connectivity.
Ten (10) foot utility easements are required on either side of all right‐of‐ways.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
The application and sketch plans do not address water supply. However, it is staff’s understanding that it is
intended for the development to be served by municipal water.
Tartan Park, the proposed development area, is excluded from the 2030 Comprehensive Water System
Plan, being identified as an area to not be served by municipal water. However, municipal water
infrastructure exists immediately adjacent to Tartan Park (16‐inch trunk watermain line has been
constructed along Lake Elmo Avenue).
If municipal water is extended to serve this development, a water service capacity and hydraulic study
should be completed to verify system capacity, operating pressures and watermain pipe sizing and looping
requirements. For example, it may be necessary to move up the construction timeframe for the new water
tower to be located in the city’s lower pressure zone. Also, given the varied topography of the site it may
be necessary to identify acceptable water pressure operating conditions based on the varied elevations to
establish areas that will require pressure regulating valves for individual homes.
The applicant would be responsible to extend municipal water into the development at its cost and would
be required to construct a looped watermain network based on the results of the water service hydraulic
study.
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
The applicant is responsible to provide wastewater infrastructure to support the proposed development.
All sewer infrastructure must be provided at the developer’s cost.
The application and sketch plans do not address sanitary sewer service. However, it is staff’s understanding
that it is intended for the development to be served by municipal sewer.
The proposed development is located outside of the City designated Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA)
for sanitary sewer service. In order to extend municipal sewer to serve this development, a Comprehensive
Plan amendment is required to alter the sewer service boundaries for the City.
Sewer service could be provided by constructing a lift station at the south end of Tartan Park with a
forcemain constructed along 10th Street N. to connect to the existing 16‐inch forcemain along Lake Elmo
Avenue. The sewer system should be designed so that the 10th Street lift station can be eliminated in the
future when gravity sanitary sewer is extended to serve Cimarron and Oakland Junior High School.
Interior to the development multiple lift stations may be required due to the varied topography of the
property. The sewer system must be designed City standards and must minimize lift stations and future
ongoing operational costs.
PAGE 4 of 4
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE AND GRADING
The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations.
Storm water and storm sewer facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and VBWD permitting
requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual
available on the City website. The plans shown do not meet many of these requirements.
All storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, wetlands and wetland buffers, must be placed in
Outlots deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully
incorporate the 100‐year HWL, 10 foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads. It
appears that some of the proposed ponding facilities are located outside of the development limits.
All storm water bonds must have both a 10:1 aquatic bench and a 10:1 maintenance bench.
Designated maintenance access roads, 20 feet in width, must be provided for all storm water facilities
with slope no greater than 10%.
The maximum curb run prior to a catch basin is 350 feet.
All storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30‐feet in width. Additional width may be required
to adjust for greater pipe depths.
The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3 feet.
Drain tile is required as part of the City standard street section at all localized low points in the street.
Drain tile considerations may impact the storm sewer design and depth requirements at low points.
The general drainage system should mimic the natural topography of the site in order to ensure a drainage
system that provides positive storm water drainage across the development.
Overland emergency overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan.
Storm water pond facilities should be combined together to the greatest extent possible to ensure
adequate hydrology for efficient facility treatment operations.
The ultimate discharge rate and location will be an important consideration to avoid negative impacts to
downstream properties. The storm water management plan will need to address changes to the
downstream drainage system to the extent alterations are proposed. To the extent adjacent properties are
impacted, written permission from those properties must be submitted as part of the development
applications.
The grading plan indicates significant use of retaining walls. Retaining walls should be placed within private
lots or Outlots to be owned and maintained by the HOA. Retaining walls should be placed on City R/W or
Outlots dedicated to the City. Retaining walls should also not be placed within lot drainage and utility
easements.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A detailed phasing plan should be provided with the preliminary plat application that clearly indicates the
phasing of the construction for each public infrastructure component and addresses both construction
access to the site and public access for new residents. Temporary cul‐de‐sacs should be part of the phasing
plans and are be required for any street with a platted lot with driveway access.
From:Bonnie Moris
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:20th Street Bike and Walking Path
Date:Monday, April 25, 2016 6:09:23 PM
Good afternoon Stephen,
Our neighbors, Mike and Jo Tate have given us your information.
We, too, would like to make the request for a path along the south side of 20th Street for all
the pedestrian traffic between Manning Trail & Lake Elmo Avenue.
We were told that now is the time to discuss this safety consideration with the new Tartan
ownership.
Thank you for your consideration and help to move this idea forward.
Kind regards,
Bonnie and Joe Moris
11612 20th Street North
Best number for contact: 651-260-6041
P.S. Kindly just jot me a note back so I know you have received.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Gwen Welch
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:Walking/bike path
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:36:23 AM
Hi Stephen,
With the future Increased traffic on 20th St. N. due to the development of Tarten Park, we would like the developer
to consider a walking/ biking path on the south side of 20th for the safety of pedestrians going between Manning
Trail and Lake Elmo Avenue.
Thank you,
Bob and Gwen Welch
From:Jim Burns
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:Walking path along 20th Street
Date:Monday, April 25, 2016 10:14:08 AM
Hello,
We have lived on 20th St. Ct. N. for over 40 years. We have always wished for better walking/biking conditions
along 20th Street. When our boys were young, it was some time before we allowed them to ride their bikes to
friends' homes on Legion Avenue, and even then, I watched from the end of our street until they were safely around
the corner on Legion. We walk with our grandchildren down to our shared lake frontage during the summer. Each
time 20th Street was repaved, we hoped for a paved shoulder. Now, with the purchase and anticipated construction
of new homes on the former Tartan Park property, might be the time to consider a walking path along 20th St., with
the new owners perhaps funding it.
We have been chatting about this possibility with neighbors, including Mike Tate and Chris and Karen Cook, and
we agree that with the already heavy walking and jogging use of 20th St. and most likely, greater use in the future,
that a walking path would be a wonderful safety feature in this area. We hope that the planning department and
planning commission will look into this.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Beth and Jim Burns
Sent from my iPad
From:Karen Cook
To:Stephen Wensman
Subject:Biking/walking path along 20th St
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:46:18 PM
Dear Steve,
I am writing to you in regards to the need for a biking/walking path along 20th Street in Lake
Elmo, I have lived on this street for the past 25 years and it has amazed me that the street has
no shoulder, is hilly, and the speed limit is 45 MPH. My husband, three young daughters, dog,
and I have walked, run and biked on this street, but always with the danger of being hit by a
motorist. Many motorists would move into the opposite lane to allow us space, but with the
hills on that road, the chance of a head on collision are great.
Now we live here with young grandchildren, and the same safety issues are present.
With the sale of Tartan Park to Arnold Palmer and Annika Sorenstam, it seems like prime time
to request a biking/walking path along 20th Street (and along Lake Elmo Ave South of 20th
and also along Manning Trail) so that we can keep people safe that are walking/biking along
those roads. With the development of the park and the addition of 350 homes, the traffic is
only going to increase along these roads.
Please consider this biking/walking path for the safety of our residents as you proceed with
city planning.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen Cook
From:Mike Tate
To:Stephen Wensman
Cc:Bonnie Moris; Jo Tate
Subject:Walking/ Bike path on 20th
Date:Monday, April 25, 2016 3:59:34 PM
Hi Stephen.
I am following up our visit at your office earlier this spring with our request for a path along the south side of 20th
Street for all the pedestrian traffic between Manning Trail & Lake Elmo Avenue.
You had mentioned now is the time to discuss this safety consideration with the new Tartan ownership. It is already
an "adventure" running, walking, & biking on this street.
Thank you for moving this idea forward.
Mike and Jo Tate
Sent from my iPhone
1
484671v1 SJS LA515-4
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
EXEMPTING SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY RESULTING FROM ACQUISITION BY
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS OR USES FROM THE
PLATTING PROCESS.
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Chapter 153:
Subdivision Regulations, Section 153.09: Exceptions to Platting, by inserting the
following:
(A) Minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is a division of land which results in no more
than 4 parcels wherein each resultant parcel complies with the city's minimum lot dimension and
public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which the land is located.
(B) Lot line adjustment. A lot line adjustment is a division of land which results in no more
than 4 parcels wherein each resultant parcel does not comply with the city's minimum lot
dimension and/or public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which the land is
located. The City Council hereby waives compliance with the city's platting regulations for lot
line adjustments which satisfy 1 of the following conditions:
(1) Each resultant parcel, when combined with an abutting parcel through a Tax Parcel
Consolidation Procedure approved by Washington County, equals or exceeds the minimum lot
dimension requirements and public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which
the property is located;
(2) In those cases where the City Administrator determines that it is not reasonably possible
for each resultant parcel to comply with the provisions of division (B)(1) above, each resultant
parcel, when combined with an abutting parcel through a Tax Parcel Consolidation Procedure
approved by Washington County, is less non-conforming after the lot consolidation than it was
before the lot consolidation; or
(3) In those cases where, in regard to property which is zoned agricultural or rural
residential, the City Administrator determines that each resultant parcel will equal or exceed
minimum lot dimensions for the zoning district in which the property is located, but that 1 of the
resultant parcels cannot satisfy the minimum public road frontage requirements for the zoning
district in which the property is located, access to the noncomplying parcel is protected by a
restrictive covenant approved by the City Attorney which includes the city as a beneficiary.
(C) Subdivision of Property for Public Purpose. The subdivision of property resulting from
acquisition by governmental agencies for public improvements or uses.
(D) Application for minor subdivision/lot line adjustment. An application for a minor
subdivision or a lot line adjustment shall be submitted on forms provided by the City
2
484671v1 SJS LA515-4
Administrator. The applicant will be responsible for all expenses incurred in obtaining the
required information, which includes the following:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner/applicant and evidence of
title;
(2) A legal description of the parcel which is being subdivided and legal descriptions for
each of the resulting parcels; and, in regard to lot line adjustments, legal descriptions for the
consolidated parcels;
(3) A written description stating the reason for the request; and
(4) A land survey prepared by and signed by a registered land surveyor describing the minor
subdivision and/or lot line adjustment and showing all buildings, driveways, easements,
setbacks, and other pertinent information including the legal descriptions herein required.
(E) Review of minor subdivision.
(1) A completed application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review
and recommendation to the City Council.
(2) The City Council may attach reasonable conditions to its approval and shall require the
conveyance of necessary street, utility, and drainage easements on forms approved by the City
Attorney; and shall require the payment of a public use dedication fee.
(F) Review of lot line adjustment. A completed application shall be reviewed administratively
by the City Administrator who shall make a written finding in regard to the provisions of
division (B) above. The City Administrator's approval shall be conditioned upon tax parcel
consolidation. Prior to the issuance of any development permits, and no later than 60 days after
administrative review and approval, the applicant shall provide the City Administrator with the
verifications listed below. Failure to provide the required verifications shall invalidate the City
Administrator's approval:
(1) Recorded documents or recorded document numbers for the deeds of conveyance which
effectuate the lot line adjustment; and/or
(2) Proof that the Washington County Assessor has approved a Tax Parcel Consolidation
and has assigned a new tax parcel number for the consolidated parcel or parcels.
(G) Review of Subdivision of Property for Public Purpose. A completed application,
accompanied by a fully executed deed that designates a governmental agency as a grantee, shall
be reviewed administratively by the City Administrator who shall make a written finding in
regard to the provisions of paragraph (C) above and if the conveyance falls within the definition
of paragraph (C), the City Administrator shall approve the subdivision. The City Administrator’s
approval shall be conditioned upon receipt of a copy of the recorded deed. Failure to provide a
copy of the recorded deed shall invalidate the City Administrator’s approval.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
3
484671v1 SJS LA515-4
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-___ was adopted on this _____ day of
________, 2016, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-____ was published on the ____ day of ___________________,
2016.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 9/6/2016
REGULAR
ITEM #: 13
AGENDA ITEM: City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Tartan Park
Property
SUBMITTED BY: Mayor Pearson and Councilmember Bloyer
THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
Ben Gozola, Consultant City Planner
BACKGROUND: The 3M Tartan Park (founded in 1966) has been a fixture in Lake Elmo for half a
century and therefore has not been a focal point of discussion in previous comprehensive planning
processes. The sale of the property, and the scale of the land in question (over 400 acres) is a unique
event that begs examination of the comprehensive plan guidance and zoning for the property to ensure the
land use for the property fits the community’s vision for another half century. The land is presently
guided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as park/open space and is presently zoned PF-Public/Private
Facilities. Residential development was never envisioned while the property was owned by 3M and is not
allowed based on the current comprehensive plan guidance or zoning. Surrounding land uses and zoning
are OP, Rural Single Family, Rural Residential, and Public/Private Facilities.
Royal Golf Development LLC has requested a Concept PUD approval for the former Tartan Park
property, The developer has not yet requested a comprehensive plan amendment or zoning map
amendment, but would need to if their proposal were to move forward. At this time, it is unknown if this
development will move forward and there is an opportunity for the City to proceed with these processes
in order to proactively determine the City’s vision for the property.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the City Council direct Staff and the Planning Commission to initiate the process of amending the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and amending its Zoning Map to guide the land use of the former Tartan Park
property into the future?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Mayor Pearson and Councilmember Bloyer have requested this item be placed on the agenda. They would
like to have the Planning Commission begin discussing a Comp Plan amendment and rezoning of the
Tartan Park property. The Planning Commission could begin discussions on what the city’s future vision
is for the property but not have it tied any specific development proposal if this process was initiated by
the City. This process could allow an examination of all possibilities rather than just those proposed by a
developer.
City Council Meeting September 6, 2016 Regular Agenda Item #13
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of the request would be the staff time dedicated to identifying alternatives and
processing a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning for consideration by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
OPTIONS:
1) Direct Staff and the Planning Commission to initiate the Comp Plan Amendment and Zoning
Map amendment process for Tartan Park.
2) Do not have the City initiate the process of a Comp Plan amendment and rezoning of Tartan Park
but wait for a request from the property owner, present or future
RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor Pearson and Councilmember Bloyer are requesting the Council to direct Staff and the Planning
Commission to begin the process of amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan and amending the Zoning
Map for the former Tartan Park property with the following motion:
“Move to direct the Staff and the Planning Commission to initiate a review of the Comprehensive Plan
land use guidance and zoning of the former Tartan Park property and to initiate a Comprehensive
Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment for the property”
MAYOR 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
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
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
MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 9/6/2016
REGULAR ITEM #: 15
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: OP-Open Space Preservation Ordinance Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consulting Senior Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
On November 4, 2015, the City Council passed a motion, 3-1, to have the Planning Commission
consider amending the OP – Opens Space Preservation Ordinance. On November 9, 2015 the
Planning Commission met to discuss the proposed amendment. On January 5, 2016, the
Council discussed the Planning Commission’s comments and gave direction to Staff in its
preparation of an ordinance amendment. Ben Gozola then prepared an ordinance which was
presented to and discussed by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2016 and May 10, 2016. A
public hearing was held on July 25, 2016 at the Planning Commission, after which the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the amendment on August 22, 2016.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Ordinance 08-__ and
Resolution 2016-__ for summary publication of the ordinance.
HISTORY:
On November 4, 2015, the City Council briefly discussed several issues related to the OP –
Open Space Preservation District and requested that the Planning Commission discuss:
•Overall Purpose of the OP District – Review the overall purpose.
•Density – should density be increased?
•Density calculation – Should the density calculations be based buildable or gross land
area.
•Buffer zones – what buffer or buffers are appropriate (maintain 200’ around RR, but
no buffers against adjacent OP’s).
•Septic system options.
•Minimum lot size.
•Qualifying property size, i.e. 20 acres vs. 40 acre minimum.
•Lot Design.
On November 9, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended the following:
•No community septic systems.
•1 acre minimum lot sizes.
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item #15]
September 6, 2016
--Page 2--
•Allow the 50% open space requirement to be based on gross acres, rather than
buildable acres.
•Remove lot design criteria (not enforceable).
•Density 18 units per 40 gross acres of buildable land.
•Buffer: supportive of waiving the buffer between OP developments, if potential for OP,
then 100’ buffer, and potential for berms and trees to buffer in lieu of 100’ buffer might
be acceptable.
•Remove 4/5th vote to waive requirements to allow more flexibility.
In addition to the Planning Commission comments, staff identified additional issues with the
ordinance amendment:
•Remove redundancies between OP Ord platting requirements and regular subdivision
platting requirements.
•Restructure OP Ordinance as a PUD with Overlay Zoning rather than a CUP process.
•Hardcover regulations may need to be updated, depending on the changes.
•Street minimum standards.
On January 5, 2016 City Council gave direction to Staff in preparation of the ordinance update.
Ben Gozola then prepared the ordinance which was presented to and discussed by the
Planning Commission on April 11, 2016 and May 10, 2016. A public hearing was held on July
25, 2016 at the Planning Commission, after which the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the amendment on August 22, 2016.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING:
At the public hearing held on July 25, 2016, no public comments were received and no member
of the public spoke for or against the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed
the draft and made a few text changes, then requested Staff bring back a clean copy for
recommendation to the City Council at the next meeting.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend: 1) approval of Ordinance 08-152 repealing the
existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, and adopting new open space
planned unit development regulations in chapter 154 that establishes of an OP – Open Space
Overlay District in addition to organizational/numbering changes throughout Chapter 154 to
accommodate the new ordinance; and 2) Approval of Resolution 2016-75 ordering the summary
publication of the OP – Open Space Ordinance update with the following recommended motion:
“Move to approve Ordinance 08-152 repealing the existing open space
development regulations within chapter 150, and adopting new open space
planned unit development regulations in chapter 154 that establishes of an OP –
Open Space Overlay District in addition to organizational/numbering changes
throughout Chapter 154 to accommodate the new ordinance, and Resolution
2016-75 ordering the summary publication of the ordinance”
City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item #15]
September 6, 2016
--Page 3--
ATTACHMENT(S):
•July 25, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes
•Planning Commission Packet - 8/22/16
•Ordinance 08-152 Updating the OP Regulations
•Resolution 2016-75 for Summary Publication of the Ordinance
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: Haggard
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 different 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 necessary 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 tool
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 the 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 memorialize 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 City 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 Commission 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.
Williams stated that the current design has no impact on the Neal ave and 30th 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: 8/22/16
AGENDA ITEM: 5A
ITEM: Open Space Preservation Discussion
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consulting Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
At the 7/25/2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance
amendment pertaining to the new Open Space PUD regulations, and held a public hearing. The
Planning Commission suggested some minor edits and requested that a clean copy of the ordinance
come before them for a final recommendation to the City Council. As requested, edits have been
made to the ordinance and a clean copy was provided the Commission at its 8/8/16 meeting. The
Commission tabled the item to the 8/16/16 meeting because some Commissioners were absent . Staff
recommends approval of the attached ordinance amendment.
REQUEST DETAILS
Staff has attached a copy of the working ordinance with the Planning Commission’s comments from
the 7/25/16 meeting and a clean copy of the ordinance without comments or edits for approval.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the OP- Open Space PUD
Ordinance with the following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of Ordinance 08-__, repealing the existing open space
development regulations within chapter 150, adopting new open space planned unit
development regulations in chapter 154, and reorganizing and renumbering Chapter
154 to fit the new open space regulations”
ATTACHMENTS:
Sambatek Memo
Ordinance 08-__ Open Space PUD Ordinance
Ordinance 08-__ Open Space PUD Ordinance with 7.25.16 PC/Staff Comments
Resolution 2016-__ Summary Publication
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 8/8/16
AGENDA ITEM: 5A
ITEM: Open Space Preservation Discussion
SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consulting Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
At the 7/25/2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance
Amendment pertaining to the new Open Space PUD regulations, and held a public hearing. The
Planning Commission suggested some minor edits and requested that a clean copy of the ordinance
come before them for a final recommendation to the City Council. As requested, edits have been
made to the ordinance and a clean copy has been provided for the Commission’s recommendation to
the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance Amendment.
REQUEST DETAILS
Staff has attached a copy of the working ordinance with the Planning Commission’s comments from
the 7/25/16 meeting and a clean copy of the ordinance without comments or edits for approval.
RECOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the OP- Open Space PUD
Ordinance with the following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of Ordinance 08-__, repealing the existing open space
development regulations within chapter 150, adopting new open space planned unit
development regulations in chapter 154, and reorganizing and renumbering Chapter
154 to fit the new open space regulations”
ATTACHMENTS:
Sambatek Memo
Ordinance 08-__ Open Space PUD Ordinance
Ordinance 08-__ Open Space PUD Ordinance with 7.25.16 PC/Staff Comments
Resolution 2016-__ Summary Publication
Memorandum
DATE: 8-8-16
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Wensman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Final OP Update Ordinance & Public Hearing
PURPOSE
To update the City’s OP development codes to eliminate on-going issues (i.e. allowed density, required buffers, lot
design, etc) and to ensure these developments are meeting the City’s expectations.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed an initial draft of this language in April, and Council examined a subsequent
draft in early May. At Council’s direction, an updated draft was brought back to Council in June, which led to a final
draft and a public hearing before the Planning Commission in July. Prior to making a recommendation, the
Commission asked that a number of updates be incorporated into the ordinance which is why the ordinance has
returned for a final review.
UPDATE SUMMARY
The following updates were incorporated into this draft (comments highlighted in green within the ordinance specify
the location of these changes:
To address the Planning Commission’s concern on how the term “buildable land” is used in different contexts,
we have added clarifying language to indicate that buildable land at the pre-development stage is calculated
based on the buildable land which exists on the undeveloped parcel, whereas “buildable area” in the context of
lot design is based on the confines of the specific lot boundaries being proposed.
As directed, staff inserted more rigid language in the paragraph describing how building pads are to be designed
and located.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2016
Page 2 of 2
The reference to the City’s “standard plates and specifications” for roadway design was maintained as it
accomplishes two important things: 1) it established the City’s expectations for road design in open space PUDs,
and 2) it allows the City to update said standards administratively should it ever wish to in the future (i.e. if the
City wishes to adopt a new road design, it can do so without having to go through a two-month zoning
ordinance update process).
