The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-25-2010 packetCITY OF LAKE ELMO •,_.' City of Lake Ekno Agenda 651/777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, MN 55042 City of Lake Elmo City Council Workshop 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 May 25, 2010 6:30 p.m. — 8:30 p, Consideration of proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text changes relating to proposed Farm School and Senior Living Development 2. Adjourn * *A social gathering may or may not be held at the Lake Elmo Inn following the meeting. * * tinted or recycled popel AYOR & COUNCIL WORKSHOP — REVIs$ED AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: WORKSHOP ITEM it; DISCUSSION 5/25/2010 Consideration of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Changes Relating to Proposed Farm School and Senior Living Development Mayor and City Council Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Resubmitted for Council Discussion at tonight's Workshop is (1) a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, requested from Mrs. Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail North, and (2) a related Zoning Text/Map Amendment. At the request of the City Council, all involved City Staff, as well as the Applicant, are invited to be present at tonight's Workshop to assist the City Council in its deliberations. Following tonight's discussion, these two items are to be scheduled for formal consideration at the upcoming June lst City Council Meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: These two items have been scheduled at the request of the Mayor and City Council, following direction provided at the May 18th City Council Meeting, The City Council has also previously discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at its May 4th, 2010 meeting. Subsequent items regarding a required OP Open Space Preservation Concept Plan and a Planned Unit Development concept plan were both tabled by the Planning Commission on May loth, 2010 and are scheduled for reconsideration by the Planning Commission on May 24th. In their totality, these four actions would allow the establishment of a 40-unit senior living Multi- family building, 10 townhouse units, and a farm-themed preschool on a 30.9 acre parcel at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS: Attached as per Council direction are the questions posed by Council Member Emmons on May 18th, 2010. In addition, the following general questions -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Consideration of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment May 25th, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item - Revised are pro -offered for primary Council consideration and deliberation by Council Member Emmons, perhaps as a precursor to discussing some of the more specific questions posed on Tuesday: 1. Lifecycle Housing — Is it an issue in Lake Elmo? Should the community have as a priority to provide lifecycle housing? Should the city take steps, if necessary, to provide gaps in that system, ex. senior housing? 2. Future Up -Zoning Requests? How do we handle future requests for unique/ desirable proposals on lands not currently guided for higher densities? How are we consistent when treating other similar properties? Can we address the philosophical question of whether it is OK to make "spot" changes to our Comp. Plan and, if so, what are the unique circumstances that justify that? Would we establish special land uses that "qualify," define some limits to what, and how big it can be, and identify unique characteristics that make it worthy of consideration? Could we then be more consistent with future requests — but still review them on a case -by -case basis? Could there be a pool of RAD-2 that is drawn from, which creates a built in self regulation to how far this could go? 3. What are the Potential Pitfalls of this Project? If this project goes forward, what are our big issues (& fears) that we should address (i,e,, criteria for the development)? 4. Senior Housing in the Village? What about senior housing in the Village area (where it has typically been "guided")? How do we get there? Can we come up with a list of tangible steps we will take to make that happen — whether it is in 2 yrs, 3 yrs, or 5 yrs. In the mean time, should this project go forward as an "experirnent" since we may need options for seniors now? STAFF REPORT: As per Council direction, Staff has attached a bulleted summary of the issues raised during its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the proposed Zoning Text/Map Changes, and the request Open Space and PUD concept plans. In addition, Copies of the two previous two Council Communications are