HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 3-11-19 THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North (651) 747-3900
Lake Elmo, MN 55042 www.lakeelmo.or_q
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday March 11, 2019
at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. February 25,2019
4. Public Hearings
a. None
5. Business Items
a. Conditional Use Permit Time Extension—Lake Elmo Inn Parking Lot(3504 Lake Elmo
Avenue North)
b. Zoning Code Text Amendment—Minimum Lots Sizes for Multi-family Housing
6. Communications/Updates
a. City Council Update—March 5,2019
1. Boulder Ponds 4'Addition—Final Plat Time Extension
2. Continental Springs of Lake Elmo -PUD Concept Plan Review
3. Royal Golf 3'Addition-Final Plat Time Extension
b. Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings:
• March 25,2019
• April 8,2019
7. Adjourn
***Note:Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this
meeting due to a health condition or disability.Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special
accommodations.
THE CITY OF
LAKE ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of February 25, 2019
Chairman Weeks called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Cadenhead, Weeks, Hartley, Holtz, Steil and Risner
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Roberts, City Planner Prchal & Fire Chief Malmquist
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Holtz/Hartley, move to approve the agenda as presented, Vote: 6-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes: February 11, 2019
M/S/P: Hartley/Cadenhead, move to approve the February 11, 2019 minutes as
amended, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing—Preliminary Plat, Easement Vacations and Rezoning—Pulte Homes
Roberts started his presentation regarding the application from Pulte Homes on
Minnesota for a preliminary plat, easement vacation and a rezoning to develop a
townhouse project called Bentley Village. This development is on the south side of 51n
Street and will have 240 attached townhomes on approximately 41.6 acres for an
average density of 5.77 units per acre. The developer has been working on refining the
plan based on comments from the concept review.
These townhomes would be privately owned and governed by a homeowners
association. The developer is proposing public streets that are 28 feet wide. There will
be a trail on one side of the street. The development is proposed to be done in 4
phases, which will be market driven. In regards to parking, driveways will be
constructed to be 25 feet long, with 2 car garages. There will be room for two vehicles
in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. There will be additional parking allowed
on the street and a there is proposed parking at the pool area. Each unit will be
privately owned with the area around it being common area.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
2
The City Engineer feels that there are some setbacks that are not met. The developer
will need to revise the project plan to clearly show that all the units will meet setback
and spacing requirements. There are changes that will need to be made to the
landscaping based on the City landscape architect comments. There are 33 conditions of
approval. The most important one is that the applicant submit revised preliminary plat
plans meeting all conditions of approval before the City will accept a final plat
application for any phase of development and before the start of any clearing or grading
activity.
Steil asked if there has been any discussion with the developer after the previous
meeting regarding the north/south street "street G" in terms of how that will be
constructed and connected. Roberts stated that at a minimum, this developer will be
required to construct the road to their property line, possibly with a temporary cul-de-
sac. Holtz stated that with all of the potential changes that are going to be required, it
could affect the number of units. Holtz is wondering if Roberts has an idea of what the
units per acres might be reduced to. Roberts stated that he is guessing they might lose
10-12 units and will definitely be medium density.
Hartley thought there was something about 4 sided architecture and that there was
something requiring a window on the garage door. Roberts stated that the City does
require four sided architecture and he will need to check on the garage door window
requirement. Hartley stated that the examples did not have it which is why he asked
about it.
Holtz asked if it is pretty normal to have so many recommended conditions at this stage.
Roberts stated that with a big project like this, it is not unusual and Lake Elmo is more
detail driven than other places.
Hartley asked about the statement that this project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Which one would that be since we are in the process of adopting
the 2040 plan? Roberts stated that it is consistent with both in regards to density.
Cadnehead asked why the streets are City owned, but the storm pond is owned by HOA.
Roberts stated that is at the direction of the City Engineer.
Hartley stated that the City Engineer stated the increase in traffic might require a traffic
signal or turn lane improvements, but a financial contribution was not included as a
condition. Roberts stated that it is highlighted in the City Engineers report, but is not a
condition of approval.
Paul Heuer, Director of Land Planning and Entitlement, Pulte Homes will give a brief
presentation. Pulte works hard to make a neighborhood look good from the outside.
Pulte includes a lot of open space to make the neighborhood feel more open. There is
an HOA that maintains amenities. There will be a dog park, tot lot and open play area
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
3
within the development. The most substantial change from concept plan to preliminary
plat is that the storm pond was moved because of the pipeline. There was also a lot of
engineering comments that were addressed. A variety of demographics are served as
there are many options that can be selected including a sunroom, rooftop terrace, etc.
Heuer stated that there are 3 comments that have caused some concern. The first is the
regional transportation comment that there should be a financial contribution to a
traffic signal or turn lane. Pulte is paying 130K for a regional street and feels they are
paying their fair share. Second the comment from the City Engineer that the easement
for the storm sewer be 30 feet wide. Pulte is confused by that as ordinance 150.277
says that if the sewer pipes are less than 10 feet in depth within private property, the
easement should be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The last item is in regards to
landscaping. The review put the entire burden on them, when it should be the more
intense use to the South. Pulte is proposing to put in half of the buffer.
Cadenhead is wondering if Pulte has been in contact with the holder of the pipeline
easement. Heuer stated that early on they reached out and got their design standards
and have worked with them to get the elevation of the pipeline. Pulte will work very
closely with them throughout this process.
Heuer stated that they will need to sit down with City staff to work out some of the
outstanding issues. Heuer doesn't feel that they will need to lose any units once they
meet with staff and work things out. Heuer stated that it is unusual for the HOA to own
the storm sewer and that may be a discussion item with the City.
Cadenhead asked about the storm water maintenance fee charged by the City. Roberts
stated that this development would participate in that fee. Roberts believes that it is
the storm ponds that are being referred to, and that can be worked out.
Public Hearing opened at 7:48 pm
John Ehret, 9124 Jade Court, is wondering how the City calculates the width of a parking
vehicle on a 28 foot wide street. Ehret stated that a fire lane is 20 feet and he is
concerned about parking on the street diminishing the ability for emergency vehicles to
get down the street. Ehret stated that currently winter snow storage has become a
problem. Ehret is concerned about the reach of the fire apparatus on these 3 story
buildings. Ehret is also concerned about the timing on the connection road to Hudson
Blvd.