Language in various sections was update to acknowledge the City’s practice of requiring all stormwater
management facilities be on City owned outlots. Such land (as it always has) will still count towards open space,
but it must now be on City owned property which is unencumbered by the otherwise required conservation
easement. Since 2008, the City has become an MS4 community which places the onus to maintain stormwater
facilities on the City whether the facility is owned by the City or not. Placing such facilities on private land or
making them subject to a conservation easement unnecessarily complicates the City’s mandate, so we are
recommend avoiding such problems altogether and having all such land dedicated to the City for stormwater
purposes.
All three sub-criteria for approval of modifications must now be met before the modification can be approved.
A stray reference to the previously required sketch plan public hearing was removed.
Colored renderings will no longer be required as part of the Preliminary PUD submission.
Extension language was updated to specify the maximum length of time for any one extension (1 year).
Other minor text updates as were requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Please read though this ordinance and be ready to make recommendations for Council consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
Updated Ordinance Language
Page 1 of 27
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL EXISTING OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 150, ADOPT NEW OPEN SPACE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 154, AND TO
IMPLEMENT REFERENCE UPDATES IN CHAPTER 154
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 150: General Provisions, by repealing all Open Space Preservation
regulations contained in Sections 150.175 through 150.190.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 150: General Provisions, by adding the following language after Section
150.160, Review and Revocation:
Sections 150.161 through 150.199 -- RESERVED
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, to implement needed reference updates as follows:
Articles I and II are restated and incorporated herein unchanged.
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Zoning Districts,” containing sections 154.030 through
154.036, is hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for the title which is amended
to read: “Article III – Zoning Districts”
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Additional Regulations and Modifications,” containing
sections 154.080 through 154.083, is hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for
the title which is amended to read: “Article IV – Additional Regulations and Modifications”
Current Articles III (3) through XIII (13) containing sections 154.100 through 154.600, are hereby
restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for their Article numbers which are amended to
read Articles V (5) through XV (15)
Current Article XIV (14) containing section 154.700 is hereby restated and incorporated herein
unchanged except for its Article number which is amended to read Article XVII (17)
Page 2 of 27
Current Articles XVI (16) through XVII (17) containing sections 154.750 through 154.800, are
hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for their Article numbers which are
amended to read Articles XVIII (18) through XIX (19)
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Design and Performance Standards – Restrictions on
Nuisance and Hazardous Activities,” containing sections 154.900 through 154.999, is hereby restated
and incorporated herein unchanged except for the title which is amended to read: “Article XX –
Design and Performance Standards – Restrictions on Nuisance and Hazardous Activities”
Current Section 154.106(A)(4) is amended as follows: “The proposed use meets all specific
development standards for such use listed in Article 7 Article 9 of this Chapter”
Current Section 154.106(E)(1) is amended as follows: “The conditions shall include all specific
development standards for such use listed in Article 7 Article 9 of this Chapter”
Current Section 154.202 is amended as follows: “Permits are required for all changes in use and all
development activities, with the exception of signs, in compliance with the standards of Article 3,
Administration. Signs shall require a sign permit in compliance with Section 151.115 and Article 3.”
which shall be governed by the specific requirements of Section 154.212 as may be applicable.”
Current Section 154.210(D)(6) is amended as follows: “Landscaping and Screening. Parking areas
shall be screened and landscaped as provided in Article 6 Article 8, Section 154.258”
Current Section 154.305(B)(6) is amended as follows: “Screening of Storage Areas. The storage or
display of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles not awaiting service as in subsection (B4) or other
equipment, and all trash storage or disposal facilities, shall meet all setback requirements of a
structure, and shall be screened from view from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential
properties. Screening shall meet the requirements of Article 6 Article 8, Section 154.258.”
Current Section 154.404(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the rural districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9. The
following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district.”
Current Section 154.408(E)(1) is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures
that are permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7
Article 9, Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day
care, bed and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and
solar equipment.”
Commented [BGA1]: From this point forward in this
section of the ordinance, staff is updating Article and code
references as necessary due to the renumbering being
completed. Using this provision as an example, all
references to "Article 7" in code must now be updated to
"Article 9"
Commented [BGA2]: This change fixes the noted
reference to the correct section. The current code points the
reader to regulations on " Culverts in developments with
rural section"
Page 3 of 27
Current Section 154.454(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the urban residential districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation,
landscape design, parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles
7, 8, and 9. The following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district.”
Current Section 154.459 is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures that are
permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7 Article 9,
Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed
and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and solar
equipment.”
Current Section 154.504(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the VMX District shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9.”
Current Section 154.505(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the VMX district shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9. The
following standards apply to specific uses; other standards related to design and building type may be
found at §154.506.”
Current Section 154.510 is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures that are
permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7 Article 9,
Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed
and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and solar
equipment.”
Current Section 154.553(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the commercial districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape
design, and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9.”
Current Section 154.554(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “The following standards
apply to specific uses allowed within the Commercial Districts. Other specific use standards are
located in Article 7 Article 9.”
Current Section 154.752(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Uses within the PUD may
include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land use category shown for
the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance
standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD
development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses
with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in the list of uses approved in the
development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD, and will follow the procedures
specified in Article 35, Section 154.105 , Administration, for zoning amendments.”
Commented [BGA3]: This paragraph must be updated as
there is no "Article 3, Administration" in the existing code.
Page 4 of 27
Current Article XVII, renumbered to Article XIX by this ordinance, is hereby restated and
incorporated herein unchanged except for its hierarchy of sections references which shall be amended
to follow the following subsection hierarchy:
Section Number. Section Title
A. Subsection
B. Subsection
C. Subsection
1. Subsection
2. Subsection
3. Subsection
a. Subsection
b. Subsection
c. Subsection
i. Subsection
ii. Subsection
iii. Subsection
Current Section 154.800(c)(O), changed to 154.800(L) as part of the subsection hierarchy update
above, is amended as follows: “Residential planned unit developments shall be permitted in
shoreland areas subject to the requirements of Article XVI Article XVIII of this chapter.” All
subsections of 154.800(L) are restated and incorporated herein unchanged.
SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, to add Article XVI: OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS
Article XVI: OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
§ 154.650 PURPOSE.
The purpose of open space planned unit developments is to provide greater development flexibility within
rural portions of the community while maintaining the rural character by preserving agricultural land,
woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors, pollinator & wildlife habitat, and other significant natural features
consistent with the goals and objectives of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The City reserves the right to
deny establishment of an open space PUD overlay district and direct a developer to re-apply under standard
zoning provisions if it is determined that proposed benefits of the open space PUD do not justify the
requested flexibilities.
Commented [BGA4]: Beyond just the Article number, the
overall heirarchy of sections within 154.800 doesn't follow
the rest of the zoning ordinance. Worse yet, the heirarchy
changes mid-way thorugh the Section! To correct this clear
formatting error, we are recommending updating each
subsection to reflect the zoning code's standard organizatin.
Commented [BGA5]: This section simply states what the
City is trying to accomplish when it reviews and approves
“open space planned unit developments.”
Commented [BGA6]: As requested by the City Council,
we have beefed up the purpose statement to stress the City’s
intent to provide flexibility through this process while
maintaining rural character.
Page 5 of 27
§ 154.651 INTENT.
It is the intent of the City of Lake Elmo that open space planned unit developments will offer needed
development flexibility within the Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Rural Estate zoning districts to
provide for:
(A) A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist within the City’s rural
areas;
(B) An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be achieved via
underlying zoning;
(C) A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a rural setting;
(D) Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community; and
(E) The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas.
§ 154.652 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined in Article II, common definitions, words, and phrases used in this Article shall
be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage throughout this code and
as may be found in § 11.01.
§ 154.653 INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS.
The owner of property on which an open space PUD is proposed shall file the applicable application for a
PUD by paying the fee(s) set forth in § 11.02 of this Code and submitting a completed application form and
supporting documents as set forth on the application form and within this Section. Complete applications
shall be reviewed by City Commissions as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and be acted upon
by the City Council. If a proposed PUD is denied, any subsequent application for a substantially similar
PUD within one (1) year of the date of denial shall fully address all findings which supported the denial
prior to being accepted as complete.
§ 154.654 REFLECTION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
(A) PUD provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility from
standard regulating provisions. Establishment of a PUD shall require adoption of an ordinance
creating an overlay zoning district atop the boundaries of the development area. For each PUD
District, a specific ordinance shall be adopted establishing all rules which shall supersede underlying
zoning. Issues not specifically addressed by the PUD Overlay district shall be governed by the
underlying zoning district regulations.
(B) All Open Space Preservation developments approved prior to [date of ordinance publication] shall
be allowed to continue per the original conditions of approval.
Commented [BGA7]: This section outlines specific things
the City wants to accomplish with open space planned unit
developments including allowing for a variety of housing
types in the rural areas of the city, allowing for increased
density, reducing infrastructure costs, protecting open space,
and creating distinct but interconnected rural neighborhoods.
Commented [BGA8]: This section references 11.01 as the
City’s location for applicable definitions. New definitions
(or updated definitions) created by Section One of this
ordinance will be placed in Section 11.01
Commented [BGA9]: This section simply outlines how a
landowner can begin the open space PUD process.
Commented [BGA10]: This is our first reference to the
fact that OP regulations for each development will now be
incorporated into an overlay district. Importantly, issues not
addressed by the OP ordinance will be handled by
underlying zoning regulations, so the City will never have to
worry about missing details during the approval process.
Page 6 of 27
§ 154.655 PREREQUISITES FOR OPEN SPACE PUDs.
(A) Only land zoned as Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Rural Estate may be considered for
establishment of an open space planned unit development.
(B) The minimum land area for establishment of an open space planned unit development is a nominal
contiguous twenty (20) acres.
(C) Establishment of an open space planned unit development will be considered only for areas of land
in single ownership or control. Alternatively, multiple party ownership, in the sole discretion of the
City, is acceptable when legally sufficient written consent from all persons and entities with
ownership interest is provided at the time of application.
§ 154.656 USES WITHIN OPEN SPACE PUDs.
(A) Primary Uses.
(1) Permitted.
(a) Single-family, detached;
(b) Preserved open space;
(c) Conservation easements;
(d) Agriculture;
(e) Suburban farms;
(f) Private stables;
(g) Single-family, attached;
(h) Townhouses (no more than 25% in any development)
(i) Wayside stand; and
(j) Public parks and trails.
(2) Conditionally Permitted.
None
(3) Interim Permitted.
None
(B) Accessory Uses.
(1) Permitted.
Uses deemed by the Director of Planning to be typically accessory to an established permitted
use on the property as listed in 154.656(A)(1).
(2) Conditionally Permitted.
None
Commented [BGA11]: This section sets the minimum
requirements that must be met before someone can request
an Open Space PUD.
The listed prerequisites are existing criteria EXCEPT for the
minimum land area which was set at twenty (20) acres by the
City Council.
Commented [BGA12]: Here we’ve maintained existing
language. The only transition proposed is to allow the
overlay district regulations to amend specific use provisions
that may otherwise be in code. For example, if wayside
stands are limited to one per lot, the overlay district
regulations may specifically identify an area within
preserved open space where up to three wayside stands may
be erected at any point in time. The use has not changes, but
the specific rules governing the use may be amended if
deemed appropriate as part of the PUD approval.
Commented [BGA13]: The Planning Commission had a
split opinion on whether Townhomes should continue to be
allowed in OP developments. Some felt townhomes were
not appropriate in rural areas, while others felt they had been
very successful in such developments to date. The City
Council was asked to make a final determination, and they
directed staff to maintain Townhomes as an allowed use
stating they've worked well in such developments to date.
Page 7 of 27
(3) Interim Permitted.
None
(C) Prohibited Uses.
All other uses not listed in 154.656(A) or 154.656(B) are hereby prohibited.
(D) Use Restrictions and Allowances
The final PUD overlay district ordinance may include specific provisions governing uses which
supersede underlying zoning and the general PUD regulations herein.
§ 154.657 OPEN SPACE PUD DESIGN
Open space PUDs shall comply with all of the following minimum design standards unless modifications
are authorized by the City Council at the time of PUD Sketch Plan review. Authorization of such
modifications resulting from a PUD Sketch Plan review shall not be construed as approvals for the
change(s), but rather as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of the plan during
the PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(A) Density
The maximum dwelling unit density within an open space planned unit development shall be 18 units
per 40 acres of buildable land on the undeveloped parcel; however, the total number of dwelling units
shall not exceed the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan for Opens Space
Preservation Development.
(B) Lot Design
Lot locations and configurations within open space planned unit developments shall be derived
utilizing the following methodology. An applicant must be able to demonstrate how these steps
resulted in the plan being proposed.
(1) Soils Analysis Conducted
A certified septic designer or soils scientist shall complete a review of the soils on the site, and
categorize all areas as highly suitable for septic systems, moderately suitable for septic systems,
or poorly suited for septic systems.
(2) Septic Design Identification
Based on the soils analysis, an applicant must identify whether the proposed development will
be serviced by individual septic tanks and drain fields, or via a system of individual septic tanks
which utilize one or more communal drain fields.
(a) If individual septic tanks and drain fields can be supported by the available soils and is the
chosen methodology to serve the development, all proposed lots must be able to provide
primary and secondary drain field sites on each lot (outside of drainage and utility
easements), and must meet the minimum lot size standards outlined herein.
Commented [BGA14]: This section has undergone
extensive review by both the Planning Commission and City
Council as it completely reorganizes the City’s existing
regulations governing lot design. Based on feedback by both
bodies to date, we believe it is nearing (or is in) its final form
with the changes shown herein.
Commented [BGA15]: The City Council elected to
eliminate the super-majority vote requirement in favor of the
new review criteria in Section 154.660. It was reasoned that
the Council can elect to amend the zoning code by a simple
majority any time in the future, so maintaining it as a
component of this review wasn't necessary.
Commented [BGA16]: The language within the
comprehensive plan reads:
“Densities are allowed up to 0.45 dwelling units per
buildable acre when planned as part of an Open Space
Preservation development.”
40 acres * 0.45 d.u./acre = 18 units
Council has instructed staff to increase the permitted density
in this section to 20 units per 40 acres of buildable land.
Unfortuantely, until/unless a comprehensive plan change is
approved, we cannot amend the density in the zoning code.
Staff will follow this ordinance up with a second clean-up
ordinance once the comp plan change has been implemented.
To address the Planning Commisison’s concern on how the
term “buildable land” is used in different contexts, we have
added clarifying language here to indicate that buildable land
at this stage is calculated based on the buildable land which
exists on the undeveloped parcel.
Commented [BGA17]: Requiring a developer to analyze
soils followed by choosing a septic design will actually
achieve the City’s goal of ensuring proper septic design
drives developments.
Commented [BGA18]: The Planning Commission
recommended the City consider adopting a minimum
number of units before a community septic system can be
used. The matter was raised with the City Council, but
Council would like to rely on the City Engineer to provide
recommendations on proper system design, and Council
would ultimately need to make the policy decision on
whether to allow community systems on a case-by-case
basis.
Page 8 of 27
(b) If individual septic tanks which utilize a communal drain field (or fields) is the chosen
methodology to serve the development, then the location(s) for communal drain fields shall
be identified within the area(s) deemed the most suitable on the site for supporting septic
utilities according to the soils analysis. All such areas shall be clearly denoted on provided
plan sets.
(3) Identification of Required Buffers
No build zones from each property boundary shall be derived as follows:
(a) A two-hundred (200) foot buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut an existing
residential development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open
space planned unit development due to insufficient parcel area.
(b) A one-hundred (100) foot buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut land that is
eligible for future development as an open space planned unit development.
(c) If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required
buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development [see
§ 154.035(B)].
(4) Identification of Preferred Building Pad Locations
Building pad locations [up to the maximum number of units permitted by 154.657(A)] which
preserve natural topography and drainageways, minimize tree loss, protect historic sites or
structures, and limit the need for soil removal and/or grading shall then be identified. The
orientation of individual building sites shall maintain maximum natural topography and ground
cover.
(a) Building pads shall be located outside of required buffers, and shall be sited so as to provide
ample room for accessory structures on future lots.
(b) If individual septic tanks and drain fields for each lot are to be utilized, locations for
primary and secondary facilities for each proposed building pad shall also be identified.
Generalized locations for such may be shown during the PUD Sketch Plan phase, but all
such sites must be verified as being viable as a component of PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(c) If individual septic tanks utilizing communal drain fields is intended, the plan must clearly
identify which communal drain field will service each of the proposed building pads.
(5) Placement of Streets
(a) Streets shall then be designed and located in such a manner as to:
(i) Maintain and preserve natural topography, groundcover, significant landmarks, and
trees;
(ii) Minimize cut and fill;
(iii) Preserve and enhance both internal and external views and vistas;
(iv) Promote road safety;
(v) Assure adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles; and
Commented [BGA19]: This language has been amended
to the three provisions shown since the Planning
Commission's last review of this language per Council's
direction.
Commented [BGA20]: We slightly amended this language
to state the full 100 foot buffer is only needed adjacent to
land that could develop as another OP in the future.
Subsection (c) then handles all buffers from existing or
approved OP developments.
Note that deviations to these buffer standards may be
approved by Council using the review criteria in Section
154.660. Within this new framework, Council will now ask
whether “the overall design provides appropriate solutions to
eliminate adverse impacts” when considering buffer
reductions, and/or when determining what can be done
within buffers (a detail that can be specifically written into
the overlay district ordinance governing the lots being
created).
Commented [BGA21]: Staff understands the Planning
Commission’s desire to avoid “wishy-washy” language, but
a PUD by its very nature is intended to provide a level of
flexibility to adjust to real-world circumstances without the
need for a variance. That said, the intro paragraph for
subdivision (4) was amended to provide more rigid language
desired by the Planning Commission. It will just need to be
noted to applicants that failure to meet these now rigid
requirements will need approval as a proposed modification.
Staff’s fear is that by making this language rigid (i.e. you
must preserve natural drainageways), we may be creating a
situation in which modifications are ALWAYS requested
from this provision.
Commented [BGA22]: As a primary step in lot design, we
will be requiring the developer to identify general locations
that can accommodate primary and secondary septic sites if
the lots are to contain their own systems. Detailed
information would be needed during the Preliminary Plan
stage.
Page 9 of 27
(vi) Assure and promote adequate vehicular circulation both within the development and
with adjacent neighborhoods.
(b) The design of streets and the dedication of right-of-way shall be in compliance with the
City’s standard plates and specifications as may be amended.
(c) Streets shall not encroach into a required buffer area unless it can be demonstrated that
such an alignment is necessary to achieve the goals outlined above, and that no equivalent
option exists outside of the buffer. Driving surfaces that cross the buffer area at a 90 degree
angle to provide current or future access to an adjacent property or boundary road shall be
the only exception.
(6) Lot Creation
Based on the street location(s), building pad locations, and septic system location(s); lines to
delineate individual lots shall then be identified in accordance with the following:
(a) Lots
(i) Single-family lots being served by individual septic tanks and drain fields shall be a
minimum of one (1) acre in size;
(ii) Single-family lots being served by individual septic tanks utilizing communal drain
fields shall be a minimum of 1/2 acre (21,780 square feet) in size;
(iii) All land reserved for Communal septic system use shall be located within a dedicated
Outlot to be owned by the homeowners association (HOA) of the development.
(iv) Base lots for townhomes shall be large enough such that individual unit lots can meet
all required structure setbacks contained herein.
(b) Lot Specific Buildable Areas
(i) The buildable area on each proposed lot which remains after consideration of each of
the following shall be shown: Buildable area shall exclude land within the following
areas:
1. Required buffers from adjacent lands [see § 154.035(B)]
2. Wetlands and required wetland buffers;
3. Required setbacks from waterbodies and non-buildable land per Shoreland district
regulations [see Article XIX] ;
4. Steep slopes;
5. Drainage swales, stormwater ponds, and other association owned and maintained
stormwater management facilities;
6. Easements; and
Commented [BGA23]: Rather than list allowable ROW
widths and paved street widths, staff is recommending
simply referring to the City’s standard plates and
specifications. Again, if deviations are requested, the PUD
review criteria will guide Council as to whether such
deviations are warranted.
As part of the Planning Commission’s last review, it was
asked if this is really necessary. To that we are strongly
recommending keeping this language as proposed as it
clearly lays out the City standard in no uncertain terms: if
you want to build a road in an OP PUD, you need to meet
minimum City standards. Furthermore, buy phrasing the
standard this way, the City is free to update its engineering
standards as may be needed without having to amend its
zoning code to acknowledge the changes.
We elected to stay silent on how signage can or cannot be
used (i.e. no parking signs) to allow Council to make
individual determinations depending upon the circumstances.
Sign design and specifications should be in conformance
with the City's adopted sign standards rather than relisting
such standards here.
Commented [BGA24]: We have amended this language to
reinstitute the existing minimum lot sizes of one acre and
one-half acre depending upon the septic system approach
being used.
Commented [BGA25]: To further address the Planning
Commission’s concern that the term “buildable area” may be
confusing if used in different contexts, we have added the
words “Lot specific” to qualify how buildable area is
calculated in this circumstance.
Based on the feedback from Engineering, we are removing
wetlands, wetland buffers, and stormwater facilities from this
list as such features will now need to be dedicated on
separate Outlots which are conveyed to the City.
Commented [BGA26]: This language was clarified to
ensure developers understood what constituted buildable
land on each lot.
Page 10 of 27
7. Land within the following setbacks:
HOUSING TYPE
Single Family Homes Townhomes
Front Yard 30 20
Side Yard 15 feet or 10% of lot width
Corner Lot Front Yard 30
Corner Lot Street Side Yard 30
Rear Yard 20
(ii) Proposed buildable area on each lot shall be sufficient to accommodate primary and
accessory structures that are normal and customary to the type of development being
proposed.
(7) Open Space and Parkland Adjustments
(a) Open Space
(i) The total preserved open space area within an open space planned unit development
shall be no less than 50% of the total gross land area, as defined by § 11.01. If this
threshold is not achieved after following the first six steps of lot design, the proposed
lot areas will need to be adjusted or lots eliminated until this requirement is met.
