HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 08-11-08 CM
L.k K E Clity of Lake Elmo
EL I,,l0 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
(651)777-5510 Fax: (651)777-9615
Www.LakeElmo.Ora
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday., August f 1 y 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. July 14, 2008
4. Public Hearings
a.MOVE ACCESSORY BUILDING INTO CITY LIMITS: Consideration of an
application to allow the movement of an accessory building from outside the
city limits to the property at 4150 Irish.Court North; R-1 zoning; PID: 09-029-
21-43-0018.
b.VARIANCE: Consideration of an application to allow construction of a
detached garage 15 feet from the front lot line(30 foot required setback) at
11002 Upper 33rd Street North; R-1 zoning; PID: 13-029-21-32-0054.—
Application to be considered for tabling and renotification
c. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT: Consideration of an ordinance to
amend Section 150.180 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance. The proposed
ordinance would amend the maximum impervious surface coverage permitted
in the OP Open Space Preservation District and.would provide additional
requirements for use of alternate pervious systems,
5. Informational Item: "A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in
the Twin Cities Area"—An Embrace Open Space Report
6. City Council Updates
a. August 5 —
i. Torre Pines Minor Subdivision
ii. Lake Shore Drive Road Vacation
7. Adjourn
DRAFT
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 14, 200€3
Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Fliflet(7:01), Hall,Helwig,
Pelletier, Ptacek,McGinnis (7:03), Roth(7:07), and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Director Klatt and Planner Matzek.
Agenda
M/S/P, VanZandt/Hall, move to approve the agenda .
Planning Director Klatt asked to have the minutes from June 9cn pulled from the agenda.
Van Zandt and Hall agreed to the change. Vote: 6:0.
Fliflet arrived at 7:01 p.m.
Minutes -
McGinnis arrived at 7:03 p.m.
May 28, 2008
M/S/P, Helwig/Anderson,to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 7:0.
Abstained: Van Zandt
June 9, 2008—pulled from agenda.
Minor Subdivision; Torre Pines
Planning Director Klatt reviewed the staff memorandum with the Planning Commission
regarding the proposed minor subdivision in the Torre Pines development to create four
additional residential lots. The Meehan Family LLC is applying to plat the remaining
large lot in the Torre Pines development which houses the original farmstead site. This
site was reviewed with the Torre Pines preliminary plat in 1995,but the final plat was not
filed for the four lots and the deadline for action has since expired.
Roth arrived at 7:07 p.m.
Planning Director Klatt said the minor subdivision application closely follows what was
approved in.the preliminary plat with a minor reconfiguration of one lot line. The
outbuilding on the farm is identified in the plan to be removed as it would not be
permitted without a primary structure on the Iot after the subdivision takes place. Staff is
recommending approval with nine conditions outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Helwig asked if the covenants for Torre Pines would apply to the new lots
as well. He asked what would happen if clean well water could not be found at the new
sites.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes;7-14-08
DRAFT
Commissioner Pelletier asked if the development would be subject to adding trails.
Patricia Meehan, applicant
Ms. Meehan stated that her well at the property has been checked over the last three years
and is clear. She said she thought there was a line for a trail by the lots in the back of the
existing development and a fee was given for the first addition because there was no
room at the time for a trail.
Planning Director Klatt stated that he could not find the Torre Pines file to confirm if
park dedication funds were received for the four proposed lots. If evidence is provided
by the applicant, the city will not require additional fiends.
Ms. Meehan stated that the covenants would apply to the new lots as well.
M/S/P, Helwig/Roth,to recommend approval of the minor subdivision with conditions as
outlined by staff. Vote: 9:0.
Public Hearing: Accessory Buildings Ordinance Amendments
Planning Director Klatt gave a summary of the commission's past discussions and actions
regarding the topic. The intent of the ordinance is to fix inconsistencies between various
sections of code, eliminate confusing language,make handouts consistent, and to provide
clarification. Accessory structure setbacks,height restrictions, residential garage size
restrictions, and removal of minimum lot size in the text were topics included in the
ordinance amendments. Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amendments.
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:44 P.M.
No public comments were presented to the Commission.
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:44 P.M.
M/S/P, Roth/Van Zandt, move to recommend approval of changes to accessory building
regulations with one change as stipulated by staff.
Commissioner Fliflet stated that she will not support the motion because she does not
agree with the Residential Estates regulations in the ordinance.
Chairman Ptaeek said he is not in favor of regulating the sizes of attached garages.
Vote: 8:1 {Fliflet opposed.}
City Council/Staff Updates
Planning Director Klatt said the City Council approved an extension for the variance at
8961 37th. Street North and the sign code was adopted. He said the South Washington
Watershed District is looking for volunteers for a citizen advisory committee to deal with
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-I4-08
DRAFT
planning issues. Klatt said that the impervious surface issue was placed on the agenda by
the chair and that a number of residents have been running into issues with the
impervious surface requirement in the Open Space developments.
Chairman Ptacek expressed concern of existing flooding issues in various areas of the
city.
Commissioner Roth said that the impervious surface on individual lots is a small part of
the entire 40 acre development.
Commissioner Pelletier identified that water quality is important, but the city should be
reasonable and fair.
Commissioner Fliflet stated she was in favor of revisiting this ordinance.
Bob Snyder, 4605 Lily Ave
Mr. Snyder said he lives on 3/ acre lot,but is unable to build a pool because of this
ordinance. He said he is frustrated and thinks some residents may be buying homes
without knowing they are unable to build anything else on the lot.
Planning Director Klatt suggested having a stormwater management person come in to
talk to the commission.
M/S/P, Fliflet/Pelletier,move to revisit the impervious surface ordinance in Open Space
Preservation developments. Vote: 9:0.
Adjourned at 8.25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli Matzek
Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-14-08
Planning Commission
Date: 8/11/08
Item: 4a
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM: MOVING PERMIT -Consider a request to allow the movement of an 864 square-
foot accessory building from outside the city limits to the property at 4150 Irish
Court North. .
REQUESTED BY: Marvin and Karen Lerol, Applicant
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The planning commission is being asked to consider a request from Marvin and Karen Lerol to
permit an existing 864 square-foot accessory building to be moved from a site in Oakdale to their
property at 4150 Irish Court North. The accessory building would be located in the rear yard and
would meet all applicable city codes with the exception of the building's exterior. The applicant's
have agreed to paint the building to match the primary structure's exterior as required by city
code. A performance bond will be required to be submitted by the applicant to cover the cost of
all the work associated with the project, including the painting of the building. The Acting
Building Official has performed a site inspection of the accessory building and found the building
complies with today's building code requirements.
Staff is recommending approval of the moving permit for the following reasons:
1) The accessory building and the proposed location meets all applicable city code
requirements.
2) The applicant has agreed to paint the accessory building in order to match the exterior of
the primary structure on the property.
3) The Acting Building Official performed a site inspection of the accessory building and
found the building complies with today's building code requirements.
With the following conditions:
1) Prior to the building being moved to the property, a building permit application must be
applied for and received from the city.
2) Engineering comments must be adhered to at the time of the building permit application.
3) A performance bond in an amount set by the City Council based on a recommendation
by the City Planner, City Attorney or Acting Building Official must be received by the city
prior to the building being moved to the property. The performance bond must be in an
amount to cover ail necessary work to complete the project, including the repainting of
the building to match the exterior of the primary structure on the property.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A) Recommend Council approve the requested moving permit to allow an 864 square-foot
accessory building to be moved to 4150 Irish Court North.
