HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-3-18 packet minus item 3
NOTICE OF MEETING
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 3, 2018 7:00 P.M.
City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North
AGENDA
A. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
B. Approval of Agenda
C. Accept Minutes
1. March 20, 2018
D. Public Comments/Inquires
E. Presentations
F. Consent Agenda
2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
3. Receive Draft EAW for Lake Elmo Airport
4. Approve Corridors of Commerce Resolution of Support – Resolution 2018-030
5. MSAS System Revisions – Resolution Approving MSA Designations – Resolution 2018-031
6. CSAH 13 (Ideal Ave/Olson Lake Tr) – Approve Pay Request No. 1 to City of Oakdale.
7. 2018 Street Improvements –Approve Plans & Specs; Authorize Ad for Bids –Resolution 2018-032
8. Approve Abatement for 2298 Inwood Ave-Resolution 2018-033
9. Approve An Ordinance Amending Chapter 51 of the City Code to Include Penalties for Not Connecting to
Municipal Sewer- Ordinance 08-204; Resolution 2018-034
10. Approve Summary Publication of Assessment of Service Charges and Nuisance Abatement Ordinance-
Resolution 2018-024
11. Approve Purchase of Asphalt Roller
12. Approve Hiring of Public Works Operator III
13. Approve Appointment to Finance Committee
14. Approve Appointment to Maintenance Advisory Committee
15. Approve Driveway Ordinance and Fee Schedule Amendments – Ordinance 08-206; Ordinance 08-207;
Resolution 2018-039
G. Regular Agenda
16. Mountain Biking Proposal at Reid Park with SASCA – Resolution 2018-036
17. CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Ave) Phase 3 Improvements (Preliminary Layout) - Resolution 2018-035
18. Subdivision Regulations Update – Ordinance 08-205; Resolution 2018-037
19. Variance Requests for 8728 DeMontreville Trail – Resolution 2018-038
20. Summary of Closed Session Regarding City Administrator Performance Review
H. Council Reports
I. Staff Reports and Announcements
J. Closed Session
The council will enter a closed session pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.D.05 Subd. 3, in order to develop or consider
offers and/or counteroffers for the purchase of real property located at 3880 Laverne Ave in Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
K. Adjourn
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible
Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2018
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Councilmembers Julie Fliflet and Christine Nelson.
ABSENT: Councilmembers Bloyer and Lundgren.
Staff present: Administrator Handt, City Attorney Sonsalla, City Engineer Griffin, Planning
Director Becker, Public Works Director Weldon, Fire Chief Malmquist and City Clerk Johnson.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 3, “Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll” and Item 9, “Approve Assessment of
Service Charges and Nuisance Abatement Ordinance” were moved to the Regular Agenda.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS
AMENDED. Motion passed 3 – 0.
ACCEPT MINUTES
Minutes of the March 6, 2018 Regular Meeting were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES
None
PRESENTATIONS
Jenny Terwedo presented the City with a donation of $1,336 which represents funds raised at a
spaghetti dinner fundraiser held at Arbor Glen Senior Living to benefit the Lake Elmo Fire
Department.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, moved TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 2018-023 ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM ARBOR GLEN SENIOR
LIVING FOR THE LAKE ELMO FIRE DEPARTMENT SAFE HAVEN PROGRAM.
Motion passed 3 – 0.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
4. Accept February 2018 Public Works Department Report
5. Accept February 2018 Building Department Report
6. Accept February 2018 Fire Department Report
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2018
Page 2 of 4
7. 2017 Street Improvements - Approve Change Order No. 3.
8. 2017 Street Improvements – Approve Pay Request No. 5.
9. Approve Assessment of Service Charges and Nuisance Abatement Ordinance-Ordinance
No 08-203, Resolution 2018-024
10. Approve Cooperative Agreement with Washington County for BoldPlanning Software
11. Accept Resignation of Part Time Firefighter
12. Authorize Advertising for and Creating an Eligibility List of Part Time Fire Fighters
13. Accept Resignation of Public Works Operator
14. Approve Step Increase, Assistant Administrator
15. Approve Step Increase, City Planner
16. Approve Letter of Appeal Regarding Water Appropriation Permit Conditions
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Motion passed 3 - 0.
ITEM 3: Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll
Brief discussion held concerning payment of outstanding invoices for the Lake Elmo Library.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, moved TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF
DISBURSEMENTS AND PAYROLL. Motion passed 3 – 0.
ITEM 9: Approve Assessment of Service Charges and Nuisance Abatement Ordinance
Brief discussion held concerning amending the nuisance abatement procedure.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO AMEND SECTION 96.11(A)
TO STATE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, OR HIS OR HER DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MAY ABATE THE NUISANCE AFTER PROVIDING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE
AFFECTED RECORD PROPERTY OWNER. Motion passed 3 – 0.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, moved TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE 08-203 AS AMENDED. Motion passed 3 – 0.
ITEM 17: Wildflower at Lake Elmo 3rd Addition Plat and PUD
Planning Director Becker presented the plat drawing, engineering comments and recommended
conditions of approval for the Wildflower at Lake Elmo 3rd Addition Plat and PUD.
Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 2018-025 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND PUD DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR THE WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO 3RD ADDITION WITH NINE
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2018
Page 3 of 4
CONDITIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Motion
passed 3 – 0.
ITEM 18: Hammes 3rd Addition Development Agreement
Planning Director Becker reviewed the proposed Hammes Estates 3rd Addition Developer
Agreement.
Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
2018-026 APPROVING THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR HAMMES ESTATES 3RD
ADDITION. Motion passed 3 – 0.
ITEM 19: Sign Variance for Park Dental at 8980 Hudson Blvd. N.
City Planner Becker presented the request for a variance to allow an additional sign on the side
of the Park Dental Building at 8980 Hudson Boulevard North.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, moved TO ADOPT
RESOLUTION 2018-028 APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 8980 HUDSON
BLVD N TO ALLOW A THIRD WALL SIGN BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Motion passed 3 – 0.
ITEM 20: Royal Golf at Lake Elmo 1st Addition Development Agreement and Letter of
Credit Reduction
City Planner Becker reviewed the landscape plans for tree planting and reviewed the proposed
amendments.
Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Mayor Pearson, moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
2018-028 WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE FIFTH WHEREAS CLAUSE STATING THAT
THE TREES PLANTED WITHIN PRIVATE LOTS WILL BE PRIVATELY WARRANTIED.
Motion passed 3 – 0.
Mayor Pearson, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPROVE SECURITY
REDUCTION FOR LANDSCAPING FOR THE ROYAL GOLF CLUB 1ST ADDITION BY
$47,604. Motion passed 3 – 0.
ITEM 21: Plow Truck Purchase
Public Works Director Weldon provide a brief overview of the proposed plow truck purchase
and added that a conveyor would be added for asphalt.
Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Fliflet, moved TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF A SINGLE AXLE DUMP TRUCK/SNOW PLOW FOR AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $243,000, Motion passed 3 – 0.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 20, 2018
Page 4 of 4
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pearson: Attended meetings regarding the 3M settlement with the State of Minnesota and
meetings regarding the mountain biking proposal.
Councilmember Nelson: No report.
Councilmember Fliflet: No report.
STAFF REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Administrator Handt: Reminded the public that applications are being accepted for vacancies
on the Finance Committee. Noted MPCA and DNR will hold an open house on March 29th at
Oak Land Middle School. Announced the upcoming LMC conference.
Sergeant Osterman: Invited the public to attend Coffee with a Cop at Lake Elmo Coffee, March
21st, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
City Attorney Sonsalla: Working on the delayed sewer connection policy and Hidden
Meadows.
Planning Director Becker: Announced upcoming open house for comprehensive plan updates.
City Engineer Griffin: Working on plan review for Legacy, Wildflower, Hammes and Fairfield
Inn.
Meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT # 4
AGENDA ITEM: Washington County Application for MnDOT 2018 Corridors of
Commerce (CSAH 15 & TH 36) – Approve Resolution of Support
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Chad Isakson, Assistance City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve a Resolution of Support for the
Washington County Funding Application for MnDOT 2018 Corridors of Commerce for a grade separation
project at County State Aid Highway 15 (CSAH 15) and Trunk Highway 36 (TH36)?
BACKGROUDN AND PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: MnDOT and Washington County are
requesting from the City of Lake Elmo a resolution of support to apply for funding from the 2018 Corridors
of Commerce solicitation for a grade separation project at CSAH 15 and TH 36.
The Minnesota Legislature created the Corridors of Commerce program to authorize the sale of new trunk
highway bonds for the construction, reconstruction and improvement of trunk highways for projects not
already in the State Transportation Improvement Program. The program was created to provide additional
highway capacity on segments where there are currently bottlenecks in the system and to improve the
movement of freight and reduce barriers to commerce. Recently the Minnesota Department of
Transportation received recommendations from stakeholders and the public for projects to be considered
for its 2018 Corridors of Commerce program. From among those recommended projects, MnDOT will
award $400 million to selected projects across the State (see attached Corridors of Commerce
Recommendations).
As a part of the scoring criteria for the Corridors of Commerce program, all cities and counties which would
be touched by the suggested project need to submit a resolution of support for the project in order for that
project to receive 45points in the "Community Consensus" category. Projects which do not receive a
resolution of support from all governments are not disqualified from the program, but they will not receive
45points out of total of 700 from this criteria, which will put them at a distinct disadvantage in the scoring.
FISCAL IMPACT: No impact at this time. Obtaining additional outside funding for this potential project
may help to reduce the City cost participation for the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a Resolution supporting
Washington County’s application for the 2018 Corridors of Commerce solicitation for a grade separation
project at CSAH 15 and TH 36. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the
action is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2018-030 Supporting Washington County’s application for the
MnDOT 2018 Corridors of Commerce solicitation for a grade separation project at County State Aid
Highway 15 (CSAH 15) and Trunk Highway 36 (TH36).”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Supporting Washington County’s Application for the MnDOT 2018 Corridor of
Commerce for CSAH 15 and TH36.
2. Corridors of Commerce Recommendations.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-030
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR THE
SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO REQUEST FUNDING FROM
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH
THE 2018 CORRIDORS OF COMMERCE SOLICITATION
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is currently accepting
candidate projects for the 2018 Corridors of Commerce Solicitation; and
WHEREAS, Washington County is proposing an application for the construction of a grade
separation of County State Aid Highway 15 (CSAH 15) and Trunk Highway 36 (TH 36): and
WHEREAS; the intersection of CSAH 15 and TH 36 is partially located within the City of Lake
Elmo and provides access to residential, business, commercial, and recreational areas of Grant, Lake
Elmo, Stillwater and Stillwater Township; and
WHEREAS; the current intersection is insufficient to meet capacity demands today and the
growth anticipation in the future; and
WHEREAS; the TH 36 corridor is continuing to experience a growth in traffic and congestion;
and
WHEREAS; the upgrade of this interchange is essential to the economic health and welfare of
the region; and
WHEREAS; this project will protect and enhance mobility and safety, and will be of mutual
benefit to MnDOT, Washington County, and the cities of Grant, Lake Elmo and Stillwater.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Lake Elmo supports Washington County’s
application for funding as part of the 2018 Corridors of Commerce Solicitation for the grade separation
of County State Aid Highway 15 (CSAH 15) and Trunk Highway 36 (TH 36).
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson
(Seal) Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
M Den Nel son
\I Emil~ .lul'j.(l'IIM'II
M Emil y Jorgensen
M Emil y .J urge nse n
M S 1c phcn !\h11111
M Frnnk Pnfko
M Fn111k Pi1fko
M Frnnk P:ifko
\I .lm1t·ph lh·idu.'rl
M Joe Triplcll
M 1•n ul Ochmc
M Fnt nk P 1tll<0
M Tony Fisc her
M Tony Fisc her
M Tony Fi scher
,v1 Tony Fi sc h er
,\I Ton~ Fi .... c l1l·1·
M Tony Fisc her
M Tony Fisc her
M Tony Fi sc her
M Tim Murkfort
I0/169
J(i
36
97
1-3SW
1-494
1-3SW
36
J(,
8
101
1-94
62
1-94
1-494
1-494
1-J:S\\
1-94
1-94
1-94/280
252
M etro Di st rict
Corridors of Commerce Recommendation s
Ramsey/A noka ci ty limit , sigrrnl IO int crchirn gc 111 Thurston Avenue, signal 10 overpass 111 F11i ro11k
Avenue, intc rdrnngc m odifications 111 \.V. M11in S I r eel, to c 11sl of \V. M11in S treet intc rdrnngc plus
s u 1ortin, ro1ulwuy im >rovc m c nts
TIH' i11h'rwl·tiu11 of l'n111J.. Iii •ll\\;I\ J(, :111tl ('onnh Ho:ul 17 (l .:ikt• Elmo .,\\l'lllll').
Intersec tio n ofTll 36 und Tl-I 120 Ccntur ' Ave nu e.
4 lnnc ex lnnsio n of'T ll 97 fro m 1-35 to llwy 6 1 in Forest Lake.
\Vhen exit in g 1-694 e11 st to 1-35 \V no rthbo und, the m erge hrn e is pretty rough and you have to
mi x w ith trnffic entering the cloverleaf to go wcsl o n 694. Also, lrnffic go in g fro m wes t 694 lo
11 o r1h 35 \V have lo m er ge. S ugges ti o n would he tu modify it from under the bridge 1111d add un
"exit only" lune from 35 \V to llwy 96. Drh•ing this daily, so i know it would a ll cvii,tc c hoke
points. By the w1,y, I love the X-b ridge on 96 over 35\V! (I li ve near St. C loud and frequentl y u se
the s umc s t le brid •cover Hwy IS b Sum's C lub in north SI. C loud !
Tll 100 lo 1-3SW
l -3SW / 1-694 Syste m l11l crch1111 •c
C levela nd Avenue 10 l -3SE
f\1.lllllill I t\\l'
Ap proximately TII 6 1 in Forest Lu ke up to und including the intersection o f K:1rmcl Avenu e in
C hisa 10 C il y .
reconstruction 1111<1 ex 1>1111sion of TII 101 fro m 2 1:tnc rurul scc lion to 4 lanc di vid ed 11rb1111 sect ion
Co nve rt n sec ti o n of roitdway inlo freewa y d esign with inlcn:ha ngc
accesses in stead of si •n als o r slo , si •u s .
('oin c rl a si~n:iliud inlcrMTlion 011 lht• ro:uh,a~ inlo an
i11krd1:111•t·.
Co nve rt a sig nalized intcrsec lio n on the roadway inlO an
inlerc hau •c.
E xp1111d lh c ro:ulway from two hrn rs lo four lanes and inl er sec lion
conlro l tu 11rni11t:1in loc:i l access.
Other: Add a n exit only la ne to help m e r g in g traffic :H 35 \V No rth
of 694
Othe r : Add au E H m1 xili.lrv hrn e from Tl I I 00 to 1-35 \V.
Other: A dd ll yovc r ram from N il l -3SW l o WIJ 1-694.
O the r : A dd ,1 11 E B Lune from the 111 11 c dru1> ut C levcl:111d to lh e
135E interch 1111 •c 0 11 lhc m c di:111 side.
('unvc rl a s i~11ali/l'd i11lt..'l'M'l'lio11 011 llu; ro:uh,a~ i1110 an
illll'l'l'h:tll 'l',
E x >a nd lh c roadway from two lanes to four lanes.
is a> u·ox inrnt el • I.I miles. E x >1 11ul lh c roadway from two la nes lo four la nes.
W .B 1-94 from lh c Tll610 o n rnmp 10 the nuxiliary la ne leading lo N.B Tll 101 . Muple G rove t o
llo •crs. Other: Add u la ne between te rmini li sted above.
1-35 \V to T it 77 Other: add :111 eastbo und auxiliary lune
Fish I.a kc inlerdrnn 1c lo M a >le G rove Pa rkway
Tit 2 12 in Ed e n Prniric to 'I'll 5 at MSP Air >O ri
\Ves t o f Frnncc A\'e lo TII 77
Tll .1(• lo i\lis si~~i, 1i ni\'l'I'
T II 52 wes tbou nd c nt n111cc to Jackso n S t/12 th St ex it
from west ,Jl't with 1-35£ to 5 th/6th S t c ntrnnce
s ste m interchan •c of 1-94 und TII 280 u to lo c ul intcrch un 1c ofTII 280 with Frnnklin Av
Ex te nd the 3 rd lun e between Hrookdalc 1tnd 610 r a mp in both directions. It m akes 11 0 se nse why
Other: add ;rn uuxili:u ·y lane in cuc h direct io n from the wcsl
r a mps of lhe .. ~ish Luke intcrcluwge 10 the cast rnmps al Maple
G rov e Parkw11v
O ther : 11dd II Mn PASS lane lo e1u:h directio n
O lhc r : :uld a M n PASS la ne lo eitc h direct ion fro m west of th e 1-
35 \¥ iuterclrnn ge to the w est rnmps :ti T II 77 0111d add :t Mn PASS
la ne to en stbo und only from the France Ave ex it to 1-35\V
Olhl·r : atltl a .\1111•,,ss l;llll' lo ~0111hho11ml uni~ 11 ~i11 :.: l'l'l'form:IIH'l'
h,1st·d dl·~i~n (:1\'oid urnjoi· hrid~t· imp:it·ls likt· lht· 1-.15\V I lrh:111
l'ar111crshi, 1\ 1 n·t·111c11t ,ro ·t·t·t tlid)
Olher: :uld ii westbound o nl y buffer lane beginning w ith widening
the Tl-I 52 cntrn nc c to 2 lanes before en teri ng 1-94, c a rry new lane
to d rop a t the ex it to th e northbo und l -3SE exit , extend c 111Tc11t
auxilinrv lane to dro at the Jackson St/12th S 1 exil
Olher: ad d 11 west bouml o nl y lnnc from the west junction of 1-35£
(d ecision la ne with right lane to southbound 1-35E) lo li e inlo the 4
la ne sec li o n al lhc e ntrnncc from 5 1h /6 th St out of clowniown St.
Pa ul
Other: reconstruct syslcm inlcrclrnngc o f l -94f fll 280 a nd locu l
int erchange o fTII 280/Fnrnklin Av lo to pl'O\'idc so uthbound TII
280 :,cccss 10 1he C retin Av exit , cli111inut c /rc pl acc left sid e 1-94
rnmps and re\•ise the Franklin Av inl crclrnngc for better freight
connec tion s
there 11re only lwo lines for I hi s :t 1 uoxinrnlc mile of road. Other: Make lhv,• 252 r-hrcc lanes the e111i1·c lcn •th
M Tim Ma rkforl
M Tim Markforl
M Mich ael Mady
M M iclrn cl Markell
M .l c11 nnc Markell
M Joscuh Klein ~· Todcl \Vill,!IH'I'
M Todd \Vag ncr
M John ll okkuncn
M ll.011 llippcn
M Trncy French
Matt hew Loyns
M Lisa Freese
M Li sa Freese
M Lisa Freese
M Tony Fisc her
10
252
77
494
62
1-94
Jll
110
2 12
101
10
61
169
169
13
1-94/252/1-694
Metro District
Corr id ors of Commerce Recommendations
Mukc hwy 10 llircc limes from abou t 851h (w here it reduces 10 two lanes) to hwy 35W bo th
directions. When head ed No rth o n llwy 10 three hin cs of inbound traffic get compressed in to two
lanes for ubout 1111 mil e and then it opens lo three Inn es. When h cndcd So ulh on Hw y 10 towards
35\V it goes from four la nes to three n nd then around 85th it reduces to two hrn cs for aboul II mil e Other: Mu kc llwy 10 in lll a in c 111 lcasl lhrec lanc:s in c1u.:h
until the left ex it lane stnrls for 35\V No rth. P lease cxnand this scclion to three lanes. clircclion
Remove th e s top light on 252 ;H 70th. ll.cplucc ii wit h u ped es trian o\'crpass for th e I.m s stop. T he
inlcrch:t nl!C wus closed over the s ummer :.tnd it made Hwv now much smoot her. Other: Disl'o 1111 ecl 70t h st reel from I lw y 252 in Rrookhrn C e nt er
Provide a llyover from northbound MN 77 (Ced11r Avenue) lo westbou nd MN 62 (Crosstown).
T hi s is itn outdated clover leaf a botllcneck and is d,meerous for drive r s of all kinds of vchides. Other: Fly O\'er
From llil!hwuy 100 to hi2hway 77 Other: Ex 1l1uu l lhc freeway by 2 lan es, nbuilcl tla c 494
From Trncy to 35\V Exua ntl the roadway from two l1111 cs lo four lanc:s.
from 1-35 \\1 iunctio n in Minne1molis lo l -3SE iunction in St. Paul Acid ;1 M uPASS lane lo the ro11dwav.
('011\'t·rt a 'l'l'lio11 of roa lh\ a~ into frt·t'\\ a~ ,k"i~11 \\ ilh inll.'IThan~l'
Norlh St . Paul lo SI . ('roi, l{i\l'I' Hridl!l.' at'l'l'!\St·~ (instc:ul ufsie,nal~ or ~lop '.'ti J!II S).
C onvert a sect io n of ro11dw11 y int o freeway design with inlcrc hangc
Me ndota to Inver Grove H eiehts accesses (instc11d of s il!rrnls or slou sil!ns).
lJS 2 12, C lrn ska, from Ca r ver Co unty 11 , Jon11thun C aner Parkway, to Norwood Young
America Co unt y Road 34 Ex pund the roadway from two lanes tu four la ne ~.
Con vert 11 sigrml iz ed intersection on the roadway into an
So uthbound o n llit1 lnv11v 10 1 in Rol!ers from Diamond Luke road to 1-94 cast 111ad west bound. interch<tnl!e.
The nun11 from 35W so uthbound to 1rn11 r oxi 11rnt elv County Road .J \V
llil.'hWil\' 6 1 in Suint Puul from W11r ner ll.oad to t housand feet so uth of\Va rne r Road
TII 169 MnPASS from C II 21 to 1-494 11or l hbou11d 11 nd spot mobilit y improvements so uthbound
(reduced Sl'Ope project identified in 169 Mobilit y St ud y us St 11ge A)
Stage A improvem enls include:
i. Norlhbound (NB) TII 169 -inilhtl N il T II 169 M nPASS la ne
ii . Southbound (SH) Tit 169-rest ripe 'I'll 101 exits as center d ecision hrnc instead of right lan e
udd and 2-2 s plit
iii. SB TH 169 -co nnect Pioneer 0 11 -rnmp nux iliary lnne lo downstrea m 3-hrne section
iv . SD TII 169 -merge westbou nd 1-494 inlo 2 lanes nnd lh e u mid sepnrnted C D road front
cns lbo und (EB)
Other: Make th e ramp from 35\V Southbound oato llig hw ay 10
\Vest bound extend all the wny to where llighway IO cha nges from
2 lanes goin g west to 3 lanes. This would 11void t he trnftit from
so uthbo und hnving to merge wi th lhe lrnffic fro1a1 northbound and
help eliminate the no rthbo und trnffi c from backing up 011 10 35\V
Northbouml causinl! si1!11ifi c1111t trnffic dcla\'S 111111:I accidents.
O th er: Lengthen the left turn lanes from llig h wi•y 6 1 onto
\Varner Road. A lot of commcrcinl trucks turn lll!ft there. ·n1cy go
s low and bog clown l-li g h wit)' 6 1 north bound trnffic approaching I
94 .
1-494 into 3rd lane Add a Mn PASS lane to the rundwav .
TII 169 MnPASS fro m Mnrsch a ll Road (CSA H 17) lo 1-494
Full M n PAS S on both the n orthbound und so uth bound directions includes S tages A, D & E from
the 169 Mobilitv S tudv lmulc menlation Phw Add a MnPASS la ne to the roadw11v.
T he proposed project includes the construction of a grade separation, co nnec tin g fronlage rouds,
a nd 11ccess nunps 111 thc inlerscclion ofTII 13 irnd D11koln Ave. in the city ofS11v11gc, Scott
County. The project limil s nre from west of Du kola Ave. lo cast of Yose mite Ave.
The project will provide a support in g road network that removes direct access to TH 13 nncl
offers alternute routes nnd safer access to Tl-I 13 for truck trnffic generated from the ucljace nl
Ports of Savage a nd industrial uses. The s upporting road network a nd the unclcrp:tss connecting
Dakoln Ave. will faci litat e movement" across TH 13 a nd a ll ow for · right-in righl-out ucccss
thrnul!h the u se of access nuu1>s o n to 'I'll 13 at Yose mil c Ave. Add :t new interchant!e tu the roadway.
TII 6 10 o n T II 252 throu{!h lhe Dowlin1! Ave interchange o n 1-94 Ex1Jand lhe roadway from two l:111c s lo fo u r lane~.
M John
M Lisu
M 'l'yler
M L)'ndon
M Tom
M Mark
M Mark
M llob
M llob
M llob
M llob
M ,John
M Kitlhryn
M .l c11
M .len
M .lcn
M Jen
M Jen
M Karl
M Kurl
Do.in submiHing on behalf of lhc
TII 252 /194 Corridor Policy
Advisory Commitlcc
Freese
llumillon
Robjent
Nikunen
Krebs buch
Krebsbach
.Juckson
Z immcrnmn
Sa n1ccki
Whittington
\\1hittington
Whittington
\Vhittington
\Vhiltington
Keel
Keel
252
13
13
169
77
55
61
61
61
61
IOI
156
65
65
65
65
65
l-35\V/1-494
l-35\V/1 -494
Metro District
Corridors of Commerce Reco mmendation s
TII 252 from 194/1 -694 lo Tll 610
The proposed project includes the construction or II grade sc parntion, co1111ccling frontugc rouds,
street closures, 1111d 11cccss ramps nc.tr the intersection ofTII 13 und C howen Ave. 11ci1r the cily
boundary of Savage und llurusvillc in Scott itnd Dukota Co unties. The project limits arc from
Quentin Ave. to \Vashburn Ave.
Frum the inlerchnnge with llighwn.)' 169 eusl of S lrnkopce lo lhe inlcrclrnngc wilh MN-77 Nc1t r
the Red Linc 1111d "Twin C ilics Premium Oullets" s hould ull be II gnule-seperutcd/nccess
controlled frecwu y. Fur too much unnecessary congestion and accidents that could be pre\'ent cd
and lots of I ruck trnffic.
Trunk l-lit1 hwn\' 5 from Hollilw Acres Road in Victoria lo TH 41 in Clurntrnssen
The inte r section of lliuhwnv 169 lliehw1w 282 und ScoH Co unty Roud 9.
Northlwund Trunk Highway 77 from 140th S treet in Apple Valley to Old Shakopee ll.oad in
Bl00111i111.1 1on .