(ii) Land needed for storm water facilities as required by other provisions of the Lake Elmo
City Code may count towards required open space for the purposes of Open Space
PUD design, but must ultimately be placed in Outlots to be dedicated to the City.
(iii) Excluding land needed for compliant storm water facilities, not Not less than 60% of
the remaining preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which are five (5)
acres or more in size.
(iv) Preserved open space parcels shall be contiguous with preserved open space or public
park land on adjacent parcels.
(b) Parkland
(i) Parks and recreational facilities shall be provided in addition to preserved open space
as specified in the Lake Elmo Parks Plan.
(ii) Determination of whether a land or cash dedication will be required to fulfil parkland
requirements will be at the discretion of the City Council, with direction to be provided
as a component of PUD Sketch Plan review. If a required parkland dedication causes
overall open space to drop below the minimum threshold, the proposed lot areas will
need to be adjusted or lots eliminated until the open space requirement is once again
met.
(iii) Any dedication shall be consistent with the dedication and fee-in-lieu standards
specified in Chapter 153.
Commented [BGA27]: The overall seven (7) step design
process we have laid out now both emphasizes what is
important to the City while recognizing and embracing how
a developer will approach the site anyway.
At this final step, the developer may need to shrink lot sizes
or eliminate lots to meet open space and parkland
requirements.
Commented [BGA28]: The open space provisions are
existing requirements. The City Council was asked to
provide feedback on the occasional thin strips of land that
are used to connect open space areas, but in general there
was no opposition to the concept and it was felt that such
proposals should be judged on a case by case basis rather
than requiring a minimum width.
Commented [BGA29]: Based on the Planning
Commission concerns about existing language on open space
easements (see the next page), staff spent time re-examining
the open space provisions and discussing issues that have
arisen with the City Engineer. Based on that work, we are
suggesting new language here to address land being set aside
to comply with stormwater regulations, and how said land
relates to the open space requirement.
Commented [BGA30]: The current standard in code is
60% of the dedicated open space must be in contiguous
parcels that are at least 1/4 of the minimum land area needed
for OP development (i.e. 40 acres minimum requires that
60% of the open space be in contiguous parcels of at least 10
acres). As the minimum land area has been reduced from 40
acres to 20 acres, we have adjusted the "contiguous parcel"
size down accordingly.
Page 11 of 27
§ 154.658 OPEN SPACE PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Open space PUDs shall comply with all of the following development standards unless modifications are
authorized by the City Council at the time of PUD Sketch Plan review. Authorization of such modifications
resulting from a PUD Sketch Plan review shall not be construed as approvals for the change(s), but rather
as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of the plan during the PUD Preliminary
Plan review.
(1) Preserved Open Space Standards
(a) With the exception of storm water facilities which must be dedicated to the City, all
preserved open space within an open space planned unit development shall be subject to a
conservation easement and used for the purposes listed in § 154.650.
(b) Preserved open space land shall be controlled in one or more of following manners as
determined at the sole discretion of the City Council:
(i) Owned by an individual or legal entity who will use the land for a specific set of
purposes outlined by a permanent conservation easement preserved open space
purposes as provided by permanent conservation restrictions (in accordance with M.S.
Ch. 84C.01-.05, as it may be amended from time to time), which is conveyed to an
acceptable land trust as approved by the city; and/or
(ii) Conveyed by conservation easement to the city.
(iii) Owned as an Outlot by the City (this option may only be used for land being dedicated
to the City for stormwater maintenance and conveyance purposes).
(c) Preserved open space land shall be maintained for the purposes for which it was set aside.
If preserved open space was set aside for agricultural purposes or for natural habitat, a
plan shall be submitted which will indicate how the land will be maintained or returned to
a natural state and who will be responsible for plan implementation. Developers shall
provide copies of common interest community (CIC) declarations to prospective
purchasers, and conservation easements to the city, describing land management practices
to be followed by the party or parties responsible for maintaining the preserved open
space.
(d) Where applicable, a Common Interest Community association shall be established to
permanently maintain all residual open space and recreational facilities. The Common
Interest Community association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and
giving lien right to the city if there is lack of the maintenance shall be submitted to the
city as part of the documentation requirements of § 154.661(3) for an open space PUD
Final Plan.
Commented [BGA31]: While Section 154.657 lays out the
regulations that dictate how a development is laid out,
Section 154.658 tells the applicant how the development
must be constructed and improved.
Here again we maintain the city’s existing development
standards for open space developments (i.e. regulating open
space, septic systems, building standards, landscaping
standards, impervious surface standards, and trail standards).
Commented [BGA32]: Again, the super-majority vote
was eliminated in favor of new review criteria in Section
154.660
Commented [BGA33]: The Planning Commission
expressed concern over the language in subdivisions (i) &
(ii) stating that the City should be the easement holder only
as a last resort, and that the language between the two
subdivisions should be consistent (provided vs. conveyed).
As this was existing language that had presumably been
working well, we had not offered up any suggested updates.
Knowing now there is a concern, we dug deeper into this
language and are offering up the following changes:
1) based on the experiences of the City Engineer, we are
recommending that open space areas being set aside for
stormwater maintenance be credited towards required open
space (as it always has been), but require such open space to
be placed on separate Outlots to be dedicated to the City.
Since 2008, the City has become an MS4 community which
places the onus to maintain stormwater facilities on the City
whether they’re owned by the City or not. Placing such
facilities on private land or making them subject to
conservation easement requirements unnecessarily
complicates the City’s mandate, so we are recommend
avoiding problems altogether and having all such land
dedicated to the City for stormwater purposes.
2) We have clarified the language in subdivision (i) to
recognize a conservation easement is needed, and that such
must be conveyed to an acceptable land trust as approved by
the City.
We believe these two changes will address the Planning
Commission’s concerns.
Page 12 of 27
(2) Septic System Design Standards
(a) In General
The placement and design of all septic systems shall conform to the requirements of
Washington County.
(b) Individual Septic Drain fields
Sites for individual septic drain fields, both primary and secondary, must be located
entirely within each lot and cannot be located within any easement.
(c) Communal Drain Fields.
(i) Communal drain fields may be partially or completely located in an area designated as
preserved open space provided the ground cover is restored to its natural condition
after installation, and recreational uses are prohibited above or within 50 feet of
communal drain fields or as approved by the City Engineer.
(ii) Communal drain fields, if installed, shall be professionally maintained, and are
acceptable once legally sufficient documentation has been provided by the developer
to ensure such maintenance will continue in perpetuity.
(3) Building Standards
(a) Principal structures within open space planned unit developments shall not exceed 2 and
½ stories or 35 feet in height.
(b) Accessory structures within open space planned unit developments shall not exceed 22
feet in height.
(c) It is desired that the structures within neighborhoods convey a particular architectural
style with similar building components, materials, roof pitches. The PUD Overlay
ordinance crafted for each individual development should establish minimum
architectural standards for the neighborhood.
(d) All wells shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from septic tanks and septic fields.
(4) Landscaping Standards
(a) A landscape plan for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per
building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches
above grade level.
(b) Boulevard landscaping is required along all streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every
30 feet or placed in clusters at the same ratio.
Commented [BGA34]: Septic language now refers to
Washington County as they oversee the City's on-site
systems & permitting.
Commented [BGA35]: This new requirements would
mandate that all individual septic systems be located on
private property.
Commented [BGA36]: Existing language regarding
wetland treatment systems has been eliminated as directed
by the City Council. The new ordinance will be silent on
such systems, and Engineering will be asked for guidance if
such a system is proposed in the future.
Commented [BGA37]: The Planning Commission
questioned whether we should specifically exclude historic
structures from this requirement. Both staff and the City
Council agree that no such exclusion is necessary. Historic
structures taller than 22 feet would be legal nonconforming
structures subject to protections of State Statute.
Commented [BGA38]: Upon further consideration, this
seems to be the most appropriate location for the well &
septic separation requirement.
Commented [BGA39]: As directed, the optional
landscaping standards staff offered for consideration have
been eliminated in favor of the existing standards.
Page 13 of 27
(5) Impervious Surface Standards
The maximum impervious surface allowable within an open space planned unit development
shall be 20% of the land area not dedicated as preserved open space subject to the following:
(a) Impervious surfaces created by roads, trails, and other planned impervious improvements
shall count against the maximum allowed impervious coverage.
(b) Remaining allowed impervious surface acreage may be distributed between the planned
building sites, and maximums for each lot shall be clearly documented within the overlay
district ordinance governing the development.
(c) On individual lots, areas covered by pervious pavers or comparable systems may receive
a 25% credit against the lot’s hardcover if the system is installed consistent with the City
of Lake Elmo Engineering Standards Manual, and adequate storm water mitigation
measures (as may be necessary) are installed to mitigate potential runoff created by the
additional coverage above the allowed impervious surface threshold. All such credits
shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer.
(6) Trail Standards
A trail system or sidewalks shall be established within open space planned unit developments
in accordance with the following:
(a) The linear footage of trails provided shall be at least equal in length to the sum of the
centerline length of all public roads within the development.
(b) All trails shall be constructed of asphalt or concrete in compliance with the standard city
design plate for trails.
(c) Proposed trails shall provide connections between and access to the buildable land areas
and preserved open space land being created by the development.
(d) Proposed trails shall connect to existing, planned, or anticipated trails or roads on
adjacent parcels.
(e) If applicable, trails shall be linked (or be designed to provide a future link) to the “Old
Village” to emphasize the connection between existing and new development.
§ 154.659 Reserved
§ 154.660 OPEN SPACE PUD REVIEW CRITERIA
The following findings shall be made by the City Council prior to approval of a new or amended open space
planned unit development:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) All prerequisites for an open space PUD as outlined in § 154.655 are met.
Commented [BGA40]: Staff did not recommend changes
to the existing language as it seemingly has been working.
This should be monitored though and updated if problems
are encountered.
Commented [BGA41]: The “pathway” standards that are
currently lumped into a single paragraph are now broken
apart in this new ordinance. We are not recommending
incorporation of specific standards as the City should rely on
its standard engineering plates to identify how trails will fit
into available roadway designs.
Commented [BGA42]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 3
Commented [BGA43]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 4
Commented [BGA44]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 1
Commented [BGA45]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 1
Commented [BGA46]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 2
Commented [BGA47]: When the Zoning code is
eventually reorganized, this Section will likely be relocated
to a more appropriate location in Chapter 154, but for now it
is included here.
Commented [BGA48]: This section lists the questions the
City will ask when reviewing these types of developments.
These criteria have been updated since the last review by
Council in response to the super-majority vote for deviations
being removed.
Rather than keeping such decision-making open-ended, we
are proposing a set of criteria (in subdivision 3) by which
Council may judge proposed deviations.
By including a framework for decision making on
deviations, we eliminate some of the subjectivity that can
arise as PUDs are reviewed. Additional criteria can be added
as Council may see fit.
We have also added subdivision 4 which introduces a new
review criteria requiring that phased developments result in
pieces that can stand-alone should the development go belly-
up prior to completion.
Page 14 of 27
(3) All open space PUD design standards (as outlined in § 154.657) and all open space
development standards (as outlined in § 154.658) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that
all such deviations are supported because they achieve the following three (3) goals:
(a) The deviation(s) allow for higher quality building and site design that will enhance
aesthetics of the site;
(b) The deviation(s) help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries
by ensuring one or more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features,
and/or efficient use of utilities;
(c) The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that
proposed deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
(4) If the proposed PUD involves construction over two or more phases, the applicant has
demonstrated that each phase is capable of being a stand-alone development independent of
other phases.
§ 154.661 OPEN SPACE PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE
All requests to establish an open space Planned Unit Development shall be initiated by following the
steps below.
(1) Open Space PUD Sketch Plan
(a) Purpose
The open space PUD Sketch Plan is the first step in the development process which gives
the applicant an opportunity to present their ideas to the City Council and public so as to
gain general feedback on areas that will require additional analysis, study, design,
changes, etc. Feedback gained during the open space PUD Sketch Pla n phase should be
addressed within the subsequent PUD Preliminary Plan.
(b) Specific open space PUD Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Sketch Plan.
(i) A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s)
of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and
any other relevant associates;
(ii) A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and
square feet and current legal description(s);
(iii) A narrative explaining the applicant’s proposed objectives for the open space PUD, a
listing of the proposed modifications from standard in § 154.657 and § 154.658 as
may be applicable, and an explanation of how the proposal addresses the PUD review
criteria in § 154.660.
Commented [BGA49]: As requested, we have clarified
that all three of the sub-criteria must be met to approval a
deviation
Commented [BGA50]: The word “higher” was added to
this criteria as requested
Commented [BGA51]: The word “more” was added to
this criteria as requested
Commented [BGA52]: This lengthy section outlines the
process to be used to review open space PUDs from
beginning to end. In general, this current draft follows the
standard City platting process with specific PUD
requirements thrown in.
Boiled down to its core, the review will require a sketch plan
proposal, a preliminary plan, and then a final plan. The
developer open houses considered at the beginning of this
process have been eliminated.
Page 15 of 27
(iv) A listing of general information including the following:
1. Number of proposed residential units.
2. Calculation of the proposed density of the project showing compliance with §
154.657(A).
3. A listing of all proposed land uses (i.e. preserved open space, buildable sites,
parkland, etc).
4. Square footages of land dedicated to each proposed land use.
(v) An existing conditions exhibit, including topography, that identifies the location of
the following environmental features along with calculations (in acres) for each:
1. Gross site acreage;
2. Existing wetlands;
3. Existing woodlands;
4. Areas with slopes greater than 12%, but less than 25%;
5. Areas with slopes of 25% or greater;
6. Woodlands;
7. Other pertinent land cover(s).
(vi) An open space PUD Sketch Plan illustrating the nature of the proposed development.
At a minimum, the plan should show:
1. Existing zoning district(s) on the subject land and all adjacent parcels;
2. Layout of proposed lots and proposed uses denoting Outlots planned for public
dedication and/or preserved open space;
3. Area calculations for each parcel;
4. General location of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property and within
200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel;
5. Location of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the
subdivision parcel;
6. Proposed sidewalks and trails;
7. Proposed parking areas;
8. General location of wooded areas or significant features (environmental,
historical, cultural) of the parcel;
9. Location of utility systems that will serve the property;
10. Calculations for the following:
a. Gross land area (in acres);
Page 16 of 27
b. Number of proposed residential units.
c. Proposed density of the project showing compliance with § 154.657(A).
d. Acreage & square footage of land dedicated to each proposed land use (i.e.
preserved open space, buildable sites, parkland, etc).
e. Acreage & square footage of land proposed for public road right-of-way;
f. Acreage & square footage of land dedicated to drainage ways and ponding
areas;
g. Acreage & square footage of land for Trails and/or sidewalks (if outside of
proposed road right-of-way);
11. Other: An applicant may submit any additional information that may explain the
proposed PUD or support any requests for modifications (i.e. a landscaping plan
to support the lessening or elimination of an otherwise required buffer).
(vii) The outline of a conceptual development schedule indicating the approximate date
when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and
be completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public
improvements and recreational & common space areas).
(viii) A statement of intent to establish a Common Interest Community association with
bylaws and deed restrictions to include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Ownership, management, and maintenance of defined preserved open space;
2. Maintenance of public and private utilities; and
3. General architectural guidelines for principal and accessory structures.
(ix) If applicable, a historic preservation plan for any historic structures on the site shall
be submitted.
(c) Open Space PUD Sketch Plan Proposal Review
(i) Planning Commission
1. Upon receiving an open space PUD Sketch Plan proposal, the City shall schedule
a date upon which the Planning Commission will review the proposal.
2. Upon completing their review, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and
recommendations on the proposed open space PUD as soon as practical.
3. The Director of Planning may forward an application to the City Council without
a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary
to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review.
Commented [BGA53]: The need for a sketch plan public
hearing before the Planning Commission was eliminated by
the City Council.
Page 17 of 27
(ii) City Council
1. The City Council may listen to comments on the proposed development if they
deem such necessary prior to discussing the proposed open space PUD Sketch
plan.
2. After consideration of the Director of Planning’s recommendation, the Planning
Commission recommendation, and any public comments received, the City
Council may comment on the merit of the request, needed changes, and
suggested conditions that the proposer should adhere to with any future
application.
3. For each of the identified modifications to the minimum standards outlined in
4. § 154.657 and § 154.658, the City Council shall take a vote to instruct the
applicant as to whether the modification can be pursued as a component of the
PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(d) Effect of a PUD Sketch Plan Review
(i) The City Council and Planning Commission’s comments during the PUD Sketch
Plan review are explicitly not an approval or denial of the project, and are intended
only to provide information for the applicant to consider prior to application for an
open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(ii) Proposed modifications that receive a majority vote of support from Council may be
requested as part of the future PUD Preliminary Plan application, but support to
pursue the modification as part of the PUD Sketch Plan in no way guarant ees that the
modification will be approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan.
(e) Limitation of Approval
The City Council’s review of an open space PUD Sketch Plan shall remain valid for a
period of six (6) months. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the validity
of their findings for an additional year.
(2) PUD Preliminary Plan
(a) Prerequisite
No application for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan will be accepted unless an
applicant’s proposal is distinctly similar to one reviewed in the completed the open space
PUD Sketch Plan review process which is valid upon the date of application.
(b) PUD Preliminary Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(i) All required information for a preliminary plat per Chapter 1102, § 1102.01(C) and §
1102.02.
Commented [BGA54]: A stray reference to the former
public hearing requirement was removed from this
subsection.
Commented [BGA55]: Under this process, Council would
take individual votes on each modification proposed by the
applicant. Approval at this stage ONLY authorizes the
applicant to make the request at the Preliminary stage; it
does NOT grant any rights to the modification. Again,
modifications can only be pursued IF Council allows such
via a super majority vote.
Commented [BGA56]: This subsection clarifies
EXACTLY what a developer gets as a result of the sketch
plan process.
Commented [BGA57]: Sketch Plan reviews may remain
valid for up to 1.5 years.
Commented [BGA58]: The City will not accept a
preliminary plan application unless a valid sketch plan is in
place. This language was reworded per the Planning
Commission’s recommendations.
Page 18 of 27
(ii) A separate open space PUD Preliminary Plan which includes the following
information:
1. Administrative information (including identification of the drawing as an “Open
Space PUD Preliminary Plan,” the proposed name of the project, contact
information for the developer and individual preparing the plan, signature of the
surveyor and civil engineer certifying the document, date of plan preparation or
revision, and a graphic scale and north arrow);
2. Area calculations for gross land area, wetland areas, right-of-way dedications,
and proposed public and private parks or open space;
3. Existing zoning district(s) on the subject land and all adjacent parcels;
4. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers. The perimeter
boundary line of the subdivision should be distinguishable from the other
property lines. Denote Outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space
(schools, parks, etc.);
5. The location of proposed septic disposal area(s);
6. Area calculations for each parcel;
7. Proposed setbacks on each lot (forming the building pad) and calculated
buildable area;
8. Proposed gross hardcover allowance per lot (if applicable);
9. Existing contours at intervals of two feet. Contours must extend a minimum of
200 feet beyond the boundary of the parcel(s) in question;
10. Delineation of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property;
11. Delineation of the ordinary high water levels of all water bodies;
12. Location, width, and names of existing and proposed streets within and
immediately adjacent to the subdivision parcel;
13. Easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the subdivision parcel(s);
14. The location and orientation of proposed buildings;
15. Proposed sidewalks and trails;
16. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimension for all driveways,
parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes,
emergency access, if necessary, public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike
paths, direction of traffic flow and traffic control devices;
17. Lighting location, style and mounting and light distribution plan.
18. Proposed parks, common areas, and preservation easements (indicate public vs.
private if applicable);
19. Location, access and screening detail of large trash handling and recycling
collection areas
Page 19 of 27
(iii) Proposed architectural theming and performance standards for the development;
(iv) A grading drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered professional
engineer providing all information as required by Public Works, the City Engineer,
and/or the Director of Planning;
(v) A utility plan providing all information as required by Public Works, the City
Engineer, and/or the Director of Planning;
(vi) Results of deep soil test pits and percolation tests, at the rate of no fewer than 2
successful test results for each proposed septic disposal area;
(vii) The location and detail of signage providing all pertinent information necessary to
determine compliance with § 154.212;
(viii) A tree preservation plan as required by § 154.257;
(ix) A landscape plan, including preliminary sketches of how the landscaping will look,
prepared by a qualified professional providing all information outlined in § 154.258;
(x) A traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation from
the site at full development, and the effect of such traffic on the level of service of
nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements;
(xi) A plan sheet or narrative clearly delineating all features being modified from
standard open space PUD regulations;
(xii) Common Interest Community Association documents including bylaws, deed
restrictions, covenants, and proposed conservation easements.
(xiii) Any other information as directed by the Director of Planning.
(c) PUD Preliminary Plan Review
(i) As part of the review process for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan, the Director
of Planning shall generate an analysis of the proposal against the expectations for
PUDs, and make a recommendation regarding the proposed overlay district for
Planning Commission and City Council consideration.
(ii) The Director of Planning shall prepare a draft ordinance to establish the potential
overlay district to be established as a component of the PUD Final Plan.
(iii) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and consider the application’s
consistency with the goals for PUDs, the PUD review criteria, and applicable
comprehensive plan goals. The Planning Commission shall make recommendations
to the City Council on the merit, needed changes, and suggested conditions to impose
on the PUD.
(iv) In approving or denying the PUD Preliminary Plan, the City Council shall make
findings on the PUD review criteria outlined in § 154.660.
Commented [BGA59]: The Planning Commission
clarified this subsection by eliminating the need for color
renderings, and changing “architectural performance
standards” to “architectural theming and performance
standards…”
Commented [BGA60]: Rather than allowing the applicant
to draft an overlay district, we are proposing that staff begin
the process at preliminary plan. The cost for this work will
need to be incorporated into the fee for a Preliminary Plan
application.