attached, RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council take tonight's Workshop to address amongst itself, with the applicant and with City staff some of the issues requiring additional clarification, definition and/or resolution. Previous Council direction was to place these two items on the Council Agenda for it June 1st Meeting. Alternatively, the City Council may provide different direction to City staff with respect to the upcoming June 1st Meeting, following tonight's discussion. City Council Meeting Consideration of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment May 25th, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item #1 - Revised ATTACHMENTS: 1, Questions Posed by Council Member Emmons (May 18th, 2010) 2. Questions Posed by City Staff in previous reports - Revised 3. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Council Materials 4, Proposed Zoning Text/Map Amendment — Council Materials SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS; Introduction of Item .............. ..... „ „ ......... ......... „,.,...,.„...,.„„ .......... Mayor Discussion among Council/Applicant/Staff ,.„,„....,.„.,.„,.„.„ Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate ,..., .......... „ ........ ......... ,....,...., ...... Mayor Facilitates Council Discussion ..„, .......... .„....................,....,........,.... Mayor & City Council Council Action/Direction,... ...... .......,..........„.„.........., ............ Mayor Facilitates — page 3 -- 011E51 IONS REGARDING PROJECT RAISED BY CM EMMONS May 2010 Location — could this concept be located within the village planning area? i.e., at the edge of the developed portion in the transition to the large open space around the village (thus be in a rural/open setting). 2. Access/Safety — It seems a west entrance (primary) is very important to allow safer entrance/exit from the development. A secondary exit to Hwy 5 for fire access would seem appropriate. I am concerned the independent fire review we had done does not fully address this issue. One way or another, we should discuss if two entrance/exit points are needed. 3. Affordability — What does this mean? Can we quantify this? They say they will try to do their best, but what assurance do we have that it will be accomplished (& do we agree on what that means to accomplish it)? 4. Quantify the demand for senior housing. Could this siphon demand away from the village area? Could this create a short/mid temi drain on demand for senior housing in the village area? If, on the other hand, it is "limitless" then are we going to see multiple other proposals to do seniors projects in areas not guided for higher densities? 5. Precedence — Legally and plain policy consistency. Is this a legal precedence of "spot" changes to the land use plan that might open up future such "spot" requests? Beyond legal grounds, how is this sight different from other rural/agr/OP lands coming in asking for similar "exceptions" and how do we treat people consistently? 6. Buffers — The current layout has a minimal buffer in some areas (ex. SW area). Not having 200' buffer should not mean having 0'. How will accomplishing a good buffer change the layout? Will that impact the quality of the project? 7. School — What is it? How can it defined better, so we have some assurance what will be there? Will they have and keep animals as part of the program? Open lands — What will they be? Concept shows orchard and vineyard — is that guaranteed? Plan also shows agriculture plus trails — how will those coexist? Maintenance of whatever is the final use should be considered/addressed. 9. Metropolitan Council and enhancing the city's reputation — MC is a non -issue or possibly a small negative issue. This does not add sewer units, so they will not be satisfied about that. It is also inconsistent and a spot change which may be a negative to them. 10, Height/Elevation of large buildings (3-story). Potential for viewshed impacts. What is the proposed top elevation of the building roofs? Can we fix an elevation & location that they cannot exceed to limit the visual impacts. 11. What does the background zoning allow? What might this look like if developed under the existing regulations? 12. Clarify if Senior Housing is "allowed" in the village area or not. There seems to be confusion on this. How does the village plan's mention of it affect this? 13. Transfer of Density — what is the loss that we are trying to compensate for? Why should that be a priority right now? - long term issue/concern. Met. Council will be more concerned (in short term) about REC and sewer hookups due to financial implications, so why not keep the un-sewered zones as they are instead of "up zoning?" 14. Should we keep the Comp. Plan and Zoning changes together as one action? 15. Fire marshal review was very general and not very enlightening. It seems we need a more in-depth review (ex. two accesses issue) and perhaps we should find a fire chief that is not in a neighboring community of ours, since the project proposer is the fire chief s wife. Topic m c Comp Plan Change in Circumstances Density Locations Density Locations Density Locations Density Locations Senior Housing Location There have been nochanges incircumstances since the Land Use Section ofthe Comp Plan was updated in2OU0that warrant revisions to increase or transfer density to the applicant's site. Higher density residential development isencouraged inareas that will bmserved bypublic sanitary sewer where the provision ofthese services iamore cost-effective and where the City will received credit towards the RECunit counts mandated under its yNOUwith the Met Council. Itshould beconsidered within the larger context ofwhere these higher densities may best beintegrated with surrounding land uses and where itcan best boprovided with public services (even if these services are somewhat limited inOPdowa|opmenta). The City iacurrently working toimplement its plan for development inthe Old Vi||mgeArea and the |-Q4corridor. Given the current market conditions, the City encourages higher density development inareas that would help off -set the significant infrastructure costs required toserve these areas. There has been nodiscussions with the current property owner of the 1O3acre parcels that are guided RAU2tothe west ofthe applicant's site that hieoveroUdensity onthis site may change (or any ofthe R8D2guided property ovwnero.) The Housing Chapter ofthe Comp Plan specifically states that any future senior -specific housing inLake Elmo will bebest accommodated within the Old Village Area due to proximity to goods, services, and public facilities. Addressed? By Whom? Planning Commission Finding: That recent subdivisions inareas guided for RAID development have been approved o10density below the unit levels anticipated inthe Comp Plan. The proposed density increase will beoffset byreductions that have previously been approved oracknowledged by ,the City. 'Planning Commission Finding: That the site is | |located immediately adjacent toexisting R-1 Single �Family Residential zoning districts along its southern, eastern, and western boundaries. Other areas guided for RAID development are primarily surrounded byrural residential, agricultural, or public open space uses. ` Planning Commission Finding: That the proposed project associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will help fulfill aneed for senior Topic u c Comp Plan Precedent CompplanGools-mra| character CompPlanGoalo- CompPlamGoals- TranaportaUn Market for Property The applicant's site does not demonstrate any characteristics that are substantially different from other areas guided for BAD development in the City ofLake Elmo orthat would indicate that higher density development iomore appropriate inthis area then any other site within the City A4O-unit multi -family senior -living facility is not consistent with the City'nstated goals hopreserve and enhance its rural character, especially when planned inareas that are guided for Rural Agricultural Density. Anew access hosupport development onthe appUcanVasite does not conform to the Qty'sTransportation Plan that encourages limited 00000n to major collector roads and is inconsistent with the Cibyaaccess spacing guidelines. Consideration ofpotential future local, collector and arterial transportation improvements, above those already noted, &ectly orindirectly resulting from this development, oewell aoanticipated participation nfthe applicant insuch future improvements Build -out ofexisting empty lots inplatted and developed (]P developments imencouraged over the creation ofnew development and service areas inthe community. Addressed? By Whom? Planning Commission Finding: That the current use ofthe site smoworking farm iounique compared toother properties designated for RAD development inthe Comp Plan. Planning Commission Finding: That the site ks located inclose proximity hopublic transportation along State Highway 5.and specifically, abus route that could provide alternate transportation options for seniors. Topic m c Zoning Text Amendment Definitions Definitions Setbacks Setbacks Density Calculation School -Aged onAppropriate Use Future Developments Future Developments Purpose nf[>PDevelopments Adding definitions for all the terms that are used inthe proposed ordinance provisions (What does the term "menior"mean when used with "senior houoing^?|athere aspecific age that should be regulated diffenanUythan othere?) Will the housing onthe site bm age restricted and/or restricted language be added for future use of site? Does the City need todifferentiate between opreschool and m 'farm-baoed''preschool? Including building standards (primarily setbacks) for Senior Housing buildings Keep oside yard setback for townhouses in<JPDistricts (e reduction orelimination ofside yard setbacks would beappropriate tuconsider ampart ofmPUD) Determine |fwording should continue hmread "gross area" as suggested byapplicant orremain consistent with existing code and use "buildable area" for determining density °° (See Concept P|mn/PUOmowell) The ordinance as proposed by the applicant would allow a "farm - based" school for school -aged children. |saschool, oreducational programs, for kids older than preschool age appropriate anpart of the overlay zoning district? The proposed zoning amendment would make subsequent approvals for multi -family senior buildings and farm schools subject only toaland use change request, not azoning amendment. The proposed ordinance amendments donot leave adequate protections inplace tobuffer and mitigate impacts tVsurrounding land uses. The proposed increase indensity and types ofuses allowed inen [)Pdevelopment isnot consistent with purpose ofintent ofthe OP Open Space Preservation Ordinance. Addressed? U� Whom? �~m��@�� ^ �� un�� ^ _ � Staff added suggested language (to address definition) Staff added suggested language Staff added suggested language Staff added suggested language Planning Commission recommended raban�ng Topic m c Concept Plan/PUD Restricted huSenior Housing Market Conditions Community Septic System Fire Protection and Adequate Water Service levels Storm Water Facilities Storm Water Facilities Should the City approve o projectosaSenior Housing projectif there ianot nnage-restriction associated with the project? Should the Cih/ndefinition nfSenior Housing require anage restriction? |uthere anappropriate mix nfsenior living and market -based apartments/condominiums that ioacceptable? The applicants are proposing tnconstruct the community septic system, septic control building, and trails within the power line easement. Who will maintain the storm water facilities? Through on easement oranouUot7 Feasibility ofthe site and proposed development tncomply with all aspects ofthe City Code, including the Qb/'onew storm water regulations and the resulting impact tothe site. Addressed? By Whom? Staff added language inthe draft ordinance to both !define senior housing and to include it in the list of !conditionally permitted uses. ) i ` 'Added acondition that the applicant shall provide the City with either mstatement ofacknowledgment and consent from the holder ofthe power [ine easement uranagreement that permits certain encroachments into the easement. Added oaocondition that the applicant shall provide utility plans showing mnadequately sized connection back toonexisting City water main; developer inresponsible for all costs associated ivith providing o minimum water service size of eight inches hnanexisting main ofalarger size Added euacondition that Storm water facilities required aspart of the Storm Water Management Plan shall beplatted within ouUnhoand deeded to the city; shall bemaintained bythe City; applicant | shall submit ostorm water and erosion and sediment control plan aepart ofthe preliminary plan submissions that complies with the City'srecently adopted Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance Topic m c Concept Plan/PUD Access Additional traffic onHighway 5 Emergency Access Proposed Setbacks Only one access for entire development Buffer Setback |othere adequate buffering between uses? Community Septic System Addressed? By Whom? Added oeacondition that onimprovement hght~of- vmayconnectionbewbubbedtoadjacantproperty|ima to the north or east of the development site Added asmcondition that the developer shall be responsible for the installation ofall improvements tuStillwater Blvd N (SH 5) aaspecified by[NnDOT. Added awacondition that the interior City Streets shall address the comments provided byOakdale Fire Chief. Added aoncondition that the preliminary plans shall accurately depict the proposed setback between the existing structures and the future entrance road into the development. Compliance with front and side yard setbacks mnrequired under the Zoning Ordinance must beconsidered onopart of future plan reviews by the Qh/. Added as acondition: 1.Additional buffering shall beprovided between the proposed multi -family building and adjacent wooded open space protection area. 2. Aminimum buffer setback of 5Ufeet, which includes the proposed roadway system, shall bemaintained between the development site and any adjacent property. The City may consider reductions tothis setback. Added oaecondition that any buildings required on part ofthe community septic system shall either be moved boomore central location within the development orscreened from view from adjacent properties. Topic n c Concept Plan/PUD Open Space Protection Calculating density Calculating Open Space Parks and Trails City Development Objectives Issue Addressed? By Whom? Consideration ofcurrent and future park and recreation issues relating tnthe site, including tns|a and trail acoeno, private and public access and amenities, etc. Consideration ofoverall city development objectives, revisions ot the Comp Plan and zoning relating to higher densities; completion of the Village Master Plan and 1-94 corridor area review Added 000condition that the open space preservation areas shall bnreviewed for potential inclusion ospart ofeconservation easement protected bythe K8NLand Trust. The applicant believes the road hght-of+woyhas been calculated in the past when determining buildable area inanOPdevelopment. The applicant identified that other OP developments have included storm water ponds /n the required open space areas. Additional condition: The keeping ofanimals associated with the agricultural activities onthe site shall comply with all applicable City and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for the keeping ofdomestic farm animals. SeniorLiving/Farm 3chool Prepared byLake Elmo Planning Dept, Summary ofIssues Revioed5/24/1O Topic . m c Comp Plan in _ O�na�'Lncaboms — - — --'---' Density Locations Density Locations Density Locations Senior Housing Location Issue Addressed? By Whom? 'There have been no changes in circumstances since the Land Use Section ofthe Comp Plan was updated in2OUGthat warrant revisions to increase or transfer density to the applicant's site - Higher density residential development ksencouraged inareas that ,will beserved bypublic sanitary sewer where the provision ofthese services iumore cost-effective and where the City will received credit towards the RECunit counts mandated under its K8{}Uwith the Met Council. Kshould beconsidered within the larger context ofwhere these higher densities may best beintegrated with surrounding land uses and where hcan best beprovided with public services (even if -these services are somewhat limited inOPdeve|opmento)' The City is currently working to implement its plan for development linthe Old Village Area and the |-84corridor. Giventhecurrent market conditions, the City encourages higher density development inareas that would help off -set the significant infrastructure costs required toserve these areas. There have been nodiscussions wit-thecurrent property owner of the 1O3acre parcels that are guided 0AO2tothe west ofthe applicants site that the overall density onthis site may change (or any nfthe R\D2guidedproperty ownera.) TheHousing Chapter of the Comp Plan specifically states that any future senior -specific housing inLake Elmo will bebest accommodated within the Old Vi||agaArea due hzproximity to goods, services, and public facilities. 'Public comments may Vrmay not have addressed this issue atPlanning CommissiomlCounoY nneebh{ps Planning Commission Finding: That recent subdivisions inareas guided for RAID development have been approved otadensity below the unit levels anticipated inthe Comp Plan. The proposed density increase will be offset byreductions that have previously been approved oracknowledged by the City. Planning Commission Fin—firi --� T—t the site ' , located immediately adjacent toexisting R-1 Single �Family Residential zoning districts along its southern, eastern, and western boundaries. Other areas guided for RAID development are primarily surrounded byrural residential, agricultural, or public open space, use�� --' -- �Public comments may ormay not have addressed � this issue at Planning Commission/Council | �meetings. Staff recommended notransfers ofRAD2density if the Comp Plan Amendment were hobeapproved. Planning Commission Finding: That the proposed project associated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will help fu|fiUmneed for senior housing within the community. Senior Living/Farm School Prepared by Lake Elmo Planning Dept. Summary of Issues Revised 5/24/10 Topic Comp Plan Precedent Comp Plan Goals - rural character Comp Plan Goals - Transportation Comp Plan Goals - Transportation Market for Property Issue Addressed? By Whom? 