HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-27-20 Planning Commission Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday July 27, 2020
at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
Note: Social Distancing protocols will be in place in the City Council Chambers
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. July 13, 2020
4. Public Hearing
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments – MUSA Boundary Change, Update to City’s Wastewater
Facilities and Land Use Plans – Sanitary Sewer Service Area Extension and Re-guidance to Village
Low Density Residential - 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue and 10875 43rd Street North
5. New/Unfinished Business
None
6. Communications/Updates
a. City Council Update:
07-21-20 Meeting Bruggeman OP-PUD Concept Plan Review (2500 Manning Avenue North)
Schiltgen Farm PUD Concept Plan Review (10880 Stillwater Boulevard)
b. Staff Updates
c. Upcoming PC Meetings:
1. August 10, 2020
2. August 24, 2020
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.
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of Monday July 13, 2020
Commissioner Holtz called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Risner, Graen, Holtz, Mueller and Steil
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Cadenhead, Weeks
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Roberts, City Planner Prchal
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Graen/Mueller moved to approve the agenda, Vote: 5-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Approval of Minutes:
M/S/P: Steil/Graen moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 13, 2020,
May 11, 2020, May 27, 2020 and June 8, 2020. Vote: 5-0, motion carried.
Public Hearings a. Zoning Code Text Amendment – Local Transit and School Bus Terminals in BP Zoning District
Note: Staff removed this item from consideration for the Planning Commission meeting and there was no public hearing. b. Zoning Code Text Amendment – Fence Ordinance Update
Planner Prchal presented the staff report outlining several proposed changes to the City’s Fence
Ordinance.
He noted that Planning Staff has noticed there are issues and sometimes difficulties with the
existing standard of a 3.5 ft. fence height maximum for corner side yards and front yards. It
has been stated that contractors or installers do not have or have not installed a 3.5 foot-tall
fence. It seems to be that 3.5 feet for a fence height is a unique figure that is not readily
available or used today. This issue can be further enhanced when HOA’s require a specific
style of fencing. To remedy this situation, staff is proposing to change the maximum fence
height for these areas from 3. 5 feet (42 inches) to 4 feet (48 inches). The proposed code
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20
change would still have the requirement that the fence be at least 50 percent open to allow air
movement and visibility through the fence. Prchal presented examples of fence ordinances
from Cottage Grove, Hugo, Woodbury, Forest Lake and Stillwater. All these ordinances
allow for six-foot-tall fences in the back or rear yards of residences and most allow up to four
foot-tall fences (with some restrictions) on corner side yards of residences.
Prchal also explained that there is a provision in the existing City fence ordinance that has
language about the location of fences and getting permission from the adjacent property
owners. He noted that the code now states that “Fences may be installed on any portion of a
lot subject to the height restrictions of §154.205.E and may be installed along or within one
foot of property lines provided the adjacent property agrees, in writing, that such fence may
be erected on or within one foot of (12 inches) of the boundary lines of the respective
properties. Any portion of the fence and all footing material shall not encroach on the
neighboring property.”
Prchal explained that his research found that this requirement is unique to Lake Elmo and can
sometimes cause difficulties for property owners wanting to install fences when adjacent
property owners are not available to grant permission or willing to grant permission for the
new fence. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of this standard and tried to
determine the value of keeping this language in the fence code. One commissioner noted that
it did require neighbors to talk to each other which is a good thing but the consensus of the
Commission was that requiring written permission from the adjacent property owners to
install a fence is an unnecessary burden and regulation that the City should remove from the
Code.
Holtz opened the public hearing at 7:23 pm. There were no public comments so he closed the
public hearing at 7:24 pm.
The Commission then further discussed the proposed changes to the fence ordinance.
Steil moved, Risner seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of the suggested
amendments to the City Code as it pertains to fences. The proposed changes include the
following:
E. Fence Height and Design
1. Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. Any fence within a front or side (corner) yard
setback or any required setback form a public right-of-way may not exceed forty-two (42) forty-
eight (48) inches (4 ft.) in height and must be at least 50% open to air and light. The fence must
also be setback 20 ft. extending from the front corner lot pin or ROW.