Note that staff will ONLY be creating a draft now for
feedback and direction. The actual code language will be
reviewed during the Final Plan phase.
Page 20 of 27
(v) As a condition of PUD Preliminary Plan approval; finalization, adoption, and
publication of an overlay district ordinance shall need to occur prior to the filing of
any future final plat.
(d) Effect of a PUD Preliminary Plan Review
Preliminary Plan approval governs the preparation of the PUD Final Plan which must be
submitted for final approval in accordance with the requirements of this Article.
(e) Limitation of Approval
The City Council’s review of an open space PUD Preliminary Plan shall remain valid for
a period of one (1) year. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the validity
of their findings for an additional year.
(3) PUD Final Plan
(a) Application Deadline
Application for an open space PUD Final Plan shall be submitted for approval within
ninety (90) days of City Council approval of the open space PUD Preliminary Plan unless
a written request for a time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the
City Council.
(b) PUD Final Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Final Plan.
(i) All required information for a final plat per City Code § 153.08;
(ii) All required PUD Preliminary Plan documents, other than the preliminary plat, shall
be updated to incorporate and address all conditions of PUD Preliminary Plan
approval.
(iii) Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and
bylaws of any proposed homeowners’ association or other documents or contracts
which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD.
(iv) A final staging plan, if staging is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence and
timing of development, including the estimated start and completion date for each
stage.
(v) Up-to-date title evidence for the subject property in a form acceptable to the Director
of Planning.
(vi) Warranty deeds for Property being dedicated to the City for all parks, Outlots, etc.,
free from all liens and encumbrances.
Commented [BGA61]: This subsection clarifies
EXACTLY what a developer gets as a result of the
Preliminary Plan process.
Commented [BGA62]: Preliminary Plan approvals may
remain valid for up to 2.0 years.
Commented [BGA63]: To ensure the process continues to
move forward, we are recommending a 90 day time-frame in
which the final plan application must be submitted.
Page 21 of 27
(vii) All easement dedication documents for easements not shown on the final plat
including those for trails, ingress/egress, etc., together with all necessary consents to
the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property.
(viii) Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Planning to fully present
the intention and character of the open space PUD.
(ix) If certain land areas or structures within the open space PUD are designated for
recreational use, public plazas, open areas or service facilities, the owner of such land
and buildings shall provide a plan to the city that ensures the continued operation and
maintenance of such areas or facilities in a manner suitable to the city.
(c) PUD Final Plan Review
(i) The Director of Planning shall generate an analysis of the final documents against the
conditions of the open space PUD Preliminary Plan approval, and make a
recommendation as to whether all conditions have been met or if additional changes
are needed.
(ii) Staff should once again identify any information submittals that were waived so
Council may determine if such is needed prior to making a final decision.
(iii) The Director of Planning shall finalize the ordinance to establish the proposed
overlay district for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
(iv) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed Overlay
District ordinance and open space Final PUD Plans, and shall submit a
recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Because an open space PUD
Preliminary Plan was previously approved, the Planning Commission’s
recommendation shall only focus on whether the Ordinance and open space PUD
Final Plan are in substantial compliance with the open space PUD Preliminary Plan
and the required conditions of approval.
(v) The City Council shall then consider the recommendations of the Director of
Planning, the public, and the Planning Commission; and make a decision of approval
or denial, in whole or in part, on the open space PUD Final Plan. A denial shall only
be based on findings that an open space PUD Final Plan is not in substantial
compliance with the approved open space PUD Preliminary Plan and/or the required
conditions of approval.
(vi) As a condition of PUD Final Plan approval, publication of the overlay district
ordinance shall be required prior to filing of the approved final plat.
(vii) Planned Unit Development Agreement.
1. At its sole discretion, the City may as a condition of approval, require the owner
and developer of the proposed open space PUD to execute a development
agreement which may include but not be limited to all requirements of the open
space PUD Final Plan.
Commented [BGA64]: Easement creation to enforce
required buffers was eliminated from this subsection.
Commented [BGA65]: Unlike most platting processes, we
must hold a public hearing at this point in the process as the
City must adopt the final ordinance language that will govern
the PUD.
Page 22 of 27
2. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an
irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City. The letter of credit shall be
provided by a financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the City.
The City may require that certain provisions and conditions of the development
agreement be stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an
amount sufficient to ensure the provision or development of improvement called
for by the development agreement.
(viii) As directed by the City, documents related to the PUD shall be recorded against the
property.
(d) Time Limit
(i) A Planned Unit Development shall be validated by the a pplicant through the
commencement of construction or establishment of the authorized use(s), subject to
the permit requirements of this Code, in support of the Planned Unit Development
within one (1) year of the date of open space PUD Final Plan approval. Failure to
meet this deadline shall render the open space PUD Final Plan approval void.
Notwithstanding this time limitation, the City Council may approve extensions for
validation of up to one (1) year if requested in writing by the applicant; extension
requests shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and shall identify the reason(s)
why the extension is necessary along with an anticipated timeline for validation of
the Planned Unit Development.
(ii) An application to reinstate an open space PUD that was voided for not meeting the
required time limit shall be administered in the same manner as a new open space
PUD beginning at open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
§ 154.662 OPEN SPACE PUD AMENDMENTS
Approved open space PUDs may be amended from time to time as a result of unforeseen circumstances,
overlooked opportunities, or requests from a developer or neighborhood. At such a time, the applicant shall
make an application to the city for an open space PUD amendment.
(A) Amendments to Existing Open Space PUD Overlay District(s)
Amendments to an approved open space PUD Overlay district shall be processed as one of the
following:
(1) Administrative Amendment
The Director of Planning may approve minor changes if such changes are required by
engineering or other circumstances, provided the changes conform to the approved overlay
district intent and are consistent with all requirements of the open space PUD ordinance.
Under no circumstances shall an administrative amendment allow additional lots, or changes
to designated uses established as part of the PUD. An Administrative Amendment shall be
memorialized via letter signed by the Planning Director and recorded against the PUD
property.
Commented [BGA66]: Greater specificity was added to
this section to state that Council may approve extensions “of
up to one (1) year.”
Commented [BGA67]: This section will deal with how the
City will process amendments to both open space PUDs and
existing OP developments.
Commented [BGA68]: This language was updated since
the last meeting to remove language that was deemed
unnecessary such as changes to building height.
Page 23 of 27
(2) Ordinance Amendment
A PUD change requiring a text update to the adopted open space PUD overlay district
language shall be administered in accordance with adopted regulations for zoning code
changes in § 154.105. Ordinance amendments shall be limited to changes that are deemed by
the Director of Planning to be consistent with the intent of the original open space PUD
approval, but are technically necessary due to construction of the adopted overlay district
language.
(3) PUD Amendment
Any change not qualifying for an administrative amendment or an Ordinance amendment
shall require an open space PUD amendment. An application to amend an open space PUD
shall be administered in the same manner as that required for a new PUD beginning at open
space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(B) Pre-existing OP Developments
(1) Pre-existing OP developments authorized prior to [date this ordinance is effective] shall
continue to be governed per the original conditions of approval until the OP development is
cancelled by the City, or the OP development is converted to an open space PUD overlay
district.
(2) An application to amend an existing OP development shall require the development to be
converted into an open space PUD beginning at open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(a) Replatting of lots will only be required if the Director of Planning determines such is
necessary to implement the requested change.
(b) The resulting overlay zoning district shall be applied to all properties within the OP
development being amended.
§ 154.663 PUD CANCELLATION
An open space PUD shall only be cancelled and revoked upon the City Council adopting an ordinance
rescinding the overlay district establishing the PUD. Cancellation of a PUD shall include findings that
demonstrate that the PUD is no longer necessary due to changes in local regulations over time; is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other application land use regulations; threatens public safety,
health, or welfare; or other applicable findings in accordance with law.
§ 154.664 ADMINISTRATION
In general, the following rules shall apply to all open space PUDs:
(A) Rules and regulations
No requirement outlined in the open space PUD review process shall restrict the City Council from
taking action on an application if necessary to meet state mandated time deadlines;
Commented [BGA69]: This section was updated for the
July meeting to address how the City will deal with existing
OP developments.
Commented [BGA70]: This section outlines the process
for cancelling a previous PUD approval.
Commented [BGA71]: This section includes some final
rules and regulations deemed important by staff.
Page 24 of 27
(B) Preconstruction
No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which an open space PUD plan is
in the process of review, unless the proposed building is allowed under the existing zoning and will
not impact, influence, or interfere with the proposed open space PUD plan.
(C) Effect on Conveyed Property
In the event that any real property in an approved open space PUD is conveyed in total, or in part,
the new owners thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the approved overlay district.
SECTION 5. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Article III: ZONING DISTRICTS, Section 154.035 OP-
Open Space Preservation District as follows:
§ 154.035 OP – OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT.
Provisions governing the OP Open Space Preservation District are codified at §§ 150.175 through
150.189.
(A) OP District Discontinued
Provisions regulating the OP Open Space Preservation District were repealed and replaced with the
regulations now in Article XVI: Open Space Planned Unit Developments.
(B) Buffer Setbacks In OP Developments
Buffer setbacks shall be applied from the edge of the existing open space preservation developments
as follows.
Buffer Setbacks in OP Developments (in feet)
North
Edge South Edge West Edge East Edge
Exception
Parcel(s)
St. Croix’s Sanctuary 200 50 50 100
Discover Crossing 200 100 50 100
Whistling Valley I 25 200 N/A N/A
Whistling Valley 1I 25 100 85 N/A
Whistling Valley III 50 100 100 N/A
Farms of Lake Elmo 100 50 100 25
Commented [BGA72]: Section 5 of this ordinance
eliminates language within the zoning ordinance that
references the old codes in Chapter 150, and provides a
home for all of the specialized setback requirements for
existing OP developments.
Page 25 of 27
Prairie Hamlet 200 50 50 100
Fields of St. Croix I 50 N/A 200 100
Fields of St. Croix 1I N/A 200 200 N/A N/A
The Homestead 50 50 200 50
Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove 50 50 200 50 100
Tamarack Farm Estates 100 100 100 100
Sunfish Ponds 100 100 100 200
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake 50 100 50 50
Cardinal Ridge 100 200 50 50
Wildflower Shoves 100 200 100 200
Heritage Farms 50 N/A N/A 50 N/A
Tana Ridge (Res. 2009-033) N/A N/A 50 50
Parkview Estates (Res. 2009-033) 50; except
Lot 9,
Block 5 use
20 ft
N/A N/A 50
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.036 as follows:
§ 154.036 OZD - OVERLAY ZONING USE DISTRICT.
The following overlay districts are designed to promote orderly development or to protect some
specific sensitive natural resources. These district regulations are in addition to, rather than in
lieu of, regulations imposed by the existing basic zoning use districts. These districts are defined
and established as follows:
A. Flood Plain – See §§ 151.01 through 151.14 of this Code;
B. Restrictive Soils Overlay District – See §§ 150.200 through 150.203 of this Code;
C. Wetland Protection and Preservation Overlay District – See §§ 150.215 through 150.219
of this Code;
D. Shoreland District – See §§ 150.250154.800 through 150.257 of this Code;
E. Interstate Corridor Overlay District – See §§ 150.230 through 150.238 of this Code; and
F. Airport (reserved).; and
F.G. Open Space Development Overlay District – See §§ 150.175 through 150.190 of this
Code
Commented [BGA73]: The final section of this ordinance
would add "Open Space Development Overlay District" to
the general list of zoning overlay districts found in code.
Formatted: Tab stops: 0.63", Left + Not at 0.38"
Page 26 of 27
SECTION 7. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.350 as follows:
§ 154.350 DIVISION INTO DISTRICTS.
A. All Areas Zoned. The incorporated areas of Lake Elmo are hereby divided into the
following zoning districts:
Table 8-1: Zoning Districts
Zoning District Reference
R-2 One and Two Family Residential 154.033
GB General Business 154.034
A Agriculture 154.400 Article XI
RR Rural Residential 154.400 Article XI
RT Rural Development Transitional 154.400 Article XI
RS Rural Single Family 154.400 Article XI
RE Residential Estate 154.400 Article XI
OP Open Space Preservation 150.175
LDR Urban Low Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
MDR Urban Medium Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
HDR Urban High Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
VMX Village Center - Mixed Use 154.500 Article XIII
C Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
CC Convenience Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
LC Neighborhood Office/Limited Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
BP Business Park/Light Manufacturing 154.550 Article XIV
P PF Civic/Public Public Facilities 154.600 Article XV
OSP Open Space and Parks 154.600
OP-A Open Space Preservation - Alternative Density 154.700
Page 27 of 27
SECTION 8. Adoption Date
This Ordinance No. xx-xxx was adopted on this ______ day of July 2016, by a vote of ___ Ayes
and ___ Nays.
_________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kristina Handt
City Administrator
This Ordinance No xx-xxx was published on the ____ day of _____________________, 2016.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. xx-xxx BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. xx-xxx,
an ordinance to repeal existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, adopt new
open space development regulations in chapter 154, and to implement reference updates in chapter
154; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Lake Elmo
that the city administrator shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. xx-xxx to be
published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the city of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. xx-xxx. The ordinance repeals
existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, and adopts new open space planned
unit development regulations in chapter 154. The new regulations are largely based on the City’s
long-standing OP development codes, but have been updated to implement lessons learned from
existing OP development over the past twenty years, and to ensure these developments are meeting
the City’s expectations. The main changes being implemented include a revised methodology for the
design of open space developments, and implementation of a more standardized development review
process. Additionally, Open Space planned unit developments will now require the establishment of
an overlay district over such areas to organize the unique regulations governing these neighborhoods.
To properly fit these new regulations into the City’s zoning code, this ordinance also implements a
number of organizational/numbering changes throughout Chapter 154. The full text of Ordinance
No. xx-xxx is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours.
Mayor Mike Pearson
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Lake Elmo that the city
administrator keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that he
post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Dated: ________________ ___, 20___.
___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Kristina Handt
City Administrator
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 1 of 27
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL EXISTING OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 150, ADOPT NEW OPEN SPACE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 154, AND TO
IMPLEMENT REFERENCE UPDATES IN CHAPTER 154
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 150: General Provisions, by repealing all Open Space Preservation
regulations contained in Sections 150.175 through 150.190.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 150: General Provisions, by adding the following language after Section
150.160, Review and Revocation:
Sections 150.161 through 150.199 -- RESERVED
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, to implement needed reference updates as follows:
Articles I and II are restated and incorporated herein unchanged.
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Zoning Districts,” containing sections 154.030 through
154.036, is hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for the title which is amended
to read: “Article III – Zoning Districts”
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Additional Regulations and Modifications,” containing
sections 154.080 through 154.083, is hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for
the title which is amended to read: “Article IV – Additional Regulations and Modifications”
Current Articles III (3) through XIII (13) containing sections 154.100 through 154.600, are hereby
restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for their Article numbers which are amended to
read Articles V (5) through XV (15)
Current Article XIV (14) containing section 154.700 is hereby restated and incorporated herein
unchanged except for its Article number which is amended to read Article XVII (17)
Page 2 of 27
Current Articles XVI (16) through XVII (17) containing sections 154.750 through 154.800, are
hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for their Article numbers which are
amended to read Articles XVIII (18) through XIX (19)
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Design and Performance Standards – Restrictions on
Nuisance and Hazardous Activities,” containing sections 154.900 through 154.999, is hereby restated
and incorporated herein unchanged except for the title which is amended to read: “Article XX –
Design and Performance Standards – Restrictions on Nuisance and Hazardous Activities”
Current Section 154.106(A)(4) is amended as follows: “The proposed use meets all specific
development standards for such use listed in Article 7 Article 9 of this Chapter”
Current Section 154.106(E)(1) is amended as follows: “The conditions shall include all specific
development standards for such use listed in Article 7 Article 9 of this Chapter”
Current Section 154.202 is amended as follows: “Permits are required for all changes in use and all
development activities, with the exception of signs, in compliance with the standards of Article 3,
Administration. Signs shall require a sign permit in compliance with Section 151.115 and Article 3.”
which shall be governed by the specific requirements of Section 154.212 as may be applicable.”
Current Section 154.210(D)(6) is amended as follows: “Landscaping and Screening. Parking areas
shall be screened and landscaped as provided in Article 6 Article 8, Section 154.258”
Current Section 154.305(B)(6) is amended as follows: “Screening of Storage Areas. The storage or
display of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles not awaiting service as in subsection (B4) or other
equipment, and all trash storage or disposal facilities, shall meet all setback requirements of a
structure, and shall be screened from view from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential
properties. Screening shall meet the requirements of Article 6 Article 8, Section 154.258.”
Current Section 154.404(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the rural districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9. The
following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district.”
Current Section 154.408(E)(1) is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures
that are permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7
Article 9, Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day
care, bed and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and
solar equipment.”
Commented [BGA1]: From this point forward in this
section of the ordinance, staff is updating Article and code
references as necessary due to the renumbering being
completed. Using this provision as an example, all
references to "Article 7" in code must now be updated to
"Article 9"
Commented [BGA2]: This change fixes the noted
reference to the correct section. The current code points the
reader to regulations on " Culverts in developments with
rural section"
Page 3 of 27
Current Section 154.454(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the urban residential districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation,
landscape design, parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles
7, 8, and 9. The following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district.”
Current Section 154.459 is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures that are
permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7 Article 9,
Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed
and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and solar
equipment.”
Current Section 154.504(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the VMX District shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9.”
Current Section 154.505(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the VMX district shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9. The
following standards apply to specific uses; other standards related to design and building type may be
found at §154.506.”
Current Section 154.510 is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures that are
permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7 Article 9,
Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed
and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and solar
equipment.”
Current Section 154.553(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the commercial districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape
design, and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9.”
Current Section 154.554(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “The following standards
apply to specific uses allowed within the Commercial Districts. Other specific use standards are
located in Article 7 Article 9.”
Current Section 154.752(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Uses within the PUD may
include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land use category shown for
the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance
standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD
development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses
with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in the list of uses approved in the
development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD, and will follow the procedures
specified in Article 35, Section 154.105 , Administration, for zoning amendments.”
Commented [BGA3]: This paragraph must be updated as
there is no "Article 3, Administration" in the existing code.
Page 4 of 27
Current Article XVII, renumbered to Article XIX by this ordinance, is hereby restated and
incorporated herein unchanged except for its hierarchy of sections references which shall be amended
to follow the following subsection hierarchy:
Section Number. Section Title
A. Subsection
B. Subsection
C. Subsection
1. Subsection
2. Subsection
3. Subsection
a. Subsection
b. Subsection
c. Subsection
i. Subsection
ii. Subsection
iii. Subsection
Current Section 154.800(c)(O), changed to 154.800(L) as part of the subsection hierarchy update
above, is amended as follows: “Residential planned unit developments shall be permitted in
shoreland areas subject to the requirements of Article XVI Article XVIII of this chapter.” All
subsections of 154.800(L) are restated and incorporated herein unchanged.
SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, to add Article XVI: OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS
Article XVI: OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
§ 154.650 PURPOSE.
The purpose of open space planned unit developments is to provide greater development flexibility within
rural portions of the community while maintaining the rural character by preserving agricultural land,
woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors, pollinator & wildlife habitat, and other significant natural features
consistent with the goals and objectives of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The City reserves the right to
deny establishment of an open space PUD overlay district and direct a developer to re-apply under standard
zoning provisions if it is determined that proposed benefits of the open space PUD do not justify the
requested flexibilities.
Commented [BGA4]: Beyond just the Article number, the
overall heirarchy of sections within 154.800 doesn't follow
the rest of the zoning ordinance. Worse yet, the heirarchy
changes mid-way thorugh the Section! To correct this clear
formatting error, we are recommending updating each
subsection to reflect the zoning code's standard organizatin.
Commented [BGA5]: This section simply states what the
City is trying to accomplish when it reviews and approves
“open space planned unit developments.”
Commented [BGA6]: As requested by the City Council,
we have beefed up the purpose statement to stress the City’s
intent to provide flexibility through this process while
maintaining rural character.
Page 5 of 27
§ 154.651 INTENT.
It is the intent of the City of Lake Elmo that open space planned unit developments will offer needed
development flexibility within the Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Rural Estate zoning districts to
provide for:
(A) A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist within the City’s rural
areas;
(B) An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be achieved via
underlying zoning;
(C) A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a rural setting;
(D) Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community; and
(E) The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas.
§ 154.652 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined in Article II, common definitions, words, and phrases used in this Article shall
be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage throughout this code and
as may be found in § 11.01.
§ 154.653 INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS.
The owner of property on which an open space PUD is proposed shall file the applicable application for a
PUD by paying the fee(s) set forth in § 11.02 of this Code and submitting a completed application form and
supporting documents as set forth on the application form and within this Section. Complete applications
shall be reviewed by City Commissions as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and be acted upon
by the City Council. If a proposed PUD is denied, any subsequent application for a substantially similar
PUD within one (1) year of the date of denial shall fully address all findings which supported the denial
prior to being accepted as complete.
§ 154.654 REFLECTION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
(A) PUD provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility from
standard regulating provisions. Establishment of a PUD shall require adoption of an ordinance
creating an overlay zoning district atop the boundaries of the development area. For each PUD
District, a specific ordinance shall be adopted establishing all rules which shall supersede underlying
zoning. Issues not specifically addressed by the PUD Overlay district shall be governed by the
underlying zoning district regulations.
(B) All Open Space Preservation developments approved prior to [date of ordinance publication] shall
be allowed to continue per the original conditions of approval.
Commented [BGA7]: This section outlines specific things
the City wants to accomplish with open space planned unit
developments including allowing for a variety of housing
types in the rural areas of the city, allowing for increased
density, reducing infrastructure costs, protecting open space,
and creating distinct but interconnected rural neighborhoods.
Commented [BGA8]: This section references 11.01 as the
City’s location for applicable definitions. New definitions
(or updated definitions) created by Section One of this
ordinance will be placed in Section 11.01
Commented [BGA9]: This section simply outlines how a
landowner can begin the open space PUD process.