1
B) Recommend Council deny the requested moving permit based on the findings identified by
the commission as staff was unable to identify reasons to deny the application.
Suggested motion for consideration:
Move to recommend approval of the moving permit to move an accessory building to the property
at 41501rish Court North based on the findings listed in the staff report, subject to the conditions
recommended by staff.
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Planning Commission Chair
• Report Kelli Matzek, City Planner
• Questions to staff Chair facilitates
• Comments from property owner Marvin and Karen Lerol, Applicant
• Questions/comments from the
public, if any(up to 3 minutes) Chair facilitates
• Discussion Chair facilitates
• Consider Motion Commission
ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Staff report
Site map
Applicant's Submittals
2
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Moving an Accessory Building into the City - Review
To: Planning Commission
From: Kelli Matzek,Planner
Meeting Date: 8/11/08
Applicant: Marvin and Karen Lerol
Owner: Marvin and Karen Lerol
Location: 4150 Irish Court North
Zoning: RI -- Single Family Residential
.lntrodtictol-y In orintatlon
.bequest Marvin and Karen Lerol, 4150 Irish Court North, are requesting that the City consider
their application to permit an accessory building to be moved from Oakdale to their
property on Irish Court North.
Site Data: Property Identification No. Area Use
09-029-21-43-0018 1.07 Acres Residential Dwelling
Moving an Accessory Building into the Ci -Review
Background The City of Lake Elmo requires a moving permit be obtained from the city prior to
Information: moving a building or structure into or within the city.
The property at 4150 Irish Court has an existing home and a tool shed on the property.
The accessory building proposed to be moved to the site would function as a storage
shed on the property and is proposed to be located in the northwest corner of the lot in
the rear yard.
Applicable 151.019 Moving Buildings Into the City
Codes: This section of code identifies what is needed for an application as well as the
process for reviewing an application to move a building into or within the city.
154.041 R-1 One-Family Residential
(C)Minimum District Requirements
("lLf7mur' .._{J7'ffTi'ds-si;r ,X.'jJf.'Jl';8-i 1.08
This section of code identifies the building setbacks for buildings in the R-1
J zoning district. A maximum height of 20 feet is also identified for an accessory
I building.
154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures
(3) "DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING. A 1-story accessory
building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment,
workshop equipment and the like. Exterior materials shall snatch the principal
structure in exterior color or be of an earthen tone."
154.093 Number/Size of Accessory Buildings
This section of code specifies the number and size of accessory buildings
allowed in various zoning districts on different sized properties. A one-to-two
acre parcel in the R-1 zoning district is permitted "One 1,200-square foot
detached residential, garage or building, in addition to an attached garage."
Review Comments:
Planning As mentioned previously, the city requires a permit to move a building into or within
Issues: the city limits. The applicants are proposing to bring an existing 864 square-foot
accessory building to their property from a site in the city of Oakdale. The applicants
have hired a professional moving company to move the building to the site.
Detached Accessory Building
Staff determined that the accessory building proposed to be brought to this property
best fit the definition of a detached rural storage building as the proposed site location
in the rear yard and the physical properties of the building Iend it to that description
instead of a detached residential garage.
Size
The city code permits a property with an R-1 zoning classification and between one
and two acres in size one 1,200 square foot detached residential, garage or building, in
addition to an attached garage on this property. The property currently has one tool
shed and an attached garage, neither of which according to code count towards the
1,200 square foot allotment. Therefore, the proposed 864 square-foot building would
meet this requirement. The applicant would not be allowed any additional accessory
buildings on this site.
Height
The building is 20 feet high, which meets the height requirements of city code.
n
;.]:ii.,::7Yit 131cl rrtri�. .. +i�c•rn::frwh(,..':�t/?{J�;PZ, lerr}1.4r'4'8ir7.2 Albh:>•,'s•'_7.;-r.7�f.r./or,:
�� sYgr
:1$rtrc:'�ttilc7itt�E �c'f t:`it}%
a�LCY7'tning 06.r`nyission Ftq)or s, 8-1 C-08
Exterior Material
The city code (Sec. 154.092 A3) specifies that a detached rural storage building shall
have exterior materials that match the principal structure in exterior color or be of an
earthen tone. The accessory building is currently covered with blue steel siding,
which does not match the primary structure's exterior. As this does not meet the
requirements, the applicant has stated their intention to paint the building to match the
color of the house. This will be covered by the required performance bond to ensure
compliance.
Location
The site plan provided by the applicant identifies the accessory building will be
located in the northwest corner of the property, which is the rear yard for the property.
The proposed location will meet setback requirements for the R-1 zoning district.
Building Official
The Acting Building Official has completed a site inspection of the building in its
current location and found that it complies with the building code requirements.
Performance Bond
The city code requires a perfonnance bond be collected from the applicant to ensure
all necessary work is completed. This is identified as a condition of approval in this
report.
MoWng Based on the findings cited above and with conditions outlined below, staff would
Permit recommend approval of the moving permit request for the 864 square-foot accessory
Conclusion: building to be relocated from a site in Oakdale to the property at 4150 Irish Court
North.
Conclusion:
The applicant is seeking approval of a moving permit to allow the movement of an
E accessory building to the property at 4150 Irish Court North.
Commission The Planning Commission may consider the following options:
Options: A) Approve the moving permit based on the findings drafted by Staff or other
additional information that is presented at the public hearing;
B) Deny the request based on findings provided by the Planning Commission.
:ilf .Ei7.f1 ti,Cf,:l..4'Y.i.:.if.cfi t.Fl, {•'.ti, .{'rii:.^.cC:L.f..:,i. t., c..
U9D
Staff Ree: Staff recommends approval of the moving permit request based on the following:
1) The accessory building and the proposed location meets all applicable city
code requirements.
2) The applicant has agreed to paint the accessory building in order to match the
exterior of the primary structure on the property.
3) The Acting Building Official performed a site inspection of the accessory
building and found the building complies with today's building code
requirements.
Provided the following conditions are met
1) Prior to the building being moved to the property, a building permit application
must be applied for and received from the city.
2) Engineering comments must be adhered to at the time of the building permit
application.
3) A performance bond in an amount set by the City Council based on a
recommendation by the City Planner, City Attorney or Acting Building
Official must be received by the city prior to the building being moved to the
property. The performance bond must be in an amount to cover all necessary
work to complete the project, including the repainting of the building to match
the exterior of the primary structure on the property.
Approval To approve the request, the Planning Commission is asked to use the following motion
Motion as a guide:
Template:
I move to recommend approval of the moving permit to move an accessory
building to the property at 4150 Irish Court forth ...(use staffs findings provided
above or cite your own)
...with the following conditions:
1) Prior to the building being moved to the property, a building permit application
must be applied for and received from the city.
2) Engineering comments must be adhered to at the time of the building permit
application.
3) A performance bond in an amount set by the City Council based on a
recommendation by the City Planner, City Attorney or Acting Building
Official must be received by the city prior to the building being moved to the
S.if€.d.':'£d t' r?:J!.�-Vfrc< �r4,%`l o Ciiv��.�.rW'. 1ri!.(h(.jl.�ep;.�.a�`.:�. '{"rj `r' ;�l'+> �� ,1,1-
_ .. .{, .<.' li...C: ct ':�i.b;:;:'�-. (38.fIfJL: dd
i""Y;gykf.n 4
?=irerulir<. �:c�ra77fi.s, ra r 'r,r r>r ,'is_;t..08
property. The performance bond must be in an amount to cover all necessary
work to complete the project, including the repainting of the building to match
the exterior of the primary structure on the property.
cc: Marvin and Karen Lerol, 4150 Irish Ct N
.'i t7/?(. $E?Mf}i:t Ct1?.e.. G`,=r in-w.,..ii sl:L'"1Jf. .."1.5!{:1J1'(']l� 1-'✓.; '(7 i..'i.r•,c g v 1 !1
Pa n'".3
CrIz-
=u ' .r .