F. Temporary Fences
1. Height and Performance. Temporary fences shall comply with the fence height standards of
subsection (E). Temporary fences shall be at least 40% open to air and light. If unable to be at
least 40% open to air and light, temporary fences shall not exceed forty-two inches (42”) forty
eight (48) inches (4 ft.) in height.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20
Removal of the Code requirement in Section 154.205D(5)(a) that for fences that will be within
one foot of the property line the property owner get written permission from the adjacent property
owners before installing the fence.
Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously.
c. City Code Text Amendments – PUD, OP-PUD and Subdivision Ordinances (Concept
Plan Reviews)
Director Roberts presented the staff report explaining the proposed changes to the OP PUD,
PUD and Subdivision Ordinances. He explained that staff had been directed to prepare
amendments to the City’s PUD ordinance (Article XIX) and the City’s Open Space PUD (OP-
PUD) ordinance (Article XVII). The requested changes are to remove the requirement for a
concept plan review for PUD’s and the sketch plan review for Open Space PUD’s. He also
noted that there are some aspects of the PUD and subdivision ordinances the City could
amend to clarify processes and to meet current City standards. As such, staff has included
several other minor changes to the OP PUD, PUD and Subdivision Ordinances as part of this
review.
Roberts explained that the zoning and subdivision regulations (including PUD ordinances)
allow cities to ensure that a new development or redevelopment meets the standards of the
city for a safe, functional and enjoyable community. Importantly, PUD regulations can help
the City preserve and enhance important natural resources and environmental features by
allowing flexibility in the design standards for a specific site through careful and sensitive
placement of buildings and facilities.
Director Roberts noted that the sketch plan or concept plan review gives an applicant a chance
to get feedback (positive and negative) from City staff and policy makers about a proposal
before spending significant time and money on the detailed plans necessary for a preliminary
PUD and plat. Sketch plan and concept plan review provides the City and an applicant a
chance to identify issues and provides the applicant guidance and a “road map” for moving a
project forward in Lake Elmo. This is the requirement now in place for new PUD’s or OP
PUD’s in Lake Elmo. To use or not use the sketch plan (or concept plan) review process is a
policy decision for the City.
Roberts explained that if the City did want to drop the requirement for a concept plan review
or a sketch plan review of PUD’s by the Planning Commission and City Council, then at a
minimum, the City should require an applicant or developer to submit to the City a concept
plan or sketch plan for any new PUD for review and comment by City staff. This process also
should include a requirement that an applicant for a OP PUD or a PUD meet with City staff
after the applicant has submitted the proposed concept plan or sketch plan (in about 30 days)
to get feedback and comments about the proposed PUD before submitting a preliminary
PUD/plat application. Staff has included such language in the proposed OP PUD, PUD and
Subdivision Ordinance amendments.
Director Roberts noted that the Planning Commission has three options for the proposed
ordinance amendments. They could recommend approval of the proposed changes to the OP
PUD, PUD and subdivision ordinances, they could recommend approval of the proposed
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-13-20
changes to the ordinances with changes to the proposed language or they could recommend
denial of the proposed changes to the OP PUD, PUD and subdivision ordinances.
Director Roberts then answered questions from the Commission about the proposed code
changes.
Holtz opened the public hearing at 8:01 pm. There were no public comments so he closed the
public hearing at 8:02 pm.
The Commission discussed the proposed ordinance amendments and changes that would be
necessary to remove the Concept Plan and Sketch Plan reviews from the OP PUD, PUD and
Subdivision review processes. Commissioner Steil expressed support for the proposed code
changes and Commissioner Graen stated that he was against the proposed code changes
because he likes having the public involvement with concept plan and sketch plan reviews of
PUDs.
M/S/P: Steil/Holtz moved to recommend approval of the Open Space PUD, PUD and
subdivision ordinance amendments as proposed by City staff.” Vote: 4-1 (Graen no),
motion carried.