Commented [BGA10]: This is our first reference to the
fact that OP regulations for each development will now be
incorporated into an overlay district. Importantly, issues not
addressed by the OP ordinance will be handled by
underlying zoning regulations, so the City will never have to
worry about missing details during the approval process.
Page 6 of 27
§ 154.655 PREREQUISITES FOR OPEN SPACE PUDs.
(A) Only land zoned as Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Rural Estate may be considered for
establishment of an open space planned unit development.
(B) The minimum land area for establishment of an open space planned unit development is a nominal
contiguous twenty (20) acres.
(C) Establishment of an open space planned unit development will be considered only for areas of land
in single ownership or control. Alternatively, multiple party ownership, in the sole discretion of the
City, is acceptable when legally sufficient written consent from all persons and entities with
ownership interest is provided at the time of application.
§ 154.656 USES WITHIN OPEN SPACE PUDs.
(A) Primary Uses.
(1) Permitted.
(a) Single-family, detached;
(b) Preserved open space;
(c) Conservation easements;
(d) Agriculture;
(e) Suburban farms;
(f) Private stables;
(g) Single-family, attached;
(h) Townhouses (no more than 25% in any development)
(i) Wayside stand; and
(j) Public parks and trails.
(2) Conditionally Permitted.
None
(3) Interim Permitted.
None
(B) Accessory Uses.
(1) Permitted.
Uses deemed by the Director of Planning to be typically accessory to an established permitted
use on the property as listed in 154.656(A)(1).
(2) Conditionally Permitted.
None
Commented [BGA11]: This section sets the minimum
requirements that must be met before someone can request
an Open Space PUD.
The listed prerequisites are existing criteria EXCEPT for the
minimum land area which was set at twenty (20) acres by the
City Council.
Commented [BGA12]: Here we’ve maintained existing
language. The only transition proposed is to allow the
overlay district regulations to amend specific use provisions
that may otherwise be in code. For example, if wayside
stands are limited to one per lot, the overlay district
regulations may specifically identify an area within
preserved open space where up to three wayside stands may
be erected at any point in time. The use has not changes, but
the specific rules governing the use may be amended if
deemed appropriate as part of the PUD approval.
Commented [BGA13]: The Planning Commission had a
split opinion on whether Townhomes should continue to be
allowed in OP developments. Some felt townhomes were
not appropriate in rural areas, while others felt they had been
very successful in such developments to date. The City
Council was asked to make a final determination, and they
directed staff to maintain Townhomes as an allowed use
stating they've worked well in such developments to date.
Page 7 of 27
(3) Interim Permitted.
None
(C) Prohibited Uses.
All other uses not listed in 154.656(A) or 154.656(B) are hereby prohibited.
(D) Use Restrictions and Allowances
The final PUD overlay district ordinance may include specific provisions governing uses which
supersede underlying zoning and the general PUD regulations herein.
§ 154.657 OPEN SPACE PUD DESIGN
Open space PUDs shall comply with all of the following minimum design standards unless modifications
are authorized by the City Council at the time of PUD Sketch Plan review. Authorization of such
modifications resulting from a PUD Sketch Plan review shall not be construed as approvals for the
change(s), but rather as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of the plan during
the PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(A) Density
The maximum dwelling unit density within an open space planned unit development shall be 18 units
per 40 acres of buildable land; however, the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed the
density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan for Opens Space Preservation Development.
(B) Lot Design
Lot locations and configurations within open space planned unit developments shall be derived
utilizing the following methodology. An applicant must be able to demonstrate how these steps
resulted in the plan being proposed.
(1) Soils Analysis Conducted
A certified septic designer or soils scientist shall complete a review of the soils on the site, and
categorize all areas as highly suitable for septic systems, moderately suitable for septic systems,
or poorly suited for septic systems.
(2) Septic Design Identification
Based on the soils analysis, an applicant must identify whether the proposed development will
be serviced by individual septic tanks and drain fields, or via a system of individual septic tanks
which utilize one or more communal drain fields.
(a) If individual septic tanks and drain fields can be supported by the available soils and is the
chosen methodology to serve the development, all proposed lots must be able to provide
primary and secondary drain field sites on each lot (outside of drainage and utility
easements), and must meet the minimum lot size standards outlined herein.
Commented [BGA14]: This section has undergone
extensive review by both the Planning Commission and City
Council as it completely reorganizes the City’s existing
regulations governing lot design. Based on feedback by both
bodies to date, we believe it is nearing (or is in) its final form
with the changes shown herein.
Commented [BGA15]: The City Council elected to
eliminate the super-majority vote requirement in favor of the
new review criteria in Section 154.660. It was reasoned that
the Council can elect to amend the zoning code by a simple
majority any time in the future, so maintaining it as a
component of this review wasn't necessary.
Commented [BGA16]: The language within the
comprehensive plan reads:
“Densities are allowed up to 0.45 dwelling units per
buildable acre when planned as part of an Open Space
Preservation development.”
40 acres * 0.45 d.u./acre = 18 units
Council has instructed staff to increase the permitted density
in this section to 20 units per 40 acres of buildable land.
Unfortuantely, until/unless a comprehensive plan change is
approved, we cannot amend the density in the zoning code.
Staff will follow this ordinance up with a second clean-up
ordinance once the comp plan change has been implemented.
Commented [BGA17]: Requiring a developer to analyze
soils followed by choosing a septic design will actually
achieve the City’s goal of ensuring proper septic design
drives developments.
Commented [BGA18]: The Planning Commission
recommended the City consider adopting a minimum
number of units before a community septic system can be
used. The matter was raised with the City Council, but
Council would like to rely on the City Engineer to provide
recommendations on proper system design, and Council
would ultimately need to make the policy decision on
whether to allow community systems on a case-by-case
basis.
Page 8 of 27
(b) If individual septic tanks which utilize a communal drain field (or fields) is the chosen
methodology to serve the development, then the location(s) for communal drain fields shall
be identified within the area(s) deemed the most suitable on the site for supporting septic
utilities according to the soils analysis. All such areas shall be clearly denoted on provided
plan sets.
(3) Identification of Required Buffers
No build zones from each property boundary shall be derived as follows:
(a) A two-hundred (200) foot buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut an existing
residential development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open
space planned unit development due to insufficient parcel area.
(b) A one-hundred (100) foot buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut land that is
eligible for future development as an open space planned unit development.
(c) If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required
buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development [see
§ 154.035(B)].
(4) Identification of Preferred Building Pad Locations
Building pad locations [up to the maximum number of units permitted by 154.657(A)] which
preserve natural topography and drainageways (in as much as possible), minimizes tree loss,
protects historic sites or structures, and limits the need for soil removal and/or grading shall
then be identified. The orientation of individual building sites shall strive to maintain
maximum natural topography and ground cover.
(a) Building pads shall be located outside of required buffers, and shall be scited so as to
provide ample room for accessory structures on future lots.
(b) If individual septic tanks and drain fields for each lot are to be utilized, locations for
primary and secondary facilities for each proposed building pad shall also be identified.
Generalized locations for such may be shown during the PUD Sketch Plan phase, but all
such sites must be verified as being viable as a component of PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(c) If individual septic tanks utilizing communal drain fields is intended, the plan must clearly
identify which communal drain field will service each of the proposed building pads.
(5) Placement of Streets
(a) Streets shall then be designed and located in such a manner as to:
i. Maintain and preserve natural topography, groundcover, significant landmarks, and
trees;
ii. Minimize cut and fill;
iii. Preserve and enhance both internal and external views and vistas;
iv. Promote road safety;
v. Assure adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles; and
Commented [BGA19]: This language has been amended
to the three provisions shown since the Planning
Commission's last review of this language per Council's
direction.
Commented [BGA20]: We slightly amended this language
to state the full 100 foot buffer is only needed adjacent to
land that could develop as another OP in the future.
Subsection (c) then handles all buffers from existing or
approved OP developments.
Note that deviations to these buffer standards may be
approved by Council using the review criteria in Section
154.660. Within this new framework, Council will now ask
whether “the overall design provides appropriate solutions to
eliminate adverse impacts” when considering buffer
reductions, and/or when determining what can be done
within buffers (a detail that can be specifically written into
the overlay district ordinance governing the lots being
created).
Commented [SW21]: PC wanted stronger language
removing the "as much as possible" type wording.
Commented [BGA22]: As a primary step in lot design, we
will be requiring the developer to identify general locations
that can accommodate primary and secondary septic sites if
the lots are to contain their own systems. Detailed
information would be needed during the Preliminary Plan
stage.
Page 9 of 27
vi. Assure and promote adequate vehicular circulation both within the development and
with adjacent neighborhoods.
(b) The design of streets and the dedication of right-of-way shall be in compliance with the
City’s standard plates and specifications as may be amended.
(c) Streets shall not encroach into a required buffer area unless it can be demonstrated that
such an alignment is necessary to achieve the goals outlined above, and that no equivalent
option exists outside of the buffer. Driving surfaces that cross the buffer area at a 90 degree
angle to provide current or future access to an adjacent property or boundary road shall be
the only exception.
(6) Lot Creation
Based on the street location(s), building pad locations, and septic system location(s); lines to
delineate individual lots shall then be identified in accordance with the following:
(a) Lots
i. Single-family lots being served by individual septic tanks and drain fields shall be a
minimum of one (1) acre in size;
ii. Single-family lots being served by individual septic tanks utilizing communal drain
fields shall be a minimum of 1/2 acre (21,780 square feet) in size;
iii. All land reserved for Communal septic system use shall be located within a dedicated
Outlot to be owned by the homeowners association (HOA) of the development.
iv. Base lots for townhomes shall be large enough such that individual unit lots can meet
all required structure setbacks contained herein.
(b) Buildable Area to be Shown
Buildable area on each proposed lot shall be shown. Buildable area shall exclude land
within the following areas:
i. Required buffers from adjacent lands [see § 154.035(B)]
ii. Wetlands and required wetland buffers;
iii. Required setbacks from waterbodies and non-buildable land per Shoreland district
regulations [see Article XIX] ;
iv. Steep slopes;
v. Drainage swales, stormwater ponds, and other association owned and maintained
stormwater management facilities;
vi. Easements; and
Commented [BGA23]: Rather than list allowable ROW
widths and paved street widths, staff is recommending
simply referring to the City’s standard plates and
specifications. Again, if deviations are requested, the PUD
review criteria will guide Council as to whether such
deviations are warranted.
We elected to stay silent on how signage can or cannot be
used (i.e. no parking signs) to allow Council to make
individual determinations depending upon the circumstances.
Sign design and specifications should be in conformance
with the City's adopted sign standards rather than relisting
such standards here.
Commented [SW24]: PC asked why this was needed.
This would be required anyway, but Staff pointed out this is
a change from the old code, so this clarifies the new
direction. Ben can decide if this is needed or not.
Commented [BGA25]: We have amended this language to
reinstitute the existing minimum lot sizes of one acre and
one-half acre depending upon the septic system approach
being used.
Commented [SW26]: PC was concerned that "buildable
area" has two meanings, one for calculating density and one,
as in this case, buildable area on the lot. PC is looking to
reword this to differentiate the two meanings, i.e., (Not for
density calculation) or similar language.
Commented [BGA27]: This language was clarified to
ensure developers understood what constituted buildable
land on each lot.
Commented [SW28]: The city likes to take ownership of
stormwater ponding areas. should this be amended?
Commented [SW29]: This list, i-vi, may not apply to
individual lots. Wetland buffers are requred to be outside of
individual lots, storm ponds tend to be city owned, not in
lots. HOA owned and maintained facilities would not be on
individual lots and would not be buildable.
Page 10 of 27
vii. Land within the following setbacks:
HOUSING TYPE
Single Family Homes Townhomes
Front Yard 30 20
Side Yard 15 feet or 10% of lot width
Corner Lot Front Yard 30
Corner Lot Side Yard 30
Rear Yard 20
Well from Septic Tank 50
viii. Proposed buildable area on each lot shall be sufficient to accommodate primary and
accessory structures that are normal and customary to the type of development being
proposed.
(7) Open Space and Parkland Adjustments
(a) Open Space
i. The total preserved open space area within an open space planned unit development
shall be no less than 50% of the total gross land area, as defined by § 11.01. If this
threshold is not achieved after following the first six steps of lot design, the proposed
lot areas will need to be adjusted or lots eliminated until this requirement is met.
ii. Not less than 60% of the preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which
are five (5) or more acres in size.
iii. Preserved open space parcels shall be contiguous with preserved open space or public
park land on adjacent parcels.
(b) Parkland
i. Parks and recreational facilities shall be provided in addition to preserved open space
as specified in the Lake Elmo Parks Plan.
ii. Determination of whether a land or cash dedication will be required to fulfil parkland
requirements will be at the discretion of the City Council, with direction to be provided
as a component of PUD Sketch Plan review. If a required parkland dedication causes
overall open space to drop below the minimum threshold, the proposed lot areas will
need to be adjusted or lots eliminated until the open space requirement is once again
met.
iii. Any dedication shall be consistent with the dedication and fee-in-lieu standards
specified in Chapter 153.
Commented [SW30]: PC wants well and septic tank
pulled from the table and listed as a separate item. the
setback for wells would be 50' from any septic tank. should
it read well from septic field also?
Commented [BGA31]: The overall seven (7) step design
process we have laid out now both emphasizes what is
important to the City while recognizing and embracing how
a developer will approach the site anyway.
At this final step, the developer may need to shrink lot sizes
or eliminate lots to meet open space and parkland
requirements.
Commented [BGA32]: The open space provisions are
existing requirements. The City Council was asked to
provide feedback on the occasional thin strips of land that
are used to connect open space areas, but in general there
was no opposition to the concept and it was felt that such
proposals should be judged on a case by case basis rather
than requiring a minimum width.
Commented [BGA33]: The current standard in code is
60% of the dedicated open space must be in contiguous
parcels that are at least 1/4 of the minimum land area needed
for OP development (i.e. 40 acres minimum requires that
60% of the open space be in contiguous parcels of at least 10
acres). As the minimum land area has been reduced from 40
acres to 20 acres, we have adjusted the "contiguous parcel"
size down accordingly.
Page 11 of 27
§ 154.658 OPEN SPACE PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Open space PUDs shall comply with all of the following development standards unless modifications are
authorized by the City Council at the time of PUD Sketch Plan review. Authorization of such modifications
resulting from a PUD Sketch Plan review shall not be construed as approvals for the change(s), but rather
as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of the plan during the PUD Preliminary
Plan review.
(1) Preserved Open Space Standards
(a) All preserved open space within an open space planned unit development shall be subject
to a conservation easement and used for the purposes listed in § 154.650.
(b) Preserved open space land shall be controlled in one or more of following manners as
determined at the sole discretion of the City Council:
i. Owned by an individual or legal entity who will use the land for preserved open space
purposes as provided by permanent conservation restrictions (in accordance with M.S.
Ch. 84C.01-.05, as it may be amended from time to time), to an acceptable land trust
as approved by the city; and/or
ii. Conveyed by conservation easement to the city.
(c) Preserved open space land shall be maintained for the purposes for which it was set aside.
If preserved open space was set aside for agricultural purposes or for natural habitat, a
plan shall be submitted which will indicate how the land will be maintained or returned to
a natural state and who will be responsible for plan implementation. Developers shall
provide copies of common interest community (CIC) declarations to prospective
purchasers, and conservation easements to the city, describing land management practices
to be followed by the party or parties responsible for maintaining the preserved open
space.
(d) Where applicable, a Common Interest Community association shall be established to
permanently maintain all residual open space and recreational facilities. The Common
Interest Community association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and
giving lien right to the city if there is lack of the maintenance shall be submitted to the
city as part of the documentation requirements of § 154.661(3) for an open space PUD
Final Plan.
(2) Septic System Design Standards
(a) In General
The placement and design of all septic systems shall conform to the requirements of
Washington County.
(b) Individual Septic Drain fields
Sites for individual septic drain fields, both primary and secondary, must be located
entirely within each lot and cannot be located within any easement.
Commented [BGA34]: While Section 154.657 lays out the
regulations that dictate how a development is laid out,
Section 154.658 tells the applicant how the development
must be constructed and improved.
Here again we maintain the city’s existing development
standards for open space developments (i.e. regulating open
space, septic systems, building standards, landscaping
standards, impervious surface standards, and trail standards).
Commented [BGA35]: Again, the super-majority vote
was eliminated in favor of new review criteria in Section
154.660
Commented [SW36]: The PC initally wanted a third party
land trust to hold all easements and wanted ii. struck from
the Code. The discussion continued, such that at some point
a minimum 5 acre open space may not be desired by the land
trust and the city might need to be the easement holder. The
PC discussion was whether an OP development should be
approved if a land trust was unwilling to accept an easement.
The PC wants the city to only be the holder of conservation
easements as a last resort. For item i and ii, the PC wanted
clarification of the correct wording. In both i and ii, should
the easements be "conveyed" - the language should be
consistent.
Commented [SW37]: would the city/or land trust accept a
storm pond area as open space with a conservation easement,
or would this area be excluded from preserved open space
calculations?
Commented [BGA38]: The Planning Commission would
like the City Attorney to provide guidance on proper lien
language to protect against community septic systems from
failing, and an HOA that is unwilling or unable to act.
Commented [BGA39]: Septic language now refers to
Washington County as they oversee the City's on-site
systems & permitting.
Commented [BGA40]: This new requirements would
mandate that all individual septic systems be located on
private property.
Page 12 of 27
(c) Communal Drain Fields.
i. Communal drain fields may be partially or completely located in an area designated as
preserved open space provided the ground cover is restored to its natural condition
after installation, and recreational uses are prohibited above or within 50 feet of
communal drain fields or as approved by the City Engineer.
ii. Communal drain fields, if installed, shall be professionally maintained, and are
acceptable once legally sufficient documentation has been provided by the developer
to ensure such maintenance will continue in perpetuity.
(3) Building Standards
(a) Principal structures within open space planned unit developments shall not exceed 2 and
½ stories or 35 feet in height.
(b) Accessory structures within open space planned unit developments shall not exceed 22
feet in height.
(c) It is desired that the structures within neighborhoods convey a particular architectural
style with similar building components, materials, roof pitches. The PUD Overlay
ordinance crafted for each individual development should establish minimum
architectural standards for the neighborhood.
(4) Landscaping Standards
(a) A landscape plan for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per
building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches
above grade level.
(b) Boulevard landscaping is required along all streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every
30 feet or placed in clusters at the same ratio.
(5) Impervious Surface Standards
The maximum impervious surface allowable within an open space planned unit development
shall be 20% of the land area not dedicated as preserved open space subject to the following:
(a) Impervious surfaces created by roads, trails, and other planned impervious improvements
shall count against the maximum allowed impervious coverage.
(b) Remaining allowed impervious surface acreage may be distributed between the planned
building sites, and maximums for each lot shall be clearly documented within the overlay
district ordinance governing the development.
(c) On individual lots, areas covered by pervious pavers or comparable systems may receive
a 25% credit against the lot’s hardcover if the system is installed consistent with the City
of Lake Elmo Engineering Standards Manual, and adequate storm water mitigation
measures (as may be necessary) are installed to mitigate potential runoff created by the
additional coverage above the allowed impervious surface threshold. All such credits
shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer.
Commented [BGA41]: Existing language regarding
wetland treatment systems has been eliminated as directed
by the City Council. The new ordinance will be silent on
such systems, and Engineering will be asked for guidance if
such a system is proposed in the future.
Commented [BGA42]: The Planning Commission
questioned whether we should specifically exclude historic
structures from this requirement. Both staff and the City
Council agree that no such exclusion is necessary. Historic
structures taller than 22 feet would be legal nonconforming
structures subject to protections of State Statute.
Commented [BGA43]: As directed, the optional
landscaping standards staff offered for consideration have
been eliminated in favor of the existing standards.
Commented [BGA44]: Staff did not recommend changes
to the existing language as it seemingly has been working.
This should be monitored though and updated if problems
are encountered.
Page 13 of 27
(6) Trail Standards
A trail system or sidewalks shall be established within open space planned unit developments
in accordance with the following:
(a) The linear footage of trails provided shall be at least equal in length to the sum of the
centerline length of all public roads within the development.
(b) All trails shall be constructed of asphalt or concrete in compliance with the standard city
design plate for trails.
(c) Proposed trails shall provide connections between and access to the buildable land areas
and preserved open space land being created by the development.
(d) Proposed trails shall connect to existing, planned, or anticipated trails or roads on
adjacent parcels.
(e) If applicable, trails shall be linked (or be designed to provide a future link) to the “Old
Village” to emphasize the connection between existing and new development.
§ 154.659 Reserved
§ 154.660 OPEN SPACE PUD REVIEW CRITERIA
The following findings shall be made by the City Council prior to approval of a new or amended open space
planned unit development:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) All prerequisites for an open space PUD as outlined in § 154.655 are met.
(3) All open space PUD design standards (as outlined in § 154.657) and all open s pace
development standards (as outlined in § 154.658) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that
all such deviations are supported because:
a. The deviation(s) allow for higher quality building and site design that will enhance
aesthetics of the site;
b. The deviation(s) help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries
by ensuring one or more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features,
and/or efficient use of utilities;
c. The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that
proposed deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
(4) If the proposed PUD involves construction over two or more phases, the applicant has
demonstrated that each phase is capable of being a stand-alone development independent of
other phases.
Commented [BGA45]: The “pathway” standards that are
currently lumped into a single paragraph are now broken
apart in this new ordinance. We are not recommending
incorporation of specific standards as the City should rely on
its standard engineering plates to identify how trails will fit
into available roadway designs.
Commented [BGA46]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 3
Commented [BGA47]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 4
Commented [BGA48]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 1
Commented [BGA49]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 1
Commented [BGA50]: From current Section
150.180(B)(2)(f), sentence 2
Commented [BGA51]: When the Zoning code is
eventually reorganized, this Section will likely be relocated
to a more appropriate location in Chapter 154, but for now it
is included here.
Commented [BGA52]: This section lists the questions the
City will ask when reviewing these types of developments.