Tom Hart, 9217 Jade Way N, the walking trail on the North side of 51h Street currently
gets a lot of traffic. It has been a challenge to get that trail cleared in the winter. The
Boulder Ponds and Savona HOA's have had many conversations with Administrator
Handt, but sidewalks are cleared by property owners, but the trails are not cleared by
the City. Hart is wondering if there is a proposal for sidewalks on the south side of the
road. Hart is concerned about people walking on uncleaned icy trails.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
4
The Planning Director received 3 letters regarding this project. One letter is not in favor
of the project because of congestion, one letter is concerned about using the street
name "Jewel", the last letter is concerned about the privacy and screening along the
North side of this site to create more of a buffer.
Public Hearing closed at 7:55 pm
M/S/P: Hartley/Risner, move to recommend approval of the Bentley Village Preliminary
Plat and easement vacations subject to the staff recommended findings and conditions
of approval listed in the staff report, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Holtz asked if the 20 foot vs 30 foot easement discussion is something they need to talk
about tonight. Roberts stated that it would not need to be discussed tonight as staff is
scheduled to meet with the developer on Thursday February 28tnto work through the
conditions before it goes to City Council.
The applicant is required to submit a revised Preliminary Plat and Construction plans
before submitting for Final Plat. That would only need to come back to Planning
Commission if there were significant changes.
Holtz asked about the plowing practice for internal trails, which was a question raised at
public comments. Heuer stated that private trails running throughout neighborhood
would typically be plowed with 2" of snow or more. Heuer stated that Sidewalks and
trails owned by the City would be up to City policy on when they are cleared. Roberts
stated that the City doesn't clear sidewalks.
M/S/P: Hartley/Holtz, move to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Map
Amendment as requested by Pulte Homes of Minnesota for the Bentley Village
development site on the south side of 5t" Street North from RT to MDR with
recommended conditions of approval, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Hartley is concerned that this development does not meet the minimum required lot
area per unit and staff has suggested that is ok. He is also concerned that the
landscaping requirement is not met. Hartley is wondering if staff needs direction from
the Planning Commission that the ordinance needs to be met. Roberts stated that he
has been thinking about that and what he will be proposing is a code amendment in the
medium and high density ordinance to drop the minimum lot area and to just use the
density as guidance for unit counts.
Hartley stated that he is less concerned with the deviations from the landscape
requirements because they seem to make sense. Weeks thinks there should be some
flexibility in the landscaping ordinance because in some cases, it just doesn't work.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
5
Roberts stated that he will be talking to the landscape architect on Thursday regarding
some of those issues.
Public Hearing—Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development—4
Corners 2nd
Roberts started his presentation regarding an application from Terry Emerson for a
Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Plan, Zoning Map Amendment and Right-of-Way
vacations for a commercial development to be known as Four Corners Second addition.
This proposal includes the realignment of Hudson Boulevard and the creation of several
lots for commercial development. This includes the lot for the park and ride the storm
water pond and commercial uses.
Roberts stated that this project was sent to Washington County and MN Dot for review
as they both own right-of-way along this project. The realignment is subject to approval
of the City Engineer, Washington County and MN Dot.
Hartley asked what the current zoning of the bus facility is. Roberts stated it is Business
Park. Roberts stated that there is not sewer and water in this part of the City. As part of
the bus terminal approval, the developer was required to bring sewer and water to that
site. As part of the approval of this site, the developer will be required to extended
sewer and water all the way to Manning Ave.
Cadenhead asked if the City has been in contact with Metro Transit regarding the park
and ride. Roberts stated that they are ready to submit their application, but they were
told the City can't accept anything until there is a preliminary plat. Holtz asked what
their response was to the number of lots. Roberts stated they received funding based
on 550 spaces, which is the design proposed.
Weeks is torn about asking the applicant to contribute to the future stoplight. The
traffic is already high on Manning Ave, but she is not sure the rest of the taxpayers
should have to pay for it either. The stoplight at Hudson Blvd and Keats will cost
taxpayers $1.8 Million.
Hartley stated that this applicant is doing a road re-alignment at their expense which
solves some problems long term. The City is getting a lot of benefit from approving this
development.
Tim Feeman, Folz Freeman surveying representing Terry Emerson, has been met with
staff many times and feels that the proposal meets what the City is looking for.
Essentially this plat is driven by creating the lot for the park and ride. This plat also
creates 3 additional outlots. Outlot C is for the storm water ponding, Outlot B will be
developed with future commercial and Outlot A is undetermined.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
6
Cadenhead is wondering about from a traffic management standpoint if the connection
from Hudson Blvd to the North is in the correct place. Cadenhead thinks that there
should maybe be a traffic study on that. Freeman stated that they hired the design
engineer that the City uses to design the new part of Hudson Blvd. They show the
access easement so that there is no question that there will be access to that parcel to
the north. Freeman stated that Washington County has stated that the traffic signal is
not needed at this time and the traffic volumes will not be coming from that
development.
Weeks asked if they talked to the property owner to the North about project and the
Road easement. Freeman stated that it is hard to lock something down with the
neighbor until the details are worked out with City staff.
Public Hearing opened at 8:45 pm
No one spoke and there were no written comments
Public Hearing closed at 8:46 pm
M/S/P: Hartley/Holtz, move to recommend approval of the Four Corners 211 addition
Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plans and easement (right-of-
way) vacations subject to the staff recommended findings and conditions of approval,
Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Weeks heard previous City Council members state that they feel this park and ride
would mostly benefit people coming from Hudson. Weeks disagrees with that as she
has heard from a number of people that are very excited about this. Weeks feels this is
a good thing for the City to draw more commercial into the City to help the tax base.