New Business
None
Staff and Commission Updates
Roberts reported that at the June 16, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council considered the Boulder
Ponds 5th Addition – Final Plat and Final PUD Plan. It had been proposed for 3 lots but the City
Council approved for only 2 lots.
Roberts reported that at July, 07, 2020 City Council Meeting, the Council considered the proposed
Farm School Zoning Text Amendment for a second time. The Council approved the Ordinance with
changes to the minimum lot size (9 acre minimum) and they added a requirement that the schools be at
least one-half mile apart. The Council also reviewed and discussed the Bruggeman OP-PUD Concept
Plan for the property located at 2500 Manning Avenue. The Council generally appeared to support the
proposed Concept Plan but directed staff to bring it back to the next Council meeting with revised
conditions of approval.
Roberts reminded the Commission of the upcoming PC Meetings on July 27, 2020 and on August 10,
2020.
Meeting adjourned at 8:19 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Roberts – Lake Elmo Planning Director
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 07/27/2020
REGULAR
ITEM #:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan Amendments – MUSA Boundary Change, Update to
City’s Wastewater Facilities and Land Use Plans – Sanitary Sewer Service
Area Extension and Re-guidance to Village Low Density Residential - 4212
Lake Elmo Avenue and 10875 43rd Street North
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
Steve and Martha Pott of 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue and Jed and Darla Wier of 10875 43rd Street North have
applied to the City to amend the land use plan designation for their properties and to change the City’s
MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) boundary. Their properties are currently outside the MUSA and
the proposed boundary change would extend the MUSA boundary north to 43rd Street putting their properties
in the MUSA. This boundary change, if approved by the City, would make their properties eligible to have
City sanitary sewer service. Please see the attached narrative and maps for more information about this
proposal.
Each property has a single-family home that is now served by on-site sanitary sewer (septic) systems. The
proposed MUSA boundary change and land use plan change would allow for the extension of sanitary sewer
(and city water) throughout the two properties from the City sanitary sewer system that is in the Legacy at
North Star development to the south. Such utility extensions would occur as part of the future subdivision or
redevelopment of the properties. No new development is proposed at this time.
This sanitary sewer change, however, requires City Council and Met Council approval of several changes to
the recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The changes are required because the two properties are not
now included in the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) nor had the City included these properties in
the Wastewater calculations in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan
amendments require a 4/5th affirmative vote by the City Council and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
(Please see the attached maps and tables for more information about the proposed changes).
ISSUE BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Should the City amend the MUSA Boundary and other relevant sections and elements of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan to include the properties located at 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue and 10875 43rd Street North
in the sanitary sewer service area?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Amendment to the MUSA Boundary. The MUSA Boundaries for the sanitary sewer service areas in the
City of Lake Elmo are depicted on the maps on Pages 3-11 (Map 3-2), 3-17 (Map 3-3), 3-19 (Map 3-5), 3-24
(Map 3-7) and 9-5 (Map 9-1) of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The two properties for this request are not
2
now included in the MUSA in the City. The applicant provided City staff with a map that shows their properties
were in the MUSA until at least 2013. I also have attached several maps from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
that shows their two properties and some of the property north of 43rd Street in the Old Village Planning Area
and the planned sanitary sewer service area (which includes the areas of the City planned to be in the MUSA).
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan did not and does not include their two properties in the MUSA. It is not clear
to the City how or why the change to the MUSA boundary occurred, but now the property owners are asking
the City to change the MUSA boundary to include their properties. As noted above, the City needs to change
the MUSA boundary on all relevant maps in the Comprehensive Plan to include these two properties as part
of their request.
Amendment to Wastewater Services and Facilities Plan. The City Engineer will need to review the
possibility and effects of adding the two properties to the sanitary sewer system. The Engineer will need to
determine if the sanitary sewer system can accommodate the potential maximum number of residential units
that could be developed if these properties are in the MUSA and on the sanitary system. If so, the City will
need to amend several tables in the existing Comprehensive Plan to show the addition of up to 73 residential
units to the sanitary sewer system. They include Table 3-4 (page 3-21), Table 9-2 (page 9-8), Tables 9-3 and
9-4 (on page 9-9) and Table 9-5 (on page 9-10).