'The applicant's site does not demonstrate any characteristics that are substantially different from other areas guided for RAD development in the City of Lake Elmo or that would indicate that higher density development is more appropriate in this area than any other site within the City Planning Commission Finding: That the current use of the site as a working farm is unique compared to other properties designated for RAD ,development in the Comp Plan. A 40-unit multi -family senior -living facility is not consistent with the City's stated goals to preserve and enhance its rural character, especially when planned in areas that are guided for Rural Agricultural Density. A new access to support development on the applicant's site does not conform to the City's Transportation Plan that encourages limited access to major collector roads and is inconsistent with the City's access spacing guidelines. :Consideration of potential future local, collector and arterial transportation improvements, above those already noted, directly or indirectly resulting from this development, as well as anticipated participation of the applicant in such future improvements Build -out of existing empty lots in platted and developed OP Public comments may or may not have addressed developments is encouraged over the creation of new development this issue at Planning Commission/Council and service areas in the community. meetings. Public comments may or may not have addressed this issue at Planning Commission/Council meetings. Planning Commission Finding: That the site is located in close proximity to public transportation along State Highway 5, and specifically, a bus route that could provide alternate transportation options for seniors. Page 2 MnDOT cannot outright reject a request for new access. Staff recommendations for future access considerations included as part of concept plan reviews. Senior Living/Farm School Prepared by Lake Elmo Planning Dept. Summary of Issues Revised 5124/10 Topic �� u c Zoning Text Amendment Qe�n�mno ' —' Definition Setbacks Setbacks -Density Calculation School -Aged anAppropriate Use Future Developments Future Developments Purpose of OP Addressed? By Whom? 'Adding definitions for all the terms that are used )nthe proposed � !ondinanceprovisions (What does the term "senior'mean when ' 'used with "senior houainQ''7|othere oapeoifioage that should be � :regulated differently than othens?) Will the housing nnthe site be age restricted and/or restricted language beadded for future use of� / |site? �Does the City need todifferentiate between opreschool and a farm-based"presnhoo|? | -- ----- /Including building standards (primarily setbacks) for Senior 'H0m�n buildings � m�n� ��e -houaesin[J�D�tho�a------ ' '.'--,.~ �~.`_~~~~`.~. `~,.. . '^ �reduction orelimination ofside yard setbacks would beappropriate toconsider aspart ofopU0 Staff added suggested language (to address Staff added suggested language Staff suggested — ' . language Staff added suggested language Determine ifwording should continue bzread "gross area" an suggested byapplicant orremain consistent with existing code and use "buildable area" for determining density ^° (See Concept P|an/PUOaswell) The ordinance asproposed bythe applicant would allow a "fann- based''school for school -aged children. Is a school, oreducational programs, for kids older than preschool age appropriate aspart of the overlay. i district? The proposed zoning amendment would make subsequent approvals for muN-familysenior buildings and farm schools subject only toaland use change request, not azoning amendment, The proposed ordinance amendments donot leave adequate protections inplace bobuffer and mitigate impacts hosurrounding land uses. The proposed increase indensity and types ofuses allowed inan UPdevelopment iwnot consistent with purpose ofintent ofthe OP Developments Open Space pmanemabonOrdinance. Planning Commission recommended retaining applicant's proposed language of "gross area" Planning Commission recommended an increase to the OP-2buffer setback requirements, Senior Living/Farm School Prepared byLake Elmo Planning Dept. Summary ofIssues Revised5/24/10 Topic c Concept PUan/PKJD Restricted to Senior Housing Market Conditions '-------- — Use of PowedhneEasement Fire Protection and Adequate Water Service |eve(s 8tonn\&aberFao|ities Storm Water Facilities 'Should the Clit/approve aproject maaSenior Housing project if there is not an age -restriction associated with the project? Should the City'sdefinition ofSenior Housing require anage restriction? Is there anappnop`a| mix ofsenior living and market -based apartments/condominiums that is acceptable? The applicants are proposing to construct the community septic system, septic control building, and trails within the power line | 'Theproposed plan toconnect toan4''pipe etthe pn�eut � existing � boundan/wiUnotprov�oadequate�ve�offirepn�ecUmnforthe ^ �proposed buildings. !Who will maintain the storm water facilities? Through an !eenementoranoutlot? 'Feasibility ofthe site and proposed development tocomply with all aopeotonfthe City Code, including the City'snew storm water / regulations and the resulting impact tothe site. Addressed? By Whom? 