M/S/P: Hartley/Risner, move to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Map
Amendment as requested by Terry Emerson for the Lot 1, Block One and Outlots A, B
and C from RT to C for Four Corners 2nd addition with the staff recommended findings
and conditions of approval, Vote:6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing—Re-zoning of the property to Limited Commercial, Lot Consolidation,
and Conditional Use Permit—Animal Inn
Prchal started his presentation regarding an application from Animal Inn for a re-zoning,
lot consolidation, and Conditional Use Permit. Prchal stated that the property owner
would like to combine all of the parcels into one lot. This can only be accomplished if
the lots are all zoned the same. Three of the four parcels are zoned as Agriculture and
one is zoned as Rural Residential. The easiest option is to rezone all of the parcels to
Limited Commercial to match the Comprehensive Plan. The property owner owns all of
the properties and would like the CUP to apply to all of them.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
7
The dictating CUP is 2000-20. There is not a lot of deviation from that, but one
recommended change is that currently there is a limit to the number of dogs that can be
in each building. Prchal stated that there is an overall limit and how the owner chooses
to house the dogs should be up to them. The conditions of approval are all spelled out
in the staff report. The conditions highlight the conditions and uses that are allowed.
Holtz asked about condition number 4 and why there are hours listed that the animals
can be outside. Prchal stated that the hours listed are the same as construction hours.
Roberts stated that those are the standard hours in the code in regards to regulating
noise levels for any outdoor activities. Holtz doesn't see that the noise from the animals
would be problematic and would like to see condition 44 removed. Risner asked about
condition #8 and if administering medications would be considered veterinary services.
Dawn Larson, owner, stated that there has not been a restriction on hours up to this
point. Larson stated that they are respectful to their neighbors regarding noise. Larson
stated that administering medications prescribed by a veterinarian is not performing
those services. Larson stated that they do not kennel outside. They have outdoor runs
that are attached to indoor runs. Larson stated that the limit of 150 dogs is fine as they
rarely would hit that number.
Weeks asked if they will be adding veterinary services anytime in the future. Larson
stated that they will not. They will be moving the pet grooming into the old veterinary
building. Weeks asked if there are any plans to put more buildings on the property.
Larson stated that there are no plans to add additional buildings.
Roberts asked Larson if there were any other issues with the conditions that the
applicant would like to discuss. Larson stated that they regulate when the animals are
outside. Hartley asked which parcel has the animal hospital on. Prchal stated parcel 5
had the animal hospital on it.
Public Hearing opened at 9:20 pm
Dennis Steinberg, owns the property at 8603 34t" St N, and are in support of the
application.
There was no written correspondence
Public Hearing closed at 9:21 pm
M/S/P: Holtz/Hartley, move to amend the conditions and eliminate all of condition #4,
friendly amendment to only strike from condition #4 the sentence that reads "Dogs can
have access to outdoor areas from lam to 7pm during the week and Sam and 6pm on
weekends", Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
8
Cadenhead would argue that everything after the outdoor kenneling could be removed.
He hesitates to eliminate everything because the property could change hands and the
next owner might feel this is ok and that should be avoided in the future. Prchal stated
that CUP's run with the land and can continue with the next owner. Steil stated that he
is concerned that they might be opening up something in the future that they might not
want. Roberts stated that he is not as concerned about the hours, but he would suggest
keeping the first sentence and striking the hours. Holtz would accept that as a friendly
amendment.
M/S/P: Hartley/Holtz, move to recommend approval of the request by Joan Tauer of
Animal Inn to Rezone the properties from Agricultural and Rural Residential to Limited
Commercial, consolidate properties defined as 16.029.21.42.0010, 16.029.21.43.0012,
16.029.21.43.0006, 16.029.21.42.0005, and 16.029.21.42.0001 and amend the existing
CUP to apply to the newly combined property, subject to the conditions of approval
recommended by staff and amended by the Planning Commission, Vote: 6-0, motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Updates— February 19, 2019
1. Mixed use Business Park and Mixed Use Commercial Zoning Ordinance
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. March 11, 2019
b. March 25, 2019
Meeting adjourned at 9:31 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Building Permit Technician
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 2-25-19
TI IE CITY OF
_LAKE ELMO
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 3/11/2019
REGULAR
ITEM#: 5A
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Time Extension—Conditional Use Permit (Lake Elmo Inn Parking
Lot)
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
I
The City has received a request from Lake Elmo Inn,Inc. for a time extension for an approved
conditional use permit(CUP). The City approved a CUP for a parking facility as a principal use for the
property located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue North in 2018. (Please see the attached maps and their
attached letter for more information).
Existing Vacant Lot
Land Use:
Existing Zoning: VMX—Village Mixed Use
Surrounding Single family homes to the North(VMX—Village Mixed Use)and West(RS—
Use/Zoning: Rural Single Family); Commercial(VMX—Village Mixed Use)to the South and
West.
Comprehensive VMX—Village Mixed Use
Plan:
History: The site has long been a vacant lot and is currently being used for parking for the
Lake Elmo Inn restaurant.There is no parking lot currently at the site,however.
Deadline Application Complete—2-1-2019
for Action: 60 Day Deadline—4-1-2019
Applicable §154.500 VMX—Village Center District
Regulations: § 154.106—Conditional Use Permits
§ 154.210—Off-street Parking
ISSUE BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Does the Planning Commission think the City should grant a time extension to the Lake Elmo Inn to start
the construction of their approved off-street parking lot?
1
2018 PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Purpose for Parking Facility.Lake Elmo Inn has expressed the need for more parking for their restaurant.
The applicant stated Washington County Old Village of Lake Elmo: Street and Utility Improvement Project
(Phase 2)had brought about some on-street parking challenges.The applicant has also stated that the Lake
Elmo Inn has been using the subject property located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue North,which is not paved
for a parking lot, for a number of years now for parking.This is not allowed per City ordinance, however,
as the City's off-street parking requirements mandate that in all residential, commercial and mixed use
districts, all areas intended to be utilized for parking space for five or more vehicles and associated
driveways shall be paved with a durable surface including,but not limited to, hot asphalt, bituminous, or
concrete. In addition to parking on the subject property,the Inn has also used parking within the right-of-
way for valet parking.