3 ProLvs��l
p s !Ue 40 �
i
i
2 761). i
{
}
z ?
i
I
1 � /JIQQ
J V45 tpi I
We-tf
a
r
1'.
�1
G u y 4 e- is bj t t,.e,.
tee-
be- m out
:
� V s
1
T
-tort �
{
t
]r_
f
� I
r 1
t
I 1 _
4
{
F
6,R}r
nv .
a�
=w <
yet � A4F A 7
r`p
- s
.uP AR,n"77
j r
i
AM
' r
I I ft
tt ,r-'C.�nrs '
ay G� I
_, x ION I tij
July 29, 2008
Re:Moving a detached rural storage building into the city of Lake Elmo, at the address of
4150 Irish Ct. N. Marvin and Karen Lerol.
Kyle,
Upon my site inspection.of the storage building I found that it does comply with today's
building code requirements. A building permit will be required (If Approved), for the
concrete slab for which the building will be placed.
Karl Horning
Building Official
City of Lake Elmo
444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500
Im..DA
Saint Paul,MN 55101.2140
ENGINEERS,•AK IFEC T S•PLAMUERS (651)292-4400
(651.)292-0083 Fax
MEMORANDUM www.tkda,com
To: Kelli Matzek, Planning Department Reference: 4150 Irish Court North
Copies To: K
P _Kyle Klatt, Planning Dire_.ctor Building Permit Application
Karl Horning, City Building Official City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Proj.No.: 14078.001
From: .-...Ryan W. Stempski,P.E. Routing:
Date: August 6, 2008
Karl,
We have reviewed the permit application and application materials for shed relocation to this address, dated
June 29, 2008, and have the following comments:
1. Proposed and existing contours must be provided if any grading is proposed at 4150 lrish Court North for
this building relocation.
2. Erosion control must be provided during moving and construction work, until vegetation is fully
established on all disturbed areas.
3. Proposed work shall not adversely impact drainage of adjacent properties.
4. The active and back-up drainfield boundaries must be shown to scale on the plan. The proposed building
shall not be located in drainfield or back-up drainfield areas. Coordinate all drainfield setback
requirements with the City Building Official.
5. Any proposed tree removal must be shown on the plan.
6. Applicant should describe how site will be accessed.
7. All easements and property lines must be identified and shown to scale on the plan.
An Employee Owners Company Promoting Attlrmative,fiction and Equal Opportunity
Planning Commission
Date: 8/11/08
Item: 4b
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM: VARIANCE -Consider tabling the application to republish the request to allow
construction of a detached garage on the property at 11002 Upper 33`6 Street
North.
REQUESTED BY: Jill Martin, Applicant
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The planning commission is being asked to open and close a public hearing and to table the
application to allow for the republication of the variance application. A discrepancy has arisen as
to the proposed setback for the detached garage from the front and side lot lines. Updated
information has been requested from the applicant to clarify this information. A new public
hearing notice will likely be required to reflect the actual distance and variance being requested.
Therefore, staff is requesting the public hearing be held and then for the application to be tabled
for further review at the September 8th Planning Commission meeting to allow for the correct
notice to be published.
Suggested motion for consideration:
Move to recommend tabling the variance application to allow for republication of the request at
11002 Upper 3P Street North until September 8th.
SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS:
• Introduction Planning Commission Chair
• Report Kelli Matzek, City Planner
• Questions to staff Chair facilitates
• Comments from property owner Jill Martin, Applicant
• Questions/comments from the
public, if any(up to 3 minutes) Chair facilitates
• Discussion Chair facilitates
• Consider Motion Commission
1
Planning Commission
Date: 8/11/08
Public Hearing
Item: 4c
ITEM: OP District Impervious Coverage Ordinance Amendments
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review proposed changes to the impervious coverage
requirements within the City's OP Open Space Preservation Districts and to conduct a public hearing on
the proposed changes at its August 11, 2008 meeting. Staff is specifically recommending that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended in the following manner:
1) That the OP District Standards table found at Section 150.180 (B, 2, h) be amended as follows:
Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage7270%
Gross Lot Area i
This percentage may be increased to 25% provided
a pervious paver or comparable system is installed
consistent with the City of Lake Elmo Engineering
Standards Manual or storm water mitigation
measures are installed to mitigate the runoff
created by the additional coverage above the base
district amount. All mitigation measures must be
approved by the City Engineer,
2) That Section 11.01 of the City Code (Definitions) be amended to review the definition for
Impervious Surface in the following manner:
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Any structure or surface which interferes to any degree with the direct
absorption of water into the ground, including but not limited to building footprints, sidewalks,
paved or gravel driveways and parking areas, patios, sport courts, swimming pools, or any other
similar surface. Decks, pervious landscaping fabric, , and retaining walls shall not be included as
impervious surface.
The intent of the proposed changes is to bring the current ordinance more in line with the actual
development that is occurring within the City's OP districts. This Ordinance has also been drafted with a
general acknowledgement that by their nature, the overall impervious coverage in an OP development
will be substantially less than other districts with lots of comparable or smaller size.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Given the complexity of the tables included with this report, Staff will be reviewing the important findings
included in these reports with the Planning Commission at the public hearing. This presentation will also
include additional visuals depicting some of the developments that were studied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to the OP
District impervious coverage provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as documented in the Staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. OP Development Impervious Surface Analysis
2. Tana Ridge Surface Coverage Review
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Report by staff....................................................................Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
- Presentation from Washington Conservation District......Angie Hong, WCD Education
- Questions from the Commission....................................Chair& Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing........................................................................................Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .......................................................................................Chair
- Call for a motion....................................................................................Chair Facilitates
- Discussion of Commission on the motion.............................................Chair Facilitates
- Action by the Planning Commission ..............................Chair & Commission Members
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
OP District Impervious Coverage Ordinance Amendment
To: Planning Commission
From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 8-11-08
Introductor In ormation
Objective: The Planning Commission has previously agreed to reconsider the City's current
regulations concerning impervious coverage limits within the OP Open Space
Preservation District. This action will help address numerous concerns that have been
expressed by property owners and home builders within the community concerning
the current requirements that limit impervious coverage to no more than 17% of lots
that are zoned as OP. Staff is recommending approval of amendments to the code
that will increase the allowed coverage within OP development and that add
additional clarification concerning the use of pervious paver systems or alternative
storm water management techniques on these residential lots.
Background: When the City adopted the original OP Open Space Preservation Ordinance several
years ago, it included a provision that no more than 10%of a lot within such a
development could be covered by an impervious surface. Due to previous
interpretation and application of this ordinance,many of the lots that have been
developed in OP Developments have exceeded this coverage requirement, and in
some cases,by a substantial margin. Recognizing this issue last fall,the Planning
Department proposed an amendment to the code in order to address this situation. In
December of 2007 the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
that provided a new definition for impervious surfaces, increased the overall coverage
permitted on a lot to 17% (15%for the building and driveway with an additional 2%
for sidewalks and other structures), and clarified the area of each lot that was to be
used in this calculation.