West Junctio n ofCSAll 42 in H.o semounl to llus tinPs C it v Linc
Pro_jec t I of M11ki11u 6111 Freeway: Put an intc rch:111uc in ut hil!hwu y 61 und hil!hw:1 y IO
Proiccl 2 of M11kh111 61 11 Frcewav : Put 1111 interc hunt!e in at hil!hwu,• 61 1111d hi1.1 hw11 v 95
Pro.iect 3 of M11ki111! 61 a Freeway: Put un inlcrch,ml!e in at hie,hw11y 61 aud Afton Ruud
Project 4 of M11ld11g 61 u Frecwuy: Put 1111 inlerch:rngc in al highway 61 und Warner 1111d Hurns
ro11ds
S Diamond Lake Rd lo 1-94 in Ro1?.crs
TH -I 56 (new intcrsec lion with ucccss to llargc C hannel Roud) b etween US 52 und A111111polis
Strecl F.11st
1091h Ave i11 lll11i11 e
11 7 1h Ave in Ulainc
iust south of 10 5t h Ave to north of I 17th Ave in Blaine .
!
lliehwu_v IO thrn11e,h I 17 th Ave in llli1inc
Both sie,nals al the llil!hW•tY 10/llie.hway 65 inlcrchane.c in D1 11inc '
l.1 35W/1494 lnterclrn1wc TurUine lnlerchant1c lmprovcmcnls -Plmsc 1 $85M
IJSW/1494 l11tcrclrnngc TurUine lnlerch1111ge Jmprovcmenls -Phase I , $85M p lus, E11stlurn111I
Olhcr: C,un,crt 'I'll 252 from II signalized cxprcssw.-y 10 a limil cd
access fr ccwuy with intcnlrnngcs al 66th Ave N, Hrookdulc Dr.
and 851h Ave N. Add l\lnPASS I.m e ulong northbound 'I'll 252
from 1-94 to TII 610. Access closures ,,t 7 Uth Ave N, 73rd Ave N
and llumboldt/8lsl Ave N.
Add a new intcrclrnnt!c to the roadwuv.
Convert a sec1io11 of ro.1dwu y into freeway des ign with interd1:111 gc
•1ccesscs (inslciul o f sil!.nals or s tou s i1rns).
Exn:md the roudw11V from lwo lanes lo four Innes.
Co11\'cr1 u s ig,rnlized intcrscclion o n the roadway into 1111
intcrchanec.
Add a Mu PASS lune to the roadwa\'.
Exmmd lhc roudw1w from two l11n es to four lanes.
A dd n new interclrnne,c to the rondwuy,
Convert II s ignalized inlcrsccl ion on the roadway into nu
intcrch,111t!c.
Add a new intcrchane.c to the roadway.
Add ;1 new intcrchnnee to the roadwav.
Other: Add ll yover bridge for Sil llwy 101 lrnflic 10 access 1-94
nnd a\'oid two s touli1?.hts _ iust like the NB llwv IOI ll vover bridl!.e.
Redesig ning th e intersec tion with Burge C hannel H.oud und lhc at-
11.!radc mainline rail erossiue. at tlrnl locution.
Convert II signalized inl c rsec tion 011 lhc roadway inlo 1111
interclrnnl!.c.
Con vert a s ignulized intersection 011 the roadway into an
inlcrch11111,!C.
Convert II section of roadway into frcewny d es ign with inlerdrnngc
accesses linsh:ud of sit1 1utls 01 · stun si1.1 11s).
Convert n section of roadway into frcewuy design with interchange
ncccsscs (instead of siunals o r sto1, s il!ns).
Olhcr: Rcmo\'c Uolh s iguals nt the highway 10 /highwuy 65
intcrclrnngc and make lhe inlcrdrnnge operate with n fre e flow
dcs ie.n
Other: Interchange im1>ro ve mcnts for s afety , capacily and
reducing the boltlcnecks at the intcrclrnngc, for the cflicicul
movemenl of freight. Phase I -Nort h bound to \Vest Hound llyovcr
rnmp
1494 between Frnnce Ave. 1111d 135\V (1.4 miles of Auxiliary hrnc) from the 1494(1'1162 Congestion Other: Improvements for the safely, cnpacily and reduc ing the
Relief Studv. $ I 2.9M bottlenecks for the e ftirie nl movement of frcie.ht.
M K nrl Kee l
M 011Vid Roden
M Kristin As her
M Kristin As her
M Kristin As her
M wnync johnso n
M Jose ph Lu x
M John ll agen
M Abigail \Vhe h111
M Steve Kummer
M Virginie N udimi
1-35 W /l -494
1-694
62
62
6 2/77
1-3 5 E/1-35W
36
1-94
10
36
55
Metro Di strict
Corridors of Commerce Reco mmendations
135\V/1494 Intercha nge Turbine lnlerd11111gc Improvem e nts -Phnsc I , $85M plus, Eastbo und 1-
494 bclwcc n fnrncc Ave. nnd 1-35\V (1.4 miles of Aux ili ary lane) from lh e 14 94/Tll 62 Conges tion
Reli ef St udy, $12 .9M plus, Eastbouud 1-4 94 between East llnsh la ke Ro ad and Tll 100 (0 .5 mil es
of Auxi li urv lune) from the 1494ffH62 Con~cst ion s Reli ef S tudv. $2 .2 M.
So uthbo und 1-694 to 1-9 4 Eastbound
Add lanes on Tl-I 62 in each direction from T II 77 to Porthrnd Aven ue to continue C rosstown
C ommons lmurovements.
Add Innes on Tll 62 in ench direction from Penn A,1e nue to TII 169 to co ntinue C rosstown
Commons i11111ro vcments.
C lose lo op nunp from w est bound Hi g hw uy 62 lo so uthbound llig h way 77 , a nd r econs truct rump
a nd traffic signal to ncco mmodutc westbound Highwny 62 to so uthbound Highway 77. These
rnmn modifications will imnrove the northbound to westbound trnflic m ovem ent .
35E -35 \\' split in the north Metro -Columbus Towns hi1> to Hig hway 97 ex it to Forest
Lake / Columbus twn
Const ruc l M nPASS managed lanes bet ween 1-35\V und l -35E, in both directions, llS id c nlilied in
Ot her : Improvement s for the sn fcl y, eapacity and rcducin~ the
bottleneck s for the cflicicnt mo vc 111 c11t of frcieht.
Other: C hunl!,c the c urrent clo ve rleaf ty pe rnu111 to a ll yovc r nu1111 .
O th er: Add n u xili ary Innes on T it 62 in c uch c.lircc lion from TII 77
to Portland Ave nu e lo co ntinue C rosstown Commons
illll>rO\'ClllCUI S.
O the r: Add limes o n TH 62 in cnch direction i ·rom Penn Avenue lo
TH 169 lo co ntinue C rosst own Commons imDrovemc nls.
Ot her: C lose loo p rump from westbo und lliglnvuy 62 to
sout hbound Highway 77, and reconst ruct wes tbound rnmp a nd
traffic s igm,l on Highway 77 to ncconuuodntc wcstl,ound I lighway
62 to southbound Highway 77 . T hese rnmp 111odifications will
imnrovc the northbound to westbound traffic: move ment.
Ot her: Reco mmend 4 lanes -2 from 35E and 2 from 35\V, then
for right lune becomes exit o nl y for Hi g hway 97 ex it IU Forest
Luke
the M nPASS Phase 3 study. Add :1 Mn PA SS la ne to the romhvay.
ln lersection of 1-94 nnd TH 6 10
Th e inte rseclions of Fairok and Hwy lO in A noka, a nd the inlerscction of T hu rston and ll wy I 0
in A noka.
35W to 35E
TH 55 (lli11w11 tlrn Avenue) at Hc nne uin Co unty R.0 11d 4 (Lnke Street) inte rcholll1!C.
Other: T he proposed 1>rojcct includes un accc:ss from westbo und
Tll 6 10 to easlbo und 1~94 • including a bridge over lhc TII 6 10
co nnectio n to 1-94 and bridges over 1-94, an a,ccess from
westbou nd 1-94 to the future westbound CSA II 6 10 , and
co nnec tions between Tl-I 6 10 a nd the future SA Ii 6 10. T his
project w ill ul so include an auxilinry lnnc 0 11 1-94 be tw een Maple
G rove Parkway a nd the so uth ramps of the 1> ro1>osed 1·94 and
Brockton Lune inlerc hunge to improve lrnflic llow a nd snfcl"y
clements.
Ot he r : The project will reduce currido1· d cla,-,s by 75 p e rc e nt by
elimhrnting a ll u t-grndc a ccess points and signa ls. II a lso w ill r es ult
in a 57 percent reduction in crus hes, enhancing the safet y,
rcli:,bilily a nd e ffi cie ncy of the move m e nt of peo pl e, good s and
sel"\'iccs.
O Iii er: Ei pnud ll i~hw11 y J(, from 4 to (1 la n es from J S\V/C'lc,•,•hmd t o JSE
nlong mcdiun. I ) Hcco nfig urc ex is tin g "circle" rump cnl rnncc from
35\V/Clc,•clund so uth lo iu creusc speed of e ul e riu~ ta·11ffic ; 2) Fi x
dnlinugc/lloodiug problem ill 36/F11in•icw inlerclurn~e (U1, lo 4 l'ect of w11 1er
during lu r gc cvculs)i 3) Pro ,1idc 1H1 x 11111c for c u1 crh•g lrnffic from Snelli11 g
lo 36 intcrclutngc; use m edi1111 lo sc1rnnt1e mcq;i ug rrnffic from S ne lling Ave;
4) Ex pnud S n elling/Co Rd ll i111ersec1io11 --incrc11se I.T 111 11 c lc n glh s on E U
Co Rd U lending l o S nellin g; 4) Pro"idc lo nger 1111,ea· fo r o n rumps from
luuuliue in b ot h EU imd WB direclious instcud or rcl yiu~ o u u u x ex il lune for
mergi11g lrnf'fic ; 5) s ho rte n Dulc S I e nt rn u ce t o WB 36 --w h y is 1h r lc u glh or
lhe rn1111> is necessary'! Use for s lormwulc r mitig11 1io11 ; 6) rebuild rnil bridge
o,·c r 36 j u s l W or 35E --incre11se s 1>1111 len g th lo ucco mod 111c II lo uger rnmp
111 1,er fro m 35E S B e111e1fog J6 WU
Othe1·: Reco nfigure t he ex isting interdutngc ut lli1n Y1ll h a Ave nue (Trnn k
llig h wny 55) 11 11d L ake S 1rcc 1 (Jl c1111 c pi11 Co unl y S1a.t c Ai d llig h wuy 3) fro m
n S in l!lc Point Urbu11 lntc r c hungc t o II Til!hl D h1 111mul l111 c r drn11 gc.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 5
AGENDA ITEM: Municipal State Aid System – Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid
Streets
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
Chad Isakson, Assistance City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the designation of Kimbro Avenue
North/50th Street North, from 47th Street North to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17), and the designation of
Jade Trail North, from Hudson Boulevard to 5th Street North as municipal state aid routes thereby
increasing the municipal state aid system by 1.00 mile?
BACKGROUND: As a Municipal State Aid city, the City of Lake Elmo is eligible to designate certain
higher volume roadways that are functionally classified as collector or arterial streets, as Municipal State
Aid routes, and are eligible to receive a proportionate share of state aid funding to assist with the
maintenance and construction of the MSA roadway network. Streets designated as Municipal State Aid
Streets must meet the selection criteria of Rule 8820.0700, sub. 3. The City is allowed to designate roadway
mileage up to a cap of 20% of the total local and county roadway system within the City limits. In addition,
the City is allowed to designate any county road or county state aid highway (CSAH) which is turned back
to the city with said mileage being over and above the 20% limitation.
Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding is allocated in accordance with state statutes with one-half of the annual
funding based on each city’s population relative to other state aid cities, and one-half of the annual funding
based on each city’s estimated “Needs”.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: As part of the City’s Municipal State Aid System the City must
certify to the Office of State Aid the total mileage within the corporate limits of Lake Elmo. Due to the
development activities in 2017, Lake Elmo increased the total mileage of streets by 5.84 miles. The
certification of these streets to the office of State Aid in 2017 allows the City to designate an additional
1.00 mile of municipal state Aid streets (20%). Therefore, staff has reviewed the City’s Municipal State-
Aid road network and is recommending that Kimbro Avenue North/50th Street North, from 47th Street
North to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17), and of Jade Trail North, from Hudson Boulevard to 5th Street
North be designated as Municipal State Aid Streets.
FISCAL IMPACT: With the designation of Kimbro Avenue North/50th Street North and Jade Trail North
as a municipal state aid routes the City will increase the City’s state aid system by approximately 1.00 mile
of roadway. The additional roadway will increase the City’s determination of Needs on an annual basis
resulting in an increased allocation of Municipal State Aid funding.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the Consent
Agenda, a Resolution approving revisions to the City’s Municipal State Aid System (MSAS) as presented
to designate Kimbro Avenue North/50th Street North, from 47th Street North to Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH
17), and Jade Trail North, from Hudson Boulevard to 5th Street North as a municipal state aid routes for
the determination of Needs. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the action
is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution 2018-031, Establishing Kimbro Avenue North/50th Street North and
Jade Trail North, as Municipal State Aid Streets.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Streets.
2. 2017 Certification of Mileage.
3. Kimbro Avenue North/50th Street North MSA Designation Map.
4. Jade Trail North MSA Designation Map.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-031
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo has reviewed the City’s Municipal State Aid Street
System and has identified system revisions in accordance with the policies and goals of the City’s
future growth and development and Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, based on these recommendations, it appears to the Lake Elmo City Council
that the streets hereinafter described should be designated Municipal State Aid Streets under the
provisions of Minnesota Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that
the streets described as follows, to-wit:
STREET NAME FROM TO
Kimbro Avenue N./50th Street N. 0.72 miles (3,790 ft.) 47th Street N. to Lake Elmo Avenue N. (CSAH 17)
Jade Trail North 0.28 miles (1,475 ft.) Hudson Boulevard to 5th Street North
be, and hereby are, established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of
Lake Elmo subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of
Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward
two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for consideration,
and upon approval of the designation of said roads or portion thereof, that same be constructed,
improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of Lake Elmo, and to be
numbered and known as a Municipal State Aid Street.
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL
2018.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson
Mayor
(Seal)
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson
City Clerk
2017 CERTIFIED MILEAGE
COLLECTOR NAME
feet miles feet miles feet miles
Savona 4th 5,450 1.03 4,100 0.78 1,350 0.26 5TH STREET NORTH
Boulder Ponds 2nd/5th Street 2,082 0.39 887 0.17 1,195 0.23 5TH STREET NORTH
Hammes 1st 4,011 0.76 4,011 0.76 0 0.00
Hammes 2nd 1,590 0.30 1,590 0.30 0 0.00
Easton Village 2nd 1,610 0.30 750 0.14 860 0.16 VILLAGE PARKWAY
Easton Village 3rd 1,350 0.26 1,350 0.26 0 0.00
Wildflower 2nd 2,075 0.39 2,075 0.39 0 0.00
Inwood 4th 1,900 0.36 1,900 0.36 0 0.00
Inwood 5th 5,408 1.02 5,408 1.02 0 0.00
The Royal Golf Club at Lake Elmo 4,086 0.77 4,086 0.77 0 0.00
Southwind 1,257 0.24 1,257 0.24 0 0.00
TOTALS 30,819 5.84 27,414 5.19 3,405 0.64
SUBDIVISION TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR
City of Lake Elmo - Kimbro Ave N/ 50th St N
February 22, 2018 0 375 750187.5 ft
0 110 22055 m
1:4,000
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
50TH STREET NORTH
KI
M
B
R
O
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H
City of Lake Elmo - Jade Trail N
February 22, 2018 0 375 750187.5 ft
0 110 22055 m
1:4,000
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
JA
D
E
T
R
A
I
L
N
O
R
T
H
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 6
AGENDA ITEM: CSAH 13 (Ideal Avenue) Improvements – Approve Payment No. 1 to the City of
Oakdale
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve Payment No. 1 to the City of Oakdale for
the CSAH 13 (Ideal Avenue) Improvements?
BACKGROUND, PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The CSAH 13 (Ideal Avenue) Improvements
were constructed in 2017 as a Washington County lead project and included the reconstruction of Olson
Lake Trail from 44th Street North to 50th Street North. As part of this improvement project the Cities of
Lake Elmo and Oakdale worked together with the County to implement the Phase 2 extension of sanitary
sewer for the Olson Lake Trail municipal urban service area. Therefore, in addition to the work completed
by Washington County the City of Oakdale directly incurred project costs for sanitary sewer engineering
services and for the direct purchase of individual grinder pump stations to be used by Lake Elmo properties
along the corridor. The cost share between Oakdale and Lake Elmo was determined on a prorated base
using the number of benefitting properties within each City as recommended and detailed in the approved
feasibility report for the project.
The City of Oakdale has submitted Invoice #201803126020 in the amount of $66,892.06. The post-design
estimated project costs for this work was $84,000. The invoice has been reviewed by staff and payment is
recommended in the amount requested.
FISCAL IMPACT: No additional fiscal impact. Payment is within the authorized scope and budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the Consent
Agenda, payment to the City of Oakdale in the amount of $66,892.06 for the CSAH 13 (Ideal Avenue)
Sanitary Sewer Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for the
action is as follows:
“Move to approve payment to the City of Oakdale in the amount of $66,892.06 for CSAH 13 (Ideal
Avenue) Sanitary Sewer Improvements.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Oakdale Invoice No. 201803126020 and supporting detail.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 7
AGENDA ITEM: 2018 Street Improvements – Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and
Ordering Advertisement for Bids
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
Chad Isakson, Project Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the plans and specifications and order
advertisement for bids for the 2018 Street Improvements?
BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2017 following a Public Improvement Hearing, the City Council
ordered the improvements and preparation of the plans and specifications for the 2018 Street Improvements.
The improvements include the rehabilitation of residential streets located in the southern Tri-Lakes area.
The street improvements include approximately 2.0 miles of local streets consisting of Jane Road North,
from Lake Jane Trail North to Jamaca Avenue North; Jane Court North, from Jane Road North to dead end;
Jamaca Avenue North, from Jane Road North to Jamaca Avenue North; Jerome Avenue North, from 49th
Street North to 53rd Street North; Jerome Avenue Court North, from Jerome Avenue North to dead end;
and 53rd Street North, from Jamaca Boulevard North to 9480 53rd Street North.
The improvements for all streets include a full depth reclamation of the existing pavement and a new
bituminous surface. Jane Road North and Jane Court North improvements include a new concrete ribbon
curb. New concrete curb and gutter will be installed for Jamaca Avenue North, Jerome Avenue North,
Jerome Avenue Court North, and 53rd Street North. Drainage improvements have been incorporated into
the project to include storm sewer system replacement and drainage upgrades to prevent water from
standing on or along the new street pavements. The scope of improvements remains consistent with the
approved feasibility report which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2017.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The plans and specifications have been completed for the
improvements and are ready to be advertised for contractor bids. A bid date has been scheduled for May 3,
2018. Once received, bids will be reviewed by staff and if acceptable will be presented to council on May
15, 2018 to award a contract.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost for the 2018 Street Improvements is $1,229,000. The
improvements are proposed to be partially assessed against the benefitting properties consistent with the
City’s Special Assessment Policy. The project is funded through the issuance of general obligation bonds
and special assessments.
Approval of this motion does not commit the council to the project costs. Once contractor bids are received,
the actual construction costs will be known and the council will be asked to consider entering into a contract
to complete the work.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve, as part of the consent
agenda, Resolution 2018-032 approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for
bids for the 2018 Street Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for
the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2018–032, approving the plans and specifications and ordering the
advertisement for bids for the 2018 Street Improvements.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the
2018 Street Improvements.
2. Location Map.
3. Project Schedule.
4. Project Plans and Specifications available for review at City Hall.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-032
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE
2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council on the 5th day of December
2017, the City Engineer, together with Bolton & Menk, Inc., has prepared plans and specifications for the
2018 Street Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at Lake Elmo City Hall, and made a part
hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and posted online with
Quest Construction Data Network (QuestCDN.com) an advertisement for bids upon the making
of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be
published for at least 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that sealed bids
provided to the City Clerk prior to the specified bid date and time and accompanied by a bid bond
or cashier’s check made payable to the City of Lake Elmo in an amount not less than 5% of the
amount of such bid will be considered.
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson
(Seal) Mayor
ATTEST:
__
______________________________
Julie Johnson
City Clerk
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 2017.156
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
MARCH 2018
AUGUST 15, 2017 Council authorizes Feasibility Report.
NOVEMBER 7, 2017 Presentation of Feasibility Report. Council accepts Report and calls Hearing.
DECEMBER 5, 2017 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders the Improvement and orders the
preparation of Plans and Specifications (Requires 4/5th vote).
APRIL 3, 2018 Council approves Plans and Specifications and orders Advertisement for Bids.
MAY 3, 2018 Receive Contractor Bids.
MAY 15, 2018 Council accepts Bids and awards Contract.
JUNE 5, 2018 Conduct Pre-Construction Meeting and issue Notice to Proceed.
• SEPTEMEBER 21, 2018 Substantial Completion.
• OCTOBER 26, 2018 Final Completion.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 8
AGENDA ITEM: 2298 Inwood Ave. N. Abatement
SUBMITTED BY: Brian A. Swanson – Finance Director
REVIEWED BY: City Administrator-Kristina Handt
BACKGROUND:
2298 Inwood Ave. N. had a special assessments certified in 2017 for Pay 2018 regarding the
Inwood Avenue Trunk Water main improvements for a total of $5,800.00 to be paid over 20
years.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the City Council remove the assessment from the 2017 certification for beginning in Pay
2018 over a period of 20 years?
PROPOSAL:
Council approved purchase of vacant land in 2015 per the attached agreement, and as such this
special assessment would not be certified to this parcel. Therefore, the assessment for the Inwood
Avenue Trunk Water main special assessment will need to be removed from the assessment roll.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$5,800.00 which will be absorbed by the Water Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from the consent agenda:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2018-033”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment #1 - Resolution No. 2018-033 – 2298 Inwood Ave. N.
• Attachment #2 – Application for Abatement – 2298 Inwood Ave. N.
• Attachment #3 – Vacant Land Purchase Agreement
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-033
A RESOLUTION RELATED TO CERTIFIED 2017, PAY 2018 ASSESSMENT
TO WASHINGTON COUNTY
WHEREAS, 2298 Inwood Ave. N., PID 21.029.21.32.0001, was assessed
$5,800.00 for watermain improvements as part of the Inwood Trunk Watermain
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo entered into an agreement to not assess the
property; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota, that the following parcel may be removed from the certified 2017, Pay
2018 assessment roll due per the attached Washington County abatement forms.
21.029.21.32.0001
APPROVED by the Lake Elmo City Council on this 3rd day of April, 2018.
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson
City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT #09
AGENDA ITEM: Penalty for Delayed Sewer Connection
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
In 2016, the Council updated Chapter 51 of the city code to require any building used for human
habitation or in which a toilet or other plumbing facility for the disposal of human waste is installed and
located on property adjacent to a sewer main, or in a platted block through which the system extends,
shall be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system within 2 years from the date on which a
connection is available to the building. Previously ordinance required connection within 1 year. The
change was made to allow for the wastewater incentive credit for existing properties on septic.
We are at the two year mark for Old Village Phase 1 properties which received their notice of connection
availability on 3/9/16. We have four properties (2 residential and 2 commercial) which have not yet
connected. Staff sent them reminder letters in February 2018.
Council discussed this issue at their March 13, 2018 work session and directed staff to draft penalties that
included charging the base residential sewer charge each quarter and limiting the ability of the property to
be sold without having hooked up to sewer.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
How should the city respond to those properties not hooking up to municipal sewer within the 2 year time
frame?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Included in your packet is an ordinance update to charge the sewer base charge (currently $53.03 for
residential properties) each quarter. This would be the least burdensome to enforce and the least impact to
property owners while still balancing the needs of the system (such as providing the funding necessary to
maintain the sewer infrastructure that was put in place to extend municipal sewer) and protecting the
financial investment.
For commercial properties (which currently don’t have a base sewer charge) they would be charged the
residential base charge multiplied by the number of REC (residential equivalent charge) as determined by
the Engineering staff in the feasibility studies for the project. So for one commercial property their quarterly
fee would be $159.09 (3 RECs) and the other would be $212.12 (4 RECs). The fee would be adjusted
annually in the same proportion as the residential sewer base fee until such time as the property connects
to municipal sewer.
The second paragraph added would prohibit the sale, transfer or conveyance of the property without it being
connected to municipal sewer. This condition would be waived if a demolition permit was issued. This
exception is provided in order to accommodate redevelopment of sites which is expected as municipal
sewer was brought to the Old Village area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
By charging the base sewer fee, the sewer fund will be less impacted from the loss of revenue as projected
in the utility studies. Long range financial plans assume that connections are made within 1-2 years of
service being available. Since all of these properties already receive a water bill quarterly, there will not be
any additional expense to the city to add this to the billing. Any unpaid charges will then be certified to the
property tax levy in the fall in the same manner as any other unpaid utility charges.
OPTIONS:
1) Approve the Ordinance as presented
2) Amend and then Approve the Ordinance
3) Do not pass any ordinance changes
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from the consent agenda:
“Motion to Approve Ordinance No 08-204”
1
519771v1 SJS LA515-4
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-204
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 51: WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title V, Chapter 51, Wastewater
Treatment Systems, Section 51.022 of the Lake Elmo Code of Ordinances to read as follows:
§ 51.022 CONNECTIONS WITH SEWER REQUIRED.
(A) Any building used for human habitation or in which a toilet or other plumbing facility for
the disposal of human waste is installed and located on property adjacent to a sewer main, or in a
platted block through which the system extends, shall be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer
system within 2 years from the date on which a connection is available to the building.
(1) Any owner of any residential property that has a building failing to meet the 2
year connection deadline set forth in paragraph (A) of this Section will be charged the City’s
residential sewer base charge as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. The owner of a commercial
or industrial property that has a building failing to meet the two year connection deadline set
forth in paragraph (A) above will be charged the City’s sewer base fee for each residential
equivalent unit as determined by the project feasibility report, Metropolitan Council
determination, or similar estimate.
(2) Properties with buildings failing to connect within 2 years to the municipal
sanitary sewer system may not be sold, conveyed, or transferred until connection occurs.
Properties that have buildings that will be demolished after sale, transfer, or conveyance are
exempted from this provision provided that a demolition permit for the building has been issued
by the city.