These criteria have been updated since the last review by
Council in response to the super-majority vote for deviations
being removed.
Rather than keeping such decision-making open-ended, we
are proposing a set of criteria (in subdivision 3) by which
Council may judge proposed deviations:
1) Do the deviations allow for a quality design that
enhances the aesthetics of the site?
2)Do the deviations help to tie the development together to
achieve one or more of the listed benefits?
3)Does the site design include appropriate solutions to
mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed deviation?
By including a framework for decision making on
deviations, we eliminate some of the subjectivity that can
arise as PUDs are reviewed. Additional criteria can be added
as Council may see fit.
We have also added subdivision 4 which introduces a new
review criteria requiring that phased developments result in
pieces that can stand-alone should the development go belly-
up prior to completion.
Commented [SW53]: Code was not clear if all three
criteria need to be met. The PC thinks all three should be
met for a deviation.
Page 14 of 27
§ 154.661 OPEN SPACE PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE
All requests to establish an open space Planned Unit Development shall be initiated by following the
steps below.
(1) Open Space PUD Sketch Plan
(a) Purpose
The open space PUD Sketch Plan is the first step in the development process which gives
the applicant an opportunity to present their ideas to the City Council and public so as to
gain general feedback on areas that will require additional analysis, study, design,
changes, etc. Feedback gained during the open space PUD Sketch Plan phase should be
addressed within the subsequent PUD Preliminary Plan.
(b) Specific open space PUD Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Sketch Plan.
1. A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s)
of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and
any other relevant associates;
2. A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and
square feet and current legal description(s);
3. A narrative explaining the applicant’s proposed objectives for the open space PUD, a
listing of the proposed modifications from standard in § 154.657 and § 154.658 as
may be applicable, and an explanation of how the proposal addresses the PUD review
criteria in § 154.660.
4. A listing of general information including the following:
a. Number of proposed residential units.
b. Calculation of the proposed density of the project showing compliance with §
154.657(A).
c. A listing of all proposed land uses (i.e. preserved open space, buildable sites,
parkland, etc).
d. Square footages of land dedicated to each proposed land use.
Commented [BGA54]: This lengthy section outlines the
process to be used to review open space PUDs from
beginning to end. In general, this current draft follows the
standard City platting process with specific PUD
requirements thrown in.
Boiled down to its core, the review will require a sketch plan
proposal, a preliminary plan, and then a final plan. The
developer open houses considered at the beginning of this
process have been eliminated.
Page 15 of 27
5. An existing conditions exhibit, including topography, that identifies the location of
the following environmental features along with calculations (in acres) for each:
a. Gross site acreage;
b. Existing wetlands;
c. Existing woodlands;
d. Areas with slopes greater than 12%, but less than 25%;
e. Areas with slopes of 25% or greater;
f. Woodlands;
g. Other pertinent land cover(s).
6. An open space PUD Sketch Plan illustrating the nature of the proposed development.
At a minimum, the plan should show:
a. Existing zoning district(s) on the subject land and all adjacent parcels;
b. Layout of proposed lots and proposed uses denoting Outlots planned for public
dedication and/or preserved open space;
c. Area calculations for each parcel;
d. General location of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property and within
200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel;
e. Location of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the
subdivision parcel;
f. Proposed sidewalks and trails;
g. Proposed parking areas;
h. General location of wooded areas or significant features (environmental,
historical, cultural) of the parcel;
i. Location of utility systems that will serve the property;
j. Calculations for the following:
i. Gross land area (in acres);
ii. Number of proposed residential units.
iii. Proposed density of the project showing compliance with § 154.657(A).
iv. Acreage & square footage of land dedicated to each proposed land use (i.e.
preserved open space, buildable sites, parkland, etc).
v. Acreage & square footage of land proposed for public road right-of-way;
vi. Acreage & square footage of land dedicated to drainage ways and ponding
areas;
vii. Acreage & square footage of land for Trails and/or sidewalks (if outside of
proposed road right-of-way);
Page 16 of 27
k. Other: An applicant may submit any additional information that may explain the
proposed PUD or support any requests for modifications (i.e. a landscaping plan
to support the lessening or elimination of an otherwise required buffer).
7. The outline of a conceptual development schedule indicating the approximate date
when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and
be completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public
improvements and recreational & common space areas).
8. A statement of intent to establish a Common Interest Community association with
bylaws and deed restrictions to include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Ownership, management, and maintenance of defined preserved open space;
b. Maintenance of public and private utilities; and
c. General architectural guidelines for principal and accessory structures.
9. If applicable, a historic preservation plan for any historic structures on the site shall
be submitted.
(c) Open Space PUD Sketch Plan Proposal Review
1. Planning Commission
a. Upon receiving an open space PUD Sketch Plan proposal, the City shall schedule
a date upon which the Planning Commission will review the proposal.
b. Upon completing their review, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and
recommendations on the proposed open space PUD as soon as practical.
c. The Director of Planning may forward an application to the City Council without
a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary
to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review.
2. City Council
a. The City Council may listen to comments on the proposed development if they
deem such necessary prior to discussing the proposed open space PUD Sketch
plan.
b. After consideration of the Director of Planning’s recommendation, the Planning
Commission recommendation, and any publicthe comments received at the
public hearing, the City Council may comment on the merit of the request,
needed changes, and suggested conditions that the proposer should adhere to with
any future application.
c. For each of the identified modifications to the minimum standards outlined in
§ 154.657 and § 154.658, the City Council shall take a vote to instruct the
applicant as to whether the modification can be pursued as a component of the
PUD Preliminary Plan review.
Commented [BGA55]: The need for a sketch plan public
hearing before the Planning Commission was eliminated by
the City Council.
Commented [SW56]: No public hearing at Sketch Plan
phase
Commented [BGA57]: Under this process, Council would
take individual votes on each modification proposed by the
applicant. Approval at this stage ONLY authorizes the
applicant to make the request at the Preliminary stage; it
does NOT grant any rights to the modification. Again,
modifications can only be pursued IF Council allows such
via a super majority vote.
Page 17 of 27
(d) Effect of a PUD Sketch Plan Review
1. The City Council and Planning Commission’s comments during the PUD Sketch
Plan review are explicitly not an approval or denial of the project, and are intended
only to provide information for the applicant to consider prior to application for an
open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
2. Proposed modifications that receive a majority vote of support from Council may be
requested as part of the future PUD Preliminary Plan application, but support to
pursue the modification as part of the PUD Sketch Plan in no way guarant ees that the
modification will be approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan.
(e) Limitation of Approval
The City Council’s review of an open space PUD Sketch Plan shall remain valid for a
period of six (6) months. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the validity
of their findings for an additional year.
(2) PUD Preliminary Plan
(a) Prerequisite
No application for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan will be accepted unless an
applicant’s proposal is distinctly similar proposal to one reviewed in thehas completed
the open space PUD Sketch Plan review process which is valid upon the date of
application.
(b) PUD Preliminary Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
1. All required information for a preliminary plat per Chapter 1102, § 1102.01(C) and §
1102.02.
2. A separate open space PUD Preliminary Plan which includes the following
information:
a. Administrative information (including identification of the drawing as an “Open
Space PUD Preliminary Plan,” the proposed name of the project, contact
information for the developer and individual preparing the plan, signature of the
surveyor and civil engineer certifying the document, date of plan preparation or
revision, and a graphic scale and north arrow);
b. Area calculations for gross land area, wetland areas, right-of-way dedications,
and proposed public and private parks or open space;
c. Existing zoning district(s) on the subject land and all adjacent parcels;
d. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers. The perimeter
boundary line of the subdivision should be distinguishable from the other
property lines. Denote Outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space
(schools, parks, etc.);
Commented [BGA58]: This subsection clarifies
EXACTLY what a developer gets as a result of the sketch
plan process.
Commented [BGA59]: Sketch Plan reviews may remain
valid for up to 1.5 years.
Commented [BGA60]: The City will not accept a
preliminary plan application unless a valid sketch plan is in
place.
Commented [SW61]: PC wants this reworded similar to
the suggested edit.
Page 18 of 27
e. The location of proposed septic disposal area(s);
f. Area calculations for each parcel;
g. Proposed setbacks on each lot (forming the building pad) and calculated
buildable area;
h. Proposed gross hardcover allowance per lot (if applicable);
i. Existing contours at intervals of two feet. Contours must extend a minimum of
200 feet beyond the boundary of the parcel(s) in question;
j. Delineation of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property;
k. Delineation of the ordinary high water levels of all water bodies;
l. Location, width, and names of existing and proposed streets within and
immediately adjacent to the subdivision parcel;
m. Easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the subdivision parcel(s);
n. The location and orientation of proposed buildings;
o. Proposed sidewalks and trails;
p. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimension for all driveways,
parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes,
emergency access, if necessary, public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike
paths, direction of traffic flow and traffic control devices;
q. Lighting location, style and mounting and light distribution plan.
r. Proposed parks, common areas, and preservation easements (indicate public vs.
private if applicable);
s. Location, access and screening detail of large trash handling and recycling
collection areas
3. Colored renderings which detail the building materials being used and clearly
communicate the look and design of the proposed building(s);
5.4. A grading drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered professional
engineer providing all information as required by Public Works, the City Engineer,
and/or the Director of Planning;
6.5. A utility plan providing all information as required by Public Works, the City
Engineer, and/or the Director of Planning;
7.6. Results of deep soil test pits and percolation tests, at the rate of no fewer than 2
successful test results for each proposed septic disposal area;
8.7. The location and detail of signage providing all pertinent information necessary to
determine compliance with § 154.212;
9.8. A tree preservation plan as required by § 154.257;
10.9. A landscape plan, including preliminary sketches of how the landscaping will
Commented [SW62]: PC feels this is more of a
Commercial PUD requirement
Page 19 of 27
look, prepared by a qualified professional providing all information outlined in §
154.258;
11.10. A traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation
from the site at full development, and the effect of such traffic on the level of service
of nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements;
12.11. A plan sheet or narrative clearly delineating all features being modified from
standard open space PUD regulations;
13.12. Common Interest Community Association documents including bylaws, deed
restrictions, covenants, and proposed conservation easements.
14.13. Any other information as directed by the Director of Planning.
(c) PUD Preliminary Plan Review
1. As part of the review process for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan, the Director
of Planning shall generate an analysis of the proposal against the expectations for
PUDs, and make a recommendation regarding the proposed overlay district for
Planning Commission and City Council consideration.
2. The Director of Planning shall prepare a draft ordinance to establish the potential
overlay district to be established as a component of the PUD Final Plan.
3. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and consider the application’s
consistency with the goals for PUDs, the PUD review criteria, and applicable
comprehensive plan goals. The Planning Commission shall make recommendations
to the City Council on the merit, needed changes, and suggested conditions to impose
on the PUD.
4. In approving or denying the PUD Preliminary Plan, the City Council shall make
findings on the PUD review criteria outlined in § 154.660.
5. As a condition of PUD Preliminary Plan approval; finalization, adoption, and
publication of an overlay district ordinance shall need to occur prior to the filing of
any future final plat.
(d) Effect of a PUD Preliminary Plan Review
Preliminary Plan approval governs the preparation of the PUD Final Plan which must be
submitted for final approval in accordance with the requirements of this Article.
(e) Limitation of Approval
The City Council’s review of an open space PUD Preliminary Plan shall remain valid for
a period of one (1) year. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the validity
of their findings for an additional year.
Commented [BGA63]: Rather than allowing the applicant
to draft an overlay district, we are proposing that staff begin
the process at preliminary plan. The cost for this work will
need to be incorporated into the fee for a Preliminary Plan
application.
Note that staff will ONLY be creating a draft now for
feedback and direction. The actual code language will be
reviewed during the Final Plan phase.
Commented [BGA64]: This subsection clarifies
EXACTLY what a developer gets as a result of the
Preliminary Plan process.
Commented [BGA65]: Preliminary Plan approvals may
remain valid for up to 2.0 years.
Page 20 of 27
(3) PUD Final Plan
(a) Application Deadline
Application for an open space PUD Final Plan shall be submitted for approval within
ninety (90) days of City Council approval of the open space PUD Preliminary Plan unless
a written request for a time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the
City Council.
(b) PUD Final Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Final Plan.
1. All required information for a final plat per City Code § 153.08;
2. All required PUD Preliminary Plan documents, other than the preliminary plat, shall
be updated to incorporate and address all conditions of PUD Preliminary Plan
approval.
3. Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and
bylaws of any proposed homeowners’ association or other documents or contracts
which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD.
4. A final staging plan, if staging is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence and
timing of development, including the estimated start and completion date for each
stage.
5. Up-to-date title evidence for the subject property in a form acceptable to the Director
of Planning.
6. Warranty deeds for Property being dedicated to the City for all parks, Outlots, etc.,
free from all liens and encumbrances.
7. All easement dedication documents for easements not shown on the final plat
including those for trails, ingress/egress, buffer establishment, etc., together with all
necessary consents to the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property.
8. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Planning to fully present
the intention and character of the open space PUD.
9. If certain land areas or structures within the open space PUD are designated for
recreational use, public plazas, open areas or service facilities, the owner of such land
and buildings shall provide a plan to the city that ensures the continued operation and
maintenance of such areas or facilities in a manner suitable to the city.
Commented [BGA66]: To ensure the process continues to
move forward, we are recommending a 90 day time-frame in
which the final plan application must be submitted.
Commented [BGA67]: Here we denote that easements
may be created to memorialize buffer areas on individual
lots.
Page 21 of 27
(c) PUD Final Plan Review
1. The Director of Planning shall generate an analysis of the final documents against the
conditions of the open space PUD Preliminary Plan approval, and make a
recommendation as to whether all conditions have been met or if additional changes
are needed.
2. Staff should once again identify any information submittals that were waived so
Council may determine if such is needed prior to making a final decision.
3. The Director of Planning shall finalize the ordinance to establish the proposed
overlay district for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
4. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed Overlay
District ordinance and open space Final PUD Plans, and shall submit a
recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Because an open space PUD
Preliminary Plan was previously approved, the Planning Commission’s
recommendation shall only focus on whether the Ordinance and open space PUD
Final Plan are in substantial compliance with the open space PUD Preliminary Plan
and the required conditions of approval.
5. The City Council shall then consider the recommendations of the Director of
Planning, the public, and the Planning Commission; and make a decision of approval
or denial, in whole or in part, on the open space PUD Final Plan. A denial shall only
be based on findings that an open space PUD Final Plan is not in substantial
compliance with the approved open space PUD Preliminary Plan and/or the required
conditions of approval.
6. As a condition of PUD Final Plan approval, publication of the overlay district
ordinance shall be required prior to filing of the approved final plat.
7. Planned Unit Development Agreement.
a. At its sole discretion, the City may as a condition of approval, require the owner
and developer of the proposed open space PUD to execute a development
agreement which may include but not be limited to all requirements of the open
space PUD Final Plan.
b. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an
irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City. The letter of credit shall be
provided by a financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the City.
The City may require that certain provisions and conditions of the development
agreement be stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an
amount sufficient to ensure the provision or development of improvement called
for by the development agreement.
8. As directed by the City, documents related to the PUD shall be recorded against the
property.
Commented [BGA68]: Unlike most platting processes, we
must hold a public hearing at this point in the process as the
City must adopt the final ordinance language that will govern
the PUD.
Page 22 of 27
(d) Time Limit
1. A Planned Unit Development shall be validated by the applicant through the
commencement of construction or establishment of the authorized use(s), subject to
the permit requirements of this Code, in support of the Planned Unit Development
within one (1) year of the date of open space PUD Final Plan approval. Failure to
meet this deadline shall render the open space PUD Final Plan approval void.
Notwithstanding this time limitation, the City Council may approve extensions of the
time allowed for validation of the Planned Unit Development approval if requested in
writing by the applicant; extension requests shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and shall identify the reason(s) why the extension is necessary along with
an anticipated timeline for validation of the Planned Unit Development.
2. An application to reinstate an open space PUD that was voided for not meeting the
required time limit shall be administered in the same manner as a new open space
PUD beginning at open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
§ 154.662 OPEN SPACE PUD AMENDMENTS
Approved open space PUDs may be amended from time to time as a result of unforeseen circumstances,
overlooked opportunities, or requests from a developer or neighborhood. At such a time, the applicant shall
make an application to the city for an open space PUD amendment.
(A) Amendments to Existing Open Space PUD Overlay District(s)
Amendments to an approved open space PUD Overlay district shall be processed as one of the
following:
(1) Administrative Amendment
The Director of Planning may approve minor changes in the location, placement, and height
of buildings if such changes are required by engineering or other circumstances, provided the
changes conform to the approved overlay district intent and are consistent with all
requirements of the open space PUD ordinance. Under no circumstances shall an
administrative amendment allow additional stories to buildings, additional lots, or changes to
designated uses established as part of the PUD. An Administrative Amendment shall be
memorialized via letter signed by the Community DevelopmentPlanning Director and
recorded against the PUD property.
(2) Ordinance Amendment
A PUD change requiring a text update to the adopted open space PUD overlay district
language shall be administered in accordance with adopted regulations for zoning code
changes in § 154.105. Ordinance amendments shall be limited to changes that are deemed by
the Director of Planning to be consistent with the intent of the original open space PUD
approval, but are technically necessary due to construction of the adopted overlay district
language.
Commented [SW69]: PC felt there should be a specific
time period specified for extensions, such as one year.
Commented [BGA70]: This section will deal with how the
City will process amendments to both open space PUDs and
existing OP developments.
Commented [SW71]: Again, this language appears to be
for a commercial PUD, not OP PUD
Page 23 of 27
(3) PUD Amendment
Any change not qualifying for an administrative amendment or an Ordinance amendment
shall require an open space PUD amendment. An application to amend an open space PUD
shall be administered in the same manner as that required for a new PUD beginning at open
space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(B) Pre-existing OP Developments
(1) Pre-existing OP developments authorized prior to [date this ordinance is effective] shall
continue to be governed per the original conditions of approval until the OP development is
cancelled by the City, or the OP development is converted to an open space PUD overlay
district.
(2) An application to amend an existing OP development shall require the development to be
converted into an open space PUD beginning at open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(a) Replatting of lots will only be required if the Director of Planning determines such is
necessary to implement the requested change.
(b) The resulting overlay zoning district shall be applied to all properties within the OP
development being amended.
§ 154.663 PUD CANCELLATION
An open space PUD shall only be cancelled and revoked upon the City Council adopting an ordinance
rescinding the overlay district establishing the PUD. Cancellation of a PUD shall include findings that
demonstrate that the PUD is no longer necessary due to changes in local regulations over time; is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other application land use regulations; threatens public safety,
health, or welfare; or other applicable findings in accordance with law.
§ 154.664 ADMINISTRATION
In general, the following rules shall apply to all open space PUDs:
(A) Rules and regulations
No requirement outlined in the open space PUD review process shall restrict the City Council from
taking action on an application if necessary to meet state mandated time deadlines;
(B) Preconstruction
No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which an open space PUD plan is
in the process of review, unless the proposed building is allowed under the existing zoning and will
not impact, influence, or interfere with the proposed open space PUD plan.
Commented [BGA72]: This section has been updated to
address pre-existing OP Developments.
Commented [BGA73]: This section outlines the process
for cancelling a previous PUD approval.
Commented [BGA74]: This section includes some final
rules and regulations deemed important by staff.
Page 24 of 27
(C) Effect on Conveyed Property
In the event that any real property in an approved open space PUD is conveyed in total, or in part,
the new owners thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the approved overlay district.
SECTION 5. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Article III: ZONING DISTRICTS, Section 154.035 OP-
Open Space Preservation District as follows:
§ 154.035 OP – OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT.
Provisions governing the OP Open Space Preservation District are codified at §§ 150.175 through
150.189.
(A) OP District Discontinued
Provisions regulating the OP Open Space Preservation District were repealed and replaced with the
regulations now in Article XVI: Open Space Planned Unit Developments.
(B) Buffer Setbacks In OP Developments
Buffer setbacks shall be applied from the edge of the existing open space preservation developments
as follows.
Buffer Setbacks in OP Developments (in feet)
North
Edge South Edge West Edge East Edge
Exception
Parcel(s)
St. Croix’s Sanctuary 200 50 50 100
Discover Crossing 200 100 50 100
Whistling Valley I 25 200 N/A N/A
Whistling Valley 1I 25 100 85 N/A
Whistling Valley III 50 100 100 N/A
Farms of Lake Elmo 100 50 100 25
Prairie Hamlet 200 50 50 100
Fields of St. Croix I 50 N/A 200 100
Fields of St. Croix 1I N/A 200 200 N/A N/A
The Homestead 50 50 200 50
Commented [BGA75]: Section 5 of this ordinance
eliminates language within the zoning ordinance that
references the old codes in Chapter 150, and provides a
home for all of the specialized setback requirements for
existing OP developments.
Page 25 of 27
Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove 50 50 200 50 100
Tamarack Farm Estates 100 100 100 100
Sunfish Ponds 100 100 100 200
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake 50 100 50 50
Cardinal Ridge 100 200 50 50
Wildflower Shoves 100 200 100 200
Heritage Farms 50 N/A N/A 50 N/A
Tana Ridge (Res. 2009-033) N/A N/A 50 50
Parkview Estates (Res. 2009-033) 50; except
Lot 9,
Block 5 use
20 ft
N/A N/A 50
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.036 as follows:
§ 154.036 OZD - OVERLAY ZONING USE DISTRICT.
The following overlay districts are designed to promote orderly development or to protect some
specific sensitive natural resources. These district regulations are in addition to, rather than in
lieu of, regulations imposed by the existing basic zoning use districts. These districts are defined
and established as follows:
A. Flood Plain – See §§ 151.01 through 151.14 of this Code;
B. Restrictive Soils Overlay District – See §§ 150.200 through 150.203 of this Code;
C. Wetland Protection and Preservation Overlay District – See §§ 150.215 through 150.219
of this Code;
D. Shoreland District – See §§ 150.250154.800 through 150.257 of this Code;
E. Interstate Corridor Overlay District – See §§ 150.230 through 150.238 of this Code; and
F. Airport (reserved).; and
F.G. Open Space Development Overlay District – See §§ 150.175 through 150.190 of this
Code
Commented [BGA76]: The final section of this ordinance
would add "Open Space Development Overlay District" to
the general list of zoning overlay districts found in code.