Current Available Parking for the Lake Elmo Inn.The City's off-street parking requirements mandate
that a standard restaurant provide at least one space per 3 customer seats or each 100 square feet of interior
space.The Lake Elmo Inn is currently served with approximately 9 parking spaces on the parcel on which
the restaurant is located. Additionally, the Inn appears to utilize a parcel to the north for some parking,
which appears to provide approximately 12 spaces. The Inn also works with a property owner to the east
who provides shared parking.Parking standards for a standard restaurant require one space per 100 square
feet or one space per three customers.The Inn's site plan indicates 2609 square feet, and so the parking that
would be required if the site plan for the restaurant were being reviewed today would be 26 spaces.
Lake Elmo Inn 3
�s ..PNF_...__.. - ..
5 in back 2 handicap
_ . 2 regular
• � t
ti N�<tr
t
St�ee 4 ,
2
`Cee
S t .
Parcel to the north of Lal<e
Elmo Inn
1-41
1
i� •
Approximately 12 spaces �
r i
��
� r _
Shared Parking
Conditional Use Permit Required for Parking Facility in VMX District.The property is located within
the VMX zoning district,and a conditional use permit for a parking facility in the VMX District is required.
Parking Lot Design.
• Access. The applicant is proposing access off of 341 Street North via a driveway.
• Number. The applicant is proposing a total of 54 spaces for the parking lot.
• Proposed Paving in the Right-of-Way. These 54 spaces, however, include proposed pavement in
the right-of-way. This is not allowed. All improvements must be contained within the site. This
will result in at least 11 spaces from the proposed plan needing to be removed.
• Size. The drawing that the applicant has provided is not scalable,and therefore Staff does not know
if the proposed size of the stalls is adequate.The stalls will need to be at least 9 feet in width, 8'6"
in depth, and aisles will need to be at least 22 feet wide in order to allow two-way access.
3
• Accessibility Parking. At least one accessible parking space will be required if the site has 1 to 25
parking spaces,and 26 to 50 parking spaces will require an additional accessible parking space.At
least one of the accessible parking spaces must be van-accessible.
• Required Setback from Residential Properties. The City's requirements mandate that off-street
parking containing more than four parking spaces shall be located a minimum of twenty(20) feet
from the boundary of any adjacent lot zoned or used for residential purposes. The property to the
north is used for residential purposes,and the property to the west is zoned for residential purposes,
and therefore the parking lot must be setback 20 feet from these properties.
• Marking of Parking Spaces. The proposed site plan shows that parking spaces will be marked.
Marking of spaces with painted lines at least four inches in width is a requirement for parking lots
with five or more spaces. j
• Curbing.The City's off-street parking facilities require that open off-street parking areas designed
to have head-in parking along the property line shall provide a bumper curb not less than five(5)
feet from the side property line or a barrier of normal bumper height not less than three (3) feet
from the side property line.
• Landscaping. The applicant has not submitted a landscaping plan for the parking lot. The parking
lot application will need to include a landscape plan that includes the following:
o Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. At least 5% of the interior area of parking lots with
more than 30 spaces is to be devoted to landscaping planning areas in islands or corner
beds. Because the proposed number of spaces is over 30, this will be a requirement.
Additionally, at least one tree per ten spaces or fraction thereof must be provided.
o Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. A landscaped frontage strip at least five feet wide
needs to be provided between parking areas and public streets, sidewalks or paths and
include screening consisting of either a masonry wall, fence, berm, or hedge or
combination that forms a screen 3.5-4 feet in height. Additionally, screening 4-6 feet in
height along the north and west sides of the parcel (sides abutting residential properties)
shall be provided along with at least one deciduous or coniferous tree every forty feet(this
will require at least 4 along the northern property line and at least two along the western
property line).
Engineering Review. The Applicant has not submitted construction plans for the parking lot. The
Applicant will be required to submit a parking lot permit application approved by the City Engineer.
Valley Branch Watershed District.Because the proposed increase of impervious surface on the site will
be more than 6,000 square feet,the Applicant will be required to obtain a Valley Branch Watershed District
permit.
2019 Time Extension Request. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the request for a
time extension for an approved Conditional Use Permit. The City approved the CUP for a parking facility
as a principal use on the property located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue North on February 20, 2018. This
approval was subject to 6 conditions of approval as outlined in City Council Resolution 2018-018. Section
154.106 (K)of the City Code states"If substantial construction has not taken place within 12 months of the
date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permits is void except that, on application, the
Council after receiving recommendation from the Planning Commission, may extend the permit for such
additional period as it deems appropriate."
In this case, the applicant has not yet started construction of the approved parking lot and they have
requested City approval of a time extension for the CUP to start the construction of the parking lot. Staff
does not have any major concerns with the time extension request. It is in the best interest of the City and
the nearby property owners however, to not have the CUP approval go on indefinitely without action or
progress. As neighbors, City Code standards and businesses in the area change the standards and
expectations for a CUP may change as well As such,staff would not support an indefinite time extension
approval for any CUP.
4
Based on the applicants request and the available seasons for construction, staff is recommending that the
City extend the CUP approval to start construction of the parking lot until October 1,2019. If the applicant
does not start construction of the parking lot by then,he would need to request another time extension and
make a case to the City as to why the City should further extend the time period of the CUP approval. If
no action or construction has occurred by October 1, 2019, the City could by ordinance make the
determination that the CUP is void—no longer valid.
2018 Planning Commission Review.The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the
request for a parking facility for the property located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue North on February 12,
2018.One comment from the public was received before the meeting expressing desire that the property be
used for a public parking facility rather than solely for the restaurant and that it be paved.One neighbor had
concern about lighting. Another resident expressed excitement about the parking lot, reiterating the need
for additional parking for the restaurant.
In 2018,the Planning Commission discussed the following in regards to the proposed parking facility:
• Lighting. There was discussion about parking lot lighting timers to prevent light pollution on
adjacent residential properties during hours that the restaurant is closed.
• Landscaping. As mentioned in this report, the Planning Commission had concern that the
screening requirements along the public street would inhibit visibility and pose safety risks. They
recommended amending the condition by removing the requirement that such landscaping be
installed.
The parking lot must adhere to all screening and landscaping requirements as outlined
in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated 2/12/2018 except for the
requirement that landscape screening be required along Lake Elmo Avenue and 34"'
Street North.
• Crosswalk at Intersection of 34th Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue.The Commission
also made comment on the removal of the crosswalk across Lake Elmo Avenue at the
intersection of 341h Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue. The Commission sees a need for
that crosswalk to be replaced, as they have seen some safety issues with its removal. This has
no bearing on the subject request,but the Planning Commission would like this
communicated to Council and to the County.
Recommended Findings. In 2018, Staff recommended the following required findings for allowing the
proposed parking lot with the conditional use permit:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use will pave
an area that has already been used as parking for a significant period of time, bringing
the property in to compliance with City Code.
2. The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The area
is guided for VMX—Village Mixed Use in the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive
Plan. Parking facility is a conditional use in this district.
3. The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. A parking facility
will alleviate parking needs for the Lake Elmo Inn.
4. The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of
this Chapter. There are no specific development standards for a parking facility in
Article 7.
5. If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area,the proposed use meets
all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257
(Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management). The property is
located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain and is not within the shoreland area.
5
6. The proposed use will be designed,constructed,operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and.
will not change the essential character of that area. The property is already used for
parking.Paving a parking lot will not drastically change the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity or alter the essential character.
7. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to
existing or future neighboring structures. The proposed parking lot will potentially slightly
increase the number of cars that are able to park on the property than had been
parking there previously when the parking area was not paved,but paving the parking
lot will bring the property in to compliance with City standards.
8. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
The proposed use will be adequately served by the aforementioned,provided a parking
lot application is submitted and approved,meeting City standards.
9. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The proposed use will not create additional requirements or cost.
10. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities,processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The
use will not involve anything that would be detrimental.
11. Vehicular approaches to the property,where present,will not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The use will create little more
traffic congestion than already exists at the site.
12. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance. N/A
Recommended Conditions of Approval. If approved, staff recommends the following conditions of
approval for the time extension of the Conditional Use Permit for a parking facility at 3504 Lake Elmo
Avenue North:
1. The Applicant shall submit and have approved a parking lot permit meeting all zoning,
engineering,and other applicable requirements. The parking lot permit shall be reviewed by the
City Engineering and Planning Departments,Washington County and any other applicable
agencies.
2. The parking lot must adhere to all screening and landscaping requirements as outlined in the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission dated 2/12/2018.
3. The applicant must obtain a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the
issuance of a permit for construction,provide a copy of the permit to the City, and adhere to all
conditions of approval.
4. Lighting will need to comply with Section 150.035: Lighting, Glare Control,and Exterior
Lighting Standards of the City Code.
5. The parking lot shall not extend beyond property lines.
6. The Applicant shall not barricade public right-of-way for the use of valet parking or any other
purposes without issuance of a right-of-way obstruction permit by the City.
7. The applicant shall start construction of the approved parking facility by October 1, 2019 unless
the city grants another time extension for the CUP. If the applicant has not started construction of
the parking lot by October 1,2019,the CUP approval will become void unless the applicant
requests and the City grants another time extension for the CUP approval.
6
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff does not foresee fiscal impact.
OPTIONS:
i
The Planning Commission may:
• Recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit time extension
with the recommended conditions of approval.
• Recommend approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit time extension with amended
conditions of approval.
• Recommend denial of the requested time extension request for the Conditional Use Permit. If the
Planning Commission recommends denial of their request,they should prepare findings or reasons
as to why they think the City Council should deny the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request from the Lake Elmo Inn for a time extension to October 1,2019
to start construction of a city-approved parking facility on the property located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue
North.
"Move to recommend approval of the request of the Lake Elmo Inn for a time extension for the
implementation of a conditional use permit for an off-street parking facility. This time extension
requires construction to start by October 1, 2019 for a parking facility on the property located at 3504
Lake Elmo Avenue North,subject to 2-20-2018 City Council conditions of approval as may be
amended."
ATTACHMENTS:
• Applicant's letter dated 1-31-19
• 2 City Maps
• Resolution 2018-018 approving the conditional use permit
7
LAKE
ELMO
January 31, 2019
Lake Elmo City Hall
3880 Laverne Ave. N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
To The City of Lake Elmo;
My name is John Schiltz, the owner of The Lake Elmo Inn and The Lake Elmo Inn Event Center.
Last year I applied for a permit with the City of Lake Elmo to build a parking lot on the North West
corner of Lake Elmo Avenue and 34th Street.The permit was approved by the City Council to
construct a parking lot on that property.After the approval process, it became evident that my
company was not in a financial position to build the lot, partly due to the expenses of the city
sewer project. The Watershed districts requirements, lighting, street appeal and additional costs
also came into play with our financial situation. Last year was not a good year due to a
combination of all of these other factors and we just could not pull it off. The permit approval is for
one year and that will be expiring on the 20th of February. It is very obvious that I am not going to
make the February 20t"2019 deadline.
have talked through my concerns with one of our city councilman, asking him if there was a way
the city could be involved in providing parking to the city businesses. I believe this is a much
larger issue than not enough parking for the Lake Elmo Inn, but there is not enough parking for all
of our Lake Elmo businesses. I asked his opinion about the city buying this piece of property and
putting in a public parking lot for everyone to use.We discussed many options and he seemed
interested, but at the end of our conversation it was left up in the air.
I am requesting a time extension of at least one year, if that is possible, so I can explore possible
parking resolutions. These resolutions may or may not include city involvement. I would like to
continue to work toward a solution that is best for everyone involved.
Please let me know what you decide. Thank you for your consideration.
�7-�-/f� SC
John Schiltz
Owner and Chef
Lake Elmo Inn and
Lake Elmo Inn Event Center
Lake Ehno Inn—3442 Lake Elmo Avenue North—P.O.Boy:182 —Lake Elmo,MN 55042—651.777.8495
wwty.lakeelmoinn.c om
2/12/2019 Washington County Property Viewer
XkllShiIIlYton Sign in
G
17
111 i.
httn•//mans nn washinntnn mn us/mmnertwiewer/ 1N
I
2/12/2019 Washington County Property Viewer
Sign in
W-11SWIM ton
; county
j
4 S( IA
t
silt
-' r{ M14 - 1♦
1
t N
♦ ,• :h U-4
httn•//man¢rn wachinntnn mn nc/nrnnarfvviawer/ �/1
CITY OF LAIE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2018-018
A RESOLUTIONAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING FACILITY
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3504 LAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS,the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Lake Elmo Inn, Inc., PO Box 182, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, (the
"Applicant")has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the"City") for a
Conditional Use Pen-nit to allow a parking facility at the property located at 3504 Lake Elmo
Avenue North(the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, notice has been published,mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.102; and
WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on February 12, 2018; and
WHEREAS,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report elated
February 20, 2018 to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its February 20,2018 meeting.
NOW,THEREFORE,based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake
Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.106.
2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.106 have been met by the
Applicant.
3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is to allow a parking facility on the property
located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue North.
4) That the Conditional Use Permit amendment is granted for the property legally described
as follows and commonly known as 11459 60th Street North:
COUNTY AUD PLAT NO 8 LAKE ELMO CITY SUBDIVISIONNAME COUNTY AUDITOR'S PLAT NO.8 LOT 7
SUBDIVISIONCD 37135
5) The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use will pave
Resolution 2018-018 1
an area that has already been used as parking for a significant period of time, bringing
the property in to compliance with City Code.
6) The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.The area
is guided for VMX—Village Mixed Use in the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive
Plan. Parking facility is a conditional use in this district.
7) The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.A parking facility
will alleviate parking needs for the Lake Elmo Inn.
8) The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of
this Chapter. There are no specific development standards for a parking facility in
Article 7.
9) If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use meets
all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257
(Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management). The property is
located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
10)The proposed use will be designed, constructed,operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
will not change the essential character of that area. The property is already used for
parking. Paving a parking lot will not drastically change the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity or alter the essential character.
11)The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to
existing or future neighboring structures. The proposed parking lot will potentially slightly
increase the number of cars that are able to park on the property than had been
parking there previously when the parking area was not paved, but paving the parking
lot will bring the property in to compliance with City standards.
12)The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
The proposed use will be adequately served by the aforementioned,provided a parking
lot application is submitted and approved, meeting City standards.
13)The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The proposed use will not create additional requirements or cost.
14)The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The
use will not involve anything that would be detrimental.
15) Vehicular approaches to the property, where present,will not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The use will create little more
traffic congestion than already exists at the site.
16)The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance. N/A
Resolution 2018-018 2
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant's application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
parking facility at the property located at 3504 Lake Elmo Avenue is granted, subject to the
following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall submit and have approved a parking lot permit meeting all zoning,
engineering, and other applicable requirements. The parking lot permit application shall be
reviewed by the City's Engineering and Planning Department and Washington County and
any other applicable agencies.
2) The parking lot must adhere to all screening and landscaping requirements as outlined in the
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 2018.
3) The applicant must obtain a permit fiom the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the
issuance of a permit for construction,provide a copy of the permit to the City, and adhere to
all conditions of approval.
4) Lighting will need to comply with Section 150.035: Lighting, Glare Control, and Exterior
Lighting Standards of the City Code.
5) The parking lot shall not extend beyond property lines.
6) The Applicant shall not barricade public right-of-way for the use of valet parking or any
other purposes without issuance of a right-of-way obstruction permit by the City.
Passed and duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
f
Michael Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Jffnnso JCY Clerk
Resolution 2018-018 3
T1 U3. CITY OF STAFF REPORT
DATE: 3/11/19
ITEM#: 5B
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Roberts,Planning Director
ITEM: Zoning Ordinance Amendment—Minimum Lot Sizes—Multi-Family
Housing
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
During the City's review of the proposed Bentley Village Townhouse development, staff became
aware of a problem in the Zoning code. This involves the listed minimum lot size standards in the
zoning code for single-family attached(townhouses)and multi-family housing in Lake Elmo. Staff is
now proposing amendments to the text of the zoning code to correct this problem.
ISSUE BEFORE. PLANNING COMMISSION:
Does the Planning Commission agree with the proposed ordinance amendment that would change the
sections of the Zoning Code that now have a minimum lot size standard for single-family attached and
multi-family dwellings?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
There are several sections of the Zoning Code that have standards for the minimum lot size(per
unit) for single-family attached and multi-family housing. These include the MDR (medium
density),HDR(high density),VMX(village mixed use), MU-C(mixed use commercial) and MU-
BP (mixed use business park). The difficulty with having a minimum lot size per unit in these
types of developments is that townhouses,when several are attached to form one building,
typically are each on lots of 1,500— 1,800 square feet. The code now requires between 1,800-
4,000 square feet per unit. The minimum lot sizes per unit do not account for overall project
density as public streets, setbacks and required open space are all design factors that a project
designer most account for when laying out a development with single-family attached or multi-
family attached housing.
The City's Comprehensive Plan sets density standards for all residential land uses. These range
from 2.5-4.0 units per acre for low-density residential development,4.01 —8 units per acre in the
areas planned medium density residential(MDR) to 10-15 units per acre in the mixed use
commercial (MU-C)land use area. It is important for the City to have future residential
developments meet these density standards as these were the standards the City used when
preparing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for approval by the Metropolitan Council. In addition,
2
the City has based the long-term design needs of the City's Sanitary Sewer and Water systems on
the land use designations and housing densities set in the Comprehensive Plan.
The overall project density is the most important factor that the City should consider when
reviewing a single-family attached or a multi-family housing development. The total number of
units in any one site or development(and thus the total number of expected residents in an area),
determines the need for public services such as emergency services, street maintenance and public
utility services. Having a minimum lot size per unit in these areas limits and lowers the overall
project density when a project needs to meet all the other City-required design standards.