(B) All buildings subsequently constructed within the city on property adjacent to a sewer
main or in a platted block through which the municipal sanitary sewer system extends, shall be provided
with a connection to the sewer system for the disposal of human waste.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and
publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
2
519771v1 SJS LA515-4
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance No. 08-204 was adopted on this ___day of April, 2018 by a
vote of ____ Ayes and ____Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
___________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Julie Johnson
City Clerk
This Ordinance No. 08-204 was published on the ___ day of ________________, 2018.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT #10
AGENDA ITEM: Assessment of Service Charges and Nuisance Abatement Ordinance-
Summary Publication
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
At the March 20, 2018 meeting, Council approved an ordinance relating to the Assessment of Service
Charges and Nuisance Abatement. Only three members were present at the meeting so the summary
resolution could not be approved since it requires a 4/5ths vote of the Council.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the Council approve the summary publication of the ordinance to allow the assessment of charges
for services and nuisance abatements?
PROPOSAL:
No additional changes are being proposed to the ordinance as it was approved by Council on March 20,
2018. The resolution in your packet simply allows for the summary publication of it.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Summary publication can save the city the cost of publishing a long ordinance in the newspaper by referring
people to the full text being available at city hall.
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from the consent agenda:
“Motion to Approve Resolution No 2018-024 Authorizing Summary Publication of Ord No 08-203.”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution No 2018-024
Resolution 2018-024 Page 1 of 2
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-024
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-203 BY TITLE
AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-203, an
ordinance adding section to the City Code regarding special assessments for services and charges
for emergency services and amending Chapter 96 of the Lake Elmo Code regarding nuisance
abatement; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-203 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-203, which makes the
following changes to City Code:
• Adds section 11.02 to the City Code which allows the city to charges for services and assess
them to the property if not paid.
• Adds section 11.03 to the City Code which allows the City to charge for emergency
services.
• Amends Chapter 96 of the City Code to allow the Building Official to abate a nuisance
after notice to the property owner.
The full text of Ordinance No. 08-XX is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular
business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City
Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of
the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City.
Dated: March 20, 2018
Resolution 2018-024 Page 2 of 2
___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 4/3/2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 11
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
AGENDA ITEM: Asphalt Roller Purchase
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Brian Swanson, Finance Director
BACKGROUND: In 2007 the City of Lake Elmo purchased a 1 ½ Ton Stone Asphalt Roller to utilize in
its pothole/patching program to ensure proper compaction and a smooth finish is delivered during paving
operations. This piece of equipment has been in service with the city for just over 10 years. In this time,
numerous repairs have been made to the roller in terms of electrical repairs. Most recently, issues with the
transmission and safety shut off have rendered the machine unsafe to use. Repair service and parts for
this piece of equipment have been increasingly difficult to find since the manufacture no longer supports
this product.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the purchase of a 2 Ton Asphalt Roller
and Trailer to replace the existing Asphalt Roller and Trailer as adopted in the 2018 General Budget?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Approval of this purchase will allow Public Works to replace its
aged asphalt roller that has presented numerous problems over its service life. Also, as part of this purchase
package, replacement of the current tilt deck trailer used to transport the roller will take place. The current
trailer used is over 25 years old and has issues with the brakes in which repair parts are difficult to acquire.
Public Works Staff has demoed and researched several different rollers in various sizes from several
manufactures over the past year in anticipation of this replacement. Staff feels that upsizing to a CaseDV23
2 Ton Asphalt Roller will speed up productivity by increasing compaction and decreasing the amount of
times a smaller roller needs to go over a patch to achieve proper compaction and finish. Additionally, Public
Works operates several other pieces of Case equipment and feels they offer good product support and repair.
FISCAL IMPACT: Purchase of the Roller and Trailer shall be an amount not to exceed $32,800 (which
includes the trade in of current roller $4,715). In the adopted 2018 General Budget, $30,000 was included
in the Capital Outlay as the purchase price for this equipment. Measures will be strictly followed to ensure
other equipment purchased from Capital Outlay for the remainder of the year will not exceed the total
adopted budgeted amount.
OPTIONS: Approve Purchase of Asphalt Roller and Trailer
Deny Purchase of Asphalt Roller and Trailer
Table Purchase of Asphalt Roller and Trailer
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: If removed from Consent Agenda….
“Motion to purchase a Case DV23 Asphalt Roller from Titan Machinery and a Felling Trailer from
Oakdale Rental for an amount not to exceed $32,800”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Titan Machinery Quote
• Ruffridge Johnson Quote (no 2 Ton option)
• Tri-State Bobcat Quote (no 2 Ton option)
• Felling Trailer Quote
• Towmaster Trailer Quote
From:Scot Ender
To:Rob Weldon
Subject:RE: Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc "Asphalt Roller Purchase"
Date:Friday, March 23, 2018 9:14:03 AM
Attachments:BW90AD-5_BW100ADM-5_2pg.pdf
BW900-50_2pg.pdf
Rob, thanks for the enquiry regarding rollers. I have attached literature on a couple rollers that might be what you're
looking for. The BW900 has a Honda gas engine and the BW90 has a Kubota diesel.
Both are vibratory. The 900 is in the $17,500 range and the 90 around $32,000.
I believe both are available through NJPA purchasing; and if you can buy off of that program the price will be
better.
We currently have one new 900 in stock, and a new 90 will be arriving shortly. Let me know if there is anything
else we can get for you.
Sincerely,
Scot Ender
612-378-9558
Ruffridge-Johnson Equip. Co
www.rjequip.com
Message Body:
Hello,
The City of Lake Elmo is actively pursuing the purchase of a new asphalt roller. Size range would be approx. 2 -
2.5 tons.
If you could please provide me with product information and pricing it would be greatly appreciated.
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thanks,
Rob Weldon
Public Works Director
City of lake Elmo
--
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A__rjequip.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=wZIz6BR1yds6ABxMNYcTPKRj39yq004hegHRzkEIjMM&r=zoJR-
4hBkKhAZT-
sI_prRqHm_1Gwm_BFAsEEDWugbFA&m=xsH3Un0B5lJ8Z1kh33LZAAJeZgRfIL3SvgiaKjJPTKk&s=-q0H7yl-
tkQa1IsYWI_-7GUfAPX3RUi8VvDuKgwTBEo&e=)
From:Patrick Schoen
To:Rob Weldon
Subject:Asphalt Roller
Date:Friday, March 23, 2018 1:54:36 PM
Attachments:wn-rd16.pdf.pdf
wn-rd27.pdf.pdf
Rob,
Thanks for the e-mail. We are a Wacker dealer who makes the following size rollers, 1 ton, 1.5 ton
and 2.5 ton roller.
In the 1.5 ton class we offer two different model, one is 35.4” wide and the other is 39.4” wide. The
2.5 ton rollers are either 39.4” or 47.2” wide.
We currently only have the smaller 1-ton rollers on hand. I have asked our Wacker rep for pricing
and availability on the 1.5 & 2.5-ton models. I will pass that info on as soon as it comes in. I have
attached product sheet for the 1.5 & 2.5-ton models.
Please call or e-mail is if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Patrick Schoen
Tri-State Bobcat, Inc.
St Paul, MN
Direct – 651.407.7265
Office – 651.407.3727
Fax – 651.217.5770
Cell – 612.356.8890
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 12
AGENDA ITEM: Hiring Public Works Operator
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Foster, Assistant City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
The City advertised for applications for the Public Works Operator position from October 18th to
November 2nd, 2017. On November 14th, staff interviewed seven applicants. The application materials
for these applicants will be retained for one year. Eligible applicants were put into a hiring pool for future
vacancies. Bob Wier is one such applicant.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should Bob Wier be hired as the Public Works Operator at the terms described below?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends hiring Bob Wier as the Public Works Operator contingent upon a satisfactory
medical/physical evaluation. Staff is further recommending a starting wage of $23.27/hour which is the
pay rate offered for a probationary Public Works Operator III per the union contract.
Mr. Wier has experience with operating heavy equipment including snow plows, automobile maintenance
and repair, and landscaping and mowing. Additionally he has a class A Commercial Driver’s License
with air break and tanker endorsements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost to the City for the hiring the Public Work Operator at this wage would be approximately
$75,000 including wages, taxes, and benefits. This cost has been budgeted for in 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
If removed from the consent agenda:
“Move to hire Bob Wier as the Public Works Operator at a starting wage of $23.27/hour.”
ATTACHMENTS: None
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT 13
AGENDA ITEM: Finance Committee Appointment
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
As has been our practice, staff is presenting applications for committee appointments.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the Council appoint George Johnson to the Finance Committee?
PROPOSAL:
Council members were emailed a copy of the application materials from the following:
George Johnson
FISCAL IMPACT:
NA
OPTIONS:
If removed from consent agenda
1) Appoint George Johnson to the Finance Committee
2) Do not make an appointment to the Finance Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
“Motion to appoint George Johnson to the Finance Committee”
ATTACHMENTS:
• None
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT 14
AGENDA ITEM: Maintenance Advisory Committee Appointment
SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
As has been our practice, staff is presenting applications for committee appointments.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the Council appoint Dick Wier to the Maintenance Advisory Committee?
PROPOSAL:
Council members were emailed a copy of the application materials from the following:
Dick Wier
FISCAL IMPACT:
NA
OPTIONS:
If removed from consent agenda
1) Appoint Dick Wier to the Maintenance Advisory Committee
2) Do not make an appointment to the Maintenance Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
“Motion to appoint Dick Wier to the Maintenance Advisory Committee”
ATTACHMENTS:
• None
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
CONSENT
ITEM #: 15
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Driveway Ordinance and Fee Schedule Amendments
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
BACKGROUND:
An amendment to the driveway ordinance was an item on the 2018 Planning Department Work Plan. This
was in response to Staff review of driveway permit application requesting a second curb cut. Public
Works and Engineering Staff indicated that there is a general lack of support for second curb cuts, as
there is more potential for damage to city streets and curbs and more cost involved during street work
projects. Additionally, the language within the ordinance does not make it clear which conditions or
situations in which the City should allow a second curb cut, and it leaves the decision up to the City
Engineer without any specifying criteria.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Proposed Change. In order to make it clearer which properties may be exempt from the requirement that
curb cuts are limited to one per residential properties, Staff is proposing the following changes:
• Clarifies that up to two curb cuts are allowed (as opposed to three or four).
• Clarifies “major street” by specifying that access cannot be on to a collector or arterial street.
• Requires there be a minimum of 40 feet of spacing between driveway curb radii.
• Requires that the total width of both driveways does not exceed 26 feet (i.e. there can be two 13
foot wide driveways).
• Requires Engineer review for collector or arterial streets. There is already the requirement that
engineering review new driveways requested on a county or state highway. Engineering standards
also require review of new driveways on collector and arterial streets, but this is not codified in
the ordinance.
Proposed Additional Fees.
• Driveway with No Curb Cut. Currently, the flat cost for a residential driveway permit is $70,
and this includes replacing a driveway as-is or expanding a driveway without causing additional
alterations to the curb cut, as well as driveways that require curb cuts. Staff recommends that
there be a fee for a driveway with no curb cut of $50. This includes plan review and inspections
by both Planning and Public Works. Fees for driveways with curb cuts on residential streets are
proposed to be amended to $100.
2
• Driveways with new curb cuts on collector or arterial street or county or state highway.
Because driveways on such streets are required to be reviewed by the City Engineer, there is
additional cost to the City involved. The fee for this is proposed to be $150 (additional $50 for
City Engineer review).
• Additional Curb Cut Fee. There is additional cost with having to restore a second driveway
patch during street projects. The costs varies for each driveway and each project based on unit
prices for each project. 2017 street project cost $700 for each concrete driveway and $250 for a
bituminous driveway. Therefore, it makes sense to charge an additional fee to help cover those
additional costs for street projects incurred by the additional driveway and possibly deter a second
curb cut. The proposed additional cost for a second curb cut is $100.
• Security. In order to ensure that curb cuts do not cause damage to city infrastructure, a $1,000
security for each curb cut is being proposed. The City’s right-of-way ordinance already requires
performance security to ensure the availability of sufficient funds to assure that right-of-way
excavation and obstruction work is completed. The right-of-way ordinance states that if 36
months after completion of the restoration of the right-of-way the right-of-way has been properly
restored, the security shall be released.
• Additional Amendments to the Fee Schedule. Staff saw the proposed amendment to the fee
schedule to add additional driveway permit fees as an opportunity to add additional fees in order
to cover Staff time:
o Final Plat Extension Fee. The current Subdivision Regulations ordinance allows final
plats to be extended as approved by Council. There is no fee to cover staff time to prepare
reports and make presentations requesting this, and so Staff proposes a fee of $100 to
cover Staff time.
o Development Agreement Amendment Fee. Staff has seen a number of requests lately
to amend development agreements. These amendments are quite time consuming and
require input from a number of City Staff, which may include but is not limited to the
City Attorney, City Engineer, Administrator, Finance Director, and Building Official.
Staff proposes a fee of $500 for this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends, as part of tonight’s Consent Agenda, that Council adopt Ord. 08-206 making
amendments to the City’s Driveway Ordinance and Ord. 08-207 making amendments to the City’s fee
schedule. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the following recommended motions may be made:
“Move to adopt Ord. 08-206 amending the City’s Driveway Ordinance.”
“Move to adopt Ord. 08-207 amending the City’s fee schedule to decrease driveway permit fees with no
curb cut; increase driveway fees with curb cuts; adding an additional fee for a second curb cut; adding
a development agreement amendment fee; and adding a final plat extension fee.”
“Move to adopt Resolution 2018-039 authorizing summary publication of Ord. 08-207.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ord. 08-206 amending City’s driveway ordinance
2. Ord. 08-207 amending the City’s fee schedule
3. Amended fee schedule
4. Summary publication of Ord. 08-207 Resolution 2018-039
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-206
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
AMENDING THE CITY’S DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title IX: General
Regulations; Chapter 93: Streets and Sidewalks; Section 93.26: Driveways, by amending
the following:
(C) Number of curb cuts. In residential districts, each property shall be limited to 1 curb cut
per dwelling unit. Exceptions Up to two curb cuts may be allowed when neither access is onto a
major collector or arterial street, and when the lot exceeds 150 feet in width or is a corner lot,
when there is a minimum of 40 feet of spacing between driveway curb radii, and when the total
width of both driveways does not exceed 26 feet. All requests for a second curb cut shall be
reviewed by the City Engineer.
(L) Collector or arterial streets and Sstate and county highway requirements. Driveways
constructed to access any non-residential (collector or arterial) street or street designated as a
state or county highway shall meet all additional specifications of the appropriate jurisdiction.
Access drives onto collector or arterial streets or state and county roads shall require a review by
the road authority and the City Engineer. The state, county and City Engineer shall determine
the appropriate location, size and design of such access drives and may limit the number of
access drives in the interest of public safety and efficient traffic flow.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-206 was adopted on this ___ day of April
2018 by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
_________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
2
_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-206 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2018.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-207
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A 2018 FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE
ELMO
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ordains:
SECTION I. Schedule Adopted. The attached fee schedule is hereby adopted.
SECTION II. Not Codified. This ordinance is transitory in nature and shall not be codified in the
City Code. This ordinance and the fee schedule established hereby shall be placed on file and
available for public inspection at City Hall.
SECTION III. Effect. The fees set out in the attached fee schedule apply notwithstanding any
other fees the City has established which may be inconsistent. Any other fees imposed by the City
which do not appear on the attached fee schedule remain in full force and effect.
SECTION IV. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective for all billings rendered
after adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION V. Adoption Date. This Ordinance No. 08-207 was adopted on this 3rd day of April,
2018, by a vote of Ayes and Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance was published on the day of , 2018.
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
1
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Amateur Radio Antenna $875.00 Planning
Appeal (to Board of Adjustment and Appeals)$250.00 Administration
Bed and Breakfast Permit Fee $100.00 Planning
Bee Keeping Permit $25.00 Valid for 2 years from issuance Administration
Building Regulations * State Sur Charge Collected per MN Statute 326B.148 on all
permits Building
Building Permit Fee Schedule
Total Valuation
$1.00 to $500.00 $29.50 Building
$501.00 to $2,000.00 Building
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 Building
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 Building
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 Building
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 Building
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 Building
$1,000,001.00 and up Building
Planning and Zoning Compliance Review and Verification $100.00 Building
Plan Review Fee 65% of building permit fee Building
Plan review for similar plans 25% of normal building permit fee (MN Rules 1300.0160 subp. 5)Building
Single Family Decks Fee based on Valuation Building
Single Family Residential Basement Finish Fee Based on Valuation Building
Swimming Pool In-Ground $150.00 Building
Swimming Pool Above-Ground $75.00 Building
Reinspection Fee $75.00 Building
Inspection outside normal business hours $120.00 per hour - 2 hour minimum Building
Investigation fee - work started without required permit Equal to permit fee amount Building
Replace Inspection Record Card $25.00 Building
Additional Plan Review required by changes, addendum or
revisions to plans $75.00 per hour, one hour minimum Building
$3,886.65 for the first $500,000.00 + $5.50 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00.
$6,636.65 for the first $1,000,000.00 + $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof.
$28.00 for the first $500.00 plus $3.70 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to
and including $2,000.00.
$83.50 for the first $2,000.00 + $16.55 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to
and including $25,000.00.
$464.15 for the first $25,000.00 + $12.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000.00.
$764.15 for the first $50,000.00 + $8.45 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,
to and including $100,000.00.
$1,186.65 for the first $100,000.00 + $6.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction
thereof, to and including $500,000.00.
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
2
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Building Demolition - Residential $200.00 Building
Building Demolition - Commercial $300.00 Building
Fuel Tank Removal (Underground)$250.00 Building
Fuel Tank Installation 2% Value of the work Building
Roofing - Residential Fee Based on Valuation Building
Roofing - Commercial Fee Based on Valuation Building
Siding - Residential Fee Based on Valuation Building
Siding - Commercial Fee Based on Valuation Building
Retaining Walls over 4'Fee Based on Valuation Building
Commercial Plumbing $60.00 per unit, Up to 3 Units or 1.5% Value of work, whichever is greater Building
Residential Plumbing $60.00 per Unit, max fee $180.00 Building
Sewer Service Installation Inspection $60.00 Building
Water Service Installation Inspection $60.00 Building
Sewer & Water Service Installation Inspection when completed
together $60.00 Building
Investigation fee - Plumbing work started without required
permit Equal to permit fee amount Building
Commercial HVAC $60.00 per unit, Up to 3 Units or 1.5% Value of work, whichever is greater Building
Residential HVAC $60.00 per Unit, max fee $180.00 Building
Fireplace Installation $60 per unit Building
Investigation fee - HVAC work started without required permit Equal to permit fee amount Building
Manufactured Home Move In $200.00 Building
Manufactured Home Move Out $200.00 Building
Moving House or Primary Structure into the City 2% Value of the Work plus security amount determined by the Building Official Building
Moving Accessory Structure into the City 2% Value of the Work plus security amount determined by the Building Official Building
Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems 2% Value, $100.00 minimum Building
Investigation fee - Fire Suppression work started without
required permit Equal to permit fee amount Building
Fire Alarm Systems 2% Value, $100.00 minimum Building
Investigation fee - Fire Alarm work started without required
permit Equal to permit fee amount Building
Annual Retail Consumer Fireworks (retailers only selling
fireworks)$350.00 Building
Annual Retail Consumer Fireworks (all other retailers)$100.00 Building
Outdoor Public Fireworks Display $150.00 Building
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
3
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Residential Day Care Inspections $50.00 Building
Residential Adult Care/Foster Care/Adoption Inspections $50.00 Building
Escrow Administration Fee $100.00 Building
New Single Family Dwelling Construction Escrow $2,000.00 Building
Two or more dwelling units per building Construction Escrow $1,000.00 per unit Building
Commercial/Industrial and Other structures $5,000.00 or amount detrmined by the Building Official Building
Burning Permit Fire
Residential $45.00 Fire
Commercial $80.00 Fire
Illegal Burn see notes →Additional fees may be incurred based on Wash. Cty. Chief's fee
schedule and # of responding units Fire
Chicken Keeping Permit $25.00 Initial permit expires on 12/31 of 2nd year.Administration
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,300.00 Land Use Escrow $2500 Planning
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Planning
New $1,050.00 Planning
Amended $500.00 Planning
Contractor License Fees Licensing
Driveway $50.00 Licensing
Solid Waste Hauler $120.00 Licensing
Copy Services (Paper/Electronic)Administration
Copies (B&W)$0.25 per page 100 pages or more are charged at actual cost of production Administration
Copies (Color)$0.50 per page 100 pages or more are charged at actual cost of production Administration
Copies (B&W) 11x17 $1.00 per page 100 pages or more are charged at actual cost of production Administration
Copies (Color) 11x17 $2.00 per page 100 pages or more are charged at actual cost of production Administration
Data DVD Fee $15.00 Administration
GIS Scaled Aerial $25.00 Administration
Existing Maps $5.00 Administration
Custom (Per Hour Rate)$70.00 Administration
Plan Size Maps (Larger than 11x17)$15.00 Administration
Development Standards Specs/Details $55.00 Administration
Video reproduction $10.00 Administration
Culverts in Developments with Rural Section $160.00 Administration
Dog License- altered $20.00 Licensing
Dog License- unaltered $25.00 Licensing
Dog License- late fee $2.50 per month Maximum $10 Licensing
Wireless Communication Facilities Fee Escrow $6,000.00. Flood
Plain Ordinance Fee Escrow $500.00 Land Use Escrow $2500
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
4
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Service Dog License No Charge Licensing
Dog - duplicate license or tag $1.00 Licensing
Dog and Cat Impound fees
First Impound- Unlicensed Dog $60.00 Licensing
First Impound- Licensed Dog $42.00 Licensing
First Impound- Cat $42.00 Licensing
Subsequent dog/ cat impound $85.00 Licensing
Driveway Planning
Residential - no curb cut on residential street $70 $50 $1,000 security Planning
Residential - curb cut on residential street $100 $1,000 security Planning
Residential - curb cut on collector or arterial street $150 $1,000 security Planning
Residential - second curb cut additional $100 $1,000 security (per curb cut)Planning
Commercial $160.00 Planning
Easement Encroachment $100.00 Staff & Recording Fee Planning
Electronic Fund Withdrawl/Bill Payment Fee + Trans. Charge Administration
Environmental Review (EAW/EIS)$1,500.00 $2,500 Land Use escrow
Village Area AUAR Fee $230.00
Per REC Unit. To be charged to development applications that
increase the number of REC units above existing conditions
within the Village AUAR Area. The fee will be based on the
difference between the proposed and existing REC units. Fee to
be paid as part of a developer’s agreement for larger projects or
at the time a building permit is issued for smaller projects. Once
paid, the same land will not be charged again.Planning
Erosion Control Building
Re-inspection Fee (portal to portal from City Hall: 1 Hr. min)$50.00 per hour $5,000.00 Security Building
Excavating & Grading ≥ 50 cubic yards, up to 400 cubic yds $125.00 Security $500.00 Building
Excavating & Grading ≥ 400 cubic yards/acre of site area $500.00 $500.00 fee escrow. Plus Security as Determined by the Planning
Department Engineering
False Alarms (12 Month Period)* (*1-3 no charge)Fire
Residential Fire
4-6 False Alarms $110.00 Fire
In Excess of 6 False Alarms $185.00 Fire
Commercial Fire
4-6 False Alarms $315.00 Fire
In Excess of 6 False Alarms $520.00 Fire
Flood Plain District Delineation $500.00 Planning
All Impound Fees plus $20/day Boarding Fee
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
5
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Fee $1,050.00 $2,500.00 Escrow Planning
Renewal $300.00 Planning
Liquor License Licensing
Club On-Sale Intoxicating $100.00 Licensing
On-Sale Intoxicating $1,500.00 Licensing
Off-Sale Intoxicating $200.00 Licensing
Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating $150.00 Licensing
On-Sale Intoxicating- 2nd Building $750.00 Licensing
On-Sale Non-Intoxicating $100.00 Licensing
Investigation $350.00 Licensing
On-Sale Sunday Intoxicating $200.00 Licensing
Temporary Intoxicating $25.00 Licensing
Wine $300.00 Licensing
Lot Line Adjustment $325.00 None Planning
Massage Therapy Premises License Licensing
Application Fee $100.00 Fee includes one Therapist Licensing
Investigation Fee $100.00 Licensing
Massage Therapy Practitioner License Licensing
Application Fee $50.00 Licensing
Investigation Fee $25.00 Licensing
Massage Therapy Premises License Renewal $50.00 Fee includes one Therapist Licensing
Massage Therapy Practitioner License Renewal $25.00 Licensing
Massage Therapy License Amendment $25.00 Licensing
Minor Subdivision $525.00 $1,000.00 escrow Planning
Park Dedication Planning
Residential - Up to three lots $3,600.00 per lot Four or more lots per §153.14 Planning
Commercial $4,500.00 per acre Planning
Parking Lots Planning
Commercial $200.00 $500 Fee Escrow. Plus Security as Determined by the Planning
Department Planning
Platting
Sketch Plan Review (Subdivision)$500.00 $3,500 Fee Escrow Planning
Preliminary Plat (Subdivision)$1,850.00 $10,000 Fee Escrow Planning
Final Plat (Subdivision)$1,250.00 $8,000 Fee Escrow Planning
Final Plat (Extension Fee)$100.00 Planning
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
6
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Development Agreement Amendment $500.00 Planning
Planned Unit Development Planning
General Concept Plan $1,250.00 $7,500 Fee Escrow (Waive Subdivision Escrow)Planning
Development Stage Plan $1,850.00 $10,000 Fee Escrow (Waive Subdivision Escrow)Planning
Final Plat $1,250.00
$8,000 Fee Escrow (Waive Subdivision Escrow) and (City will
retain escrows to reimburse review costs for each stage of
Development)Planning
Private Roads (Permitted only in AG zone)$150.00 Planning
Restictive Soils and Wetland Restoration Protection and
Preservation Permit $800.00 Planning
Returned Check (NSF)$25.00 Administration
Right-of-Way Permit
Annual Registration $200.00 $5,000 Security Engineering
Excavation Permit $275.00 + $.60/foot Engineering
Joint Trench Permit (per lot per utility)$275.00 + $.60/foot Engineering
Obstruction Permit $275.00 Engineering
Small Wireless Permit Fee $275.00 Engineering
Permit Extension $100.00 Engineering
Delay Penalty (per calendar day)$25.00 Engineering
SAC Charge (City) (Sewer Availability Charge)$3,000.00
Per REC Unit: collected at time of plat for new lot. This fee may
be deferred through special assessment for parcels with existing
structures.Engineering
SAC Charge (Met Council) (Sewer Availability Charge)$2,485.00 Per REC Unit: $2,485 to Met Council at time of connection.Engineering
Sewer Connection Charge $1,000.00
Per REC Unit collected at time of plat for new lot. This fee may
be deferred through special assessment for parcels with existing
structures.Engineering
Sewer Lateral Benefit Charge $11,300.00 Per REC Unit connecting to a Trunk Sewer Main and that has
never been assessed Engineering
Sewer Base Charge - Residential - Non 201 Off Site $53.03 per quarter Allowance of 10,000 gallons (10 Units) per quarter Administration
Sewer Rate $4.55/1,000 Gal Administration
201 Off-Site Maintenance Fee $75.75/unit/quarter Administration
Real Estate Searches $15.00/Search For special assessment or utility search Administration
Signs - Permanent $180.00 Planning
Signs - Temporary $75.00 Planning
Temporary Renewal $25.00 Planning
Re-inspection Fee $25.00 Planning
Special Event Permit $75.00 City must be listed as additional insured Planning
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
7
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Surface Water Administration
Residential $55.00 Administration
Non-Residential (Commercial etc.)$55.00 Utility rate factor per code Administration
Review Fee $137.50 $82.50 Review/$55 Storm Water Fund Administration
Vacations (Streets or Easements)Planning
Easements $515.00 $500 Fee Escrow Planning
Streets $515.00 $500 Fee Escrow Planning
Variance $750.00 $500 Fee Escrow Planning
Shoreland Variance $1,500.00 $500 Fee Escrow Planning
Water Availability Charge (WAC)$3,000.00
Per REC Unit; collected at time of plat for new lot. This fee may
be deferred through special assessment for parcels with existing
structures. Engineering
Water Connection Charge $1,000.00
Per REC Unit, collected at time of plat for new lot. This fee may
be deferred through special assessment for parcels with existing
structures. Administration
Water Equipment/Set up Administration
Meter (3/4" or less)$360.50 Administration
Driveway Curb Stop Lid $103.00 Administration
Disconnect Service $82.40 Administration
Reconnect Service $82.40 Administration
Water Lateral Benefit Charge $5,800.00 Per REC Unit connecting to a Trunk Water Main and that has
never been assessed Engineering
Water Usage Administration
Residential - Quarterly Base Rate $20.60 Base Administration
Residential - Plus Rate per 1,000 Gallons Administration
Plus Rate for 0-15,000 Gallons $2.06 Administration
Plus Rate for 15,001-30,000 Gallons $2.47 Administration
Plus Rate for 30,001-50,000 Gallons $2.97 Administration
Plus Rate for 50,001-80,000 Gallons $3.56 Administration
Plus Rate for 80,001 + Gallons $4.27 Administration
Water Usage Administration
Commercial - Quarterly Rate $25.75 Base Administration
Commercial - Plus Rate Per 1,000 Gallons Administration
Plus Rate for 0 - 15,000 Gallons $3.20 Administration
Plus Rate for 15,001 - 30,000 Gallons $3.36 Administration
Plus Rate for 30,001 - 50,000 Gallon $3.88 Administration
Plus Rate for 50,001 - 80,000 Gallons $5.15 Administration
Additional fees apply to larger sized meters
City of Lake Elmo - 2018 Fee Schedule
8
APPLICATION/FEE/PERMIT TYPE 2018 FEE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, ESCROW or NOTES DEPARTMENT
Plus Rate for 80,001 + Gallons $6.83 Administration
Water Usage Administration
Hotel / Motel - Quarterly Rate $25.75 Base For metered non-irrigation (domestic) consumption Administration
Hotel / Motel - Plus Rate Per 1,000 Gallons Administration
Plus Rate for 0 -30,000 Gallons $3.20 Administration
Plus Rate for 30,001 - 50,000 Gallons $3.36 Administration
Plus Rate for 50,001 + Gallons $4.12 Administration
Water Usage Delinquent Accounts Administration
Regular 6% per quarter Plus $25.00 or 8%, whichever is greater, if certified to County
for collection with taxes Administration
Storm Water 10% per year Plus $25.00 or 8%, whichever is greater, if certified to County
for collection with taxes Administration
Bulk Water Purchase Administration
Water from Hydrant $103.00 minimum Plus $3.36/additional 1,000 gallons Administration
Wind Generator $850.00 $2,000 Fee Escrow Planning
Wireless Communication Permit $500.00 $6,000 Fee Escrow Planning
Zoning Amendment (Text or Map)$1,245.00 $2,500 Escrow Planning
Zoning Certification Letter $25.00 Planning
Zoning Permit - Certificate of Zoning Compliance Planning
Accessory Structures < 200 SF $75.00 Planning
Fence (less than 6')$75.00 Planning
Other $75.00
Definition of Terms
Adopted by City Council - 12-5-17
**Security: City will retain a security escrow to ensure completion of work as directed by the approved permit/application and compliance with the State Building Code and the City of Lake Elmo
Municipal Code.