Formatted: Tab stops: 0.63", Left + Not at 0.38"
Page 26 of 27
SECTION 7. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.350 as follows:
§ 154.350 DIVISION INTO DISTRICTS.
A. All Areas Zoned. The incorporated areas of Lake Elmo are hereby divided into the
following zoning districts:
Table 8-1: Zoning Districts
Zoning District Reference
R-2 One and Two Family Residential 154.033
GB General Business 154.034
A Agriculture 154.400 Article XI
RR Rural Residential 154.400 Article XI
RT Rural Development Transitional 154.400 Article XI
RS Rural Single Family 154.400 Article XI
RE Residential Estate 154.400 Article XI
OP Open Space Preservation 150.175
LDR Urban Low Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
MDR Urban Medium Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
HDR Urban High Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
VMX Village Center - Mixed Use 154.500 Article XIII
C Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
CC Convenience Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
LC Neighborhood Office/Limited Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
BP Business Park/Light Manufacturing 154.550 Article XIV
P PF Civic/Public Public Facilities 154.600 Article XV
OSP Open Space and Parks 154.600
OP-A Open Space Preservation - Alternative Density 154.700
Page 27 of 27
SECTION 8. Adoption Date
This Ordinance No. xx-xxx was adopted on this ______ day of July 2016, by a vote of ___ Ayes
and ___ Nays.
_________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kristina Handt
City Administrator
This Ordinance No xx-xxx was published on the ____ day of _____________________, 2016.
Page 1 of 26
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL EXISTING OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 150, ADOPT NEW OPEN SPACE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 154, AND TO
IMPLEMENT REFERENCE UPDATES IN CHAPTER 154
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 150: General Provisions, by repealing all Open Space Preservation
regulations contained in Sections 150.175 through 150.190.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 150: General Provisions, by adding the following language after Section
150.160, Review and Revocation:
Sections 150.161 through 150.199 -- RESERVED
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, to implement needed reference updates as follows:
Articles I and II are restated and incorporated herein unchanged.
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Zoning Districts,” containing sections 154.030 through
154.036, is hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for the title which is amended
to read: “Article III – Zoning Districts”
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Additional Regulations and Modifications,” containing
sections 154.080 through 154.083, is hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for
the title which is amended to read: “Article IV – Additional Regulations and Modifications”
Current Articles III (3) through XIII (13) containing sections 154.100 through 154.600, are hereby
restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for their Article numbers which are amended to
read Articles V (5) through XV (15)
Current Article XIV (14) containing section 154.700 is hereby restated and incorporated herein
unchanged except for its Article number which is amended to read Article XVII (17)
152
Page 2 of 26
Current Articles XVI (16) through XVII (17) containing sections 154.750 through 154.800, are
hereby restated and incorporated herein unchanged except for their Article numbers which are
amended to read Articles XVIII (18) through XIX (19)
The currently un-numbered Article entitled “Design and Performance Standards – Restrictions on
Nuisance and Hazardous Activities,” containing sections 154.900 through 154.999, is hereby restated
and incorporated herein unchanged except for the title which is amended to read: “Article XX –
Design and Performance Standards – Restrictions on Nuisance and Hazardous Activities”
Current Section 154.106(A)(4) is amended as follows: “The proposed use meets all specific
development standards for such use listed in Article 7 Article 9 of this Chapter”
Current Section 154.106(E)(1) is amended as follows: “The conditions shall include all specific
development standards for such use listed in Article 7 Article 9 of this Chapter”
Current Section 154.202 is amended as follows: “Permits are required for all changes in use and all
development activities, with the exception of signs, in compliance with the standards of Article 3,
Administration. Signs shall require a sign permit in compliance with Section 151.115 and Article 3.”
which shall be governed by the specific requirements of Section 154.212 as may be applicable.”
Current Section 154.210(D)(6) is amended as follows: “Landscaping and Screening. Parking areas
shall be screened and landscaped as provided in Article 6 Article 8, Section 154.258”
Current Section 154.305(B)(6) is amended as follows: “Screening of Storage Areas. The storage or
display of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles not awaiting service as in subsection (B4) or other
equipment, and all trash storage or disposal facilities, shall meet all setback requirements of a
structure, and shall be screened from view from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential
properties. Screening shall meet the requirements of Article 6 Article 8, Section 154.258.”
Current Section 154.404(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the rural districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9. The
following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district.”
Current Section 154.408(E)(1) is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures
that are permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7
Article 9, Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day
care, bed and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and
solar equipment.”
Page 3 of 26
Current Section 154.454(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the urban residential districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation,
landscape design, parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles
7, 8, and 9. The following standards apply to specific uses, and are organized by district.”
Current Section 154.459 is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures that are
permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7 Article 9,
Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed
and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and solar
equipment.”
Current Section 154.504(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the VMX District shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9.”
Current Section 154.505(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the VMX district shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape design,
parking, signs and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9. The
following standards apply to specific uses; other standards related to design and building type may be
found at §154.506.”
Current Section 154.510 is amended as follows: “Standards for accessory uses and structures that are
permitted in all districts, or in all residential buildings in any district, are listed in Article 7 Article 9,
Specific Development Standards. These include uses such as family and group family day care, bed
and breakfast facilities, and home occupations, and structures such as swimming pools and solar
equipment.”
Current Section 154.553(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Development of land
within the commercial districts shall follow established standards for traffic circulation, landscape
design, and other considerations as specified in Articles 5, 6 and 7 Articles 7, 8, and 9.”
Current Section 154.554(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “The following standards
apply to specific uses allowed within the Commercial Districts. Other specific use standards are
located in Article 7 Article 9.”
Current Section 154.752(introductory paragraph) is amended as follows: “Uses within the PUD may
include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land use category shown for
the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance
standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD
development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses
with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in the list of uses approved in the
development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD, and will follow the procedures
specified in Article 35, Section 154.105 , Administration, for zoning amendments.”
Page 4 of 26
Current Article XVII, renumbered to Article XIX by this ordinance, is hereby restated and
incorporated herein unchanged except for its hierarchy of sections references which shall be amended
to follow the following subsection hierarchy:
Section Number. Section Title
A. Subsection
B. Subsection
C. Subsection
1.Subsection
2.Subsection
3.Subsection
a.Subsection
b.Subsection
c.Subsection
i.Subsection
ii.Subsection
iii.Subsection
Current Section 154.800(c)(O), changed to 154.800(L) as part of the subsection hierarchy update
above, is amended as follows: “Residential planned unit developments shall be permitted in
shoreland areas subject to the requirements of Article XVI Article XVIII of this chapter.” All
subsections of 154.800(L) are restated and incorporated herein unchanged.
SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, to add Article XVI: OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS
Article XVI: OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
§ 154.650 PURPOSE.
The purpose of open space planned unit developments is to provide greater development flexibility within
rural portions of the community while maintaining the rural character by preserving agricultural land,
woodlands, wildlife or natural corridors, pollinator & wildlife habitat, and other significant natural features
consistent with the goals and objectives of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The City reserves the right to
deny establishment of an open space PUD overlay district and direct a developer to re-apply under standard
zoning provisions if it is determined that proposed benefits of the open space PUD do not justify the
requested flexibilities.
Page 5 of 26
§ 154.651 INTENT.
It is the intent of the City of Lake Elmo that open space planned unit developments will offer needed
development flexibility within the Agricultural, Rural Residential, and Rural Estate zoning districts to
provide for:
(A) A variety of lot configurations and housing styles that may not otherwise exist within the City’s rural
areas;
(B) An avenue to provide a development density equal to or greater than what could be achieved via
underlying zoning;
(C) A reduction in the costs to construct and maintain public facilities and infrastructure in a rural setting;
(D) Protected open space to enhance and preserve the natural character of the community; and
(E) The creation of distinct neighborhoods that are interconnected within rural areas.
§ 154.652 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined in Article II, common definitions, words, and phrases used in this Article shall
be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage throughout this code and
as may be found in § 11.01.
§154.653 INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS.
The owner of property on which an open space PUD is proposed shall file the applicable application for a
PUD by paying the fee(s) set forth in § 11.02 of this Code and submitting a completed application form and
supporting documents as set forth on the application form and within this Section. Complete applications
shall be reviewed by City Commissions as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and be acted upon
by the City Council. If a proposed PUD is denied, any subsequent application for a substantially similar
PUD within one (1) year of the date of denial shall fully address all findings which supported the denial
prior to being accepted as complete.
§154.654 REFLECTION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
(A) PUD provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility from
standard regulating provisions. Establishment of a PUD shall require adoption of an ordinance
creating an overlay zoning district atop the boundaries of the development area. For each PUD
District, a specific ordinance shall be adopted establishing all rules which shall supersede underlying
zoning. Issues not specifically addressed by the PUD Overlay district shall be governed by the
underlying zoning district regulations.
(B) All Open Space Preservation developments approved prior to [date of ordinance publication] shall
be allowed to continue per the original conditions of approval.
Page 6 of 26
§154.655 PREREQUISITES FOR OPEN SPACE PUDs.
(A) Only land zoned as Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Rural Estate may be considered for
establishment of an open space planned unit development.
(B) The minimum land area for establishment of an open space planned unit development is a nominal
contiguous twenty (20) acres.
(C) Establishment of an open space planned unit development will be considered only for areas of land
in single ownership or control. Alternatively, multiple party ownership, in the sole discretion of the
City, is acceptable when legally sufficient written consent from all persons and entities with
ownership interest is provided at the time of application.
§ 154.656 USES WITHIN OPEN SPACE PUDs.
(A) Primary Uses.
(1) Permitted.
(a) Single-family, detached;
(b) Preserved open space;
(c) Conservation easements;
(d) Agriculture;
(e) Suburban farms;
(f) Private stables;
(g) Single-family, attached;
(h) Townhouses (no more than 25% in any development)
(i) Wayside stand; and
(j) Public parks and trails.
(2) Conditionally Permitted.
None
(3) Interim Permitted.
None
(B) Accessory Uses.
(1) Permitted.
Uses deemed by the Director of Planning to be typically accessory to an established permitted
use on the property as listed in 154.656(A)(1).
(2) Conditionally Permitted.
None
Page 7 of 26
(3) Interim Permitted.
None
(C) Prohibited Uses.
All other uses not listed in 154.656(A) or 154.656(B) are hereby prohibited.
(D) Use Restrictions and Allowances
The final PUD overlay district ordinance may include specific provisions governing uses which
supersede underlying zoning and the general PUD regulations herein.
§ 154.657 OPEN SPACE PUD DESIGN
Open space PUDs shall comply with all of the following minimum design standards unless modifications
are authorized by the City Council at the time of PUD Sketch Plan review. Authorization of such
modifications resulting from a PUD Sketch Plan review shall not be construed as approvals for the
change(s), but rather as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of the plan during
the PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(A) Density
The maximum dwelling unit density within an open space planned unit development shall be 18 units
per 40 acres of buildable land on the undeveloped parcel; however, the total number of dwelling units
shall not exceed the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan for Opens Space
Preservation Development.
(B) Lot Design
Lot locations and configurations within open space planned unit developments shall be derived
utilizing the following methodology. An applicant must be able to demonstrate how these steps
resulted in the plan being proposed.
(1) Soils Analysis Conducted
A certified septic designer or soils scientist shall complete a review of the soils on the site, and
categorize all areas as highly suitable for septic systems, moderately suitable for septic systems,
or poorly suited for septic systems.
(2) Septic Design Identification
Based on the soils analysis, an applicant must identify whether the proposed development will
be serviced by individual septic tanks and drain fields, or via a system of individual septic tanks
which utilize one or more communal drain fields.
(a) If individual septic tanks and drain fields can be supported by the available soils and is the
chosen methodology to serve the development, all proposed lots must be able to provide
primary and secondary drain field sites on each lot (outside of drainage and utility
easements), and must meet the minimum lot size standards outlined herein.
Page 8 of 26
(b) If individual septic tanks which utilize a communal drain field (or fields) is the chosen
methodology to serve the development, then the location(s) for communal drain fields shall
be identified within the area(s) deemed the most suitable on the site for supporting septic
utilities according to the soils analysis. All such areas shall be clearly denoted on provided
plan sets.
(3) Identification of Required Buffers
No build zones from each property boundary shall be derived as follows:
(a) A two-hundred (200) foot buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut an existing
residential development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development as an open
space planned unit development due to insufficient parcel area.
(b) A one-hundred (100) foot buffer from all adjacent property lines that abut land that is
eligible for future development as an open space planned unit development.
(c) If the development site is adjacent to an existing or approved OP development, the required
buffer shall be equivalent to the buffer that was required of the adjacent development [see
§ 154.035(B)].
(4) Identification of Preferred Building Pad Locations
Building pad locations [up to the maximum number of units permitted by 154.657(A)] which
preserve natural topography and drainageways, minimize tree loss, protect historic sites or
structures, and limit the need for soil removal and/or grading shall then be identified. The
orientation of individual building sites shall maintain maximum natural topography and ground
cover.
(a) Building pads shall be located outside of required buffers, and shall be sited so as to provide
ample room for accessory structures on future lots.
(b) If individual septic tanks and drain fields for each lot are to be utilized, locations for
primary and secondary facilities for each proposed building pad shall also be identified.
Generalized locations for such may be shown during the PUD Sketch Plan phase, but all
such sites must be verified as being viable as a component of PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(c) If individual septic tanks utilizing communal drain fields is intended, the plan must clearly
identify which communal drain field will service each of the proposed building pads.
(5) Placement of Streets
(a) Streets shall then be designed and located in such a manner as to:
(i) Maintain and preserve natural topography, groundcover, significant landmarks, and
trees;
(ii) Minimize cut and fill;
(iii) Preserve and enhance both internal and external views and vistas;
(iv) Promote road safety;
(v) Assure adequate access for fire and rescue vehicles; and
Page 9 of 26
(vi) Assure and promote adequate vehicular circulation both within the development and
with adjacent neighborhoods.
(b) The design of streets and the dedication of right-of-way shall be in compliance with the
City’s standard plates and specifications as may be amended.
(c) Streets shall not encroach into a required buffer area unless it can be demonstrated that
such an alignment is necessary to achieve the goals outlined above, and that no equivalent
option exists outside of the buffer. Driving surfaces that cross the buffer area at a 90 degree
angle to provide current or future access to an adjacent property or boundary road shall be
the only exception.
(6) Lot Creation
Based on the street location(s), building pad locations, and septic system location(s); lines to
delineate individual lots shall then be identified in accordance with the following:
(a) Lots
(i) Single-family lots being served by individual septic tanks and drain fields shall be a
minimum of one (1) acre in size;
(ii) Single-family lots being served by individual septic tanks utilizing communal drain
fields shall be a minimum of 1/2 acre (21,780 square feet) in size;
(iii) All land reserved for Communal septic system use shall be located within a dedicated
Outlot to be owned by the homeowners association (HOA) of the development.
(iv) Base lots for townhomes shall be large enough such that individual unit lots can meet
all required structure setbacks contained herein.
(b) Lot Specific Buildable Areas
(i) The buildable area on each proposed lot which remains after consideration of each of
the following shall be shown:
1.Required buffers from adjacent lands [see § 154.035(B)]
2.Required setbacks from waterbodies and non-buildable land per Shoreland district
regulations [see Article XIX] ;
3.Steep slopes;
4.Easements; and
5.Land within the following setbacks:
HOUSING TYPE
Single Family Homes Townhomes
Front Yard 30 20
Side Yard 15 feet or 10% of lot width
Corner Lot Front Yard 30
Corner Lot Street Side Yard 30
Rear Yard 20
Page 10 of 26
(ii) Proposed buildable area on each lot shall be sufficient to accommodate primary and
accessory structures that are normal and customary to the type of development being
proposed.
(7) Open Space and Parkland Adjustments
(a) Open Space
(i) The total preserved open space area within an open space planned unit development
shall be no less than 50% of the total gross land area, as defined by § 11.01. If this
threshold is not achieved after following the first six steps of lot design, the proposed
lot areas will need to be adjusted or lots eliminated until this requirement is met.
(ii) Land needed for storm water facilities as required by other provisions of the Lake Elmo
City Code may count towards required open space for the purposes of Open Space
PUD design, but must ultimately be placed in Outlots to be dedicated to the City.
(iii) Excluding land needed for compliant storm water facilities, not less than 60% of the
remaining preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels which are five (5) acres
or more in size.
(iv) Preserved open space parcels shall be contiguous with preserved open space or public
park land on adjacent parcels.
(b) Parkland
(i) Parks and recreational facilities shall be provided in addition to preserved open space
as specified in the Lake Elmo Parks Plan.
(ii) Determination of whether a land or cash dedication will be required to fulfil parkland
requirements will be at the discretion of the City Council, with direction to be provided
as a component of PUD Sketch Plan review. If a required parkland dedication causes
overall open space to drop below the minimum threshold, the proposed lot areas will
need to be adjusted or lots eliminated until the open space requirement is once again
met.
(iii) Any dedication shall be consistent with the dedication and fee-in-lieu standards
specified in Chapter 153.
§ 154.658 OPEN SPACE PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Open space PUDs shall comply with all of the following development standards unless modifications are
authorized by the City Council at the time of PUD Sketch Plan review. Authorization of such modifications
resulting from a PUD Sketch Plan review shall not be construed as approvals for the change(s), but rather
as an authorization to present such modifications as a component of the plan during the PUD Preliminary
Plan review.
(1) Preserved Open Space Standards
(a) With the exception of storm water facilities which must be dedicated to the City, all
Page 11 of 26
preserved open space within an open space planned unit development shall be subject to a
conservation easement and used for the purposes listed in § 154.650.
(b) Preserved open space land shall be controlled in one or more of following manners as
determined at the sole discretion of the City Council:
(i) Owned by an individual or legal entity who will use the land for a specific set of
purposes outlined by a permanent conservation easement (in accordance with M.S. Ch.
84C.01-.05, as it may be amended from time to time), which is conveyed to an
acceptable land trust as approved by the city; and/or
(ii) Conveyed by conservation easement to the city.
(iii) Owned as an Outlot by the City (this option may only be used for land being dedicated
to the City for stormwater maintenance and conveyance purposes).
(c) Preserved open space land shall be maintained for the purposes for which it was set aside.
If preserved open space was set aside for agricultural purposes or for natural habitat, a
plan shall be submitted which will indicate how the land will be maintained or returned to
a natural state and who will be responsible for plan implementation. Developers shall
provide copies of common interest community (CIC) declarations to prospective
purchasers, and conservation easements to the city, describing land management practices
to be followed by the party or parties responsible for maintaining the preserved open
space.
(d) Where applicable, a Common Interest Community association shall be established to
permanently maintain all residual open space and recreational facilities. The Common
Interest Community association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and
giving lien right to the city if there is lack of the maintenance shall be submitted to the
city as part of the documentation requirements of § 154.661(3) for an open space PUD
Final Plan.
(2) Septic System Design Standards
(a) In General
The placement and design of all septic systems shall conform to the requirements of
Washington County.
(b) Individual Septic Drain fields
Sites for individual septic drain fields, both primary and secondary, must be located
entirely within each lot and cannot be located within any easement.
(c) Communal Drain Fields.
(i) Communal drain fields may be partially or completely located in an area designated as
preserved open space provided the ground cover is restored to its natural condition
after installation, and recreational uses are prohibited above or within 50 feet of
communal drain fields or as approved by the City Engineer.
(ii) Communal drain fields, if installed, shall be professionally maintained, and are
Page 12 of 26
acceptable once legally sufficient documentation has been provided by the developer
to ensure such maintenance will continue in perpetuity.
(3) Building Standards
(a) Principal structures within open space planned unit developments shall not exceed 2 and
½ stories or 35 feet in height.
(b) Accessory structures within open space planned unit developments shall not exceed 22
feet in height.
(c) It is desired that the structures within neighborhoods convey a particular architectural
style with similar building components, materials, roof pitches. The PUD Overlay
ordinance crafted for each individual development should establish minimum
architectural standards for the neighborhood.
(d) All wells shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from septic tanks and septic fields.
(4) Landscaping Standards
(a) A landscape plan for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per
building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches
above grade level.
(b) Boulevard landscaping is required along all streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every
30 feet or placed in clusters at the same ratio.
(5) Impervious Surface Standards
The maximum impervious surface allowable within an open space planned unit development
shall be 20% of the land area not dedicated as preserved open space subject to the following:
(a) Impervious surfaces created by roads, trails, and other planned impervious improvements
shall count against the maximum allowed impervious coverage.
(b) Remaining allowed impervious surface acreage may be distributed between the planned
building sites, and maximums for each lot shall be clearly documented within the overlay
district ordinance governing the development.
(c) On individual lots, areas covered by pervious pavers or comparable systems may receive
a 25% credit against the lot’s hardcover if the system is installed consistent with the City
of Lake Elmo Engineering Standards Manual, and adequate storm water mitigation
measures (as may be necessary) are installed to mitigate potential runoff created by the
additional coverage above the allowed impervious surface threshold. All such credits
shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer.
(6) Trail Standards
A trail system or sidewalks shall be established within open space planned unit developments
in accordance with the following:
(a) The linear footage of trails provided shall be at least equal in length to the sum of the
centerline length of all public roads within the development.
Page 13 of 26
(b) All trails shall be constructed of asphalt or concrete in compliance with the standard city
design plate for trails.
(c) Proposed trails shall provide connections between and access to the buildable land areas
and preserved open space land being created by the development.
(d) Proposed trails shall connect to existing, planned, or anticipated trails or roads on
adjacent parcels.
(e) If applicable, trails shall be linked (or be designed to provide a future link) to the “Old
Village” to emphasize the connection between existing and new development.