To remedy this problem, staff is proposing a Zoning Code text amendment that drops the
minimum lot size per unit for single-family attached and multi-family dwelling developments
from the Zoning Code. Instead,staff is proposing to have a note in the Zoning Code for these
types of developments that states the density shall not exceed the maximum density allowed by the
land use classification in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.This change will insure that
minimum lot sizes do not overly restrict the number of units and it gives clear direct that the City
intends to have new development meet the density standards in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff is looking for feedback and direction about the proposed ordinance amendment from the
Planning Commission. We will then be scheduling a public hearing for the proposed ordinance
amendment with the Planning Commission to get a fortnal recommendation to pass on to the City
Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance amendment about the
minimum lot sizes for single-family attached and multi-family dwelling developments and provide
staff with feedback and direction about the proposed changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-XXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
REMOVING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED AND MILTI-FAMILY HOUSING
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, Section 154.452 i )tereby amended by changing the
following sections (Proposed language is underlined,deleted language is shown with
strip: -
§ 154.452 LOT DEMENSIONS AND BUILDING,BULK REQUIREMENTS.
Lot area and setback requirements shall be<.as specified in Table-1 0-2: Lot Dimension and Setback
Requirements.
Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements;Residential Districts
HDR
MDR
Minimum Lot Area_(sq.ft.)
Single family detached dwelling--..-..-.- 8,000 7,000 5,000
Two-family dwelling (per unit-) 5,000 4,000 3,000
Single-family attached (per unit) e - 4,900—See note i. 2,500—See note i.
Multi-family dwelling(per unit) - 4,009-See note i. 3,800—See note i.
Secondary dwelling See 154.454(c) See 154.454 (c)
Live-work unit - - 3,600
Congregate housing - See 154.301(c) See 154.301(c)
Manufactured home park - See 151.035-151.150 See 151.035-151.150-
1
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
Single family detached dwelling 60 50 50
Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 35 30 20
Single-family attached (per unit)b - 25 20
Multi-family dwelling (per building) - 75 60
Live-work unit - - 25
Maximum Height(feet) 5. 35 50
Maximum Impervious Coverage 40% 5090__,_ 75%
Minimum Building Setbacks(feet)
Front yard 25` - 25 20 r
Interior side yard e
Principal Buildings fg - 10 10 101
LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Building Setbacks(feet)
Interior side yard
Attached Garage or Accessory,Structures , 5 5 101
to -
Corner side yard 15 15 15
Rearyard 20 20 20
Notes to Urban Residential Districts Table
a. Common open space areas may be used in the determining whether or not the
minimum lot areas within a development are met, when provided as part of an
overall development plan.
b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them("twin")or
located on separate floors in a building on a single lot("duplex"). The per-unit
2
measurements in this table apply to "twin"units,whether on a single lot or separate
lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling shall apply to a"duplex"
containing two vertically-separated units on a single lot.
C. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on individual
lots,minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of density; i.e. 1
unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard is also used for multifamily dwellings.
d. Single family dwellings(both attached and detached)and two-family dwellings may
use the side yard setbacks within MDR zoning districts.
C. In a block where the majority of the block face had- een developed with the same or
similar setbacks,the front setback for the remaining lots on that block face shall fall
within the range established by the existing setbacks.
f. In situations where a garage or accessory building.Is set back less than 7 feet from a
side property line, the maximum permitted encroachment for anything attached to
said building(including eaves, or�hangs, steps, chimneys, and other appurtenances
as described in Section 154.081)Mt.be two(2) feet.
g. Side yards setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two family dwellings.
h. Corner properties: Thee Meade of a corner building adjoining a�bblic street
shall maintain the front 9etbacic of the adjacent-;property fronting upon the same
public street, or the require;front yard setback,whichever is less. If no structure
exists on the adjacent proper ty, the setback shall be as shown in the table.
i. The total:-taumber of housing units of density in any development shall not exceed
the maxrriium denjj :allowed b the land use classification as designated in the
City's Coua�ensivc`=Plan.
SECTION 2. The City Coca t `of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning`Code,Section 154.502 is hereby amended by changing the
following sections (Proposed language is underlined,deleted language is shown with
§ 154.502 LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING BULK REQUIREMENTS.
Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 11-2: Lot Dimension and Setback
Requirements.
3
I
Table 11-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, VMX District
'- VMX
Minimum Areasq.ft.)
............_....._............_.._....._...._
... -...---...--_..._..._-...-.... ._.....,...............
Non-Residential Use None
............................................_ -................_._...._._...__._...._.-- _......._...._.............................................................,-.......................__..........._........
....._.,..
Single Family Detached Dwelling 5,000
..........._
Two-Family=.. ..__Dwelling..._..............__..............__..........._.............,..,.. .._._-------___...._.........................._.._................
(per unit) b 3,000
_.Sin-le-Famil Attached (per unit `- -- SBA-See notes a -....._._._.-........_.
g Y (p ) ...a and P.
Multi-Family Dwelling (per unit) AAA-See notes a and.-,.,h
_.__ _...._._ __.... ..................... ._....._...._............._......................_............._...._._..... .--. _..._..
Secondary Dwelling See 154 454.0
._.............._...__......__...__...__.,__..
Live-Work Unit 3,000
.-----_-----------------------------------.---..._ _........__..-.__.._....._ _... ._._
Congregate Housing See 154.454(c)
------------------------------_ __.._.._..---...---_ .....-_.. ... w..................
-----....._._..--
Other Structures = r;3,500
..........
_........_
Maximum Lot Area (acres)
..-__..........._ ..---- _--------._.. _... -.... _ _.__._ ...... ...........
Residential Structures N/A =
_....__.__.___--ctures_ __..._._.__ _._._._._.........
....__-- — 5 r __
Other Stru
Minimum Lot Width(feet)
Single Family Detached-Dwelling 50
--- _.............._._---------------- _.. _ .._. _._._.__..........__... _.__..
Two-Family Dwelling(per unit)a 30
Single-FamilyAttached (per unit),-.--. 25
..... . _... ..........
Multi-Family Dwelling(per building) . 75
_.._.................
Live-Work Unit 25
Maximum Height'(feet/stories) 35/3 a
V.
Maximum Impervious Coverage
........-......
_.......Residential Structures _........................__......_.........._--._..._.__....,.._._......_.........__._....,....,.._............-. _
75%
er Structures No Limit
_ ......-.....__.._.,_.,......_..........__... ................_........._.------------ .,...._..........................._................_...............,..,-------------
..._.,..,...,..,._.