*Fee Escrow: City will maintain a fee escrow to cover all City review costs. Application fees include all professional fees and expenses incurred by the City.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-039
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-207 BY TITLE
AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-207, an
ordinance replacing the administrative provisions of the City’s Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-207 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-207, which amends the
City’s 2018 Fee Schedule to decrease driveway permit fees with no curb cut; increase driveway
permit fees with curb cuts; add an additional fee for a second driveway curb cut; add a development
agreement amendment fee; and add a final plat extension fee.
The full text of Ordinance No. 08-207 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular
business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City
Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of
the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City.
Dated: April 3, 2018
___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
REGULAR
ITEM #: 16
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Mountain Biking – Reid Park
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
Reid Park has expanded in size over the last few year due to development in the city. Previously Reid Park was
30 acres in size but with the park dedication lands from the Easton Village, Northport and North Star at Legacy
developments the park has grown to over 45 acres. In addition, the City also owns land to the north of Reid
Park that is partially used for an infiltration basin.
The topic of mountain biking at Reid Park has been brought up several times to the Parks Commission over the
last few years.
June 2015
The parks commission started a preliminary discussion around Reid Park. During this discussion they created a
wish list of items that they would like to see in the park, one such items was mountain bike trails “…mountain
bike trail on the north side where the topography changes…” The commission then met at Reid Park for their
July 20th meeting to further the development discussion.
April 2016
The parks commission had set goals for future discussion which included a connection from Easton Village, and
the possibility for bike and walking trials.
May 2016
For the May meeting goals for future discussion were set to include:
Prepare for planning, use to-scale map method to look at land dedications, review notes from last public
comments, and discuss access to Reid Park from Old Village and a connection from Easton Village, and the
possibility for bike and walking trails.
June 2016
The parks commission had a discussion about the desired improvements to Reid Park. The first improvement
listed was mountain biking trials.
“Motion by Weis, seconded by Nelson to recommend approval of PR-006 as amended. The Parks
Commission voted and recommended that $50,000 to construct mountain biking trails be procured from
grants in 2018 and that $134,250 be dedicated from the Parks Fund for other above-described
improvements in 2019. A priority ranking of 3 (Important) was assigned to this project. Motion passed
6-0.”
Also during the Parks Commission workshop a tentative cost to develop trials was presented.
City Council
Page 2
June 2016
Finance Committee reviewed the 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which included the Parks
Commissions June 8th recommendations regarding Reid Park.
August 2016
Finance Committee reviewed the 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which included the Parks
Commissions June 8th recommendations regarding Reid Park.
November 2016
Planning Commission held public hearing on 2017-2021 CIP. No public comments were made. Some
commissioners expressed concern about mountain biking at Reid Park and whether there was a need for it.
Recommendation to Council included the Parks Commission recommendation for Reid with no amendments.
December 2016
City Council reviewed the 2017-2021 CIP at both December meetings. Council approved the 2017-2021 CIP as
recommended by Finance Committee. This included the mountain biking proposal for Reid Park for 2018.
February 2017
Hank Grey, who at the time was secretary of Stillwater Area Scholastic Cycling Advocates came to speak about
the riding team. Hank had requested that the city allow them to use the park for mountain biking, stating that
they had used it last year (2016) but wanted permission for further use. The commission had requested staff to
report back if mountain biking was allowed within the park.
May 2017
The presentation to the parks commission for the 2018-2022 CIP had indicated that $50,000 could be received for
donations to build mountain biking trials. Recommendation include modifications to PR-006, Reid Park
Improvements due to concerns about park dedication funding levels. PR-006, Reid Park Improvements for
$50,000 in 2018 (this would be a grant or in-kind donation for mountain bike trails) and $25,000 for widening the
walking trails. In 2019 (tot lot, outdoor gym stations, bleachers), extending fencing, and elimination of basketball
court (Phase II) for $34,250
June, July and September 2017
Finance Committee reviewed the 2018-2022 CIP which included the revised PR-006 project description as
recommended by the Parks Commission.
November 2017
The conversation continued about mountain bike trials at the Parks Commission. Staff had been directed to reach
out to 3rd parties, requesting that they identify which of the Lake Elmo parks would be best suited for trials. Both
of the organizations which were contacted said Reid and Sunfish.
The Planning Commission held the public hearing on the 2018-2022 CIP. No public comments. Planning
Commission recommended approval of the 2018-2022 CIP with the Reid Park Improvements as
recommended by the Parks Commission.
December 2017
City Council approved 2018-2022 CIP which included the Reid Park Improvements, PR-006.
City Council
Page 3
January 2018
Presented SASCA proposal and MOU.
February 2018
The proposal and MOU was approved as is by the Parks Commission.
PROPOSAL:
Use:
As indicated in the attached proposal SASCA would like to install 2+ miles of mountain bike trails within Reid
Park. Though the primary design for the trials would be focused around the use of mountain biking, other groups
could use the trials as well. Such as hikers, walkers, trail runners, and winter users such as snow shoeing and fat
tire biking.
Some things to keep in mind.
- They will not use machine equipment to build the trails. Only that which can be handheld will be used.
- They will be developing the trail with volunteer labor.
- No trees over 4 inches at the base will be cut.
- They will be using/following the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) guidelines when
it comes to the design and building of the trails.
- The proposed map needs to be looked at with flexibility. The route may change due to trees (the trail will
be routed around mature trees), low spots, or other features that may hinder rider and other user
experience.
- As with all parks it is the responsibility of the Public Works Department to maintain all amenities within
the parks system. However, in this case SASCA has agreed to specifically maintain the mountain bike
trails.
Wetlands:
Reid Park has two bodies of water that reside within the park. Neither of the lakes are located in the table within
the City’s shoreland ordinance nor do they appear on the DNR’s lake finder search. Though there is a wetland
within the park that does not mean biking would be restricted.
In previous conversations flooding in the park was presented as a potential issue for the trail system. Based off
what we know today Reid is a natural low area with no outlet, it is expected to hold water until the pond drains
naturally. The runoff from the neighboring developments adjacent to Reid were designed to flow away from the
park, not into it. Beyond that, it is unknown at this time how or if flooding will affect the proposed trials.
Impact on surrounding properties:
The park is predominately surrounded by residential properties except for the northern portion of the park. The
majority of the trail is kept internal and within the tree line to avoid running along the neighboring property lines.
This will also help mitigate any visual impacts. With that said staff does not anticipate bikers would cause more
of a nuisance than other users within the park.
There is a pedestrian entrance from Easton Village which those residents more than likely would use as access to
the park as opposed to the main entrance. There is an established entrance with a parking lot which we would ask
the riding team to use when they are building the trail as well as practicing together. Staff does not anticipate
users to fill the lot except on a few occasions when the park is reserved or an event is taking place.
Impact to other users:
With the added amenity it is anticipated that the number of users in the park will increase. With the user type
expected to vary the majority of the proposed trail is designed to mitigate the number of times it will cross over
City Council
Page 4
into another use (walking trails). The design of the trail is predominately located in areas which do not have an
established use, thus not actively used. It is important that the park be a safe and useful amenity for all residents
and visitors, though incidents may occur as with any use, staff feel that the proposed design is appropriate. Staff
also spoke with Oak Park Heights who had trails built by SASCA and the City of Woodbury, who used other
resources to build their trails. Neither municipality mentioned any notable issue with different users. Though
Woodbury did say they had to rework some intersections to promote a better sightline.
Signage:
Where intersections occur trails would be marked displaying the direction of travel and expectations. SASCA has
agreed to provide these intersection markers. The signs would be on both the walking trail as well as the bike
trail. Furthermore, if the City would like to make an investment for the trail, signage may be placed at the entrance
to further inform users of expectations as well as conditions of trails after rain events. Such as: “Riders must wait
2 hours after a rain event before trail use” and “Be good stewards remove all trash”. This type of sign is not being
proposed by SASCA but instead may be an addition down the road.
Because SACA relies on donation they did not feel comfortable committing to any additional features (Signs or
other) within the park.
Lighting:
There is no proposal of lighting and the regular hours of park use would still apply.
Liability:
After communication with the City insurance carrier, there would be no increase of cost by adding this amenity
to the parks system. SASCA has provided proof of insurance and will include the City onto their policy.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Currently there would be no cost or increase in costs to the City. Funds would only be expended if the City would
choose to make further investments into the park.
PARKS COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Comments: Given the current condition and manner in which the amenity will be added to the park, there
appears to be minimal to no risk for the City financially or otherwise. The development would also provide a
promising opportunity for community involvement and connection to the Stillwater School District. Also with
its proximity to Easton Village and Northport it provides an opportunity for those children to have safe access to
an active park. Both staff and public works, who would oversee the general maintenance and installment for the
park, agree that over its lifetime this added use will not demand an increase on workload.
Though the motion passed with no amendments, comments made during the meeting led staff to include two
additions to the MOU. The additions to the MOU include an annual audit which will be conducted by the City
and the City will determine what the standards are for the trials. Also keep in mind the MOU which has been
presented to you has been reviewed and improved by the City’s attorney.
The Parks Commission as well as Staff recommends approving SASCA’s proposal and MOU to develop mountain
bike trails within Reid Park. After the presentation of the project at the February 21st meeting the Parks
Commission voted to approve the proposal as is with no amendments to the plan or MOU.
Voting Outcome: 4 for yes, 2 for no, and 1 no vote.
“Motion to adopt Resolution 2018-036 approving the design and construction of mountain bike trails
within Reid Park.”
City Council
Page 5
OPTIONS:
1) Approval of trail development as proposed by SASCA as well as the MOU
2) Deny trail development as proposed by SASCA.
3) Amend the proposal and recommend approval of SASCA proposal and MOU.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Concept Map
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
• Proof of insurance
• Costs
• Woodbury comments relating to their trail in Carver Park
• Letter(s) from the public
o Stillwater Activities Director and Assistant Principal
Primary walking
Secondary walking
Proposed
single track
Re -route
Secondary
St
a
r
t
En
d
3
N
1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
Stillwater Area Scholastic Cycling Advocates
AND THE
City of Lake Elmo
Reid Park – Lake Elmo, MN
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated as of this ____ day of
_____________, 2018 is entered into by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and Stillwater Area Scholastic Cycling Advocates, a Minnesota non-profit
corporation (“SASCA”).
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SASCA and the City are interested in promoting mountain biking as an outdoor
recreation and fitness activity and in developing and maintaining quality trails for beginner to
intermediate ability levels within Reid Park which is owned and operated by the City.
This MOU identifies specific projects, including the design and construction of mountain
bike park trails, features, maintenance, and patrol activities, which SASCA volunteers have
agreed to provide as a volunteer service to the City in Reid Park. This MOU also establishes the
responsibilities and conditions under which SASCA’s volunteer service will be provided and
delineates the responsibilities of the City.
SECTION 2 – OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS
All improvements constructed in Reid Park by the City or by SASCA shall be, and
remain the property of the City. All plans and documents including records, data, and other
information acquired, developed or documented under this MOU shall be the property of the
originating party, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by both parties.
SECTION 3 – TERM OF MOU
The term of this MOU shall commence on March 1, 2018, and end on February 28, 2020.
The City and SASCA may agree to extend this MOU for additional one year terms upon the
written approval of both parties.
SECTION 4 - SASCA VOLUNTEERS
Volunteers assigned to perform the work under this MOU at Reid Park will be considered
volunteers of SASCA and will be covered under the policies and procedures of SASCA in
relation to volunteer organization and management. SASCA volunteers are not employees or
volunteers of the City, however, they will receive training by SASCA enabling them to represent
the relationship between SASCA and the City.
2
SECTION 5 - SASCA RESPONSIBILTIES
SASCA shall be responsible for the following at no cost to the City:
a. Assisting the City with mountain bike trail design, construction, and maintenance in Reid
Park. Trail development must conform to International Mountain Bike Association
(“IMBA”) guidelines and City approved designs. The standards for trail design,
construction, and maintenance shall be ultimately determined by the City. SASCA shall
be responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining the approved trails. Trail
construction and maintenance may include sculpting or removing dirt as needed
throughout the mountain bike park. SASCA must obtain approval from the Public Works
Director prior to using any chemical treatments in Reid Park.
b. Providing technical support to the City in determining the location and design of
technical features on the mountain bike trails. Technical features must conform to IMBA
guidelines and City approved designs and must be approved by the City.
c. Providing and supervising volunteers for mountain bike trail construction, maintenance,
inspection, and construction of technical features. SASCA must train and supervise all
volunteers in appropriate trail construction, inspection, and maintenance techniques in
accordance with IMBA guidelines. SASCA volunteers must use Reid Park’s established
main entrance and parking lot.
d. Providing its volunteers with tools and equipment. SASCA will coordinate with Public
Works to determine when it is acceptable to use power tools that may be heard by
neighbors. The City may make hand tools available to SASCA and its volunteers upon
request through the Public Works Director.
e. Identifying a crew leader and providing that person’s name and contact information to the
City Planner.
f. Coordinating volunteer work schedules and on-site public notification, when needed,
with the City Planner and Public Works Director. If mountain bike trail construction or
maintenance work will be done on the weekends, SASCA must notify the Public Works
Department at least 48 hours in advance. In the event that larger equipment is needed for
the trail work, notice must be given to the Public Works Department at least three days in
advance.
g. Planning and testing of mountain bike trails and technical features. SASCA volunteers
may use bikes in the on-site planning and testing of technical features and trails prior to
opening features to the public.
3
h. In the event that SASCA is unable to safely and promptly address an identified issue with
a mountain bike trail that may create an unsafe situation, the SASCA volunteer must
immediately notify the City Public Works Director.
i. Submitting recommendations to the City for any significant mountain bike trail alignment
changes that may be contemplated by SASCA in carrying out its volunteer duties as
outlined in this MOU.
j. Recommending to the City for consideration the types of mountain bike trails, the
locations of the trails, and types of trail signs to be used (directional, cautionary, and
informational signs).
k. Installing trail signs (if requested by City).
l. Making recommendations to the City Planner and Public Works Director as to when to
close and re-open mountain bike trails due to poor conditions or other unforeseen
circumstances observed during bike patrol or maintenance activities.
m. Providing volunteers identified and trained by SASCA as trail stewards to ride, patrol,
and monitor the mountain bike trails.
n. Reporting emergencies and non-emergency situations that occur in the mountain bike
park such as suspicious activities, uncooperative behaviors, and unauthorized mountain
bike park use. SASCA representatives should call 911 for emergency assistance.
SASCA should contact the Washington County Sheriff’s Office at 651-439-9381 for non-
emergency situations.
SECTION 6 - CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
The City shall be responsible for the following:
a. Reviewing and approving mountain bike trail designs and implementation plans for all
agreed to SASCA volunteer activities.
b. Conducting an annual audit of the mountain bike trail facilities for trail quality. The City
shall share the results of the audit with SASCA so that any necessary changes can be
made to improve the quality of the mountain bike trails.
c. Purchasing materials, if needed, to be used by SASCA for maintenance and upkeep of
approved technical features and trail development.
d. Loaning hand tools to SASCA for its mountain bike trail construction and maintenance
activities in Reid Park, upon request and approval of the Public Works Director.
4
e. Providing support for approved work on a schedule agreed to by the City Planner and
Public Works Director.
f. Removing and disposing of yard waste (i.e. large quantities of buckthorn) generated
during the construction of the mountain bike trail in Reid Park. SASCA must coordinate,
in advance, with the Parks Department where and when to leave the waste.
g. Reviewing and approving recommended technical features, trail construction schedules,
and trail maintenance schedules.
h. Recognizing SASCA’s contributions for mountain bike trail design, construction, and
maintenance by placing appropriate signage at a location approved by the City Planner.
i. Notifying SASCA of mountain bike park closures or events in Reid Park which affect the
use of the mountain bike park so that SASCA may post this information on its web site.
SECTION 7 – INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
SASCA and the City each agree that they will be responsible for their own acts and the
results thereof and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof.
Each party, therefor, agrees that it will assume all risk and liability to itself, its agents, officials,
volunteers, and employees, for the injury to persons or property resulting in any manner from the
conduct of its own operations and its accepted responsibilities found in this MOU.
The City does not provide any warranty or certification that Reid Park is best suited for
the planned uses by SASCA.
SASCA shall provide the City with a certificate of commercial general liability insurance
evidencing coverage of at least $1,000,000 of combined single limits covering claims that might
be brought against SASCA or the City that arise out of the uses authorized by this MOU.
SASCA must name the City as an additional insured on its policy with respect to the commercial
general liability insurance. The certificate of insurance must be provided to the City
Administrator prior to any trail construction commencing and subsequently not later than April
1st of each calendar year.
SECTION 8 – COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
SASCA and its activities under this MOU must not interfere with the public’s enjoyment
of Reid Park. SASCA agrees that it will abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including,
but not limited to, City ordinances.
SECTION 9 – TERMINATION
This MOU may be terminated by either party upon delivery of 30 day written notice to
the other party.
SECTION 10 – AMENDMENT OR ASSIGNMENT OF MOU
5
This MOU shall not be altered, changed, or amended except by written mutual agreement
of the parties. This MOU shall not be assigned by either party without the written permission of
the other party. All prior agreements, resolutions, understandings, representations, whether
consistent or inconsistent, verbal or written, concerning this MOU or the recreational facilities
subject to this MOU are merged into and superseded by this MOU.
SECTION 11 - NOTIFICATIONS
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this MOU, a notice or other communication
required by this MOU shall be delivered to the contact persons at the email addresses and phone
numbers listed below:
SASCA Contacts:
Calvin Jones Matt Lehmann
SASCA Board of Director SASCA Board Member
651-472-7187 651-387-8508
StillwaterMTB@gmail.com mattlehmann218@gmail.com
City of Lake Elmo Contacts:
Ben Prchal Rob Weldon
City Planner Public Works Director
651-747-3911 651-747-3941
bprchal@lakeelmo.org rweldon@lakeelmo.org
SECTION 12 – EMPLOYEES
Nothing herein is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or
establishing the relationship of co-partners or a joint venture between the parties hereto or as
constituting one of the parties as an agent, representative or employee of the other party for any
purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Personnel assigned to perform work on the recreational
facilities subject to this MOU by one of the parties shall not be considered temporary or
permanent employees of the other party for any purpose whatsoever or be entitled to any rights
or benefits by way of workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, medical and hospital
care, sick and vacation leave, severance pay, PERA, or any other right or benefit of the other
party.
SECTION 13 – SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this MOU is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the MOU.
6
STILLWATER AREA SCHOLASTIC
CYCLING ADVOCATES
By: ______________________________
Its: _______________________________
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: ________________________________
Mike Pearson
Its: Mayor
By: ________________________________
Julie Johnson
Its: City Clerk
SASCA – Reid Park Single Track Natural Trail Proposal Rev. 2
February 14, 2018 Page | 21
ATTACHMENT C – Optional trail enhancements
Option Line item Cost
Signage Map at entrance $460
Rules sign $460
Support materials $150
Trail side work station Tool stand $800
Pump $400
All expenses shown are estimates. Options will be pursued with the Cities guidance provided
funding is available either from fundraising, third party donations or directly from the City.
Below is a dialog of comments which came from Woodbury’s Recreation Manager regarding Carver Lake
Park, their only park with multi use trails (purpose built for mountain bikes)
Woodbury’s Carver Lake Park has multiple amenities such as volleyball courts, beach, playground, and
picnic areas. The park also contains 6 miles of multi-use trails which have been specifically designed for
mountain bike use. With the trails being focused towards mountain bikers, all other trail users yield to
them. With the trail being a one way single track, there needs to be a level of respect between riders
and other trail and park users. The trails receive a wide range of cyclists from families with young kids to
more mature riders. It was indicated that the majority of riders are mature professionals between the
age of 30 and 40. Although there are more and more families and youth riding every year. It’s also a hot
spot for the HS league teams to practice and train.
It is to be understood that there could be some conflict between users especially when the trail crosses
over a paved walking trail. After the trail construction they have gone back to rework the intersections
to improve upon the safety and line of sight. Initially there were complaints and some are still received
on occasion but they are shadowed by the amount of compliments which are received by users. Now
that it has grown in popularity the park hosts youth and adult camps and clinics and one winter bike
race each year.
One note (added by Woodbury staff)– This is simply and briefly explaining Woodbury’s experience with
our off-road cycling trail and park users. By no means are we recommending that Lake Elmo build a trail.
It has to be a good fit for your community and we are not suggesting that you build or not build an off-
road cycling trail.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2018
REGULAR #17
AGENDA ITEM: Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Phase 3 Pavement and Drainage
Improvements – Approve Resolution of Support
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
Chad Isakson, Assistance City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve a Resolution of Support for the Lake
Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Phase 3 Pavement and Drainage Improvements, from I-94 to 300 feet south of
30th Street North?
BACKGROUDN AND PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Washington County is requesting from
the City of Lake Elmo a resolution of support for the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Phase 3 Pavement
and Drainage Improvements, from I-94 to 300 feet south of 30th Street North. The resolution of support
expresses the City’s support for the project, for the preliminary design layout as presented, and allows the
County to proceed with the final project design and property acquisition with the intention to begin
construction in 2018. Upon completion of the final design the County will request the City to enter into a
Cooperative Cost Agreement for the Project.
The improvements include a full-depth reclaim pavement rehabilitation from I-94 to 20th Street, including
the construction of new turn lanes at 5th Street North (Hunters Crossing & Southwind developments), at
24th Street North (new entrance for Royal Golf), and along CSAH 10 at the new Royal Golf entrance.
Between 20th Street North and 30th Street North, the improvements will also include a full-depth reclaim
pavement rehabilitation, however new concrete curb and gutter will be installed to replacement existing
bituminous curb along the east side and to replace a rural section shoulder along the west side. Stormwater
runoff will be captured and conveyed by the new concrete cub and gutter to various sump manholes to
pretreat the storm water runoff prior to discharging to Lake Elmo.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County is requesting City cost participation in accordance with the County Cost
Participation Policy, in the estimated amount of $58,500 and $83,000.