Amendment to Land Use Plan. The City will need to re-guide (change the land use designation) of
aforementioned properties from RAD (rural area development) to the V-LDR (village low density). This is
because the existing RAD land use designation is for areas not in the MUSA while the V-LDR designation is
planned for areas within the Village Planning Area and identifies land intended for single-family detached
housing development serviced by municipal sewer and water.
The land use plan change for the properties would be from RAD (rural area development) to V-LDR (village
low-density residential). The proposed V-LDR land use designation is intended for single-family detached
housing serviced by City sewer and water with a density between 1.5 and 3 dwelling units per acre.
Combined the two properties are 26.93 gross acres in size – not counting the 6.46 acres of property between
the Wiers and the Sunfish Ponds development to the west. At 3 units per acre, the 26.93 gross acres (not
counting any required acreage deduction for future right-of-way dedication or for wetlands), could have up to
81 units.
The City and the Met Council require the deduction of arterial road right-of-way, steep slopes, wetland areas
and waterbodies from the gross acreage of a development site when calculating the net acreage for density
calculations. Staff estimates the County would require a 75-foot-wide dedication for additional right-of-way
along the west side of Lake Elmo Avenue for the length of the property located at 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue
when it is subdivided. This right-of-way dedication would be a total of about 1.9 acres of area.
There are two wetlands with a total area of about 2.5 acres on the properties. The wetland acreage reduces
the total gross acreage of the two properties from 26.93 acres to about 24.43 net acres for calculating possible
density for development purposes. At 3 units per acre, the 24.43 net acres could have up to 73 residential
units.
Met Council Review. This request may qualify for administrative review by the Met Council, rather than
full Council review, meaning that the approval process for this request may take a shorter time period than a
typical Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Neighbor Comments. Staff sent a public hearing notice about this request to the owners of 35 properties
within 350 feet of the properties in question. I received 4 e-mail responses that I have attached to this report.
Of those responding, 2 were against the proposed changes, one expressed concerns that the proposed changes
would lead to changes to the character of their neighborhood with the possibility of having more people, traffic
and noise and the fourth response said they would support the proposed changes for only the southern one-half
of the properties in question.
3
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City would expect any future developer to pay full cost (100%) of the sanitary sewer extension project to
serve a future development or redevelopment of the two properties. The additional properties created by a new
subdivision that would be on the City sanitary sewer system also will generate additional Sewer Access Charge
(SAC) fees that are paid to the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of amendments to the Land Use Plan
and to the Wastewater Services and Facilities Plan of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by adding the properties
located at 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue and 10875 43rd Street North to the City’s sanitary sewer area.
“Motion to recommend approval of all necessary amendments to the 2040 Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan (including those to the Land Use Plan and to Wastewater Services Plan) to add the properties located
at 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue and 10875 43rd Street North to the City’s sanitary sewer area.”
Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to the
Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, re-guiding the aforementioned existing two properties from RAD
(Rural Area Development) to V- LDR (Village Low-density Residential).
“Motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment re-guiding on the City’s Land Use
Plan for the properties located at 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue and 10875 43rd Street North from RAD (Rural
Area Development) to V- LDR (Village Low-Density Residential).”