§ 154.659 Reserved
§ 154.660 OPEN SPACE PUD REVIEW CRITERIA
The following findings shall be made by the City Council prior to approval of a new or amended open space
planned unit development:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) All prerequisites for an open space PUD as outlined in § 154.655 are met.
(3) All open space PUD design standards (as outlined in § 154.657) and all open space
development standards (as outlined in § 154.658) are met; or if deviations are proposed, that
all such deviations are supported because they achieve the following three (3) goals:
(a) The deviation(s) allow for higher quality building and site design that will enhance
aesthetics of the site;
(b) The deviation(s) help to create a more unified environment within the project boundaries
by ensuring one or more of the following: architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, enhanced landscaping and site features,
and/or efficient use of utilities;
(c) The overall design provides appropriate solutions to eliminate adverse impacts that
proposed deviations may impose on surrounding lands.
(4) If the proposed PUD involves construction over two or more phases, the applicant has
demonstrated that each phase is capable of being a stand-alone development independent of
other phases.
§ 154.661 OPEN SPACE PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE
All requests to establish an open space Planned Unit Development shall be initiated by following the
steps below.
(1) Open Space PUD Sketch Plan
Page 14 of 26
(a) Purpose
The open space PUD Sketch Plan is the first step in the development process which gives
the applicant an opportunity to present their ideas to the City Council and public so as to
gain general feedback on areas that will require additional analysis, study, design,
changes, etc. Feedback gained during the open space PUD Sketch Plan phase should be
addressed within the subsequent PUD Preliminary Plan.
(b) Specific open space PUD Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Sketch Plan.
(i) A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s)
of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and
any other relevant associates;
(ii) A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and
square feet and current legal description(s);
(iii) A narrative explaining the applicant’s proposed objectives for the open space PUD, a
listing of the proposed modifications from standard in § 154.657 and § 154.658 as
may be applicable, and an explanation of how the proposal addresses the PUD review
criteria in § 154.660.
(iv) A listing of general information including the following:
1. Number of proposed residential units.
2.Calculation of the proposed density of the project showing compliance with §
154.657(A).
3. A listing of all proposed land uses (i.e. preserved open space, buildable sites,
parkland, etc).
4. Square footages of land dedicated to each proposed land use.
(v) An existing conditions exhibit, including topography, that identifies the location of
the following environmental features along with calculations (in acres) for each:
1.Gross site acreage;
2.Existing wetlands;
3. Existing woodlands;
4.Areas with slopes greater than 12%, but less than 25%;
5.Areas with slopes of 25% or greater;
6. Woodlands;
7. Other pertinent land cover(s).
(vi) An open space PUD Sketch Plan illustrating the nature of the proposed development.
Page 15 of 26
At a minimum, the plan should show:
1. Existing zoning district(s) on the subject land and all adjacent parcels;
2. Layout of proposed lots and proposed uses denoting Outlots planned for public
dedication and/or preserved open space;
3. Area calculations for each parcel;
4. General location of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property and within
200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel;
5. Location of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the
subdivision parcel;
6. Proposed sidewalks and trails;
7. Proposed parking areas;
8. General location of wooded areas or significant features (environmental,
historical, cultural) of the parcel;
9. Location of utility systems that will serve the property;
10. Calculations for the following:
a. Gross land area (in acres);
b. Number of proposed residential units.
c. Proposed density of the project showing compliance with § 154.657(A).
d. Acreage & square footage of land dedicated to each proposed land use (i.e.
preserved open space, buildable sites, parkland, etc).
e. Acreage & square footage of land proposed for public road right-of-way;
f. Acreage & square footage of land dedicated to drainage ways and ponding
areas;
g. Acreage & square footage of land for Trails and/or sidewalks (if outside of
proposed road right-of-way);
11. Other: An applicant may submit any additional information that may explain the
proposed PUD or support any requests for modifications (i.e. a landscaping plan
to support the lessening or elimination of an otherwise required buffer).
(vii) The outline of a conceptual development schedule indicating the approximate date
when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and
be completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public
improvements and recreational & common space areas).
(viii) A statement of intent to establish a Common Interest Community association with
bylaws and deed restrictions to include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Ownership, management, and maintenance of defined preserved open space;
Page 16 of 26
2. Maintenance of public and private utilities; and
3. General architectural guidelines for principal and accessory structures.
(ix) If applicable, a historic preservation plan for any historic structures on the site shall
be submitted.
(c) Open Space PUD Sketch Plan Proposal Review
(i) Planning Commission
1. Upon receiving an open space PUD Sketch Plan proposal, the City shall schedule
a date upon which the Planning Commission will review the proposal.
2. Upon completing their review, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and
recommendations on the proposed open space PUD as soon as practical.
3. The Director of Planning may forward an application to the City Council without
a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary
to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review.
(ii) City Council
1. The City Council may listen to comments on the proposed development if they
deem such necessary prior to discussing the proposed open space PUD Sketch
plan.
2. After consideration of the Director of Planning’s recommendation, the Planning
Commission recommendation, and any public comments received, the City
Council may comment on the merit of the request, needed changes, and
suggested conditions that the proposer should adhere to with any future
application.
3. For each of the identified modifications to the minimum standards outlined in
4. § 154.657 and § 154.658, the City Council shall take a vote to instruct the
applicant as to whether the modification can be pursued as a component of the
PUD Preliminary Plan review.
(d) Effect of a PUD Sketch Plan Review
(i) The City Council and Planning Commission’s comments during the PUD Sketch
Plan review are explicitly not an approval or denial of the project, and are intended
only to provide information for the applicant to consider prior to application for an
open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(ii) Proposed modifications that receive a majority vote of support from Council may be
requested as part of the future PUD Preliminary Plan application, but support to
pursue the modification as part of the PUD Sketch Plan in no way guarantees that the
modification will be approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan.
(e) Limitation of Approval
Page 17 of 26
The City Council’s review of an open space PUD Sketch Plan shall remain valid for a
period of six (6) months. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the validity
of their findings for an additional year.
(2) PUD Preliminary Plan
(a) Prerequisite
No application for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan will be accepted unless an
applicant’s proposal is distinctly similar to one reviewed in the completed the open space
PUD Sketch Plan review process which is valid upon the date of application.
(b) PUD Preliminary Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(i) All required information for a preliminary plat per Chapter 1102, § 1102.01(C) and §
1102.02.
(ii) A separate open space PUD Preliminary Plan which includes the following
information:
1. Administrative information (including identification of the drawing as an “Open
Space PUD Preliminary Plan,” the proposed name of the project, contact
information for the developer and individual preparing the plan, signature of the
surveyor and civil engineer certifying the document, date of plan preparation or
revision, and a graphic scale and north arrow);
2. Area calculations for gross land area, wetland areas, right-of-way dedications,
and proposed public and private parks or open space;
3. Existing zoning district(s) on the subject land and all adjacent parcels;
4. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers. The perimeter
boundary line of the subdivision should be distinguishable from the other
property lines. Denote Outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space
(schools, parks, etc.);
5. The location of proposed septic disposal area(s);
6. Area calculations for each parcel;
7. Proposed setbacks on each lot (forming the building pad) and calculated
buildable area;
8. Proposed gross hardcover allowance per lot (if applicable);
9. Existing contours at intervals of two feet. Contours must extend a minimum of
200 feet beyond the boundary of the parcel(s) in question;
10. Delineation of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property;
11. Delineation of the ordinary high water levels of all water bodies;
Page 18 of 26
12. Location, width, and names of existing and proposed streets within and
immediately adjacent to the subdivision parcel;
13. Easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the subdivision parcel(s);
14. The location and orientation of proposed buildings;
15. Proposed sidewalks and trails;
16. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimension for all driveways,
parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes,
emergency access, if necessary, public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike
paths, direction of traffic flow and traffic control devices;
17. Lighting location, style and mounting and light distribution plan.
18. Proposed parks, common areas, and preservation easements (indicate public vs.
private if applicable);
19. Location, access and screening detail of large trash handling and recycling
collection areas
(iii) Proposed architectural theming and performance standards for the development;
(iv) A grading drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a registered professional
engineer providing all information as required by Public Works, the City Engineer,
and/or the Director of Planning;
(v) A utility plan providing all information as required by Public Works, the City
Engineer, and/or the Director of Planning;
(vi) Results of deep soil test pits and percolation tests, at the rate of no fewer than 2
successful test results for each proposed septic disposal area;
(vii) The location and detail of signage providing all pertinent information necessary to
determine compliance with § 154.212;
(viii) A tree preservation plan as required by § 154.257;
(ix) A landscape plan, including preliminary sketches of how the landscaping will look,
prepared by a qualified professional providing all information outlined in § 154.258;
(x) A traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation from
the site at full development, and the effect of such traffic on the level of service of
nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements;
(xi) A plan sheet or narrative clearly delineating all features being modified from
standard open space PUD regulations;
(xii) Common Interest Community Association documents including bylaws, deed
restrictions, covenants, and proposed conservation easements.
(xiii) Any other information as directed by the Director of Planning.
(c) PUD Preliminary Plan Review
Page 19 of 26
(i) As part of the review process for an open space PUD Preliminary Plan, the Director
of Planning shall generate an analysis of the proposal against the expectations for
PUDs, and make a recommendation regarding the proposed overlay district for
Planning Commission and City Council consideration.
(ii) The Director of Planning shall prepare a draft ordinance to establish the potential
overlay district to be established as a component of the PUD Final Plan.
(iii) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and consider the application’s
consistency with the goals for PUDs, the PUD review criteria, and applicable
comprehensive plan goals. The Planning Commission shall make recommendations
to the City Council on the merit, needed changes, and suggested conditions to impose
on the PUD.
(iv) In approving or denying the PUD Preliminary Plan, the City Council shall make
findings on the PUD review criteria outlined in § 154.660.
(v) As a condition of PUD Preliminary Plan approval; finalization, adoption, and
publication of an overlay district ordinance shall need to occur prior to the filing of
any future final plat.
(d) Effect of a PUD Preliminary Plan Review
Preliminary Plan approval governs the preparation of the PUD Final Plan which must be
submitted for final approval in accordance with the requirements of this Article.
(e) Limitation of Approval
The City Council’s review of an open space PUD Preliminary Plan shall remain valid for
a period of one (1) year. The City Council, in its sole discretion, may extend the validity
of their findings for an additional year.
(3) PUD Final Plan
(a) Application Deadline
Application for an open space PUD Final Plan shall be submitted for approval within
ninety (90) days of City Council approval of the open space PUD Preliminary Plan unless
a written request for a time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the
City Council.
(b) PUD Final Plan Submittal Requirements
Except as may be waived by the Director of Planning, the following information shall
constitute a complete application for an open space PUD Final Plan.
(i) All required information for a final plat per City Code § 153.08;
(ii) All required PUD Preliminary Plan documents, other than the preliminary plat, shall
be updated to incorporate and address all conditions of PUD Preliminary Plan
approval.
(iii) Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and
Page 20 of 26
bylaws of any proposed homeowners’ association or other documents or contracts
which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD.
(iv) A final staging plan, if staging is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence and
timing of development, including the estimated start and completion date for each
stage.
(v) Up-to-date title evidence for the subject property in a form acceptable to the Director
of Planning.
(vi) Warranty deeds for Property being dedicated to the City for all parks, Outlots, etc.,
free from all liens and encumbrances.
(vii) All easement dedication documents for easements not shown on the final plat
including those for trails, ingress/egress, etc., together with all necessary consents to
the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property.
(viii) Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Planning to fully present
the intention and character of the open space PUD.
(ix) If certain land areas or structures within the open space PUD are designated for
recreational use, public plazas, open areas or service facilities, the owner of such land
and buildings shall provide a plan to the city that ensures the continued operation and
maintenance of such areas or facilities in a manner suitable to the city.
(c) PUD Final Plan Review
(i) The Director of Planning shall generate an analysis of the final documents against the
conditions of the open space PUD Preliminary Plan approval, and make a
recommendation as to whether all conditions have been met or if additional changes
are needed.
(ii) Staff should once again identify any information submittals that were waived so
Council may determine if such is needed prior to making a final decision.
(iii) The Director of Planning shall finalize the ordinance to establish the proposed
overlay district for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
(iv) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed Overlay
District ordinance and open space Final PUD Plans, and shall submit a
recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Because an open space PUD
Preliminary Plan was previously approved, the Planning Commission’s
recommendation shall only focus on whether the Ordinance and open space PUD
Final Plan are in substantial compliance with the open space PUD Preliminary Plan
and the required conditions of approval.
(v) The City Council shall then consider the recommendations of the Director of
Planning, the public, and the Planning Commission; and make a decision of approval
or denial, in whole or in part, on the open space PUD Final Plan. A denial shall only
be based on findings that an open space PUD Final Plan is not in substantial
Page 21 of 26
compliance with the approved open space PUD Preliminary Plan and/or the required
conditions of approval.
(vi) As a condition of PUD Final Plan approval, publication of the overlay district
ordinance shall be required prior to filing of the approved final plat.
(vii) Planned Unit Development Agreement.
1. At its sole discretion, the City may as a condition of approval, require the owner
and developer of the proposed open space PUD to execute a development
agreement which may include but not be limited to all requirements of the open
space PUD Final Plan.
2. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an
irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City. The letter of credit shall be
provided by a financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the City.
The City may require that certain provisions and conditions of the development
agreement be stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an
amount sufficient to ensure the provision or development of improvement called
for by the development agreement.
(viii) As directed by the City, documents related to the PUD shall be recorded against the
property.
(d) Time Limit
(i) A Planned Unit Development shall be validated by the applicant through the
commencement of construction or establishment of the authorized use(s), subject to
the permit requirements of this Code, in support of the Planned Unit Development
within one (1) year of the date of open space PUD Final Plan approval. Failure to
meet this deadline shall render the open space PUD Final Plan approval void.
Notwithstanding this time limitation, the City Council may approve extensions for
validation of up to one (1) year if requested in writing by the applicant; extension
requests shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and shall identify the reason(s)
why the extension is necessary along with an anticipated timeline for validation of
the Planned Unit Development.
(ii) An application to reinstate an open space PUD that was voided for not meeting the
required time limit shall be administered in the same manner as a new open space
PUD beginning at open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
§ 154.662 OPEN SPACE PUD AMENDMENTS
Approved open space PUDs may be amended from time to time as a result of unforeseen circumstances,
overlooked opportunities, or requests from a developer or neighborhood. At such a time, the applicant shall
make an application to the city for an open space PUD amendment.
(A) Amendments to Existing Open Space PUD Overlay District(s)
Page 22 of 26
Amendments to an approved open space PUD Overlay district shall be processed as one of the
following:
(1) Administrative Amendment
The Director of Planning may approve minor changes if such changes are required by
engineering or other circumstances, provided the changes conform to the approved overlay
district intent and are consistent with all requirements of the open space PUD ordinance.
Under no circumstances shall an administrative amendment allow additional lots, or changes
to designated uses established as part of the PUD. An Administrative Amendment shall be
memorialized via letter signed by the Planning Director and recorded against the PUD
property.
(2) Ordinance Amendment
A PUD change requiring a text update to the adopted open space PUD overlay district
language shall be administered in accordance with adopted regulations for zoning code
changes in § 154.105. Ordinance amendments shall be limited to changes that are deemed by
the Director of Planning to be consistent with the intent of the original open space PUD
approval, but are technically necessary due to construction of the adopted overlay district
language.
(3) PUD Amendment
Any change not qualifying for an administrative amendment or an Ordinance amendment
shall require an open space PUD amendment. An application to amend an open space PUD
shall be administered in the same manner as that required for a new PUD beginning at open
space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(B) Pre-existing OP Developments
(1) Pre-existing OP developments authorized prior to [date this ordinance is effective] shall
continue to be governed per the original conditions of approval until the OP development is
cancelled by the City, or the OP development is converted to an open space PUD overlay
district.
(2) An application to amend an existing OP development shall require the development to be
converted into an open space PUD beginning at open space PUD Preliminary Plan.
(a) Replatting of lots will only be required if the Director of Planning determines such is
necessary to implement the requested change.
(b) The resulting overlay zoning district shall be applied to all properties within the OP
development being amended.
§ 154.663 PUD CANCELLATION
An open space PUD shall only be cancelled and revoked upon the City Council adopting an ordinance
rescinding the overlay district establishing the PUD. Cancellation of a PUD shall include findings that
demonstrate that the PUD is no longer necessary due to changes in local regulations over time; is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other application land use regulations; threatens public safety,
Page 23 of 26
health, or welfare; or other applicable findings in accordance with law.
§ 154.664 ADMINISTRATION
In general, the following rules shall apply to all open space PUDs:
(A) Rules and regulations
No requirement outlined in the open space PUD review process shall restrict the City Council from
taking action on an application if necessary to meet state mandated time deadlines;
(B) Preconstruction
No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which an open space PUD plan is
in the process of review, unless the proposed building is allowed under the existing zoning and will
not impact, influence, or interfere with the proposed open space PUD plan.
(C) Effect on Conveyed Property
In the event that any real property in an approved open space PUD is conveyed in total, or in part,
the new owners thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the approved overlay district.
SECTION 5. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Article III: ZONING DISTRICTS, Section 154.035 OP-
Open Space Preservation District as follows:
§ 154.035 OP – OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT.
Provisions governing the OP Open Space Preservation District are codified at §§ 150.175 through
150.189.
(A) OP District Discontinued
Provisions regulating the OP Open Space Preservation District were repealed and replaced with the
regulations now in Article XVI: Open Space Planned Unit Developments.
(B) Buffer Setbacks In OP Developments
Buffer setbacks shall be applied from the edge of the existing open space preservation developments
as follows.
Buffer Setbacks in OP Developments (in feet)
North
Edge South Edge West Edge East Edge
Exception
Parcel(s)
Page 24 of 26
St. Croix’s Sanctuary 200 50 50 100
Discover Crossing 200 100 50 100
Whistling Valley I 25 200 N/A N/A
Whistling Valley 1I 25 100 85 N/A
Whistling Valley III 50 100 100 N/A
Farms of Lake Elmo 100 50 100 25
Prairie Hamlet 200 50 50 100
Fields of St. Croix I 50 N/A 200 100
Fields of St. Croix 1I N/A 200 200 N/A N/A
The Homestead 50 50 200 50
Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove 50 50 200 50 100
Tamarack Farm Estates 100 100 100 100
Sunfish Ponds 100 100 100 200
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake 50 100 50 50
Cardinal Ridge 100 200 50 50
Wildflower Shoves 100 200 100 200
Heritage Farms 50 N/A N/A 50 N/A
Tana Ridge (Res. 2009-033) N/A N/A 50 50
Parkview Estates (Res. 2009-033) 50; except
Lot 9,
Block 5 use
20 ft
N/A N/A 50
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.036 as follows:
§ 154.036 OZD - OVERLAY ZONING USE DISTRICT.
The following overlay districts are designed to promote orderly development or to protect some
specific sensitive natural resources. These district regulations are in addition to, rather than in
Page 25 of 26
lieu of, regulations imposed by the existing basic zoning use districts. These districts are defined
and established as follows:
A. Flood Plain – See §§ 151.01 through 151.14 of this Code;
B. Restrictive Soils Overlay District – See §§ 150.200 through 150.203 of this Code;
C. Wetland Protection and Preservation Overlay District – See §§ 150.215 through 150.219
of this Code;
D. Shoreland District – See §§ 154.800 of this Code;
E. Interstate Corridor Overlay District – See §§ 150.230 through 150.238 of this Code;
F. Airport (reserved); and
G. Open Space Development Overlay District – See §§ 150.175 through 150.190 of this
Code
SECTION 7. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.350 as follows:
§ 154.350 DIVISION INTO DISTRICTS.
A. All Areas Zoned. The incorporated areas of Lake Elmo are hereby divided into the
following zoning districts:
Table 8-1: Zoning Districts
Zoning District Reference
R-2 One and Two Family Residential 154.033
GB General Business 154.034
A Agriculture 154.400 Article XI
RR Rural Residential 154.400 Article XI
RT Rural Development Transitional 154.400 Article XI
RS Rural Single Family 154.400 Article XI
RE Residential Estate 154.400 Article XI
OP Open Space Preservation 150.175
LDR Urban Low Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
MDR Urban Medium Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
HDR Urban High Density Residential 154.450 Article XII
VMX Village Center - Mixed Use 154.500 Article XIII
C Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
CC Convenience Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
LC Neighborhood Office/Limited Commercial 154.550 Article XIV
BP Business Park/Light Manufacturing 154.550 Article XIV
Page 26 of 26
P PF Civic/Public Public Facilities 154.600 Article XV
OSP Open Space and Parks 154.600
OP-A Open Space Preservation - Alternative Density 154.700
SECTION 8. Adoption Date
This Ordinance No. 08-152 was adopted on this ______ day of September 2016, by a vote of ___
Ayes and ___ Nays.
_________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kristina Handt
City Administrator
This Ordinance No xx-xxx was published on the ____ day of _____________________, 2016.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-75
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 08-152 BY TITLE AND
SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-152,
an ordinance to repeal existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, adopt new
open space development regulations in chapter 154, and to implement reference updates in chapter
154; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the
public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Lake Elmo
that the city administrator shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-152 to be
published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the city of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-152. The ordinance
repeals existing open space development regulations within chapter 150, and adopts new open space
planned unit development regulations in chapter 154. The new regulations are largely based on
the City’s long-standing OP development codes, but have been updated to implement lessons
learned from existing OP development over the past twenty years, and to ensure these
developments are meeting the City’s expectations. The main changes being implemented include a
revised methodology for the design of open space developments, and implementation of a more
standardized development review process. Additionally, Open Space planned unit developments
will now require the establishment of an overlay district over such areas to organize the unique
regulations governing these neighborhoods. To properly fit these new regulations into the City’s
zoning code, this ordinance also implements a number of organizational/numbering changes
throughout Chapter 154. The full text of Ordinance
No. 08-152 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours.
Mayor Mike Pearson
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Lake Elmo that the city
administrator keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that he
post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Dated: ________________ ___, 2016.
___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.