City cost participation includes a 50% cost share for the west side concrete curb and gutter between 20th
Street and 30th Street, miscellaneous project overhead costs, and 55% cost share for right-of-way costs. In
addition, the County will require cost reimbursement from the City in the estimated amount of $525,000
for the turn lanes at 5th Street North (Hunters Crossing/Southwind), 24th Street North (Royal Golf), and
along CSAH 10 (Royal Golf). The City has included language in the respective development agreements
to obtain turn lane cost reimbursement.
The County has applied for a VBWD community grant to cover a portion of the costs to enhance water
quality through pretreatment prior to discharging to Lake Elmo.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a Resolution supporting
Washington County’s recommended layout for the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Phase 3 Pavement and
Drainage Improvements, from I-94 to 300 feet south of 30th Street North. The recommended motion for
the action is as follows:
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2018-035 Supporting Washington County’s recommended layout for
the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Phase 3 Pavement and Drainage Improvements, from I-94 to 300
feet south of 30th Street North.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Supporting Washington County’s recommended layout for the Lake Elmo Avenue
(CSAH 17) Phase 3 Pavement and Drainage Improvements.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-035
A RESOLUTION APPROVING MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR THE LAKE
ELMO AVENUE (CSAH 17) PHASE 3 PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS, FROM I-94 TO 300’ SOUTH OF 30TH STREET
BY WASHINGTON COUNTY
WHEREAS, Washington County’s Capital Improvement Program includes a pavement
and drainage improvement project for Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) from I-94 to 300’ south of
30th Street (‘Project’), planned for construction in 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo, in coordination with Washington County and
Valley Branch Watershed District, has engaged in a preliminary design effort that started in
April of 2017; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary design effort included a community engagement process to
gather and consider public feedback for the proposed improvements; and
WHEREAS, the County recommended Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Project Layout,
dated October 31, 2017, showing proposed roadway and drainage improvements for the Project has
been prepared and presented to the City; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary project cost estimate for the Project has been prepared and
presented to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. The City of Lake Elmo supports the Washington County recommended layout for the pavement
and drainage improvements along Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17), from I-94 to 300’ south of
30th Street; and
2. The City of Lake Elmo supports the County continuing with the development of final plans
necessary for the construction of the Project.
ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: __________________________
Mike Pearson
(Seal) Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 4/17/2018
REGULAR
ITEM #: 18
TO: City Council
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Subdivisions Regulations Update
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
BACKGROUND:
An update to the City’s Subdivision Regulations Ordinance is an item on the Planning Commission’s
2018 Work Plan. Specific areas of focus as per the Work Plan include platting for minor subdivisions,
updating subdivision submission requirements, and preparing an update to incorporate engineering
standards. The Planning Commission reviewed and made various amendments to the ordinance at its
February 26 and March 26, 2018 meetings.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
The Council is being asked to review proposed amendments to the City’s subdivision regulations and
adopt an ordinance making those amendments.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
The following provides explanation of the proposed amendments:
Scope. Minn. State Statute 462.352 Subd. 12 excepts the following separations from subdivision
regulations. This has been added to the Section 153.02: Generally, Subd. B in order to align with State
Statute.
(1) where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size
and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial
and industrial uses;
(2) creating cemetery lots;
(3) resulting from court orders.
Metes and Bounds. The purpose of this Section is to delineate properties that have been subdivided or
platted in the past and those that may be subdivided in the future that did not receive or are not required to
receive City approval. This means that if a property was subdivided prior to the time frames outlined below,
the city could not go back now and say that because under the City’s current regulations, the subdivision
approval would have been required that it must be approved by the City. This does not mean that if the
Page 2
property is further subdivided in the future (or now) that subdivision approval is not required, unless it met
certain exceptions.
• Current Subdivision Regulations. The current subdivision regulations place the following
restrictions on filing and recording conveyances of land which is described by metes and bounds:
“(A) No conveyance of lands to which the regulations contained in this chapter are applicable
shall be made and no conveyance of land to which the regulations contained in this chapter are
applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and
bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after 10-3-1968, or to an
unapproved plat made after 10-3-1968.
(B) The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described:
(1) Was a separate parcel of record 10-3-1968, or as to lands within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Old Village prior to its consolidation with the Town of East Oakdale if the
land was a separate parcel of record 6-4-1974;
(2) Was the subject of a written agreement to convey, entered into prior to the time;
(3) Has been divided in accordance with § 153.10(B); is a single parcel of land having not less
than 5 acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in
the division of a parcel into 2 or more lots or parcels any 1 of which is less than 5 acres in area
or 300 feet in width; and/or
(4) Has been approved as an exception to platting pursuant to § 153.09.”
• Minnesota Statute Regulations. State Statute 462.358 Subd. 4b. states the following:
Subd. 4b.Restrictions on filing and recording conveyances.
(a) In a municipality in which subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or recorded
as provided in this section, no conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall
be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by
reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961 or to an
unapproved plat made after such regulations become effective.
(b) The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described:
(1) was a separate parcel of record April 1, 1945 or the date of adoption of subdivision
regulations under Laws 1945, chapter 287, whichever is the later, or of the adoption of
subdivision regulations pursuant to a home rule charter, or
(2) was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to such time, or
(3) was a separate parcel of not less than 2-1/2 acres in area and 150 feet in width on January 1,
1966, or
(4) was a separate parcel of not less than five acres in area and 300 feet in width on July 1, 1980,
or
(5) is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five acres and having a
width of not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel
into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in
width, or
Page 3
(6) is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than 20 acres and having a
width of not less than 500 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel
into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in
width.
(c) In any case in which compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary
hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision
regulations, the platting authority may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to
that effect and the conveyance may then be filed or recorded.
(d) Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the
provisions of this subdivision shall forfeit and pay to the municipality a penalty of not less than
$100 for each lot or parcel so conveyed.
(e) A municipality may enjoin such conveyance or may recover such penalty by a civil action in
any court of competent jurisdiction.
• Staff Analysis. Staff proposes the following:
o With respect to the conflict with the dates, the statute says that no conveyance that has
not been approved by a city is allowed if the land described in the conveyance by metes
and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21,
1961 or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations became effective. It appears
from reading the City’s ordinance (paragraph (A)), that its subdivision regulations must
have been effective on October 3, 1968, and so this is why this date was used instead of
April 21, 1961. Since the statute contemplates using the date that the City’s regulations
became effective if that date is later, the October 3, 1968 date should remain.
o This is also true with paragraph (B)(1) of the ordinance (“was a separate parcel of record
10-3-1968, or as to lands within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Old Village prior to
its consolidation with the Town of East Oakdale if the land was as separate parcel of
record 6-4-1974”) and this paragraph should remain as is.
o Paragraph (B)(2) of the ordinance is consistent with the statute, so it should remain.
o Paragraph (B)(3) should be broken into two paragraphs so that it is consistent with the
statute (the statute has different exceptions applicable to commercial/industrial parcels
and residential/agricultural parcels). The statute is actually stricter than the City’s code.
o Paragrah (B) (4) should be removed because it technically states that no city approval is
needed if the parcel qualifies as exception to platting under Section 153.09. Staff believes
it was not the intention of the City to make properties that are not required to be platted not
require any City approval, as Section 153.09 still requires minor subdivision or lot line
adjustment approval by the City in those cases.
Building Permits. Because the City’s development agreement template is amended from time and time,
especially as it pertains to requirements required to be completed prior to the issuance of building permits
and certificates of occupancy. Because of this, the proposed amendment refers the release of these items as
set forth by the development agreement.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District. There is currently no language that
explicitly requires that subdivisions be executed in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning District. The proposed amendment specifies this requirement.
Page 4
Preliminary and Final Plat Submission Requirements. There are a number of items that are required
within the checklist of the City’s Preliminary and Final Plat applications that Staff require to thoroughly
review applications that are proposed to be codified within this ordinance.
Exceptions to Platting. The current ordinance allows the following exceptions to platting:
o Minor Subdivision. The current ordinance exempts platting for minor subdivisions, which is the
division of land which results in no more than 4 parcels that comply with minimum lot dimension
and public frontage requirements.
o State Statute Requirements. State Statute requires platting for subdivision of property in to
five or more lots which are 2.5 acres in size or less. The current ordinance is stricter than
State Statute in that it requires platting for subdivision of property in to four parcels or less.
o Platting vs. Metes and Bounds. However, the County typically prefers platting, and platting
may minimize property line disputes, as monuments/markers which are referred to in metes
and bounds descriptions may move or disappear over time, and platting makes for a much
clean property description.
o Proposed Amendment. At its last meeting during which this topic was discussed, the
Planning Commission recommended that Staff draft an ordinance which required platting
for the subdivision of a property in to four parcels or less but that did not require as lengthy
or costly of a process as subdivision of a parcel in to many more parcels would require. As
presented during this last meeting, it is typical for cities to require platting of properties
when a subdivision of a property in to more than two parcels occurs. The proposed
amendment requires this, and also breaks sections down in to the following sections –
minor subdivisions, major subdivisions – sketch plan review, major subdivisions –
preliminary plat, and major subdivisions – final plat.
o Previous Requirement for Minor Subdivision. Minor subdivisions previously only required
the following:
Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner/applicant and
evidence of title;
A legal description of the parcel which is being subdivided and legal
descriptions for each of the resulting parcels;
A written description stating the reason for the request; and
A land survey prepared by and signed by a registered land surveyor
describing the minor subdivision, and/or lot line adjustment and showing
all buildings, driveways, easements, setbacks, and other pertinent
information including the legal descriptions herein required.
o Proposed Requirements. With the proposed amendment, an applicant for a minor
subdivision would now be required to submit the following:
A preliminary plat prepared by a registered land surveyor.
Drainage, grading and erosion control plans.
Existing and proposed lowest floor elevations for each lot.
Wetland delineation report and map.
Soil testing for the installation of individual subsurface sewage treatment
system.
Page 5
If driveways to a state or county highway are required, driveway permits
or a letter of intent to approve said driveways from the applicable road
authority.
A public hearing is also required, whereas it previously was not. Because
of this, a certified list of property owners within 350 feet is required.
Previously, there was no set deadline by which to record the minor
subdivision. Now, there is a 120 day deadline, which is a requirement of
platting in the existing ordinance.
A minor subdivision still does not require a landscape plan.
Time Restriction for Recording of Minor Subdivision. The proposed
amendment sets forth the requirement that the minor subdivision be
recorded within 120 days of approval. This is already a requirement for
final plats, but there currently is no such requirement for a minor
subdivision.
Lot Line Adjustment. The previous ordinance designated lot line adjustments as the division of land which
results in no more than 4 parcels which do not comply with the city’s minimum lot dimension and/or pubic
road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which the land is located.
o Clarification of Language. A lot line adjustment should be just that – an adjustment of a
lot line, not a division of land. The proposed amendment amends language to specify this.
The proposed amendment explicitly explains that lot line adjustments shall not create a
new lot or outlot. Additionally, it is also clarified that lot consolidation also requires
approval, as lot consolidation could ultimately decrease required density and pose issues
with easements (the need to vacate and create new easements, etc.).
o Re-location of Language. The proposed amendment places the lot line adjustment/lot
consolidation language before the minor subdivision language. Much of the previous
language presented at the previous Planning Commission meeting during which the
subdivision ordinance was discussed has been kept.
City Council Action for Preliminary Plat. There is added language that allows City Council to review a
preliminary plat application 60 days after the first Planning Commission meeting at which the preliminary
plat was considered, regardless of whether or not a recommendation by the Commission has been made.
The previous language allowed the Council to consider a preliminary plat application 30 days after the close
of the public hearing, but this could potentially cause delays if the Planning Commission fails to close the
public hearing within a certain amount of time and potentially cause the City to not meet the 120 day
deadline required for preliminary plat.
Design Standards, Required Improvements. The addition of language that the design of required
improvements must meet plan sheet requirements set forth by the City Engineering Design and
Construction Standards Manual will refer the applicant to those standards. Because those standards are
constantly evolving, it would not make sense to codify the particular requirements. The only other change
proposed for design standards is that lot remnants may be used as outlots for city, landscaping or trail
purposes as approved by the City. The Commission may wish to make recommendation to changes to these
standards.
Page 6
Park Land Dedication Requirements. The two tables that outline park dedication requirements for
specific zoning districts for residential subdivisions that result in 3 or more parcels and commercial
development have been consolidated. Additionally, a policy regarding the dedication of trails for parkland
dedication is outlined. The City has generally used this as a policy, but the proposed amendment outlines
this policy.
The Commission had wished the Council to review the fees associated with required fees for subdivisions
which result in subdivisions of less than three parcels and commercial subdivisions. The City requires such
fees in order to create a sufficient supply of public recreational space to accommodate the reasonable needs
of the public.
The current fee for residential subdivision resulting in 3 or fewer parcels is $3600 per new lot created, and
the current fee for commercial subdivisions is $4500 per acre. The required dedication for residential
subdivision of more than three lots is within the ordinance.
If the fees are to be amended, this can be done so through adoption of a separate Ordinance. Staff would
recommend that the Parks Commission review these fees before they are amended if directed to do so by
Council.
Security Reduction. Security reduction is as outlined per the development agreement. There was previous
language that required that the City be issued a warranty bond be issued for a time period of two years after
acceptance of improvements for 100% of the cost of the improvements within the subdivision. Currently,
the development agreement outlines security reductions, and so the proposed amendment references the
development agreement, as the template is usually ever-changing.
Planning Commission Review. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed
amendments to the City’s Subdivision Regulations ordinance at its February 26 and March 26 meetings.
The Planning Commission’s revisions are incorporated in to the Ordinance.
• Metes and Bounds. The only major outstanding concern that the Planning Commission voiced was
defining either residential or agricultural land vs. commercial or industrial land that are described
as exceptions to the standard that property cannot be conveyed that is described as metes and
bounds. Their concern was that the lack of direction on how to define these types of properties
(through the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning districts, etc) and what to do in the
case of a Mixed Use land use or zoning district could make it difficult to administratively allow
conveyance of properties by metes and bounds if they met the exception. The City Attorney has
been consulted regarding this.
• Bond vs. Letter of Credit. The City generally prefers letters of credit as opposed to bonds, as letters
of credit are easier to draw upon. The Planning Commission was concerned about removing the
option of providing a bond, but understood the City’s concern, and so recommended that bonds be
accepted as approved by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
The Council may:
Page 7
• Adopt Ord. 08-205 approving proposed amendments to the City’s Subdivision Regulations
Ordinance.
• Specify desired amendments, deletions or additions to the proposed amendments to the City’s
Subdivision Regulations Ordinance and adopt Ord. 08-205 as amended.
• Do not adopt Ord. 08-205
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that Council adopt Ord. 08-205 approving amendments to
the City’s Subdivision Regulations.
“Move to adopt Ord. 08-205 approving amendments to the City’s Subdivision Regulations.”
Additionally, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution 2018- authorizing summary publication
of Ord. 08-
“Move to adopt Resolution 2018-205 authorizing summary publication of Ord. 08-205.”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Ord. 08-205
• Summary Publication Resolution 2018- 037
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-205
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land
Usage; Chapter 153: Subdivision Regulations by amending the following:
Section
153.01 Regulations established
153.02 Generally
153.03 Definitions
153.04 Registered land survey
153.05 Conveyance by metes and bounds and other unapproved descriptions
153.06 Platting Lot Consolidation/Lot Line Adjustment
153.07 Preliminary plat Minor Subdivisions
153.08 Final plat Major Subdivisions – Sketch Plan Review
153.09 Exceptions to platting Major Subdivisions – Preliminary Subdivision Approval
153.10 Major Subdivisions – Final Subdivision Approval
153.11 Variances; standards; platting
153.12 Variance procedures
153.13 Planned Unit Developments (P.U.D.)
153.14 Design standards; required improvements
153.15 Park land dedication requirements
153.16 Required improvements; financial arrangements
153.17 Fees
153.18 Violations
§ 153.01 REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED.
No land shall be subdivided, nor shall any land be platted, in the City except as provided by this
chapter.
(1997 Code, § 400.02) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.02 GENERALLY.
2
(A) Purpose. In order to provide for orderly, economic, and safe development of land,
necessary urban services and facilities, and to promote the public health, safety, morals as to the
urban services and facilities, the following subdivision regulations are adopted by the Council of
the City. It is the intent of the City to protect the right of landowners to put their land to its
highest and best use and protect each owner's right to full beneficial use of his or her land insofar
as the use and enjoyment may be accomplished without detriment to the public interest and
within the minimum standards established by this chapter.
(B) Scope. The provisions of this chapter apply to any division of a tract of land into 2 or
more parcels for the purpose of transfer of ownership, building development, or tax assessment
purposes by platting, re-platting, registered land survey, conveyance, sale, contract for sale or
any other means by which a beneficial interest in land is transferred or any means by which a
tract of land is divided into 2 or more parcels for tax assessment purposes, except those
divisions:
(1) where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size
and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and
industrial uses;
(2) creating cemetery lots; or
(3) resulting from court orders.
(C) Approval necessary for acceptance of subdivision plats. Before any plat or subdivision
shall be recorded or be of any validity, it shall be referred to the Planning Commission and
approved by the Council as having fulfilled the requirements of this chapter.
(D) Building permits. No building permits shall be issued for the construction of any
building, structure, or improvement to any land or lot in a subdivision, as defusedined in this
chapter, until all requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, with the following exceptions.
(1) Building permits may be issued for model homes after approval of the final plat by the
council upon receipt of a signed developers agreement which shall include security for
improvements, both which shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. The issuance of
building permits for model homes shall be in accordance with the signed development
agreement.
(2) Developer shall agree in writing to indemnify and hold harmless the City for damages
that may occur as a result of the model home construction prior to the required improvements
being completed.
(3) No certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the City until the first lift of blacktop is
completed. until all applicable requirements set forth by the development agreement have been
met.
(4) Traffic and parking arrangements relating to model homes shall be subject to the City's
review and approval.
(Am. Ord. 9707, passed 5-20-1997)
3
(E) Conflicts. Whenever there is a difference between minimum standards or dimensions
required by this chapter or other ordinances of the City, the most restrictive standards of
dimensions shall apply.
(F) Flood plain management.
(1) No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the Council for reason of
flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply, or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the
flood plain shall contain a building site at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All
subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of
this chapter, and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no
lower than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation.
(2) In the general flood plain district, applicants shall provide the information required in §
152.110. The Council shall evaluate the subdivision in accordance with procedures established
in this chapter and standards contained in § 152.07.
(G) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District. Subdivision of property shall
be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning district in which the property
is located.
(1997 Code, § 400.03) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.03 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined in this chapter, common definitions, words, and phrases used in this
chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage
throughout this code and are found in § 11.01.
(1997 Code, § 400.04)
§ 153.04 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY.
No registered land survey of lands in the City shall be recorded with the Registrar of Titles until
the registered land survey shall have has been approved by the City. The approval shall be
indicated by resolution endorsed on or attached to the registered land survey signed by the chair
of the Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Clerk Administrator. No registered land survey
shall be approved by the City or signed by the officers if the recording of the registered land
survey will result in a subdivision in violation of any provision, regulation, or requirement of this
chapter.
(1997 Code, § 400.05)
§ 153.05 CONVEYANCE BY METES AND BOUNDS AND OTHER UNAPPROVED
4
+>DESCRIPTIONS.
(A) No conveyance of lands to which the regulations contained in this chapter are applicable
shall be made and no conveyance of land to which the regulations contained in this chapter are
applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and
bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after 10-3-1968, or to an
unapproved plat made after 10-3-1968.
(B) The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described:
(1) Was a separate parcel of record prior to or on 10-3-1968, or as to lands within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Old Village prior to its consolidation with the Town of East
Oakdale if the land was a separate parcel of record 6-4-1974;
(2) Was the subject of a written agreement to convey, entered into prior to the time 10-3-
1968;
(3) Has been divided in accordance with § 153.10(B); iIs a single parcel of residential or
agricultural land having not less than 5 20 acres and having a width of not less than 300 500 feet
and its conveyance does not result in the division of a parcel into 2 or more lots or parcels any 1
of which is less than 5 20 acres in area or 300 500 feet in width; and/or
(4) Is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five acres and having
a width of not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel
into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in
width;
(4) Has been approved as an exception to platting pursuant to § 153.09.
§ 153.06 LOT CONSOLIDATION/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.
(A) Purpose and Intent. The lot consolidation/lot line adjustment process provides a simple
administrative procedure for the consolidation of 2 or more lots into 1 parcel, or to adjust
a common lot line affecting existing parcels. In areas that are well defined and land
descriptions are simple, the City may permit the conveyance of land using metes and
bounds descriptions or without the preparation and recording of a plat. In areas which are
not well defined, or where lots are irregular in shape and/or are included in more than one
plat, the City may require that lot consolidation/lot line adjustment occur through the
major or minor subdivision platting requirements of this chapter.
(B) Criteria for Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation. Lot line adjustments exempted from
platting by Minnesota Statute 462.352, Subd. 12 and shall not require a plat or replat and
may be administratively approved, provided all of the following are met:
(1) Each resultant parcel equals or exceeds the minimum lot dimension requirements
and public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which the property is
located or is made more conforming through the lot line adjustment;
(2) The lot line adjustment does not create additional lots.
5
(3) The lot line adjustment shall not cause any structure on the property to be made non-
conforming or in violation of the Zoning Chapter or any other provisions of the City
Code.
(4) All resultant parcels shall have frontage and access on an existing improved street or
access to an existing improved street protected by a restrictive covenant approved by the
City Attorney which includes the City as a beneficiary.
(5) The resulting parcels shall generally conform to the shape, character, and area of
existing or anticipated land subdivisions in the surrounding areas.
(6) Any such lot line adjustment shall not require any public improvements.
(7) Any easements that become unnecessary as a result of the combination of parcels
must be vacated. A request to vacate easements shall be made concurrently with the
application for lot consolidation/lot line adjustment. Review of the easement vacation
request, including any public hearings and City Council action, shall be completed before
action may be taken on the application for lot consolidation/lot line adjustment.
(8) New easements shall be established as appropriate.
(C) Subdivision of Property for Public Purpose. Alternatively, the subdivision of property
resulting from acquisition by governmental agencies for public improvements or uses
may be processed in the same manner as a lot line adjustment or lot consolidation.
(D) Submittal Requirements. Requests for lot line adjustments or lot consolidation shall be filed
with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form. The applicant’s signatures shall
be provided on the application form. If the applicant is not the fee owner of the property, the fee
owner’s signature shall also be provided on the application form, or the applicant shall provide
separate written and signed authorization for the application from the fee owner. Such
application shall be accompanied by the following information. The application shall be
considered as being officially submitted and complete when the applicant has complied with all
the specified requirements. The applicant will be responsible for all expenses incurred in
obtaining the required information.
(1) A fee as set forth by the City’s adopted fee schedule.
(2) Detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed lot line
adjustment.
(3) A legal description of the parcel which is being subdivided and legal descriptions for
each of the resulting parcels; and, in regard to lot line adjustments, legal descriptions
for the adjusted or consolidated parcels;
(4) A written description stating the reason for the request; and
(5) A land survey prepared by and signed by a registered land surveyor describing the lot
line adjustment and showing all buildings, driveways, easements, setbacks, and other
pertinent information including the legal descriptions herein required.
(6) A title search showing ownership of the property and any existing deed restrictions.
(7) Other information shall be provided as may be reasonably requested by the City staff.
6
(E) Review of lot line adjustment or lot consolidation. A completed application shall be
reviewed administratively by the Zoning Administrator who shall make a written finding
in regard to the provisions of division (B) above. The Zoning Administrator's approval
shall be conditioned upon recording of documents which effectuate the lot line
adjustment or lot consolidation and any other conditions deemed necessary to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Code. Unless a request for additional review time is
requested by the Zoning Administrator, action on the application shall be taken within 60
days after a complete application is submitted. Prior to the issuance of any development
permits, and no later than 60 days after administrative review and approval, the applicant
shall provide the Zoning Administrator with recorded documents or recorded document
numbers for the deeds of conveyance which effectuate the lot line adjustment or lot
consolidation. Failure to provide the required verifications within the required time shall
invalidate the Zoning Administrator's approval.
(F) Certification of Taxes Paid. Prior to approval of an application for a lot line adjustment or
lot consolidation, the applicant shall provide certification to the City that there are no
delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or City utility fees due upon the
parcel of land to which the lot line adjustment or lot consolidation application relates.
(1997 Code, § 400.06) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.07 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS.
(A) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of a minor subdivision process is to allow the City to
waive certain procedures and requirements of a major subdivision. The purpose is to
reduce the time and cost to the property owner for dividing land in locations and
situations that are well defined and where no new public infrastructure is required. The
minor subdivision process allows for concurrent review and approval of a Preliminary
and Final Plat.
(B) Criteria for Minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is a division of land which results in
no more than 4 parcels wherein:
(1) Each resultant parcel meets all applicable requirements of the Zoning Code, including
but not limited to density, lot size, lot width, and minimum frontage on a public road,
unless a variance has been approved according to the procedures set forth in 153.11.
(2) No new public rights-of-way or streets shall be necessary for or created by the
subdivision.
(3) Streets, utility easements, drainage easements or public park land or cash in lieu of
land shall be dedicated or fees paid in lieu of dedication as required by the City.
(4) All wetland areas and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources protected waters
shall be protected with a conservation easement up to the 100-year flood level
(5) The minor subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the road
authority, including access spacing and location criteria for sight distances if located
adjacent to a state or county highway, and/or of the watershed district(s) in which it is
located.
7
(C) Submittal Requirements. Requests for minor subdivision shall be filed with the Zoning
Administrator on an official application form. The applicant’s signatures shall be
provided on the application form. If the applicant is not the fee owner of the property, the
fee owner’s signature shall also be provided on the application form, or the applicant
shall provide separate written and signed authorization for the application from the fee
owner. Such application shall be accompanied by the following information. The
applicant shall submit a minimum of 4 large scale copies and 10 reduced scale (11” X
17”) copies of all graphics. The application shall be considered as being officially
submitted and complete when the applicant has complied with all the specified
requirements. The applicant will be responsible for all expenses incurred in obtaining the
required information.