ATTACHMENTS:
Applicant’s statement dated June 2020
2013 City MUSA Map
Location Map
Address Map
Topographic Map
Existing Lake Elmo Land Use Maps
Existing MUSA Boundary Maps
2030 Comprehensive Plan Maps (5 pages)
Neighbor E-mail Comments
2040 Comprehensive Plan Pages:
Page 3-11 (Map 3-2)
Page 3-17 (Map 3-3)
Page 3-19 (Map 3-5)
Page 3-24 (Map 3-7)
Page 9-5 (Map 9-1)
Page 3-21 (Table 3-4)
Page 9-8 (Table 9-2)
Page 9-9 (Tables 9-3 and 9-4)
Page 9-10 (Table 9-5)
Pages 3-17 and 3-19 (Maps 3-3 and 3-5) (Proposed Land Use Map Amendment to V-LDR)
Detailed Reason for Request: June 2020
Steve and Martha Pott – 4212 Lake Elmo Avenue
Jed and Darla Wier – 10875 43rd Street North
We (the property owners) were actively involved in the process many years ago to be included
in the original MUSA area for the Village areas of City of Lake Elmo. About one year ago we
learned that our properties had been removed from the MUSA. At that point we began
discussions with City officials to determine how and why we had been removed from the
MUSA, and what would need to be done to get our properties back in the MUSA. The City has
been unable to find any documentation or provide an explanation about why we were
removed, but the attached map was provided showing that the removal happened in
December 2013 as part of a Comprehensive Plan update. Being removed from the MUSA
significantly impacted our future plans for the properties. We believe that the properties should
be placed back in the MUSA, and re-classified on the land use plan as V-LDR (Village Low
Density Residential). That land use classification is consistent with the developments directly
south of our properties. We believe the City also expects our properties to be developed at
some point in the future because the road from the new development to the south is butted up
to our property lines, and we recently granted the necessary easements so the developer could
stub City sanitary sewer and water a short distance onto our properties from the new
development to the south of our properties.
456717
456717
456715
Lake Elmo
Sun
f
i
s
h
L
a
k
e
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS2-14-135
Village MUSA Amendment
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2030
Map 3-8
Village MUSA - Proposed
Village MUSA - Existing
From:Aaron Kelly
To:Ken Roberts
Subject:Public Hearing Notice - Land Use Plan Change
Date:Monday, July 20, 2020 12:59:01 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for sending the public hearing notice about the proposed land use plan
change and MUSA boundary change for 4212 Lake Elmo Ave and 10875 43rd St
North. Below are my comments/feedback. Can you please reply back confirming
receipt of my comments?
"While I generally support the right of property owners to do as they wish with their
land including selling to developers, in this case I do not support the request to
change the land use to village low-density residential. It seems reasonable to
assume that this action is being taken with the idea that the property may at some
point be sold to a housing developer for future new home construction.
Many of us who choose to live in Lake Elmo have selected this city for its rural
character and to avoid residing in an over-developed area. Considering the relatively
dense development of this general area (Village Preserve, Wildflower, and more
recently Legacy at Northstar), it seems inadvisable to add more homes in the future.
Indeed, Lake Elmo Avenue will be busy enough once Legacy is completed. Though
this would represent only a first step toward this eventuality, approving this requested
change sets the stage.
If the owners have an eye on selling the land in the future, instead I recommend that
the City of Lake Elmo consider purchasing the property and converting it to a park
and trail system. It would be heavily used by the many people living in the adjacent
developments. In fact, it could be connected to the existing trail system to the north
of Village Preserve (though users would need to cross Lake Elmo Ave). This plan
would be in line with the character and culture of our city and would be a better use of
this land."
Aaron.
--
Aaron S. Kelly, Ph.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children's Health
Co-Director, Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine
University of Minnesota Medical School
Phone: 612-626-3492
1
Julie Johnson
From:Anderson, Tamra <tamra.anderson@ParsonsCorp.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:10 PM
To:Ken Roberts
Subject:Land Use Plan Change and MUSA Boundary Change
Importance:High
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
We were saddened to see that the Pott and Wier property might be changed from a rural area development to a village
low‐density residential and that at some time in the future this property may turn into a development of 40 to 81
homes.
We chose to build our home in Lake Elmo largely because of the blend of residential and rural property. We specifically
chose the site of our home to overlook the view of the beautiful property; giving us the feel of living in the country. I am
concerned the rezone will change the character of my neighborhood and if it is residentially developed, it would lead to
more people, traffic, potential safety issues and noise.
I appreciate being given an opportunity to provide input into this matter.
Thanks for listening,
Tamra
Tamra Anderson, MA, SPHR, SHRM‐SCP
Vice President‐HR
PARSONS ELECTRIC
(763) 528‐7681 Direct
(651) 216‐9543 Mobile
www.parsonscorp.com
1
Julie Johnson
From:joey thorson <joey.thorson1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:20 PM
To:Ken Roberts
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Land Use Plan Change and MUSA Boundary
Change
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Mr. Roberts,
We do not support Steve and Martha Pott and Jed and Darla Wier's application to amend the land use plan
designation for their properties. A main draw of Lake Elmo is how it maintains a small town feel compared to
surrounding cities in the metro. There are already significant development opportunities and planned
expansion of V-LDR in Lake Elmo.
Thank you.
Joey and Jonica Thorson
11070 Lady Slipper Ct
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
July 22, 2020
To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
From: Neil and Deb Krueger (4452 Lake Elmo Ave N)
Subject: Request to change MUSA boundary for Pott and Wier property
Dear City Staff and Commissioners,
While we respect the proposed changes being sought by the Pott and Wier families we are opposed to
the boundary and zoning changes on the entirety of the property due to the hydrological, geographic,
and commercial reasons detailed below. However, we would support the proposed changes and
residential development on the southern half of the property as this area would have less impact on the
concerns below.
1. Comp Plans: We have attended most of the public input meetings, submitted written comments,
and actively stayed informed of any MUSA plans near our tree farm for many years. Our
recollection is that the Pott and Wier properties were never within the MUSA line. The 2020, 2030,
and 2040 Washington County MUSA plans from the Met Council dated April 2020 and 2015 do not
show the properties within the MUSA (maps shown below). Additionally, the 2030 (approved in
2009?) and 2040 (approved in 2019) Lake Elmo Comp Plans do not include the properties within
the MUSA. A copy of the 2020 plan was not available through the City, Washington County, or Met
Council. The map from the 2020 comp plan would help show the MUSA boundary at that time and
help understand the any MUSA border changes over time.
(from 2020,2030,2040 MUSA Washington County, Met Council, April 2020)
https://giswebsite.metc.state.mn.us/mapgallery/pdfs/MUSA_letter_size/MUSA_lg_Washington%20County.pdf
(from MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service Areas, City of Lake Elmo. 2015 System Statement)
https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local -Planning-Assistance/System-Statements/System-
Statements/02395589_LakeElmo_2015SS.aspx
2. Surface Water: There are 2 significant wetlands on the Pott and Wier properties (~1.4 acres and
~1.0 acres). Approximately half of the land slopes north and east. Our property is to the north.
The surface water drains east and eventually flows into the Wildflower property and then
Goetschel lake. These ponds are already at record high water and there is no outflow from
Goetschel lake. Adding additional surface water has the potential to make the problems worse and
would likely back up onto our property.
3. Ground Water: Further to the surface water notes above, high amounts of surface water increase
the sub-surface water table. We are already seeing the impacts of this on our farm through water
seepage in areas not seen before in the last 75+ years our family has farmed the land. Adding more
impervious surface through a potential development on this property would increase the flow of
water on and through our property.
4. Land Geography: The northern half (approximately 13 of the 27 acres) of the property slopes
north and will likely require a lift station for sewer to flow south. This raises the question of will it
be practical and financially viable to develop. The existing boundary is near a natural ridge that
allows for a gravity sewer system. The “ridge” separating the southern and northern halves also
creates a natural boundary between development and open space.
5. Tree Farm Business: Each Christmas season we welcome hundreds of Twin City families to our tree
farm. Our customers enjoy the current open space character and ambience. Full development on
all of the Pott and Wier property would impact the aesthetics of their experience and potentially
impact our tree farm business. Other Lake Elmo businesses (gas station, restaurants, etc) will also
be impacted as our customers often dine and shop before or after visiting the farm.
6. Traffic: Additional homes on the property would also increase the vehicle traffic on 43rd Street.
The intersection of 43rd Street and Lake Elmo Ave already has reduced visibility and additional
traffic could be a safety risk.
Regards,
Neil and Deb Krueger