Since this amendment was approved by the City,the Planning Department has been
requiring that each building permit depict the amount of impervious coverage
proposed for a lot, and then reviewing each proposal for consistency with the
appropriate district standards. In conducting these reviews, Staff has observed the
following trends:
OP Ordinance bliperilirr,t° F,;ercr�rca.;�rrttr��irrcnt
r lctrattir;r E:t>rrrrrJ:;rtc�n Repaq:8-11-08
• Most of the permits that have been reviewed for lots within OP developments
are either very close to the coverage limits or would result in the site
exceeding these requirements.
• It is very difficult to meet the coverage standards and also have a pool,
sidewalk system, sport court, or detached accessory building in OP
developments.
"cant.) • The open space development requirements specify that at least half of the
builable area within an OP development be set aside as open space; therefore,
the maximum overall impervious coverage within these types of development
will always be at least half of the allowed coverage in other developments.
• Building permits cannot be issued for an expansion of coverage on any lot that
currently exceeds the impervious coverage requirements. Based on Staff s
current and past analysis, it is estimated that at least half of OP development
lots are either very close to or over the maximum coverage allowed. This
limit has already affected several homeowners within the City that have been
planning on porch additions, swimming pools, and other improvements.
Even though the Planning Commission reviewed this Ordinance as recently as 8
months ago, Staff believes it will be beneficial to revisit this issue to address the
concerns expressed above. To help expedite the review process, Staff has published a
public hearing notice for the Commission's August 11 c11 meeting with the specific
indication that the Commission will be considering an increase in the amount of
impervious coverage allowed within the OP District,
StaffReview and Analysis
History In preparation for the Planning Commission hearing on the OP District impervious
coverage requirements, Staff has completed the following tasks:
• Reviewed the previous Planning Commission and Council action on the OP
i district lot coverage requirements.
• Reviewed the impervious coverage requirements from other communities.
• Conducted an analysis of five OP developments, specifically looking at the
l overall impacts of various coverage limits.
• Examined the actual built coverage within one of the City's smaller OP
developments.
The Water Resource Education Specialist for the Washington Conservation District
will be attending the Planning Commission's meeting and is planning to conduct a
brief presentation focusing on storm water issues on an individual lot basis. In
addition, a representative of the NEMO program (Nonpoint source pollution
` Education for Municipal Officials) will also be attending the meeting along with the
Valley Branch Watershed District Engineer. The purpose for this presentation will be
r. . . � } .
�Lr ..^ f; litG
irF`.7?3Z er1rions <7i'{'Y{l?:rr;
11a ge, 2
OR Ordi,.ct;act'lYrapervious
Planning C'or.Lartai:;sivn%fe'.?i trt;8-1 I ?<s3
to provide additional information to the Planning Commission concerning the
relationship between storm water runoff and impervious coverage, and how these
issues are addressed on a subdivision-wide and lot-by-lot basis.
When the Planning Commission last reviewed this Ordinance, Staff conducted a
random survey of 12 lots within OP developments and found that all of these lots
exceeded the 10% coverage requirement that was in place at this time. Staff
presented three options for amending Ordinance, and the option chosen was
essentially the middle ground between the higher and lower figures. Since December
of 2007, the City's requirements have stated the following for OP Districts:
Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: Gross Lot Area -No more than
15% for the primary structure and driveway; but up to 17%total when
including all other impervious surfaces.
Ordinance
As part of its analysis of other Cities, Staff has reviewed Ordinances from the Cities
Review: of Burnsville, Cologne, Dayton, Woodbury, Bayport, Stillwater, Faribault,North
Branch, Wyoming, and Oakdale, Minnesota, recognizing that none of these cities are
a perfect match for the development patterns within Lake Elmo's open space districts.
Rather than summarizing our findings for each individual City, it is worth noting the
trends that can be observed from this study:
• Those cities with rural or agricultural districts typically do not regulate
impervious coverage in these districts or it is set below 20% (with 10%
coverage being a common figure)
• Most cities that are more urban in nature set an impervious coverage limit
within single family districts at around 25%.
• Denser residential districts and commercial/industrial developments are
generally allowed to exceed 25%,with many Ordinances allowing overages
grater than 50%.
• One of key differences between Lake Elmo's Ordinance and the other cities is
that many of them specify building or structure coverage, rather than
impervious coverage. Those elements of a plan that would not require a
building permit, including driveways and sidewalks, are not regulated for
coverage in some of the cities surveyed.
OP District In order to provide additional clarification concerning the impact of impervious
Review: coverage requirements in the OP District, Staff has completed a more thorough
review of 5 specific OP developments within the City of Lake Elmo. This review
summarizes data on the total land within an open space development,number of
residential lots platted, the average lot size in each development, and the overall
impacts of various coverage requirements in these developments. It ultimately
attempts to quantify the total percentage of a development that could be covered with
impervious surfaces at various lot coverage limits within.an OP development. Based
' :: :, c ,;,,.•: „lr ,r u•aiT�.... - ,: r,r ... F,3` JF 3.:orY" G
:..i..!'(71.�/Pai.7(L.S tit,_:,,1°.:�1.. ':,;,.. JI["er(.iti'La:.� Pi iL.�i't!ilf.(.I.t'P,.. LJ{jf°i ri,f �G'tYd:?.F�"ljl. 4:C:r'I ta.., ✓f.tEtUc71s;I.�':. I'� ..:;�'I.�i..t 1
01'IrH;•�f-S'.'i.>tf.`���t3 i',.'YCtl�,r1; (j.-0 4.eloc
OP rrxa aria,:Mr;porvious CC..7ver•a rc ,Tart
Planning Co.-rP�snlssi.on Report,- i',s'...j i_08
on this analysis,the total theoretical coverage within each OP project, including
roads, would be the following using a coverage limit of 25%:
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition 17.6%
St. Croix's Sanctuary 11.3%
Tapestry at Charlotte's Grove 14.2%
The Farms of Lake Elmo 12.2%
Tana Ride 14.1%
The attached table contains the complete analysis and all other options that were
studied. Staff will be reviewing the information in the table at the meeting, and at
that time, will more thoroughly explain the methodology and results of this review.
' Another analysis performed by Staff included a review focusing on the built
conditions of one specific OP development, Tana Ridge (chosen because of the
manageable number of lots within this subdivision). The second table attached to this
report summarizes the total area of each lot by address in the development and
provides a rough estimate of the lot coverage as determined by an examination of
aerial imagery. Although Staff had to make some assumptions about which portion
of a lot was indeed impervious, the end result should be fairly close to the actual
conditions as they existed in the spring of 2005 (when the City's imagery was
acquired). Any additions to the impervious coverage on individual lots since 2005
would not have been counted in this analysis.
In summary, Staff found that of the 20 lots within Tana Ridge, over half currently
exceed the City's OP coverage limit, another quarter of the lots are within 1
percentage of the maximum, and all exceed 13% impervious surface coverage. The
average through the development is 17.3%,not taking into account any improvements
made in the past 3 years. These findings are consistent with the previous research
performed by Staff and generally indicate that the lots currently developed within OP
districts fall within a range of 14 to 20%impervious coverage.
In addition to providing a more throughout review of the attached tables at the
meeting, staff will also present some example site plans and imagery for the
developments used as an example.
Engineering One of the provisions in the current Ordinance allows for the use of pervious
Review: materials in place of other"natural" ground cover. The City Engineer has expressed
concern that the Ordinance does not provide any clarification concerning when.these
systems may be used, and that as a general rule, it would be in the City's best
interested to set a limit on the amount of alternative coverage allowed in each
development. The primary reason to setting a limit is that the City does not have a
mechanism in place to require ongoing maintenance of a pervious system once it is
installed.
In order to still provide some flexibility and encourage environmentally sensitive
storm water management techniques, Staff is recommending that the definition for
.:' �("f,'IdTirC''.17 :;;i;f� `f"l>rr 3:S}'L<f�?.tr7 C' '�:5: U.'a?�•',1 L'?rT U,{ ii7l r 1L'rf iL tf r e}r £r`` r a r ! it f
!
,r
age 9.
P Ordiwtru°c:Itar r'x'�:iii.s c'+a� rr;tc, rrtc;°r7t�rrx�:rt%
Planning {.ryG}Y).rs',?I.`.;ar?Jn r;ex,1f.ry.8- 1-08
"Impervious Surface" in the code eliminate any references to pervious surfaces, but
that the OP district provisions allow for an additional 5% of the lot to be covered as
long as appropriate mitigation measures are used and subject to review in accordance
with accepted Engineering Standards.
On a development-wide basis, the storm water management system within each
subdivision is reviewed as part the overall plans for a particular development. Part of
this review includes as estimate of total lot coverage, which is used to help ensure that
any ponds, infiltration basins, and other storm water management measures are sized
appropriately. Additionally, each development must meet standards adopted by the
governing watershed district, and again, compliance with these rules will be
determined by a review of the overall storm water system that is proposed. Staff has
received no indication that the preciously approved OP developments were sized
incorrectly or that the overall lot coverage in these developments has created
problems.
Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of current OP developments and the overall anticipated
coverage within OP districts, Staff is recommending the following:
1) That the maximum allowed impervious coverage within OP Districts be
increased to 20%.
2) That this ordinance no longer regulate the house and driveway separate from
other improvements on each lot.
3) That provisions be added to the Ordinance that allow the OP District coverage
requirements to be increased to 25%if a pervious paver or comparable system
is used or if the additional surface water runoff generated by the increased
coverage is mitigated in a manner approved by the City Engineer.
Commission ! The Planning Commission has the following options:
Options: A) Recommend approval of the proposed ordinances to amend the impervious
coverage requirements in the City's OP Districts;
B) Recommend staff make changes to the proposed ordinances, or add additional
changes;
C) Table the item for further study.
As this is a city driven process, there is no 60-day deadline.
...'Z3r}cr.:rr�8;t%>'cr'rti'r". E�;`v.•rs`•,,';r„ .rn:tae,''-;Lc;crr,j`LPt rrYri s r ,,i .ate•; -t __4. -• •h.r , ;y+.h r p, .E cr i_1:ifTr(:. .. 'i2F. .�t ,C.f7791ii'!?t.CIL{IICJetr.:!F1..'51..r.Ii�..f'.:....#.'�•'..'I'•'s' .., g�.k.£.`ge 5
OP Development Im pervious Surface Analysis ._._.._.._-_ .__._.�. - _....___...--_.................._
Development Fields 2 -�Sanctuar�r Iestry- _..... Farms �� -_Tana Ridge fights Park(RE)
--� `i._...__ _ �....-_..
+ +
Excludes Tawnhomes � 1..•_..-._.._..__.......-..._..�_-.. ....
i
Gross Land Area IAcresl r 71.85� 152.95i I 173 I-_ -83.8 _ I --- 401 142
t I`
Buildable Area r 67.471 93.9% 135.731 88 7%1 1671 96.5% 71 84 7° 35 35 88 4% - --
- - ---- - - -..... .,_-...._ --r--- - --- -- _
flPen Space/Easement Area32.67 45.5% - 75.8 49 6% 35.5 42 4°r - 15 89 39 7% -- 6.60 4.6%
-..... -
Net Developable Land 34.8 48.4% 59.93 39 2%1 74.92 43.3% 35.5 42 4% 19 46 48 7°i° - 135.4D 95.4%
-_ _.. --- --------- __- ]--- _- - - --- -.._..-- ... - i - - __ _._.
�- - - _
_-._.......__-_.._..__.-_.__ -...._...__ --- - �_-----.. - ��..._._.-_. _-...
Number of Lots 40 62 - 66; 30 18 50
Smallest Lot IS Ft. 154341 ` 31696 f 1 32535' 32fi201 31961 ,._..- 65456
Car est Lot - -- -
- t_ 54132 58056 142860 ......... 53860 ....- 38363I. 235225
Average Size of Lots "_ 27129 I 36069 447971 35892 334191 1057 _
+ -- - �__._...�.._- J- --.......-.....-......-. ..__.._......_�......... _ ..__ _..
Total Lat AreaAcres -- -_.._ _._....__,......___. 1......__ ._...._67.87 --i - .24.72 a - -15.34 121.44
Total -.__.`.._._.. -_.. ..._t_..-;._.._. 33.63' 51,34'
Road Covera a 4.23 5 9/0 4.48 2.9/0 7.524.3/0 4.0 4.9/a 1.81• 4.5/ 4.861 3.4/0
Avera .._.,�..._.._.__ .�...�-_.
......_.-..._�_...---,_....._.�...-.-�.�__ -T479.7 _-3 .8......._2(e Lat e-g 2712,9 3606. ..--- {- ....-334.._1-.9
17%i 4fi11.93 613 .73 76( q•Ft.) 1549 6101.6 € 56813
.a - 7 ~- 61M3.8
...-- 8�-
120 6425.8 6339.2 89 .4 - 1 7178.4 683 8 1569.55.0-
°/a
- - ----.
6782.25+ 9017.25i 11199.251 897318354.75r
- 30/ 8138-7� -- 10820.7 - 13439.1 10767.6' 10025.7�
Tot i Max
0 0 0 o
a Covera a w/Roads 10�, 7 9 1
-----,-__..__�,_----...__-.-- -.---.r .5 I_ 0.6/° --- 9.62 6.3/o; 14.30 8.3�0� 6.54 7.8/o l 3.35; 8.A/o
o .
o � o a 0 0 '
Acres 17/a _9.95 1 13.2 8.6 11� � 3 8/o s 1 /o� 19.05, .0/°� 8.27 9.9/° 4.42 11.1/o '
10.96 16.2% 14.75' 9.6% - 21.09` 12.2% 9.021 10 8% 4.88 12 2% 23.08 16.3%
11.3%� 24.48I 14.2% 90.25' 12.2% 5.65] 14.1% -�- -
_._........ /a 19 9/6t_......_-...__19.88 13.4%'. 27.88 16.1 h ^- 11.49{ 13.7� - 6.42�16.0%
-.....
----_
i
- .._._-.-_9 _-_.....--- --- --- I _........
FI
- _.--.--
Total Road Length 7088 7509 125911 6821; 3036 7567
Road Width 26+ 261 r- - 261 26�- 26
_......-_..... ........-,......
._-_- _1
—_...... ...... _........ .—........._...—............. —........—........... —.......—_.....
Tana Ridge Surface Coverage Review
-..-._....�-_....-.....-_.._..--..... --......-__......_...�.-----..............
;Address Imp Gov .Total Area ,Percent
_ ! —r
(s)..............._—(...s ...—...--..... .._
49381 63921 33,333 19.2%
4964 6401 1 38,363` 16.7%
- .........__T,?.. -- ._..�......—.._._............1 --- ....-._.-_.....-._............o
........_ j - 4967 - 65441 33,1101 19.8/°
4937' 59091 32,690 18.1 /°
..........._—..—.... ---........_ __..�———. j.............. _. °
—_._.......�- 49051. --60131 32_781 ....18_.3%..
48841 46221 33 424! 13.8%
48751 4947�._.._.. 32,8171 15.1
_---........_ ...... ,------_... _- -- ---- -
4847' 65901 33,0781 -19.9%
4819 - --5480 i 32,857 16.7%
4791 5446` _ 33,582 16.2%
..__`...4759' S65 - 32,852- 17.2%
_._ — : ___�...___.......—_ 1.1
_......—
4731 5856 32,653 17.9/o
4703 5065 32, /o 709 15.5
_�.-._.. 4677 5895 32,646 18.1%
46511 59081 33,0151 17.9%
-..__............-.... .._..._-.....46291...........-..481..8 j_.._.-.........33,797� _...14.3%
... - ._..._4605....-_. 60521-.....__.......... 31,961 i.. --18.9%
4577 5519 32,997 16_7%
__...._........._..........--.-._.L-..__ _-.i..-_.......-. -......._-�-- -- -
-._._-......_� 47581 _ 5960_............_...35,985..1-_... 16.6%
I 4830 1 66781 33 727 -19.8%
,- ..._.....-.__r
Totals 115,752' 668,377 17.3%
Planning Commission
Date: 8/11/08
Item: 5
Informational Item
ITEM: "A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities
Area"—An Embrace Open Space Report
SUBMITTED BY: Keili Matzek, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The attached document is an executive summary for a 2008 report that examined local
government capacity to conserve parks and natural areas in the 11-county Twin Cities metro
area. The entire document is available to be checked out from the planning department at city
hall for those interested in reading the document. This item is for informational purposes.
No action is needed at this time.
1
A Look of Community Copacity
To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area
A report on the results
of a study commissioned by � �
Embrace Open Space
g
Ianti
Chicago
Sherburne
Anoka
Fright
Ramsey
�
Hennepin
Carver
Dakota
� ,. Scott
Conducted by
id®® Friends of Minnesota B R A S` . P E N S P A C E
t
An Embrace ®pen Space Report
May 2008
PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES
County respondents City of East Bethel City of Newport Township respondents
Anoka County City of Eden Prairie City of New Prague Albion Township
Carver County City of Edina City of New Scandia Baytown Township
Chisago County City of Elko New Market City of North Branch Belle Plaine Township
Dakota County City of Elk River City of Northfield Burns Township
Hennepin County City of Excelsior City of North Oaks Camden Township
Isanti County City of Falcon Heights City of North St. Paul Chatham Township
Ramsey County City of Farmi6gton City of Norwood Young America Chisago Lake Township
Scott County City of Forest Lake City of Oakdale Denmark Township
Sherburne County City of Fridley City of Oak Grove Empire Township
Washington County City of Gem Lake City of Orono Eureka Township
Wright County City of Golden Valley City of Osseo Fish Lake Township
City of Grant City of Otsego Grey Cloud Island Township
City of Hamburg City of Plymouth Hampton Township
City of Ham Lake City of Princeton Hassan Township
City respondents City of Hampton City of Prior Lake Haven Township
City of Afton City of Hanover City of Ramsey Helena Township
City of Andover City of Harris City City of Richfield Hollywood Township
City of Annandale City of Hastings City of Robbinsdale Laketown Township
City of Anoka City of Hilltop City of Rockford tent Township
City of Apple Valley City of Hopkins City of Rosemount Linwood Township
City of Arden Hills City of Howard Lake City of Roseville Livonia Township
City of Bayport City of Independence City of Rush City Louisville Township
City of Becker City of Isanti City City of Savage Maple Lake Township
City of Belle Plaine City of Jordan City of Shafer Marysville Township
City of Bethel City of Lake Elmo City of Shakopee May Township
City of Big Lake City of Lakeland City of Shoreview Nessel Township
City of Blaine City of Lakeland Shores City of Shorewood Orrock Township
City of Bloomington City of Lake St. Croix Beach City of South Haven Oxford Township
City of:Braham City of Lauderdale City of South St. Paul Palmer Township
City of Brooklyn Park City of Lexington City of Spring Park Rockford Township
City of Buffalo City of Lilydale City of St. Anthony San Francisco Township
City of Burnsville City of Lino Lakes City of St. Francis Sand Creek Township
City of Cambridge City of Little Canada City of Stacy Shafer Township
City of Center City City of Long Lake City of Stillwater Silver Creek Township
City of Centerville City of Mahtomedi City of St. Louis Park Spencer Brook Township
City of Champlin City of Maple Grove City of St. Michael Spring Lake Township
City of Chanhassen City of Maplewood City of St. Paul Springvale Township
City of Chaska City of Marine on St. Croix City of Sunfish Lake St. Lawrence Township
City of Chisago City City of Mayer City of Vadnais Heights Stanchfield Township
City of Clearwater City of Medicine Lake City of Victoria Stillwater Township
City of Cokato City of Medina City of Waconia Sunrise Township
City of Columbia Heights City of Mendota Heights City of Watertown Vermillion Township
City of Coon Rapids City of Minneapolis City of Waverly Watertown Township
City of Corcoran City of Minnetonka City of Wayzata West Lakeland Township
City of Cottage Grove City of Minnetonka Beach City of West St. Paul White Bear Township
City of Crystal City of Minnetrista City of White Bear Lake Wyoming Township
City of Dayton City of Montrose City of Willernie
City of Deephaven City of Mounds View City of Woodbury
City of Delano City of New Brighton City of Wyoming
City of Eagan City of New Hope City of Zimmerman
An Embrace Open Space Report
A Lack at Community Capacity
To Conserve Open Space
in the Twin Cities Area
May 2008
A report on the results of a study
commissioned by
Embrace Open Space
Conducted by
1000 Friends of Minnesota
Report published by
Embrace Open Space
St. Paul, Minnesota
Embrace Open Space is a collaborative serving as a catalyst
for greater citizen and elected leadership to conserve and steward natural areas
and parks, lakes and rivers in the eleven-county Twin Cities area.
This questionnaire was commissioned by Embrace Open Space, a collaborative serving
as a catalyst for greater citizen and elected leadership to conserve and steward
natural areas and parks, lakes and rivers in the eleven-county Twin Cities area.
The questionnaire was conducted by the Growing by Design Technical Resource
Center at 1000 Friends of Minnesota. The Technical Resource Center offers
community-based technical assistance, including geographic mapping, visual-
ization, data collection and analysis.
< Funding for this project
provided by the McKnight Foundation
Special thanks to:
• Advisors, reviewers and testers for this work, including Ann Beckman, Lisa Bigaouette,
Larry Blackstad, Gina Bonsignore, lean Coleman, Will Craig, Debra Detrick., Sandi
Dingle, David Fulton, Amy Geisler, Jane Harper, Dan Marckel, Danny Nadeau,
Gregory Page, Cordelia Pierson, Sharon Pfeifer, Michael Pressman, Shelley Shreffler,
Jim Solem, Erin Stwora, Ben Welle and Josh Williams.
• The Land Use Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan Council,whose members affirmed
that this information will be of significant value to participating communities as
an opportunity to compare themselves to other communities throughout the
metropolitan area.
•The individuals representing the 194 communities (cities, townships and counties) who
committed their valuable time to completing this questionnaire. Thanks to their
thoughtful responses, insights and perspectives, this first-time look at "community
capacity" to conserve parks and natural areas will provide valuable information for
the communities themselves, as well as for Embrace Open Space and other entities
desiring to support the efforts of these communities in the future. (For a complete
listing of participating communities, see inside front cover.)
• Sally Wakefield, 1000 Friends of Minnesota, for coordinating and analyzing the
questionnaire results, and for creating all tables and graphs.
• Communities and organizations that submitted photographs for this report.
For additional information or copies The complete 80-page report includes
of the complete report, contact: additional information about the method-
ology of the study, graphs of key findings,
comparisons of metro county and collar
Jenna Fletcher, Program Coordinator : county results, and comparisons of results
Embrace Open Space by community classification types. The
The Trust for Public Land full report also includes an appendix of
2610 University Avenue, Suite 300 easy-to-read tabulated results for each
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 of the 62 questions, as well as all individual
651-999-5306 comments from respondents. Along with
enna.fletcher@t l or total responses, tabulations illustrate results
1 p g by city/township/county respondents and
by metro/collar county respondents.
Copyright C 2008 by The Trust for Public Land
An Embrace Open Space Report:
i i A took at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Why this study?
Embrace Open Space (EOS) is a collaborative that works to catalyze citizen and
elected leadership to conserve and steward natural areas and parks, lakes and rivers
in the 11-county Twin Cities area. Formed in 2001, EOS provides a framework for its
partner organizations to work together on issues related to preserving open space in
the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.
This report is based on results of a questionnaire that examined local government
capacity ("community capacity") to conserve parks and natural areas in the
11-county Twin Cities metro area. Community capacity is defined as the resources,
regulations, relationships and operations that enable a community to conserve
open space. Sponsored by Embrace Open Space and conducted by 1000 Friends
of Minnesota, the study reflects Embrace Open Space's goal of seeking a deeper
understanding of the multiple factors in place within local communities that could
influence their ability and capacity to balance development and conservation.
Understanding these factors can shape assistance for longer-range local planning
and policies. Periodic replication of this questionnaire over time can reveal trends
that may help identify which activities act as critical precursors to park and natural
area protection and restoration efforts. This study will also provide valuable
information to inform the efforts of Embrace Open Space and others to help
communities establish parks and open space.
Administering the questionnaire
The geographic scope of the questionnaire included what is known as the "greater
Twin Cities metropolitan area." This 4,700-square-mile area includes seven Twin
Cities "metropolitan" counties (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and
Washington), as well as four surrounding northern "collar" counties (Chisago, Isanti,
Sherburne and Wright).
1000 Friends of Minnesota, with guidance from Embrace Open Space, The Trust for
Public Land, and an advisory committee, developed a questionnaire to be Completed
by local government staff. 1000 Friends of Minnesota made direct telephone contact
with 279 government agencies, inviting local government staff to complete an online
questionnaire.
A total of 211 communities responded to the initial contacts made to 279 local
units of government, representing an initial response rate of 76%. Of the 211 initial
respondents, 194 completed the questionnaire, for a final response rage of 70%.
KEY FINDINGS
Key findings from the results of the questionnaire focus on seven identified areas
of community capacity to conserve parks and natural areas in the 11-county
Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.
An Embrace Open Space Report:
A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area
Planning and zoning
• A wide variety of ordinances are used to protect open space and natural areas.
The majority of responding communities have ordinances related to park dedication
(80%), planned unit development(710%)and stormwater management(62%).
• For protection of specific natural resources, a majorityof responding communities
have ordinances related to floodplains (69%), shorelandprotection (67%) and
wetland buffer zones (53%).
• Of those responding communities with planned unit development(PUD) ordinances,
68% report that PUDs are actively used to protect natural resources and features.
• A large percentage of responding communities (63%) do not rely on or partner
with another governmental unit for planning and zoning functions.
Parks and open space planning
• 73% of responding communities have an adopted park and/or open space plan.
97% of these plans include parks, 84% include trails, 58% include open space
conservation and 50% include natural area conservation.
• 62% of these approved plans include proposed acquisition of parks, open space
and/or natural areas.
Implementation of plans
• In implementing the plans, purchase of land is cited more often (43% report it
as a tool) than conservation easements (36% report it as a tool).
• 86% of responding communities say that total staff time spent on natural resource
planning is less than one full-time-equivalent (FTE) position.
• 68% of responding communities report that Development topics appear on council
or board meeting agendas often or regularly, while 38% report that open space or
natural area proteAon topics are on their agendas often or regularly.
Conservation funding
e In reporting the tools used to implement parks/open space plans, park dedication
is the most widely used tool (used by 84%of responding communities), followed by
park fees (63%) and annual budget allocations (51%).
• 161% of responding communities have held a voter referendum to fund park, open
space and/or natural area conservation. At the same time, 23%of those who haven't
held a referendum report that it is possible to very likely that they would consider
one in the future.
Citizen interest and urgency
• Responding communities see higher citizen interest in protecting open space and
natural areas (81% report moderate interest, increasing interest or lots of interest), but
lower citizen urgency(58%report moderate urgency, increasing urgency or lots of urgency).
An Embrace Open Space Report:
2 A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area
• 49% of responding communities report that citizens attend development-related
hearings frequently, and 20% report increasing attendance over the past two years.
• 33%of responding communities report that they have an active citizen group (or
groups) focused on community growth, natural area and park protection, or other
land use-related topics; 30% report that they have an active nonprofit organization
working on land conservation and/or water quality issues.
• 75% of responding communities report that local newspapers provide full coverage
or moderate coverage of issues related to development topics in their communities,
compared to 44% providing full coverage or moderate coverage of land Protection
topics. 52% of responding communities report that local newspapers provide little
coverage (rarely, if ever) of integrating land protection into the community as it grows.
Natural resource information for decision-making
• Maps are available to local policymakers in multiple ways: hard-copy maps
at government center(64%), electronic neaps in PDF format (43%) and online
interactive mapping (17%).
561/10 of responding communities indicate that natural resource information is
regularly taken into consideration by policymakers when making development
decisions:34% indicate that natural resource information is sometimes taken into
consideration.
• 48% of responding communities have used natural resource inventory information
or other methods to prioritize natural resource protection efforts. 46% have used
natural resource inventory information or other methods to prioritize water quality
protection efforts.
Local staff expertise and experience
• 49%of respondents have worked for their communities for 5 years or less; 201/0
have worked for their communities for 5-10 years; and 31% have worked for their
communities for more than 10 years.
• 22% of respondents have worked in the planning field for 5 years or less; 15%
have worked in the planning field for 5-10 years; and 31% have worked in the
planning field for more than 10 years. (The remaining 32% of respondents are not
planners.)
• More than half of responding communities report having at least one full-time-
equivalent (FTE) planner, either in-house or through contracted services. The
remaining 48% indicate having less than 1 FTE, having no dedicated planning staff,
or not applicable.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Areas of assistance
• Education for elected officials is the area of assistance requested the most
by responding communities (74%), followed by workshops (55%) and increasing
awareness through local media (40%).
An Embrace Open Space Report:
A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area 3
Comparing metro county and northern collar county results
Questionnaire results were analyzed to identify any significant differences between
communities in the seven Twin Cities metropolitan counties (Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington) and communities in the four northern
"collar" counties (Chicago, lsanti, Sherburne and Wright). The results gathered from
responding communities did demonstrate differences in a few areas. The findings
themselves were not surprising, but differences in the indicated areas were less
than might have been expected.