(1) A fee as set forth by the City’s adopted fee schedule
(2) Detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed minor
subdivision
(3) List of property owners located within 350 feet of the subject property in a format
prescribed by the Zoning Administrator
(4) A preliminary plat prepared by a registered land surveyor in the form required by
M.S. Ch. 505, as it may be amended from time to time, and the name, address,
and registration number of the surveyor, which includes:
a. Graphical scale not more than 1 inch equals 100 feet.
b. North point indication.
c. Original and proposed lot boundaries.
d. Topographic data at 2 foot contours.
e. Existing and resulting parcel legal descriptions.
f. Buildable area on each lot and proposed building pad.
g. The location of existing structures on the site.
h. Existing and proposed driveway locations.
i. Existing easement locations.
j. Existing parks, streets and utility easements.
k. Delineated wetlands and water bodies including ordinary high water elevations
and floodplain boundaries as applicable.
l. Sewage treatment systems and/or well locations.
m. Location and size of existing sewers, water mains, wells, culverts, or other
underground utilities within the tract and to a distance of 150 feet beyond the
tract, the data as grades, invert elevations, and locations of catch basins, and
manholes shall also be shown;
(5) Drainage, grading and erosion control plans, if applicable.
(6) Existing and proposed lowest floor elevations for each lot.
(7) Soil testing for the installation of subsurface sewage treatment system, if
applicable.
8
(8) If driveways to a state or county highway are required, driveway permits or a
letter of intent to approve said driveways from the applicable road authority.
(9) Any additional information if deemed necessary and required by the Zoning
Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may waive for good cause certain
information requirements not pertinent to the particular minor subdivision request.
(D) Review of Minor Subdivision.
(1) Review by staff and other commissions or jurisdictions. The City shall refer
copies of the preliminary plat to the City Engineer, Planner, Attorney, the Parks
Commission, and the appropriate county, state, or other public agencies for their
review and comment. The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate
staff persons to prepare technical reports where appropriate, and to provide
general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the action to the Planning
Commission and Council.
(2) Public Hearing Set. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Zoning
Administrator shall set a public hearing following proper hearing notification. The
Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing, and report its findings and make
recommendation to Council. Notice of said hearing shall consist of a legal
property description and a description of the request, which shall be published in
the official newspaper at least 10 days prior to the hearing and written notification
of said hearing shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners
of land within 350 feet of the boundary of the property in question. Failure of a
property owner to receive said notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as
set forth within this Chapter.
(3) The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and recommend such
actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems necessary to carry out the
intent and purpose of this Chapter.
(4) The City Council shall not approve a minor subdivision until it has received a
report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the City staff, or
until 60 days after the first regular Planning Commission meeting at which the
request was considered.
(5) Approval of a minor subdivision shall require passage of a resolution by a
majority vote of a quorum of the City Council.
(6) Prior to certification by the City of the approval of the minor subdivision, the
applicant shall submit the final plat for signature, supply the deed(s) granting the
City any easements required by the City and pay any required fees.
(7) Whenever an application for a minor subdivision has been considered and denied
by the City Council, a similar application for a minor subdivision affecting
substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Council for at least 6 months from the date of its denial
9
unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by a majority vote of the
entire City Council.
(E) Recording of the Minor Subdivision. If the minor subdivision is approved by the Council,
the subdivider shall record it with the County Recorder within 120 days after the
approval. If not filed within 120 days, approval of the minor subdivision shall be
considered void, unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved
by the Council. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the Zoning
Administrator with copies of the recorded documents which effectuate the minor
subdivision. No building permits shall be issued for construction of any structure on any
lot within the approved minor subdivision until the City has received evidence of the plat
being recorded by the County.
(F) Financial Guarantee. Following the approval of a minor subdivision as required by this
Section and prior to the issuing of any building permits or the commencing of any work,
the applicant may be required to guarantee to the City the completion of any
improvements as shown on the approved plans and as required as a condition of minor
subdivision approval.
(G) Certification of Taxes Paid. Prior to approval of an application for a minor subdivision,
the applicant shall provide certification to the City that there are no delinquent property
taxes, special assessments, interest, or City utility fees due upon the parcel of land to
which the minor subdivision application relates.
§ 153.08 MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS-SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PLATTING.
(A) Platting required. Except as provided in § 153.09, platting shall be required for the
subdivision of a tract of land which is to be divided into 3 or more lots or parcels for the purpose
of transfer of ownership, building development, or for tax assessment purposes.
(B) Pre-application.
(A) (1)Sketch plan Purpose and Intent. In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of
the procedural requirements and minimum standards of this chapter and the requirements
or limitations imposed by other City ordinances or plans, prior to the development of a
preliminary plat, applicants are required to submit a sketch plan to the City for review.
the subdivider shall meet with the Planning Commission and prepare a sketch plan which
explains or illustrates the proposed subdivision and its purpose. The Planning
Commission shall accept the information received, but take no formal or informal action
which could be construed as approval or denial of the proposed plat.
(B) (2) Submissionittal requirements. The owner shall prepare and submit a sketch plan,
together with any necessary supplemental information. The plan shall contain the
information set forth below. (C) General provision (pre-application) Requests for major
subdivision shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form.
10
The applicant’s signatures shall be provided on the application form. If the applicant is
not the fee owner of the property, the fee owner’s signature shall also be provided on the
application form, or the applicant shall provide separate written and signed authorization
for the application from the fee owner. Such application shall be accompanied by the
following information. The applicant shall submit a minimum of 4 large scale copies and
10 reduced scale (11” X 17”) copies of all graphics. The application shall be considered
as being officially submitted and complete when the applicant has complied with all the
specified requirements. The applicant will be responsible for all expenses incurred in
obtaining the required information.
(1) A fee as set forth by the City’s adopted fee schedule
(2) Detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed major
subdivision
(3) List of property owners located within 350 feet of the subject property in a format
prescribed by the Zoning Administrator
(4) A scaled drawing which includes:
(2) Names and addresses of all persons having property interest, the developer, the
designer, and surveyor together with the interested person's registration number;
a. Locations of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter section, or
quarter quarter section line comprising a legal description of the property;
b. Graphical scale not less than 1 inch equals 100 feet.
c. Data and north point.
d. (D) Existing conditions.
i. (1) Boundary line of proposed subdivision, clearly indicated;
ii. (2) Existing zoning classification for land within and abutting the
subdivision;
iii. (3) A statement on the acreage and dimensions of the lots;
iv. (4) Location widths and names of existing or previously platted streets
or other public ways, showing type, width, and conditions of
improvements, if any, railroad and utility rights-of-way, parks and other
open spaces, permanent buildings and structures, easements in section
and corporate lines within the tract and to a distance of 350 150 feet
beyond the tract;
v. (5) Location and size of existing sewers, water mains, wells, culverts,
or other underground utilities within the tract and to a distance of 350
150 feet beyond the tract, the data as grades, invert elevations, and
locations of catch basins, and manholes shall also be shown;
vi. (6) Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land,
within 350 150 feet, identified by name and ownership, including all
contiguous land owned or controlled by the subdivider;
11
vii. (7) Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not
more than 5 feet; water courses, marshes, rock outcrops, power
transmission poles and lines and other significant features shall also be
shown; National Geodetic Vertical Datum (N.G.V.D.) shall be used for
all topographic mapping; and
viii. (8) The subdivider may be required to file a report prepared by a
registered civil engineer or soil scientist on the feasibility of individual
on-site sewer and water systems on each lot; the report shall include a
soil borings analysis and a percolation test to verify conclusions.
ix. Buildable area on each lot and proposed building pad.
x. Existing and proposed driveway locations.
xi. Existing parks, streets and easement locations.
xii. Delineated wetlands and water bodies including ordinary high water
elevations and floodplain boundaries as applicable.
e. (E) Proposed design features.
i. (1) Layout of proposed streets showing right-of-way widths, center line
grade, typical cross-sections, and proposed names of streets in
conformance with all applicable City ordinances and policies; the name
of any street used in the City or its environs shall not be used unless the
proposed street is the logical extension of an already named street, in
which event the same name shall be used. The names and number shall
comply with the County Uniform Street Numbering System
ii. (2) Areas other than streets, pedestrian ways, utility easement, intended
to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of the areas
in acres.
iii. (3) (a) Provision for surface water disposal, drainage, and flood
control within the boundaries of the proposed property division
consistent with § 150.273 of this code, storm water management and
erosion and sediment control
f. (F) Supplementary information.
i. (1) The supplementary information as shall reasonably be deemed
necessary by the Planning Commission or the Council;
ii. (2) Proposed protective covenants;
iii. (3) Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential
buildings with number of proposed dwellings and type of business or
industry, so as to review the effect of the development on traffic, fire
hazards, and congestion of population;
iv. (4) If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan
for the areas, including dimensions, shall be shown. The proposed
12
zoning plans shall be for information only and not vest any rights in the
application for use other than residential;
v. A statement showing the proposed density with the method of
calculating said density also shown.
vi. (5) Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being
proposed for division, the Planning Commission may require that the
subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to
show the possible relationship between the proposed division and a
future subdivision. All subdivisions shall be reasonably consistent with
the existing or potential adjacent subdivisions; and
vii. (6) Where structures are to be placed on large or excessively deep lots,
which are subject to replat, the development subdivision plans shall
indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided,
in addition to a sketch plan that illustrates a way in which the lots can
possibly be resubdivided.
(C) Sketch Plan Review. The sketch plan shall be reviewed by Staff, the Planning
Commission, and Council. The Zoning Administrator may refer the sketch plan to the
Parks Commission to secure its recommendation as to the location of any property that
should be dedicated to the public, such as parks, playgrounds, trails, open space or other
public property. The City shall accept the information received, but take no formal or
informal action which could be construed as approval or denial of the proposed plat.
(1997 Code, § 400.07) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.079 PRELIMINARY PLAT MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS.
(A) Filing. Twenty copies of the preliminary plat and certified list of property owners located
within 350 feet of the subject property obtained from and certified by a licensed abstractor, shall
be filed with the Administrator. The required filing fee as established by Council resolution shall
be paid and any necessary applications for variances from the provisions of this chapter shall be
submitted with the required fee. The proposed plat shall be placed on the agenda of the Planning
Commission meeting no later than the second regularly scheduled meeting following the date of
filing. No application shall be accepted by the Administrator for filing unless all application
information required by this chapter is submitted with the application.
(A) Submissionttal requirements. The applicant shall prepare and submit a preliminary plat,
together with any necessary supplementary information. The preliminary plat shall contain the
following information. Requests for preliminary plat approval may be filed with the Zoning
Administrator on an official application form after the applicant has received comments on the
proposed sketch plan as outlined in Section 153.08 of this Chapter. The applicant’s signatures
shall be provided on the application form. If the applicant is not the fee owner of the property,
13
the fee owner’s signature shall also be provided on the application form, or the applicant shall
provide separate written and signed authorization for the application from the fee owner. Such
application shall be accompanied by the following information. The applicant shall submit a
minimum of 4 large scale copies and 10 reduced scale (11” X 17”) copies of all graphics. The
application shall be considered as being officially submitted and complete when the applicant
has complied with all the specified requirements. The applicant will be responsible for all
expenses incurred in obtaining the required information.
(1) A fee as set forth by the City’s adopted fee schedule
(2) Detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed major
subdivision.
(3) List of property owners located within 350 feet of the subject property in a format
prescribed by the Zoning Administrator
(4) (C) General provision (preliminary plat). (1) Proposed name of
subdivision; names shall not duplicate or too closely resemble names of existing
subdivisions; in any case, the name must be approved by the County Recorder;
(5) (2) Location of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter section, or
quarter quarter section lines comprising a legal description of the property;
(6) (3) Names and addresses of all persons having any interest in the property, the
developer, designer, and surveyor together with the interested person's registration
number;
(7) (4) Graphic scale of preliminary plat prepared by a registered land surveyor in
the form required by M.S. Ch. 505, as it may be amended from time to time, and
the name, address, and registration number of the surveyor not less than 1 inch to
100 feet;
(8) (5) Data and north point; and
(9) (6) Date of preparation.
(10) (D) Existing conditions.
a. (1) Boundary line of proposed subdivision, clearly indicated;
b. (2) Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the
subdivision;
c. (3) A general statement on the approximate acreage and dimensions of the
lots;
d. (4) Location, widths, and names of all existing or previously platted streets
or other public ways, showing type, width, and condition of improvements if
any, railroad and utility rights-of-way, parks and other public open spaces,
permanent buildings and structures, easements and section and corporate
lines within the tract and to a distance of 350 150 feet beyond the tract;
e. (5) Location and size of existing sewers, water mains, culverts, or other
underground facilities within the tract and to a distance of 350 150 feet
14
beyond the tract; the data as grades, invert elevations, and locations of catch
basins, manholes, shall also be shown;
f. (6) Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within
350 150 feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous
land owned or controlled by the subdivider;
g. (7) Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more
than 2 feet; water courses, marshes, rock outcrops, power transmission poles
and lines, and other significant feature shall also be shown; National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (N.G.V.D.) shall be used for all topographic
mapping; and
h. (8) In plats major subdivisions where public water and sewer are not
available, the City Engineer may require the subdivider to file a report
prepared by a soil scientist or a registered civil engineer on the feasibility of
individual on-site sewer and water systems on each lot. The report shall
include a soil boring analysis and percolation tests to verify conclusions.
(11) (E) Proposed design features
a. Layout of proposed streets showing right-of-way widths, center line grade,
typical cross-sections, and proposed names of streets in conformance with
all applicable City ordinances and policies. The names and number shall
comply with the County Uniform Street Naming and Property Numbering
System, with the following exceptions:
i. Unless a newly proposed street directly extends from an existing street,
no street name that already exists in the City or its environs shall be used,
regardless if it is on the same grid as another street.
a. North-south avenues shall follow the grid system, increasing
alphabetically from east to west, but must use different names.
b. East-west streets shall follow the grid numbering system as
appropriate, but a different suffix such as Lane, Place, Way, etc. or a
different prefix such as Upper or Lower shall be used.
ii. The names of deflecting streets shall not vary; names of continual streets
shall not change, even if the street changes direction, unless an
intersection exists.
iii. The names of deflecting streets shall be determined according to their
relation to an Arterial or Collector Street if appropriate, otherwise such
names shall be determined according to their main point of entry in to a
development or as deemed appropriate by Council.
iv. If appropriate, names with the same theme (i.e. flowers, nature) are
permitted for naming streets in an entire subdivision.
v. All street names shall end with the directional suffix of North.
b. (2) Locations and widths of proposed alleys and pedestrian ways;
15
c. (3) Locations and size of proposed sewer lines and water mains;
d. (4) Layout, numbers, lot areas, and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks;
e. (5) Building pads shall be shown to demonstrate M minimum front and side
street building setback lines;
f. (6) When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building setback
line shall be shown;
g. (7) Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, and utility easements
intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of the area
or areas in acres. This shall include areas planned for trails and parks within the
City;
h. (8) Area calculations of lots, right-of-way, streets, public highways, alleys, parks
and public trails, wetland and wetland buffers and other features with accurate
dimensions;
i. (9) Water mains shall be provided to serve the subdivision by extension of any
existing community system wherever feasible. Service connections shall be
stubbed into the property line and all necessary fire hydrants shall also be
provided. Extensions of the public water supply system shall be designed so as to
provide public water in accordance with the standards of the City. In areas where
public water supply is not available, well plans must comply with applicable state
regulations and shall be submitted for the approval of the City Building Official;
j. (10) Sanitary sewer mains and service connections shall be installed in
accordance with the standards established by the City;
k. (11) All private sewage treatment systems shall be installed in accordance with
standards established by the City. Demonstration of two separate and distinct
10,000 square-foot contiguous land areas, suitable for septic drainfields, is
required;
l. (12) Surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control shall be provided within
the boundaries of the proposed property division consistent with § 150.273 of this
code, storm water management and erosion sediment control;
m. (13) Location of 100-year flood plain areas and floodway districts from
existing adopted maps or data; and
n. (14) A line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the “toe”
and the “top” of bluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from the top
of the bluff and the lake or stream.
o. (F) Supplementary information. The following supplementary information shall
be submitted when deemed necessary by the Planning Commission City:
i. (1) Written statement explaining changes or modifications to the sketch
plan.
ii. Proposed protective covenants;
iii. (2) An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified
person. In areas of questionable soil conditions, percolation tests at the
16
rate of no fewer than two successful test results for each proposed septic
disposal area (a total of four tests per proposed lot) may be required on a
lot-by-lot basis to determine the suitability of any particular site for
building.
iv. (3) A statement prepared by a qualified person identifying tree coverage
in the proposed subdivision in terms of type, weakness, maturity, potential
hazard, infestation, vigor, density, and spacing;
v. (4) Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential
buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and/or type of business
or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire
hazards, and congestion of population;
vi. (5) If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plat for
the areas, including dimensions, shall be shown;
vii. (6) Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being
proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission may require that
the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as
to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and
the future subdivision. All subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with
existing or potential adjacent subdivisions;
viii. (7) Where structures are to be placed on large or excessively deep lots
which are subject to potential replat, the subdivider shall provide in the
preliminary plat, a sketch plan which indicates minimum building setback
lines and future roadway alignments which would not interfere with
structural placement at the time of future subdivision; and
ix. (8) A vegetation preservation and protection platn, consistent with
Section 154.257 of the Zoning Code, that shows those trees proposed to be
removed, those to remain, the types and locations of trees and other
vegetation that are to be planted;
x. Developer shall provide a landscape plan, signed by a licensed landscape
architect, which shows how a subdivision will assume a rural character
through the placement of ponding, berms, trees, and tree seedlings, shrubs,
and shrub seedlings and native grasses.
1. Landscape plans shall adhere to all requirements of Section
154.258 of the Zoning Code and shall include the City’s
Landscape Standard Notes.
2. Irrigation plans shall be submitted and be in compliance with Lake
Elmo General Irrigation Standards.
(d) Developer shall plant a minimum of 6 trees, 1 inch caliper
deciduous, or coniferous trees; 3 feet in height per acre unless a lot within
the subdivision is determined by the Zoning Administrator to be naturally
17
wooded which would, at a minimum, consist of the caliper and height of
trees required by this chapter; and
(c) Developer shall provide spaced or clustered plantings of 1 and
1/2 inch caliper deciduous trees at a rate of 2 per 100 lineal feet on both
sides of the street, between 0 feet and 5 feet to the inside of the right-of-
way for rural sections and between 5 feet and 10 feet to the inside of right-
of-way for urban sections. Four foot conifers may be substituted.(
xi. 9) If the development is an Open Space Preservation development,
architectural and performance standards shall be submitted. If applicable,
developments within the I-94 corridor and Old Village shall submit
architectural renderings in order to ensure compliance with City of Lake
Elmo Design Guidelines & Standards.
xii. (10) Any environmental review, such as an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet, as required by State Statutes. If an environmental review is
required, the Preliminary Plat application cannot proceed until the review
or study is complete;
p. (G) Other information. Other information shall be provided as may be
reasonably requested by the City staff, Planning Commission, or Council.
(B) (H) Preliminary Major Subdivision Review. by staff and other commissions or
jurisdictions.
(1) Review by staff and other commissions or jurisdictions. The City shall refer copies of
the preliminary plat to the City Engineer, Planner, and Attorney, the Park
Commission, and the appropriate county, state, or other public agencies, including but
not limited the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or Washington County if
the application abuts a county road or highway or county state-aid highway, and/or
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if the application is within a Shoreland
Overlay District and/or Floodplain Management District, for their review and
comment. The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to
prepare technical reports where appropriate, and to provide general assistance in
preparing a recommendation on the action to the Planning Commission and Council.
(2) Comment must be received within 30 days or it will be assumed there are no
objections.
(C) (I) Public Hearing Set. The Planning Commission, upon receipt of the application shall
instruct Administrator to set a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat no
later than 45 days from the date of filing of the application. Upon receipt of a
complete application, the Zoning Administrator shall set a public hearing following
proper hearing notification. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and
report its findings and recommendations to the Council. The Administrator shall give
notice of the hearing. The notice shall consist of a property description and a
description of the request. The notice shall be published in the official newspaper at
18
least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and written notification of the hearing
shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to all owners of land within 350 feet of the
boundary of the property in question. The Planning Commission, at its discretion,
may direct that notification be sent to property owners at distances of greater than 350
feet. (2) The failure of any property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate the
proceedings set forth in this Chapter.
(5) (D) (J) Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the Council within 30 days following the close of the public
hearing. If the recommendations of the Planning Commission are not received
within that time, the Council may act on the preliminary plat without the
recommendations. The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and
recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as it deems
necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Chapter. The Planning
Commission and shall have the authority to request additional information from
the subdivider concerning the proposal, as deemed necessary to formulate a
recommendation on the proposal.
(1) The Planning Commission shall recommend approval of the preliminary plat if it
in all ways conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Code.
The Commission shall recommend denial of the preliminary plat if it makes any
of the following findings:
a. That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, Development Code, Capital Improvements Program, or other policy or
regulation.
b. That the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to
topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to
flooding, water storage, and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for
the type or intensity of development or use contemplated.
c. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial and irreversible environmental damage.
d. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will conflict
with easements on record or with easements established by judgment of a
court.
f. That the subdivision is premature as determined by the standards of this
Chapter.
(E) (K) City Council Action.
(6) (1) The Council shall act upon the preliminary plat and may impose the
conditions and restrictions as are deemed necessary by the Council in view of the
purpose of this section and the recommendations of the Planning Commission
19
within 30 days after receiving the recommendations of the Planning Commission
or within 60 days after the close of the public hearing on the preliminary plat
should the Planning Commission fail to forward recommendations after it has
received a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the
City staff, or until 60 days after the first regular Planning Commission meeting at
which the request was considered. The Council shall have the option of receiving
additional testimony if it so chooses. An application for preliminary plat shall be
approved or denied within 120 days from the date of its official and complete
submission unless extended pursuant to Statute or a time waiver is granted by the
subdivider.
(2) If the preliminary plat is not approved by the Council, the reasons for the
action shall be recorded in the proceedings of the council and transmitted to the
applicant. If the preliminary plat is approved, the approval shall not constitute
final acceptance of the layout. Subsequent approval will be required of the
engineering proposals and other features and requirements as specified by this
chapter to be indicated on the final plat. The Council may require revisions in the
preliminary plat and final plat as it deems necessary for the public health, safety,
general welfare, and convenience.
(F) Effect of Approval. For one year following preliminary plat approval, unless the
subdivider and City agree otherwise, no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or other
official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, or lot
layout that was approved.
(G) Effect of Denial. If a preliminary plat application is denied by the City Council, a similar
application for a preliminary plat affecting substantially the same property shall not be
considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least six months
from the date of its denial.
(H) (L) Submission of final plat; request for extension. If the preliminary plat is approved
by the Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within 180 days after the
approval, or approval of the preliminary plat shall be considered void, unless a request for
time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the council. Such request for an
extension shall include the following: 1) an explanation for why a final plat has not been
applied for, 2) what, if any, good faith efforts have been made to complete the platting
process, and 3) the anticipated completion date. The Zoning Administrator may approve
up to two such extensions of not more than one additional year per extension.
(1997 Code, § 400.08) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.0810 FINAL PLAT MAJOR SUBDIVISONS.
(A) After the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat shall be submitted for
approval as follows.
20
(A) (1) Submissionttal requirements. The owner shall submit a final plat signed and
acknowledged by each person owning a legal or equitable interest in the lands platted, including
contract purchasers or those holding only a security interest such as a mortgagee. The final plat
shall contain the following information: Requests for final plat approval may be filed with the
Zoning Administrator on an official application form following approval of a preliminary plat.
The applicant’s signatures shall be provided on the application form. If the applicant is not the
fee owner of the property, the fee owner’s signature shall also be provided on the application
form, or the applicant shall provide separate written and signed authorization for the application
from the fee owner. Such application shall be accompanied by the following information. The
applicant shall submit a minimum of 4 large scale copies and 10 reduced scale (11” X 17”)
copies of all graphics. The application shall be considered as being officially submitted and
complete when the applicant has complied with all the specified requirements. The applicant will
be responsible for all expenses incurred in obtaining the required information.
(7) A fee as set forth by the City’s adopted fee schedule.
(8) A written summary of how all conditions of preliminary plat approval have been
met.
(9) Written statement explaining changes or modifications to the preliminary plat.
(10) Final plat including the following information:
i. Name of the subdivision;
ii. Location by section, township, range, county, and state, and including
descriptive boundaries of the subdivision;
iii. The location of monuments shall be shown and described on the final plat;
iv. Location and area calculations of lots, right-of-way, streets, public
highways, alleys, parks and trails, wetland and wetland buffers and other
features with accurate dimensions;
v. Lots shall be numbered clearly; blocks are to be numbered, with numbers
shown clearly in the center of the block;
vi. The exact locations, widths, and names of all streets to be dedicated;
vii. Location width and use of all easements to be dedicated;
viii. Certification by a registered land surveyor in the form required by M.S.
Ch. 505, as it may be amended from time to time, and the name, address,
and registration number of the surveyor;
ix. Scale of plat (the scale to be shown graphically on a bar scale), date, and
north point;
x. Statement dedicating all easements;
xi. Statement dedicating all streets, utility easements, and other public areas
not previously dedicated; and
xii. Certificate for approval by the City Planning Commission and the
Council. The certificate shall be prepared for the signatures of the Chair
21
and Secretary of the City Planning Commission, and the Mayor and
Administrator.
(11) Final grading and drainage plan, appropriately labeled, using a copy of the
current certificate of survey as a base for the site in question and prepare and
signed by a Minnesota licensed engineer, depicting the following information:
i. North arrow and date of preparation.
ii. Graphic Scale (engineering scale only, not less than one (1) inch equals
fifth (50) feet).
iii. For each lot, provide lot and block numbers, building pad location,
building type and proposed building first floor elevation, low floor
elevation and elevation at garage slab.
iv. Stormwater Management Plan, with a narrative, including the
configuration of drainage areas and calculations that meet the
requirements of the City Code and/or applicable Watershed Standards.
v. Location of all natural features on the tract. Natural features are
considered to include, but are not limited to the following: tree lines,
wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, drainage channels, bluffs, steep slopes,
etc.
vi. All delineated Wetlands and watercourse buffers per the City and
Watershed standards; and wetland replacement plan, if needed.
vii. Location of all existing storm sewer facilities, including pipes, manholes,
catch basins, ponds, swales, and drainage channels within one hundred
fifty (150) feet of the tract. Existing pipe type, grades, rim and invert
elevations and normal and high water elevations must be included.
viii. Normal water level (NWL) and 100-year high water level (100-year
HWL) for all water bodies, existing and proposed.
ix. Spot elevations at drainage break points and emergency overflows (in
BOLD) with directional arrows indicating site, swale and lot drainage.
x. Retaining Walls (wall heights and elevations).
xi. Locations, grades, rim and invert elevations of all storm sewer facilities,
including ponds and BMP’s proposed to serve the tract.
xii. Locations and elevations of all street high and low points.
xiii. Street grades shown.
xiv. Provide phasing plan for site grading.
xv. All soil erosion and sediment control measures to be incorporated during
and after construction must be shown. Locations and standard detail plates
for each measure must be included on the plan using Lake Elmo City
standard details. Plan must meet the requirements of MPCA General
Permit Construction Activity.