Minimum Building Setbacks(feet)
__._ ..-.......__.._._......_......._ _ __..-.___ __-_...,........-- .,...,_....................................__ ----........-.._...,.._..........
Front Yard e See 154.452 154.505
_..------._......................_......._.--------------_..._..._._...._..._...__..............._............._(A)(6)or 154.505(A)(7)............
4
........__-._._._._._...............__.....__...._...._.....--f----------------------------___...........--,_.............._.........-----------..._.................-_......
Interior Side Yard 10
...............---......_.......,.,_,.,.,..._................__...........__......._...................................--.............................----...........................__.............
Corner Side Yard 9 0
........... .............-............................._..._......_......................____............................_...................._......__.....___.......... ...............----............
Rear Yard 10
Notes to VMX District Table
a. No development may exceed the residential density range as specified in the
Comprehensive Plan for the Village Mixed Use land use category.
b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall_b_etiveen them("twin")or located
on separate floors in a building on a single lot("duplex"} The per-unit measurements in
this table apply to "twin"units,whether on a single lot or:separate lots.The standards for
single-family detached dwelling shall apply to a" uplex" containing two vertically-
separated units on a single lot. '
c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situatei an individual lots,
minimum lot size shall be applied to each-unit as a measure of density;i.e. 1 unit per 2,500
square feet. This standard is also used for multfamily,dwellings.
d. Buildings up to 45 feet in heighmay be permitted as part of a PUD. ;.
e. The front yard setback for singf family homes shall be_25 feet.
f. Side yard setbacks in the VMX District apply only along W lines abutting residentially
zoned parcels or those7mrcels with residential uses;as the sole use.
g. Corner proper "e side yard facade of.a comer building adjoining a public street shall
maintain the froift setback of the adjacent property frontxrag upon the same public street,or
the required front yard.setba&whichever-is:less. If no structure exists on the adjacent
property; the setback shall 4 shown;in the table.
h. The:total number_of housing units or densit i�ti any development shall not exceed the
maximum densit allowed by-the land use classification as designated in the City's
C6fikehensive Plan
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning.Code, Section 154.511 is hereby amended by changing the
following sections (Proposed language is underlined, deleted language is shown with
str-iledif :
§ 154.511 LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING BULK REQUIREMENTS.
Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 14-2: Lot Dimension and Setback
Requirements,Mixed Use-Commercial and Mixed Use-Business Park Districts.
5
Table 14-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements,Mixed Use-Commercial and Mixed Use-
Business Park Districts. 7�
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.)',`
Single-family detached dwelling 4,000 5,000
Two-family dwelling(per unit) 3,000 4,000
Single-family attached dwelling(per unit), 3,000-See-notes�.^ 4,NO See note 1.
Multifamily dwelling(per unit) ' See note 1 2,280—See note 1.
Secondary dwelling She Section t54.454 (C}
Live-work unit 3,0.00
Non-residential uses 20,000_ = 85,000
Minimum Lot'Width (feet)
Single-family detached dwelling 50
Two-family dwelling—we—unit) == 20 = 20
Single-family attached dwelling(per unit), 20 20
Multifamilyvtiellifig(per biulding) 60 60
Li unit =-_- 2 25
Non-reside :uses _ 100 200
Maximum height(feet) 50 50
Maximum impervious coverage (non- 75% 75%
shoreland areas)
Building setback requirements(feet)
Residential uses
Front yard a 20 20
Interior side yard f
6
Principal Buildings 7 7
Attached Garage or Accessory Structures a°f 5 5
Corner side yard 9 10 10
Rear yard 20 20
Non-residential uses
Front yard a 30 - = 50
Interior side yards 10 30
Corner side yard B 25 30
Rear yard 3 = 30..
From Residential zones 56 150
Parking setback requirements{feet)
Front yard 15--;,.,. 30
Interior side yard - 10 15
Corner side yard 30
Rear yard = = 10 15
From Residential zones: 35 = 50
Notes to Mixed Use Commercial'and Mixed,:Use Business Park Districts Table
a. Common`open space areas may be used in determining whether or not the minimum lot
areas within'a.developrent are met,when provided as part of an overall development plan.
b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them ("twin") or located
on separate floors in a.-building on a single lot("duplex"). The per-unit measurements in
this table apply to "twin"units, whether on a single lot or separate lots. The standards for f
single-family detached dwelling shall apply to a"duplex"containing two vertically-
separated units on a single lot.
c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on individual lots,
minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of density; i.e. 1 unit per 2,500
square feet. This standard also is used for multifamily dwellings.
d. In a block where the majority of the block face has been developed with the same or
similar setbacks,the front setback for the remaining lots on that block face shall fall within
the range established by the existing setbacks.
7
e. In situations where a garage or accessory building is set back less than 7 feet from a side
property line,the maximum permitted encroachment for anything attached to said building
(including eaves, overhangs, steps, chimneys, and other appurtenances as described in
Section 154.081)will be two (2) feet.
f Side yard setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two-family dwellings.
g. Corner properties: The side facade of a corner building adjoining a public street shall
maintain the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon the same public street, or
the required front yard setback,whichever is less. If no structure exists on the adjacent
property,the setback shall be as shown in the table.
h. Attached garages and accessory structures on parcels on wb_ich single family homes are
located may have a side yard setback of 5 feet. =
i. Buildings higher than 50 feet may be allowed through a--Conditional Use Permit and would
be subject to a separate technical and planning evaluation
j. All accessory buildings for non-residential uses must be set back. least 10 feet from
property lines.
k. Ground mounted wind generators may exceed the allowable height z ction designated
in all commercial districts and are subject to different setback requirements as identified in
section 154.308 (B). _
1. The total number of housing units or densit in'n ana6elopment shall not exceed the
maximum density allowed by the-land use classification Us_designated in the City s
Comprehensive Plan:
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption
and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 5. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08 XXX was adopted on this day of April,
2019,bya:vote of Ayes diid Nay. s:;
LADE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-XXX was published on the day of , 2019.
8