Comparing results by community classification types
Results of the questionnaire were also analyzed based on different types of com-
munities. Questionnaire results were separated and reviewed to assess whether
any differences can be observed between developing communities (both developing
job centers and developing bedroom communities) and developed communities
(central cities and stressed municipalities, developed job centers and affluent
residential areas).
Based on a hypothesis that developing communities face greater challenges
related to development and conservation, it was expected that a comparison of
developing communities and deVeloped communities would demonstrate differences
in results. The comparative analysis, however, did not reflect any notable differences
as measured by the results of this questionnaire, suggesting that many communities
representing different classification types experience similar challenges related
to development and conservation.
INITIAL CONCLUSIONS AND NE)(T STEPS
• This initial look at current conditions in Twin Cities metropolitan area commun-
ities provides an understanding—based on the perspectives of the communities
themselves-of the multiple factors that can influence a community's capacity
to balance development and conservation. The results also suggest that, at least
to some degree, all communities face challenges related to a community's capacity
to balance development and conservation.
• A clear understanding of the factors that can affect open space conservation
performance may provide important, insights of value to the communities themselves,
as well as to Embrace Open Space and others seeking to provide support to these
communities.
• Embrace Open Space recommends repeating this questionnaire over time to reveal
trends that may help identify which activities are critical precursors to natural area
conservation and protection.
• As a follow-up to this report, Embrace Open Space expects to publish a guide
for local governments. The guide will be based on a more comprehensive analysis
of these questionnaire results, as well as perspectives on what the results mean for
communities seeking to assess and enhance their community capacity to conserve
and protect parks and natural areas into the future.
An Embrace Open Space Report:
4 A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area
Questions Asked of Community Respondents
The 62 questions that were asked of respondents are listed below and on page 6. Tabulated results
for each question are included in the full 80-page report of the results of this study. For more information
about the full report, or to obtain copies, see "For additional information"box on page ii.
Introduction and Definitions . Local Government Activities
1. Embrace Open Space is interested in learning more about 16.What percentage of total staff time within your organ-
how local communities define these terms as well. Please feel ization(FTE) is spent on natural resource planning?
free to use the white space below to tell us how YOU define
open space and/or natural areas. 17. In your estimation, how often is the topic of development
included on the agenda of city council or town/county board
Community Identification meetings?
2.Which type of community are you completing this survey 18 In your estimation, how often in the past year has the city
council or town/county board addressed the topic of open
3. Please add the name of the community you are completing
space and/or natural area protection?
this survey for. 19. Has your city council or town/county board directed an
Planning and Zoning official group to address issues related to planning for and
protecting open space/natural areas.
4. Please indicate ordinances your community utilizes to
protect open spaces and/or natural areas. Land Protection Funding
5. Please indicate ordinances in place in your community 20. Has your community held any voter referendums to fund
that are more restrictive than what is required by federal,state park,open space and/or natural area conservation?
or local standards. 21. If yes, have you had a successful referendum to fund park,
6. Please explain in what way they(ordinances)are more open space and/or natural area conservation?
restrictive. 22. If your community has not held a referendum or previous
efforts have been unsuccessful,what is the likelihood that
7. If you have a ordinance(planned unit development), your community might consider a referendum to fund park,
is it actively usedd t to o protect natural resources or features. open space and/or natural area conservation?
8. Does your community rely on, or partner with,another 23. Have funds been:budgeted for any of the following
governmental unit for any part of your planning or zoning activities related specifically to land protection efforts?
functions?
9. If yes, please describe. 24.Are funds for open space and/or natural area protection
planning included in your community's current budget?
10. Does your community have an adopted park and/or open 25 If es,what activities are these funds intended to support?
space plan? y pp
Parks and Open Space Planning 26.Approximately what percentage of the budget does this
represent?
11.When was your parks and/or open space plan approved? Citizen Interest and Urgency
If unsure,just enter unsure.'If more than one plan, please g y
enter the date for each plan, if known; if not, simply enter 27.How often has your community surveyed its residents in the
,more than one plan-dates unknown." past 5 years?
12.Which of the following are included in your plan? 28. PIease tell us if any of the following topics were included
on a recent(past couple of years)survey.
13. Does the plan include proposed acquisition of parks,
open space and/or natural areas? 29. What is your estimate of the sense of interest in your
community to protect open space/natural areas?
14.What implementation tools are included in the plan?
30. How do you gauge that level of interest?
15.Which departments are involved in implementing the
plan(s) in your community? 31.What is your estimate of the sense of urgency in your
community to protect open space/natural areas?
32. How do you gauge that level of urgency?
An Embrace Open.Space Deport:
A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area 5
Questions Asked (continued)
33. Please describe attendance at development-related 48. Is natural resource information regularly taken into
hearings over the past two years. How often do citizens attend? consideration by policy makers as part of development
decision-making?
34. Has citizen attendance changed over the past two
years? 49.Which of the following methods are used to provide local
citizens access to information about land cover and/or natural
Medighblitl interest areas in your community?
35.Are you aware of any active citizen group(s) in your com- 50.What 1-3 key maps or data layers related to natural
munity that focus locally on community growth, natural area resource planning would you find useful that you do not
and park protection,or other land use-related topics? currently have?
36. if possible,please provide the name of any active 51. Has your community conducted a natural resources
group(s). inventory(NRI)?
37.Are you aware of any nonprofit organization(s)working on 52. Is your community using a natural resources inventory(NRI)
land conservation and/or water quality issues that are active in compiled by another agency,like a watershed organization or
your community? soil and water conservation district?
38. If possible,please name any nonprofit organization(s) 53. Has your community used an NRI developed in-house
working on land conservation and/or water quality issues that or by another agency to prioritize natural resource protection
are active in your community. efforts?
39. Have local newspaper(s) included articles about open 54. Has your community used an NRI developed in-house or
space or.natural area protection in your community in the past by another agency to prioritize water quality protection efforts?
two years?
40. In your estimation, how thoroughly have local newspaper(s) Embrace Open Space Assistance
covered issues related to development in your community in
the past two years? 55.Subject.to certain criteria,Embrace Open Space(EOS)
may provide communities with technical,communications
41. In your estimation, how thoroughly have local newspaper(s) or other targeted assistance.Of the activities below, please
covered integrating land protection into the community as it indicate which might be of greatest interest or assistance to
grows in the past two years? your community. Please select any of the following types
of communications assistance that would be helpful to your
natural resource planning efforts.
Natural Areas Assessment 56. Please describe below any technical assistance EOS
42. Do staff have access to maps of land cover and/or natural could provide that would be helpful to your natural resource
areas for your community? planning efforts(such as visualization of growth options,data
development or mapping).
43. Do staff have access to digital data for land cover and/or
natural areas in your community?
44.If yes, is your community able to analyze digital data either Community information
with in-house staff or through outside contracted services? 57. What is your title?
45. If you are in the 7-county metro,your community should 58. How long have you worked for this community?
have received a mapping and data tool called The Natural
Resource Digital atlas from the Metropolitan Council. Do staff 59. How long have you worked in the planning field?
currently use or intend to use this tool to support land.use
decisions? 60.What percentage of your job is devoted to planning for this
community?
46. If NOT, is there a particular reason?
61. How many staff does your community's planning
47.Which of the following methods are used to provide local department have, either in-house or contracted services(in FTE
policy makers access to information about land cover and/or hours)?
natural areas in your community?
62. How many staff does your parks department have, either
in-house or contracted services(in FTE hours)?
An C-mbrac'e Open Space Report:
G A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in the Twin Cities Area