22
xvi. All revegetation measures proposed for the tract, including seed and
mulch types and application rates must be included on the plan.
xvii. Existing contours at two (2) foot intervals shown as dashed lines (may be
prepared by a Minnesota licensed surveyor). Existing contours shall
extend one hundred fifty (150) feet outside of the tract.
xviii. Proposed grade elevations at two (2) foot intervals shown as solid lines.
xix. Other information as required and outlined in the City Plan Sheet Format
Requirements.
(12) Final utility plan, appropriately labeled, prepared and signed by a
Minnesota licensed engineer, depicting the following:
i. Easements locations, dimensions, and purposes.
ii. Underground and overhead facilities.
iii. Proposed utility plans including sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm
sewer, all in accordance with the City Engineer Design Standards Manual.
(13) Final street and storm sewer plan, appropriately labeled, prepared and
signed by a Minnesota licensed engineer, depicting the following information:
i. Layout of proposed streets showing the proposed lot lines, right-of-way
widths, and proposed street names, in accordance with the City’s Street
Naming Policy, as outlined in 153.09 (11) (a).
ii. Locations and widths of proposed streets, alleys and pedestrian-ways.
iii. Location, dimensions and purpose of all easements.
iv. Annotation of street geometrics for all horizontal curves, tangent lengths
and corner radii.
v. Centerline profile and gradients for all streets, with vertical geometrics
annotated on the plan profiles.
vi. Typical cross section of proposed street improvements.
vii. Minimum front and side street building setback lines.
viii. When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building
setback line.
ix. For any non-single family residential development, location and number
of off-street parking spaces (guest, handicapped, bicycle, motorcycle, etc.)
including typical dimensions of each.
x. Other information as required and outlined in the City Plan Sheet Format
Requirements.
(14) Final tree preservation and landscape plans.
(15) Other written materials. The application form shall be accompanied by, or
address, the following written materials:
i. Lot size for all lots and outlots in tabular form.
23
ii. Area calculations of lots, right-of-way, streets, public highways, alleys,
parks and public trails, wetland and wetland buffers and other features
with accurate dimensions;
iii. Cost estimates for grading and all public improvements.
iv. A copy of any proposed homeowners association documents, private
covenants or deed restrictions.
v. Commitment for Title Insurance.
vi. If a common interest community (CIC) is created, the developer shall
provide proof that a replacement reserve amount was created in
accordance with Minnesota Statute 515(b)(3)-1141.
(B) (2) Review of Final Plat. Approval of the City Council.
(1) The application shall be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat,
including any modifications required as a condition of preliminary plat approval.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.358, an application for a final plat shall be
approved or denied within 60 days of the date from the date of its official and complete
submission unless extended pursuant to Statute or a time waiver is granted by the
subdivider.
(2) ) Review by staff and other commissions or jurisdictions. The City shall refer copies of
the preliminary plat to the City Engineer, Planner, Attorney, the Park Commission, and
the appropriate county, state, or other public agencies, including but not limited the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or Washington County if the application
abuts a county road or highway or county state-aid highway, and/or the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) if the application is within a Shoreland Overlay District
and/or Floodplain Management District, for their review and comment. The Zoning
Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to prepare technical reports
where appropriate, and to provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on
the action to the Planning Commission and Council.
(3) (a) Twenty copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Administrator at least 10
days prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which consideration is
requested. Planning Commission action. After review of the final plat by the staff, the
Planning Commission shall review the final plat for substantial compliance with the
approved preliminary plat and make recommendation to Council.
(4) City Council Action. Tthe final plat shall be approved or disapproved within 60 days
after the filing of the final plat by resolution and conditioned upon the execution of the
development agreement for basic improvements, public dedication, bonding, and other
requirements determined necessary or appropriate by the Council. If disapproved, the
grounds for any refusal to approve a plat shall be set forth in the proceedings of the
Council and reported to the applicant.
(5) (b) The resolution approving the plat shall authorize the Mayor and Administrator to
execute an endorsement of approval for the City. The Mayor and Administrator shall
24
not execute the endorsement until any development agreement or bonds required by the
resolution of the approval have been approved in writing by the City Attorney.
(Am. Ord. 9705, passed 5-6-1997)
(3) Special assessments. When any existing special assessments which have been levied
against the property described are to be divided and allocated to the respective lots in the
proposed plat, the Engineer shall estimate the cost of preparing a revised assessment roll, filing
the assessment roll with the County Auditor, and making the division and allocation. Upon
approval by the Council of the cost, the cost shall be paid to the CityAdministrator.
(4) Recording final plat. If the final plat is approved by the Council, the subdivider shall
record it with the County Recorder within 120 days after the approval. If not filed within 120
days, approval of the final plat shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension is
submitted in writing and approved by the Council. The subdivider shall, immediately upon
recording, furnish Administrator with 2 paper prints and 1 reproducible film positive of the plat
showing evidence of the recording. No building permits shall be issued for construction of any
structure on any lot in the plat until the City has received evidence of the plat being recorded by
the County.
(5) Lot acreage. The subdivider shall provide the City with a list of all lots, by block,
indicating the lot acreage, to the nearing 1/100. The list shall be certified by the surveyor signing
the plat.
(1997 Code, § 400.09) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.09 EXCEPTIONS TO PLATTING.
(6) Minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is a division of land which results in no more
than 4 parcels wherein each resultant parcel complies with the City's minimum lot
dimension and size requirements and are more than 2.5 acres in size, and public road
frontage requirements, and all other applicable requirements for the zoning district in
which the land is located, and no new roads or other public infrastructure is needed.
(7) (B) Lot line adjustment. A lot line adjustment is a division of land which results in
no more than 4 parcels wherein each resultant parcel does not comply with the City's
minimum lot dimension and/or public road frontage requirements for the zoning
district in which the land is located. The City Council hereby waives compliance with
the City's platting regulations for lot line adjustments which satisfy 1 of the following
conditions: Lot line adjustments exempted from platting by Minnesota Statute
462.352, Subd. 12 and shall not require a plat or replat and may be administratively
approved, provided all of the following are met:
(1) Each resultant parcel, when combined with an abutting parcel through a Tax Parcel
Consolidation Procedure approved by Washington County, equals or exceeds the minimum lot
dimension requirements and public road frontage requirements for the zoning district in which
the property is located or is made more conforming through the lot line adjustment;
25
(2In those cases where the City Administrator determines that it is not reasonably possible
for each resultant parcel to comply with the provisions of division (B)(1) above, each resultant
parcel, when combined with an abutting parcel through a Tax Parcel Consolidation Procedure
approved by Washington County, is less non-conforming after the lot consolidation than it was
before the lot consolidation; or
(2) The lot line adjustment does not create additional lots.
(3) The lot line adjustment shall not cause any structure on the property to be made non-
conforming or in violation of the Zoning Chapter or any other provisions of the City Code.
(4) All resultant parcels shall have frontage and access on an existing improved
street (3) In those cases where, in regard to property which is zoned agricultural or rural
residential, the City Administrator determines that each resultant parcel will equal or exceed
minimum lot dimensions for the zoning district in which the property is located, but that 1 of the
resultant parcels cannot satisfy the minimum public road frontage requirements for the zoning
district in which the property is located, or access to the noncomplying parcel to an existing
improved street is protected by a restrictive covenant approved by the City Attorney which
includes the City as a beneficiary.
(5) The resulting parcels shall generally conform to the shape, character, and area of
existing or anticipated land subdivisions in the surrounding areas.
(6) Any such lot line adjustment shall not require any public improvements.
(C) Subdivision of Property for Public Purpose. The subdivision of property resulting from
acquisition by governmental agencies for public improvements or uses.
(D) Application for minor subdivision or lot line adjustment. An application for a minor
subdivision or a, lot line adjustment shall be submitted on forms provided by the City Zoning
Administrator. The applicant will be responsible for all expenses incurred in obtaining the
required information, which includes the following:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner/applicant and evidence of
title;
(2) A legal description of the parcel which is being subdivided and legal descriptions for
each of the resulting parcels; and, in regard to lot line adjustments, legal descriptions for the
adjusted or consolidated parcels;
(3) A written description stating the reason for the request; and
(4) A land survey prepared by and signed by a registered land surveyor describing the minor
subdivision, and/or lot line adjustment and showing all buildings, driveways, easements,
setbacks, and other pertinent information including the legal descriptions herein required.
(5) Other information. Other information shall be provided as may be reasonably
requested by the City staff, Planning Commission, or Council.
(E) Review of minor subdivision.
(1) A completed application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review
and recommendation to the City Council.
26
(H) The City Council may attach reasonable conditions to its approval and shall require the
conveyance of necessary street, utility, and drainage easements on forms approved by the City
Attorney.; and shall require the payment of a public use dedication fee.
(F) Review of lot line adjustment. A completed application shall be reviewed administratively
by the City Zoning Administrator who shall make a written finding in regard to the provisions of
division (B) above. The City Zoning Administrator's approval shall be conditioned upon
recording of documents which effectuate the lot line adjustment or tax parcel
consolidation. Prior to the issuance of any development permits, and no later than 60 days after
administrative review and approval, the applicant shall provide the City Zoning Administrator
with recorded documents or recorded document numbers for the deeds of conveyance which
effectuate the lot line adjustment; and/or with the verifications listed below. Failure to provide
the required verifications shall invalidate the City Zoning Administrator's approval.:
(1) Recorded documents or recorded document numbers for the deeds of conveyance which
effectuate the lot line adjustment; and/or
(2) Proof that the Washington County Assessor has approved a Tax Parcel Consolidation and
has assigned a new tax parcel number for the consolidated parcel or parcels.
(G) Review of Subdivision of Property for Public Purpose. A completed application,
accompanied by a fully executed deed that designates a governmental agency as a grantee, shall
be reviewed administratively by the City Zoning Administrator who shall make a written finding
in regard to the provisions of paragraph (C) above and if the conveyance falls within the
definition of paragraph (C), the City Zoning Administrator shall approve the subdivision. The
City Zoning Administrator’s approval shall be conditioned upon receipt of a copy of the recorded
deed. Failure to provide a copy of the recorded deed shall invalidate the City Zoning
Administrator’s approval.
(1997 Code, § 400.10) (Am. Ord. 97-98, passed 12-18-2001)
§ 153.101 VARIANCES; STANDARDS; PLATTING.
(A) Purpose. A variance may be granted from the minimum standards required by this
chapter as they apply to specific property where unusual hardship on the land exists, but
variances may be granted only upon the specific ground set forth in this section. In granting any
variance, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council shall prescribe, the
conditions as it deems necessary and desirable to protect the public interests. In no case shall
any of the procedural requirements of this chapter be waived nor shall a variance be deemed to
permit any waiver or avoidance of the procedural requirements.
(B) Planning Commission review. No variance shall be granted until the matter has been
considered by the Planning Commission. In making its recommendations, the Planning
Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land and the existing use of
27
land in the vicinity, number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the
probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity.
(C) Findings. A variance shall be granted only where the Council finds:
(1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the applicant's land that the
strict application of the minimum standards of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of that land;
(2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property; and
(3) That the variance required by reason of unusual hardship relating to the physical
characteristics of the land.
(1997 Code, § 400.11)
§ 153.112 VARIANCE PROCEDURES.
(A) Application. Requests for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the Zoning
Administrator on an official application form. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as
established from time to time by resolution of the Council. The application shall also be
accompanied by 20 copies of detailed written and graphic materials necessary for the explanation
of the request. The applicant shall submit a minimum of 4 large scale copies and 10 reduced
scale (11” X 17”) copies of all graphics.
(B) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the variance request in
accordance with the standards set forth in the zoning code.
(C) Appearance of applicant before Planning Commission. The applicant or a representative
of applicant shall appear before the Planning Commission in order to answer questions
concerning the proposed variance request.
(D) Findings. The Planning Commission shall make its findings and recommend the actions
or conditions relating to the request as they deem necessary to carry out the intent.
(E) Approval/denial. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the Council shall decide whether to approve or deny the request for a
variance. The Council shall not grant a variance until it has received the report and
recommendation from the Planning Commission or until 30 days after the application was
accepted by the City. The Council shall decide whether to approve or deny the request for a
variance or an appeal no later than 60 days after the filing of the application.
(F) Written findings and order. The Council shall make written finding of fact and order in
granting or denying any application for a variance or appeal. In granting any variance or making
any order related to a variance or appeal, the Council shall impose any condition it considers
necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
(G) Notification of decision. The Administrator shall notify the applicant of the Council's
decision in writing.
28
(1997 Code, § 400.12)
§ 153.123 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (P.U.D.).
(A) Upon receiving a report from the Planning Commission, the Council may grant exceptions
from the provisions of these regulations in the case of a Planned Unit Development, provided
that the Council finds that the proposed development is fully consistent with the purpose and
intent of these regulations and in compliance with the Planned Unit Development objectives of
as identified in Article XVII of the zoning code.
(B) This provision is intended to provide the necessary flexibility for new land planning and
land development trends and techniques.
(1997 Code, § 400.13) (Am. Ord. 08-072, passed 3-5-2013)
§ 153.134 ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS; REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.
Submittals must meet plan sheet format requirements set forth by the City of Lake Elmo
Engineering Design Standards.
(A) Blocks.
(1) In general, intersecting streets, determining block lengths, shall be provided at the
intervals as to serve cross traffic adequately and to meet existing streets. Where no existing plats
control the blocks in residential subdivisions, blocks shall not be less than 600 feet nor more than
1,800 feet in length, except where topography or other conditions justify a departure from this
maximum. In blocks longer than 900 feet, pedestrian ways and/or easements through the block
may be required near the center of the block. Blocks for business or industrial use may vary
from the elements of design contained in this section if the nature of the use requires other
treatment.
(2) The width of the block shall normally be sufficient to allow 2 tiers of lots of appropriate
depth. Blocks intended for business or industrial use shall be of the width as to be considered
most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking and
deliveries.
(3) Blocks for commercial and industrial areas may vary from the elements of design
contained in this section if the nature of the use requires other treatment. In those cases, off-
street parking for employees and customers shall be provided along with safe and convenient
limited access to the street system. Space for off-street loading shall also be provided with
similar access. Extension of roads, railroad access right-of-way, and utilities shall be provided as
necessary.
(B) Lots.
(1) Area. The minimum lot area, width, and depth shall not be less than that established by
the zoning code in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat.
29
(2) Corner lots. Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit
appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning code.
(3) Side lot lines. Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or
radial to curved street lines.
(4) Frontage. Every lot must have a minimum frontage on a public street accepted for
maintenance purposes by the City (or to be accepted upon completion of construction by the
applicant), other than an alley, as required in the zoning code. No subdivision shall be permitted
which will result in a lot with less than the minimum frontage on a public street as required by
the zoning code except where a variance is granted as provided by this chapter. In no case shall
a variance to this frontage requirement be granted which would permit access to a lot by means
of an easement or private road except as provided in § 153.101.
(5) Setback lines. Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for
residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the zoning code.
(6) Water courses. Lots abutting a water course, drainage way, channel, or stream shall
have additional depth and width, as required under the provisions of the zoning code for the
shoreland and wetland system districts.
(7) Features. In the subdividing of any land, due regard shall be shown for all natural
features, such as tree growth, water courses, historic spots, or similar conditions which, if
preserved, will add attractiveness and stability to the proposed development.
(8) Lot remnants. All remnants of lots below minimum size left over after subdividing of a
larger tract must be added to adjacent lots or planned as outlots, rather than allowed to remain as
unusable parcels.
(9) Frontage on 2 streets. Double frontage, or lots with frontage on 2 parallel streets, shall
not be permitted except where lots back on arterial streets or highways, or where topographic or
other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable. Double frontage lots shall have an
additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen planting along the back lot
line.
(10) Turn-around access. Where proposed residential lots abut a collector or arterial street,
they should be platted in a manner as to encourage turn-around access and egress on each lot.
(11) Minimum lot line. No lot shall have a total width at the front or rear lot line of less than
30 feet.
(12) Large lot planning. In any area where lots are platted in excess of 24,000 square feet
or 160 feet in width at the minimum building setback line, a preliminary resubdivision plan may
be required showing a potential and feasible way in which the lot or lots may be resubdivided in
future years for more intensive use of the land, the placement of buildings or structures upon the
lots shall allow for potential resubdivision.
(13) Shoreland.
(a) Land suitability. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City for
the purposed use because of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe
30
limitation for development, severe erosion potential, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal
capabilities.
(b) Inconsistent plats reviewed Review by Commissioner of Natural Resources. All plats
which are inconsistent within a shoreland district the Municipal Shoreland Ordinance shall be
reviewed by the Commissioner before approval by the City may be granted. Review shall
require that the proposed plats be received by the Commissioner at least 10 days before a hearing
is called by the City for consideration of approval of a final preliminary plat.
(c) Copies of plats supplied to Commissioner. Copies of all plats within shoreland areas
shall be submitted to the Commissioner within 10 days of final approval by the City.
(C) Easements.
(1) Width and location. An easement for utilities at least 10 feet wide, shall be provided
along all lot lines. If necessary for the extension of main water or sewer lines or similar utilities,
easements of greater width may be required along lot lines or across lots. See §
150.277(A)(2)(e) of this code for other applicable easement regulations.
(2) Continuous utility easement locations. Utility easements shall connect with easements
established in adjoining properties. These easements, when approved, shall not subsequently be
changed without the approval of the Council after a public hearing.
(3) Provisions for drainage. Easements shall be provided along each side of the center line
of any water course or drainage channel whether or not shown in the Comprehensive Plan, to a
width sufficient in the judgment of the Council to provide proper maintenance and protection and
to provide for storm water runoff and installation and maintenance of storm sewers. They shall
be dedicated to the City by appropriate language in the owner’s certificate. See §
150.277(A)(2)(e) of this code for other applicable easement regulations.
(D) Erosion and sediment control. Erosion and sediment control plans shall be provided in
accordance with § 150.277(B) of this code.
(E) Drainage. A complete and adequate drainage system design, in accordance with the
Watershed District, § 150.277(A) of this code, and Local Storm Water Management Plan,
approved by the City Engineer, shall be required for the subdivision.
(F) Monuments for plats.
(1) Official monuments, as designated or adopted by the County Surveyor's Office or
approved by the County District Court for use as judicial monuments, shall be set at each corner
or angle on the outside boundary of the final plat or in accordance with a plan as approved by the
City Engineer. The boundary line of the property to be included with the plat must be fully
dimensioned, all angles of the boundary excepting the closing angle to be indicated, all
monuments and surveyor's irons to be indicated, each angle point of the boundary perimeter to
be so monumented.
(2) Twenty-four inch long pipes or steel rods shall be placed at each lot and at each
intersection of street center lines. All United States, state, county, or other official bench marks,
monuments, or triangular stations in or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise
position and shall be recorded on the plat.
31
(3) A second monumentation shall be required following the final grading and completion
of streets, curbs and utility improvements for a plat in order to ensure that all irons and
monuments are correctly in place.
(4) (a) Proof of the final monumentation shall be in the form of a surveyor's affidavit that
the monumentations complete. The surveyor's affidavit shall be submitted to the county; and
(b) Surveyor's office and to the City within 1 year from the date of recording the plat or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever event occurs first.
(G) Sanitary sewer and water distribution and public utilities.
(1) Sanitary sewers and water facilities shall be installed in accordance with the standards
and specifications as provided for in the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Water Supply
and Distribution Report, and other City plans, and shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
(2) Where City water facilities are not available for extension into the proposed subdivision.
the Council may, by ordinance, grant a franchise for the water facilities, to serve all properties
within a subdivision where a complete and adequate neighborhood water distribution system is
designed in conjunction with the subdivision, and complete plans for the system are submitted
for the approval of the Council.
(3) Where City sewer and water facilities are not available for extension into proposed
subdivision, the Council may permit the use of individual water and sewer systems in accordance
with all appropriate state and local regulations.
(4) Telephone, electric, and/or gas service lines are to be placed underground in accordance
with the provisions of all applicable City ordinances and standards. Exceptions to this
requirement may be granted by action of the Council.
(H) Streets, alleys, and curbs. The design of streets, alleys, and curbs shall conform to the
City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards.
(1) Streets, continuous. Except for cul-de-sacs, streets shall connect with streets already
dedicated in adjoining or adjacent subdivisions, or provide for future connections to adjoining
unsubdivided tracts, or shall be a reasonable projection of streets in the nearest subdivided
tracts. The arrangement of thoroughfares and collector streets shall be considered in their
relation to the reasonable circulation of traffic, to topographic conditions, to runoff of storm
water, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed uses of
the area to be served.
(2) Local streets and dead-end streets. Local streets should be so planned as to discourage
their use by non-local traffic. Dead-end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs shall be permitted
where topography or other physical conditions justify their use. Temporary and permanent cCul-
de-sacs shall be designed in conformance with the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design
Standards. include a terminal turn-around which shall be provided at the closed end, with a
right-of-way radius of not less than 60 feet.
(a) Temporary cul-de-sacs shall comply with the following standards.
32
1. The plat shall be reviewed after 3 years, by the City Planner, in order to determine if
the cul-de-sac shall remain temporary. The City Planner shall review the status of the temporary
cul-de-sac every 3 years.
2. The street shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length in subdivisions in which lots are less
than 2.5 acres in size.
3. The street shall not exceed 2,640 feet in length in subdivisions in which lots are 2.5
acres or greater.
4. The cul-de-sac shall be designated as "temporary" on the final plat, with an easement
shown on the final plat identifying where the road will extend.
5. The cul-de-sac shall not have landscaped or natural islands within it.
6. The street shall not serve more than 20 home sites.
(b) Permanent cul-de-sacs shall comply with the following standards.
1. The street shall not exceed 600 feet in length in subdivisions in which lots are less
than 2.5 acres in size.
2. The street shall not exceed 1,320 feet in length in subdivisions in which lots are 2.5
acres or greater in size.
3. The cul-de-sac may have landscaped islands or natural open space
areas. Maintenance responsibilities of these areas shall be defined and recorded in the covenants,
on the deeds, and in developers agreements.
(c) Temporary, platted cul-de-sacs which abut land proposed for development shall be
removed by the developer.
(3) Street plans for future subdivisions. Where the plat to be submitted includes only part of
the tract owned or intended for development by the subdivider, a tentative plan for a proposed
future street system for the unsubdivided portion shall be prepared and submitted by the
subdivider.
(4) Provisions for resubdivision of large lots and parcels. When a tract is subdivided into
larger than normal building lots or parcels, the lots or parcel shall be arranged to permit the
logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision for
adequate utility connections for the resubdivision.
(5) Street intersections. Under normal conditions, streets shall be laid out so as to intersect
as nearly as possible at right angles, except where topography or other conditions justify
variations. Under normal conditions, the minimum angle of intersection of streets shall be 60
degrees, with 90 degree intersections preferred. Street intersection jogs with an offset of less
than 125 feet 150 shall be avoided.
(6) (5) Subdivisions abutting collector or minor arterial streets. Wherever a proposed
subdivision abuts or contains an existing or planned collector or minor arterial street as
designated on the City's thoroughfare plan, the lots shall access onto local streets wherever
possible. Local streets may be existing or provided with the subdivision.
(7) (6) Alleys. Except in the case of a planned unit development, either a public or private
alley may be required in a block where commercially zoned property abuts a major thoroughfare
33
or a major street. Alleys in residential areas other than those zoned for multiple family use shall
not be permitted.
(8) (7) Half streets. Dedication of half streets shall not be approved, except where it is
essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision and in conformity with the other
requirements of these regulations, where it is found that it will be practical to require the
dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, or where it becomes
necessary to acquire the remaining half by condemnation so that it may be improved in the
public interest.
(9) Street grades. Except upon the recommendation of the engineer that the topography
warrants a greater maximum, street grades shall not exceed the following.
Minor Arterials 5%
Collector Streets 6%
Local, Marginal Access, and Cul-de-Sac Streets 8%
Minimum Grade of Not Less Than 0.5%
(10) Curb radius. The minimum curb radii for arterials, collector streets, local streets, and
alleys shall be as follows.
Arterial Streets 25 feet
Collector Streets 20 feet
Local Streets 15 feet
Alleys 6 feet
(11) Reverse curves. Tangents of at least 50 feet in length shall be introduced between
reverse curves on collector streets.
(12) Reserve strips. Reserve strips controlling access to streets shall be prohibited except
under conditions accepted by the Council.
(13) Minimum right-of-way widths.
Street Width
Principal Arterial 150 feet to 300 feet
Intermediate Arterial 100 feet to 300 feet
Minor Arterial 80 feet to 120 feet
Collector Street 80 feet
Commercial or Industrial Service Street 80 feet
34
Local Street 60 feet
Marginal Access Street 50 feet
Cul-de-Sac 60 feet; turn-around radius of 60 feet
(14) (8) Adding width to existing streets. Where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing
street of inadequate width, sufficient additional width shall be provided to meet the above
standards standards set forth in the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards and/or
other applicable standards.
(15) (9) Additional right-of-way and roadway widths. Additional right-of-way and roadway
widths may be required to promote public safety and convenience when special conditions
require it or to provide parking space in areas of intensive use.
(16) (10) Street improvements for plats.
(a) The City Engineer shall determine when the full width of the right-of-way shall be
graded, including the subgrade in accordance with the provisions for construction as outlined in
the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards design standards.
(b) All streets shall be improved in accordance with the standards and specifications for
street construction established by the Council.
(17) (11) Curb and gutter. Curb and gutter shall be provided when required in accordance
with the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards.
(12) Proposed streets shall conform to the state, county, or local road plans or preliminary
plans as have been prepared, adopted and/or filed.
(I) General improvements. The following shall be installed in accordance with the City of
Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards Manual and all other applicable City standards:
(1) Trees and boulevard sodding shall be planted in accordance with City standards.
(2) Streets signs shall be installed at each intersection in accordance with City standards.
(3) Driveway approaches, sidewalks, or pedestrian pathways shall be installed in
accordance with City standards.
(4) Street lighting fixtures shall be installed in accordance with City standards.
(5) Sidewalks are required on one side of all streets. The Council may require sidewalks
along both sides of all streets in areas where the residential density equals or exceeds 3 dwelling
units per niet acre of land or in any commercial, industrial, or other business areas if the Council
determines that sidewalks are required for public safety.