'Staff added language )nthe draft ordinance hzboth 'define senior housing and toinclude binthe list nf uses- ! � Added acondition that the applicant shall provide 'the City with either astatement ofacknowledgment ;and consent from the holder ofthe power line ,easement oronmQmaementthatpermits certain ,encroachments into the easement. tAddedasacondition that the applicant shall provide utility plans showing anadequately sized 'connecbonback toanexisting City water main; 'developer isresponsible for all costs associated 4ithproviding eminimum water service size of :eight inches tnanexisting main ofalarger size _ :Added anocondition that Storm water facilities .required aspart ofthe Storm Water Management ,Plan aha||boplatted within oudotsand deeded to thecity; shall be maintained bythe City; applicant shall submit astorm water and erosion and sediment control plan aspart ofthe preliminary plan submissions that complies with the C4'a recently adopted Storm Water and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance Future plans will need to address theCity'n recently SeniorLiving/Farm School Prepared by Lake Elmo Planning Dept. Summary of Issues Revised 5/24/10 Topic . n c Concept Plan/PUD Access Only one access for entire development. 'Addressed? ed? By Whom? ,Added aoacondition that onimprovement i ht-of- waynpnnactiqnbesb/bbedtnadjaoertpropahy|ina 'to the north or east of the development site Added as acondition that the developer shall be The anticipated tnaffiolevels will require improvements toCSAHS responsible for the installation ofall improvements Additional traffic nn Highway (as per K8nD(}Treview connmentn)._ _ �toStillwater Blvd N (SH.5).as_specified by Mn0Ol[ 'Added as a condition that the interior C�� ' � ' � shal|address the comments provided by Oakdale ' Radius pavement specifications onsfor interior stmae�.En�r��V�/ Ancaaa Fine Chief. Setbacks from new entrance road cannot be determined from Setbacks from Entrance Road concept plans. Buffer Setback Community Septic System :Added asacondition that the preliminary plans ishaUaccurately depict the proposed setback between the existing structures and the future |entroncaroad into the development. Compliance i,with front and side yard setbacks asrequired under itheZoning Ordinance must beconsidered asapart !of future plan reviews bytheCdy ! _ —_ / Added asaoondidorc 1 Additional buffering shall '!be ;building and adjacent wooded open space protection area. 2. Aminimum buffer setback of 5Ofeet, which includes the proposed roadway system, shall bemaintained between the development site and any adjacent property. The Is there adequate buffering between uses? City may consider reductions tothis setback. Added asmcondition that any buildings required aa part ofthe community septic system shall either be The community septic system b»located with minimal setback to moved toamore central location within the the property tothe north- The infrastructure necessary for the development mrscreened from view from adjacent septic system should not negatively impact adjacent properties. properties - Senior Living/Farm School Prepared by Lake Elmo Planning Dept. Summary of Issues Revised 5/24/10 Topic Concept Plan/PUD Open Space Protection Calculating density Calculating Open Space Parks and Trails Other Animals City Development Objectives Issue The proposed open space areas may be too small for consideration by the MN Land Trust. Inclusion of highway right-of-way in calculations for net buildable area and require open space. ;Inclusion of storm water facilities in required open space areas. Consideration of current and future park and recreation issues relating to the site, including trails and trail access, private and public access and amenities, etc. 1 Addressed? By Whom? Added as a condition that the open space preservation areas shall be reviewed for potential inclusion as part of a conservation easement protected by the MN Land Trust. The applicant believes the road right-of-way has been calculated in the past when determining buildable area in an OP development. The applicant identified that other OP developments have included storm water ponds in the required open space areas. Additional condition: The keeping of animals associated with the agricultural activities on the site 'shall comply with all applicable City and Minnesota The keeping of farms animals is regulated by City Code and the Pollution Control Agency requirements for the MPCA. keeping of domestic farm animals. Consideration of overall city development objectives, revisions not the Comp Plan and zoning relating to higher densities; completion of the Village Master Plan and 1-94 corridor area review Page 6