(1997 Code, § 400.14) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.145 PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Dedication of land for park and open space use. In all new residential subdivisions, a
percentage of the gross area of all property subdivided shall be dedicated for parks, playgrounds,
trails, public open space, or other public recreational use. For non-residential developments, the
City requires a payment in lieu of land dedication as established by resolution of the City
35
Council. Such percentage or fee shall be in addition to the property dedicated for streets, alleys,
waterways, pedestrian ways or other public use pursuant to this chapter. The following schedule
describes the required dedication by zoning district. This schedule is based upon density of the
development allowed in each district and is intended to equalize the amount and value of land
dedicated for parks per dwelling unit in the various districts.
Zoning Districts Minimum Required Land Dedication
R1, R2, R3, andR4 10%
RS, V-LDR, GCC, LDR, MDR, HDR 10%
RE and OP Development 7%
RR and AG 4%
C, CC, LC, GP, BP, VMX Fees as set by Council resolution
Zoning Districts Minimum Required Land
Dedication
GB, LB, HB, BP, CB, Fee as set by Council resolution
C, CC, LC, GB, BP, VMX Fee as set by Council resolution
RR and AG with OP Conditional Use Permit OP
Development 7%
RR and AG with OP-A Conditional Use Permit 10%
(B) Land title. Public land dedications, which are not dedicated to the City on a plat, shall be
conveyed to the City by warranty deed free and clear of all liens or encumbrances. The
subdivider shall provide proof of title, in a form acceptable to the City, prior to the conveyance
of the property.
(C) Land acceptability. The City must approve the location and configuration of any park
land which is proposed for dedication and shall take into consideration the suitability of the land
and for its intended purpose; the future needs of the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, or open
space; and the recommendations of the City’s Parks Commission. The following properties shall
not be accepted for park land dedications:
(1) Land dedicated or obtained as easements for streets, sewer, electrical, gas, storm water
drainage and retention areas, or other similar utilities and improvements;
(2) Land which is unusable or of limited use; and/or
(3) Land within a protected wetland or within a flood plain area unless the Council
determines that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
(a) Would be in the best interests of the general public;
36
(b) Would be valuable resource for environmental preservation, educational, or habitat
preservation purposes;
(c) Has an exceptional aesthetic value; and
(d) Would not become financially burdensome to the City as a result of maintenance or
preservation requirements.
(D) Trails. Trails constructed by a subdivider within dedicated public open space having at
least 30 feet of width are eligible for park credit. The maximum amount of trail dedication credit
shall not exceed 25% of the total dedication.
(E) Cash contribution in lieu of land dedication - residential subdivisions larger than three lots.
In lieu of the land dedication for residential subdivisions larger than three lots major
subdivisions, the City may elect to require the subdivider to contribute a cash equivalent
payment to the City’s Park and Open Space Fund, or may require the developer to satisfy the
park land dedication requirement by a combination of land and cash contribution. For all
residential subdivisions of three or more parcels major subdivisions, the required cash equivalent
payment shall be an amount equal to the fair market value of the percentage land dedication for
the zoning district in which the subdivided property is located. The City shall determine the fair
market value of the land by reference to current market data, if available, or by obtaining an
appraisal from a licensed real estate appraiser; the subdivider shall pay for the cost of the
appraisal. The fair market value determination of the appraiser shall be conclusive.
(F) Cash contribution in lieu of land dedication - minor residential subdivisions and
commercial development. Required cash equivalent payments for residential subdivisions
resulting in 3 or fewer parcels minor subdivisions or for commercial development projects shall
be as determined from time to time by Council resolution.
(G) Payment of cash contribution. Cash contribution payments shall be made to the City prior
to final plat approval for commercial developments or residential subdivision of more than 3
parcels major subdivisions, or prior to the City’s approval of the deeds of conveyance in those
cases where a residential subdivision will result in 3 or fewer lots.
(H) Previously subdivided property from which a park dedication or cash in lieu contribution
has been received, upon resubdivision with the same number of lots, is exempt from park
dedication requirements. If, as a result of the resubdivision of the property, the number of lots is
increased, the park dedication or cash in lieu contribution shall be applied only to the net
increase in the number of lots.
(F) (1) Any cash contribution so paid to the City shall be placed in a special fund. The money
shall be used only for:
(a) The acquisition and development or improvement of parks, recreational facilities,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space based on the approved park systems plan;
(b) Redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing park facilities or sites; or
(c) Debt service in connection with land previously acquired or improvements thereto
previously constructed.
37
(2) No funds shall be used for ongoing operation or maintenance of existing parks, or
recreational facilities or sites or City vehicles.
(I) Lands designated for public use on Comprehensive Plan or official maps. Where all or a
portion of the area included in a proposed subdivision has been designated as a park, playground,
recreational area, proposed school site, or other public ground in the City’s Comprehensive Plan
or in an official map adopted pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, the subdivider shall notify the
appropriate governmental unit of the proposed subdivision of the property. The notice shall be
given prior to submittal of the development application to the City. Prior to the City’s review of
the preliminary plat, the subdivider shall advise the City in writing of the status of the
negotiations regarding the designated area.
(1997 Code, § 400.15) (Am. Ord. 08-072, passed 3-5-2013) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.156 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS.
(A) Improvements. All sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer facilities, streets, concrete
curb, gutters, sidewalks, sodding, drainage swales, and other public utilities ("improvements")
shall be made and constructed on or within the subdivided lands or where otherwise required and
dedicated to the City and shall be designed in compliance with City standards by a registered
professional engineer.
(B) Plans and specifications approval. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to construction. All of the improvements shall be completed by the
developer and acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be free and clear of any lien, claim,
charge, or encumbrance, including any for work, labor, or services rendered in connection
therewith or material or equipment supplied therefor.
(C) Improvement warrantees and guarantees. Developer shall warrant and guarantee the
improvements against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of 2 years following
completion and acceptance. In the event of the discovery of any defect in materials or
workmanship within the 2-year period, the defect shall be promptly repaired or corrected, and the
warranty and guarantee for the entire project shall be extended for 1 additional year beyond the
original 2-year period, for a period of 3 years following the completion and acceptance. Defects
in material or workmanship shall be determined by the City Engineer.
(D) Required inspections of improvements. Improvements that are to be installed shall be
inspected during the course of construction by the City Engineer, at the developer's
expense. Notice shall be given to the City Engineer a minimum of 24 hours prior to the required
inspection. Failure to provide City Engineer with required notice shall result in a stop-order
issued to the project. If developer proceeds with work within the development without required
inspection, City Engineer shall have the discretion to accept or reject all or part of the
improvement, by giving appropriate written notice to the developer.
38
(E) Acceptance of improvements. Acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer may be
subject to the reasonable conditions as Engineer may impose at the time of
acceptance. Developer, through his or her engineer, shall provide for competent daily inspection
during the construction of all improvements. As-built drawing, Whitehall include service and
valve ties, on reproducible mylar shall be delivered to the Engineer within 60 days of completion
of the improvements together with a written certification from a registered engineer that all
improvements have been completed, inspected, and tested in accordance with City-approved
plans and specifications.
(F) Changes to construction plans and specifications. All changes to the construction plans
and specifications must be approved by the City Engineer.
(G) Clean-up obligations; street signs.
(1) Developer shall remove all soil and debris from and clean all streets within the lands
developed in accordance with § 150.277(B)(2)(d) of this code.
(2) In the event there are or will be constructed on the property, 2 or more streets, and if
permanent street signs have not been installed, developer shall install temporary street signs in
accordance with recommendations of the Maintenance Department, prior to the issuance of any
permit to build upon the property.
(H) Erosion control. Erosion control shall be provided with the installation of utilities and
street curbs in accordance with the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards.
(I) Developers agreement/security. Subsequent to approval by the Council and before
execution by the City of the final plat or other appropriate forms of City approval, developer
shall:
(1) Enter into a developer's agreement whereby developer shall undertake performance of
the obligations imposed by this chapter, or by Council condition, and containing the other terms
and provisions and in the form as shall be acceptable to the City Attorney, including, but not
limited to, provisions for default including fines and penalties; and
(2) Submit a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit ("security") which guarantees completion
of all improvements within the times specified by the City Engineer. A bond to guarantee
completion of all improvements may be accepted in lieu of a letter of credit or cash deposit with
Council approval. The amount of the security shall be 125% of the estimated construction cost
of the improvements, subject to reduction thereof to an amount equal to 25% of the cost of the
improvements as outlined by the development agreement after acceptance thereof by the City
Engineer, and receipt of as-built drawings. The security shall be in the form and contain the
other provisions and terms as may be required by the City Engineer and/or City Attorney. The
developer's registered engineer shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer, a
written estimate of the costs of the improvements. Reduction of security shall be as outlined per
the development agreement.
(J) Petitions for improvements by City. With the approval of the Council, and instead of the
obligations imposed by divisions (A) through (I) above, developer may enter into an agreement
39
signed by 100% of all owners of the land to be developed, requesting the City to install some or
all of the improvements, request all of the costs be assessed against the property, and waiving the
rights to appeal from the levied special assessments. Upon approval by the Council, the City
may cause the improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs of the
improvements to be levied on the land, except any land that is or shall be dedicated to the
public. The special assessment shall be payable over a term of 5 years unless otherwise
authorized by the Council. Prior to the award of any contract by the City for the construction of
any improvement, developer shall have entered into a contract for rough grading of streets
included in the improvement to a finished subgrade elevation, and including the other terms as
required by Council. Developer's obligation with respect to the rough grading work shall be
secured by a bond, letter of credit, or the deposit which shall guarantee completion, and payment
for all labor and materials expended in connection with the rough grading. The amount of the
security shall be 125% of the cost of the rough grading and shall be in the form and contain the
further terms as may be required by the City Engineer and/or City Attorney.
(K) City Attorney approval. No final plat shall be approved by the Council without first
receiving a report signed by the City Attorney certifying that the agreements and documents
required under this chapter meet the requirements of the City. The City Treasurer shall also
certify that all fees required to be paid to the City in connection with the plat have been paid.
(L) Warranty bond. The City shall require a developer to submit a warranty bond or
equivalent in the amount equal to the original cost of the improvements, which shall be in force a
minimum of 2 years following final acceptance of any required improvements and shall
guarantee satisfactory performance of the improvements, unless waived by the Council.
(1997 Code, § 400.16) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 153.167 FEES.
(A) The Council shall by ordinance, adopted from time to time, establish fees to be paid by
the applicant to defray the administrative costs and expenses incurred by the City in processing
development applications, applications for variance or appeals under the provisions of this
chapter.
(B) Fees to be paid by the applicant shall include all administrative, engineering, legal, and
consulting fees and materials costs reasonably incurred in the review of the proposed subdivision
and the processing of the applications or appeals.
(1997 Code, § 400.17)
§ 153.178 VIOLATIONS.
(A) Sale of lots from unrecorded plats. It shall be a violation of this chapter to sell, trade, offer
to sell, trade, or otherwise convey am lot or parcel of land as part of, or in conformity with any
plan, plat, or replat of any subdivision or area located within the City unless the plan, plat, or
40
replat shall first have been approved by the City in writing as provided by this chapter and in the
case of a plat, replat, or registered land survey unless the survey is recorded in the office of the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
(B) Misrepresentation as to construction, supervision, or inspection of improvements. It shall
be unlawful for any person to represent that any improvement upon any of the streets, alleys, or
avenue of the addition or subdivision or any sewer in the addition or subdivision has been
constructed according to the plans and specifications approved by the Council, or has been
supervised or inspected by the City, when the improvements have not been so constructed,
supervised, or inspected.
(1997 Code, § 400.18) Penalty, see § 10.99
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption
and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-205 was adopted on this ______ day of April
2018, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
_________________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-____ was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2018.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-037
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08- BY TITLE
AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-205,
an ordinance amending the City Code of Ordinances by amending the City’s provisions related to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinances are lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, subdivision 4, allows publication by title
and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-205 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-205, which amends
Chapter 153: Subdivision Regulations of the Lake Elmo City Code of Ordinances by:
• Clarifying language regarding lot line adjustment and lot consolidation.
• Amending language regarding metes and bounds to align with State Statute.
• Clarifying that release of building permits is as set forth by the development agreement.
• Adding additional application submittal requirements for Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary
Major Subdivision Review, and Final Major Subdivisions Review.
• Additional requirements for Minor Subdivisions, including preparation of a preliminary
plat prepared by a registered land surveyor in accordance with M.S. Ch. 505, drainage,
grading and erosion control plans, existing and proposed low floor elevations, wetland
delineation report and map, soil testing, public hearing, and a time restriction for recording
of a minor subdivision.
• Removing certain design standards and instead referring to those outlined in the City
Engineering Design and Construction Standards Manual.
The full text of Ordinance No. 08-205 and Ordinance No. 08-205 is available for inspection at
Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City
Administrator keep a copy of the Ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a copy be
placed for public inspection at the Lake Elmo Public Library.
Dated: April 3, 2018.
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 4/3/18
REGULAR #19
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests for 8728 DeMontreville Trl (Side Yard Setback)
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUIRED:
The City has received a request from owner(s)/applicant Brooks Moening, of 8728 DeMontreville
Trl, to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing detached garage. The home was
constructed in 1972 and garage the garage in 1974. The owner is in need of a variance because
Article VI Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings and Structures indicates that all additions or expansions
to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet all requirements of the
Zoning Code unless a variance is granted. The current structure is 7.3 feet away from the side yard
lot line when it should be 10 feet to comply with today’s code.
The City Council is being asked to hold a public hearing, review and make recommendation on the
above mentioned requests.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Legal SUBDIVISIONNAME BERGMANN ADD LOT 5 BLOCK 2
SUBDIVISIONCD 37085
PID# 04.029.21.12.0017
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family detached residential home/detached garage guided
for RR - Rural Residential Family / Rural Area Development.
Surrounding Land Use/
Zoning:
Surrounded by single family homes and guided for Rural Single
(RS) to the south and Rural Residential (RR) to the north.
History: Further information relating to the properties subdivision or
zoning could not be found. However, it is known that the building
permit for the home was issued in 1972 and the building permit for
the garage was issued in 1974. The principal use for the property
has been a single family dwelling, and is made up of .44 acres.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 2/23/2018
60 Day Deadline – 4/24/2018
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Regulations: • Article VI – Non-conforming uses, buildings and
structures
• Article XI – Rural districts
• Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
REQUEST DETAILS
The applicant is requesting to remove and reconstruct the existing garage on the property. The
following information provides a more detailed explanation of the proposal. In summary, the
2
existing garage does not meet the required setbacks for the RR zoning district of 10’. Buildings
or structures lawfully existed prior to current zoning standards are not be altered or improved
beyond normal maintenance, except that any lawful dimensional substandard residential building,
accessory building, or structure may be altered or improved if the existing substandard dimension
relates only to setback requirements and does not exceed the 10% of the minimum setback
requirements. The applicant is proposing to re-build the garage entirely and expand the garage
length, which goes beyond normal maintenance. Additionally, the garage requires a variance of 2.7
feet (required 10 foot setback – proposed 7.3 foot setback), which exceeds 10% of the minimum
setback requirement.
Article XI: Rural Residential
RR
Maximum Impervious Coverage -
Minimum Accessory Building Setbacks (feet)
Front Yard 30
Interior Side Yard 10
Corner Side Yard g 25
Rear Yard 40
Reason for Variance Requests. The variance request is due to the lot width of the property; the lot
being established prior to current zoning criteria; and construction of the garage prior to current
zoning standards. The parcel is 100.13 feet in width, which is much narrower than the required lot
width of 300 feet within the Rural Residential zoning district. Had the home and garage been
constructed with the current standards in mind, it is likely the garage would not have been built to be
non-conforming. The garage is located between the northern property line and the home and is 32
inches from the home’s concrete steps, so there isn’t space to move the new garage location further
from the northern property line. The larger garage is desired for additional storage space and to allow
the applicant to resume with woodworking as a hobby. Additionally, the current garage is bowed and
sagging, and studs are rotted as a result of being built directly on the concrete slab and not elevated
on block. The stucco is crumbling and breaking away from the wall board.
Size and Number. The maximum allowed size and number for accessory structures within rural
district is one 1,200 square foot structure for lots under 1 acre in size. The proposed garage is 1200
square feet in size and is the only accessory structure on the property, and so this requirement is met.
Maximum Impervious Surface. The subject property is unique in that it is zoned RR. Normally
properties which are zoned RR should have a minimum lot size of 10 acres. There is no record as to
why this property was allowed to be divided down past the 10 acre minimum to .44 acres except for
that the lot was likely created prior to current standards. Older zoning maps were reviewed and it
had shown the parcel being zoned RR as well. There is no impervious surface requirements for lots
zoned RR, and so this standard does not apply.
3
Accessory Structure Standards. Below is an analysis of how the proposed garage meets required
accessory structure standards.
C. Structure Height, Rural Districts. No accessory building shall exceed twenty-two (22)
feet in height or the height of the principal structure, with the exception of buildings that
are intended for a farming or other agricultural use in the judgment of the City. Building
projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not
exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height are permitted in rural districts.
• Staff Comment: The applicant has stated that the home is 15 feet 10 inches in height and the
garage is to be 15 feet in height. As the code is currently written this is allowed and under
normal circumstances would be considered a conforming height. This standard is met.
D. Structure Location, Rural Districts. No detached garages or other accessory buildings
shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot.
• Staff Comment: The garage will not be built any closer to the front lot line than it is now,
the expansion will go off the back of the structure. The garage is 60.3 feet off the front
property line and the home is 49.9 feet off the front line. This standard is met.
E. Exterior Design and Color. The exterior building materials, design and color of all
accessory building or structures shall be similar to or compatible with the principal
building, with the exception of the following accessory building or structures:
• Staff Comment: The garage design and color scheme will need to follow what is
expressed above. Plans have not been submitted, condition of approval.
F. Openings and Doors. Garage doors and other openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet
in height for all accessory structures, with the exception of buildings that are intended for
a farming or other agricultural use in the judgment of the City.
• Staff Comment: The door height/design will need to follow what is expressed above.
Plans have not been submitted, condition of approval.
4
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake
Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can
be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability
of these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board
of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict
enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such
actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an
official control.
FINDINGS: The property had been platted and built on prior to the establishment of the current
zoning code. Because of this the parcel is significantly smaller than others of its kind. Though the
garage is currently non-conforming, this appears to be a reasonable request as everything besides
the side yard setback would be conforming to current code. Staff believes this standard is met.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: The property was platted prior to current zoning standards and does not meet the
current minimum lot width requirements, which makes it difficult to fit a detached garage on the
property meeting required side yard setback requirements. The existing garage was built prior to
current zoning standards and does not meet minimum setback requirements, and the Applicant would
like to re-build and expand the length of the existing garage in the same location. Staff believes this
standard is met.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
FINDINGS: The property is wooded on all sides. Also there are other residencies in the area
which have attached or detached garages with some lots also having accessory structures. There is
a heavy woodline on the northern property edge and the nearest dwelling unit to the north is over
4oo ft away. From an aerial perspective it would not seem reasonable to think anyone could
perceivably notice that the garage had been rebuilt and expanded off the rear. Staff believes this
standard is met.
5
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
FINDINGS: A variance from the required side yard setback to expand the structure will not impair
an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Congestion of public streets or
diminishment or impairment of property values will also not be affected. Staff believes this standard
is met.
Results of Planning Commission and Public Hearing
The planning commission held a public hearing on the night of March 26th, 2018. There were no
written comments submitted to staff and no one spoke on the request beyond the applicant. One
commission member stated that they felt the property to the north would not be easy to develop due
to the wetlands, this further supported the idea that this request would not impose a burden/nuisance
to future neighbor(s). Also future lots would need to conform to the zoning code (size and width)
and buildings would need to meet the zoning code setback requirements.
The variance passed with no amendments 6-0. The Planning Commission as well as staff is
recommending approval of the proposed variance request based on the findings noted in 1, 2, 3, and
4 with the following conditions.
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City
building permit including a grading and erosion control, and by the City Engineer.
2. The structure complies with section 154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts Sub.
(C,D,E, and F)
3. The exterior building materials, design and color shall be compatible with the principal
building.
4. The garage door height not exceed fourteen (14) feet.
6
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact to the City.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may:
• Recommend approval of the proposed variance, subject to recommended findings and
conditions of approval.
• Amend recommended findings and conditions of approval and recommend approval of the
variances, subject to amended findings and conditions of approval.
• Move to recommend denial of all variances, citing findings for denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Brooks
Moening for the requested variances:
“Move to adopt resolution 2018-038 approving the request from Brooks Moening for variances
from the following standard; minimum side yard setback, subject to recommended findings and
conditions of approval identified in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Variance Application and narrative
2) Survey
3) Resolution 2018-038
651-747-3900
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Date Received:___________________
Received By: ____________________
Permit #:________________________
LAND USE APPLICATION
Comprehensive Plan Zoning District Amend Zoning Text Amend Variance*(see below)Zoning Appeal
Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.)Flood Plain C.U.P.Interim Use Permit (I.U.P.)Excavating/Grading
Lot Line Adjustment Minor Subdivision Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan
PUD Concept Plan PUD Preliminary Plan PUD Final Plan Wireless Communications
Applicant: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone # _______________________________________
Email Address:___________________________________
Fee Owner: ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone # _______________________________________
Email Address:___________________________________
Property Location (Address):______________________________________________________________________________
(Complete (long) Legal Description: ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
PID#: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Detailed Reason for Request: _____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Variance Requests: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the applicant must demonstrate
practical difficulties before a variance can be granted. The practical difficulties related to this application are as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning
ordinance and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application
procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense.
Signature of applicant:_______________________________________Date:_________________________________________
Signature of fee owner:______________________________________Date:_________________________________________
A. Current Property Owner: Brooks Moening
B. Site Data
a. Legal Description: Bergman Addition Lot 5, Block 2
b. Parcel Number: 04.029.21.12.0017
c. Parcel Size: 0.437 acres, 19,036 sq. ft.
d. Existing Use of Land: Residential
e. Current Zoning: RR
C. Section 154.402 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements – Setback Requirements,
Minimum Accessory Building Setbacks, Interior Side Yard
D. This proposal is to seek a variance from the Interior Side Yard setback requirement of 10 feet.
The current garage is currently 7.3 feet from the north side property line and is in a state of
disrepair. I would like to tear down the existing garage and rebuild on the existing concrete slab,
but expand the footprint of the garage further to the west, maintaining the existing set-back of
7.3 feet. The current garage footprint is 24’ x 30’ (720 square feet), and the proposed garage
footprint would be 24’ x 50’ (1200 square feet).
E. Discussions were held between Ben Prchal and Brooks Moening regarding the proposed project
and applicable city requirements. Based on existing situation and property limitations, decision
was made to move forward to request a variance.
F. The strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of the lot size
and locations of existing buildings relative to property lines. The current garage is located
between the northern property line and the home. It is offset 7.3’ from the property line and
32” from the home’s side concrete steps, so there isn’t space to move the new garage location
further from the northern property line. A larger garage is desired for additional storage space
and to allow me to resume my woodworking hobby. My home is under 2000 square feet and
75% of my basement is crawl space, which limits functional area and storage inside the home
G. The plight of the landowner is due to how and where the home and garage were built prior to
my purchase of the property, as well as the limitations due to the width of the lot. The current
condition of the garage is due to how the garage was originally built; roof is bowed and sagging
due to the use of non-engineered trusses and the wall board and studs are rotting as a result of
being built directly on the concrete slab and not elevated on block. As a result, the stucco is
crumbling and breaking away from the wall board and creating both an eyesore and intrusion
issues.
H. Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood for several
reasons. One, expanding the garage size would not change the current setback from the existing
garage, only extending an existing setback. In addition, the nearest building to the north of the
garage is over 450 feet away, separated by heavy woods, so it would have no impact on a
neighboring property. Finally, given the heavily wooded nature of surrounding properties in
sparsely populated neighborhood, the expansion of the garage would be difficult to notice from
the roadside and largely unseen from all adjacent neighbor’s homes.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2018-038
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE NOT MEETING SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THE CITY’S
ACCESSORY STURCTURE REQUIREMENTS AT 8728 DEMONTREVILLE TRL N.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Brooks Moening, 8728 DeMontreville Trl N, Lake Elmo MN 55042
(Applicant/Owner), has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for
variance to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure not meeting the minimum side yard setback
requirement for accessory structures. The proposed addition does not encroach further into the side yard. The
garage will not exceed the maximum allowed size for the property which is 1,200 square feet.
WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on March 26, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 26, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its April 3, 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 Variance are found in the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109.
2) That all the submission requirement s of said Section 154.109 have been met by
the Applicant.
3) That the proposed variance includes the following components:
a) A variance to allow for the expansion and renovation of a currently existing
accessory structure which does not meet the minimum side yard lot line setback.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: SUBDIVISIONNAME BERGMANN ADD LOT 5 BLOCK 2 SUBDIVISIONCD 37085, 8980 Hudson Boulevard North, Washington County, Minnesota with the following PID: 04.029.21.12.0017.
5) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and that
the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an
official control. Specific Finding: The property had been platted and built on prior to
the establishment of the current zoning code. Because of this the parcel is significantly
smaller than others of its kind. Though the garage is currently non-conforming, this
appears to be a reasonable request as everything besides the side yard setback would be
conforming to current code.
6) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner. Specific Findings: The property was platted prior to current zoning standards
and does not meet the current minimum lot width requirements, which makes it difficult to
fit a detached garage on the property meeting required side yard setback requirements. The
existing garage was built prior to current zoning standards and does not meet minimum
setback requirements, and the Applicant would like to re-build and expand the length of
the existing garage in the same location.
7) The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the
property in question is located. Specific Findings: The property is wooded on all sides.
Also there are other residencies in the area which have attached or detached garages with
some lots also having accessory structures. There is a heavy woodline on the northern
property edge and the nearest dwelling unit to the north is over 4oo ft away. From an
aerial perspective it would not seem reasonable to think anyone could perceivably notice
that the garage had been rebuilt and expanded off the rear.
8) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property
adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Specific
Findings: A variance from the required side yard setback to expand the structure will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Congestion of public
streets or diminishment or impairment of property values will also not be affected.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the
following conditions.
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building
permit including a grading and erosion control, and by the City Engineer.
2. The structure complies with section 154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts Sub.
(C,D,E, and F)
3. The exterior building materials, design and color shall be compatible with the principal
building.
4. The garage door height not exceed fourteen (14) feet.
Passed and duly adopted this 3 rd day of April, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk