HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2002 Planning Commission Packet4
CITY OF
LAKE
ELMO
City of Lake Elmo
Phone: 651-777-5510
Fax: 651-777-9615
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
\ The Lake Elmo Planning Commission will meet
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002. at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North,
Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
CONVENE AS MAINTENANCE ADVISORY SPECIAL PROJECTS
1. Agenda
2. Minutes — February 11, 2002
3. TKDA — Community Facilities Consultant
Discussion: Demographics; Other Cities Services.
4. Other
5. Adjourn
CONVENE AS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Agenda
2. Minutes — February 25, 2002
3. Public Hearing: Daniel Rude — 3250 Kraft Circle
Variance to Minimum Lot Size-R-1 Zoning
4. Other
5. Adjourn
tot printed on recycled paper
Regular Section Approved 02/25/02 MAC Draft
Lake Elmo
Planning Commission
Monday, February 11, 2002
Meeting Minutes
Convene as Maintenance Advisory Planning Commission
Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
Present: Commissioners Dege, Gustafson, Deziel, Bunn, Sessing, Helwig,
Herber, Stanley, Sedro, Talcott, and Taylor. Absent: Commissioners Berg and
Mandel. Also present: Planner Dillerud.
1. Agenda
M/S/P Helwig/Stanley — to accept the Agenda, as presented.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
2. Minutes
M/S/P Helwig/Armstrong — to approve the Maintenance Advisory
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 26, 2001.
(Motion Passed 5-0-4). Abstain: Gustafson, Talcott, Bunn, and Helwig.
(Enter Herber, Sedro, and Taylor
3. TKDA — Community Facilities Forecast Workshop
(Enter Ptacek)
Chairman Armstrong adjourned the Maintenance Advisory Planning
Commission at 7:23 p.m.
BREAK
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 11, 2002 page 1
DRAFT
STUDY REPORT
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
TKDA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
Date: March 5, 2002
Comm. No. 12436-02
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140
PHONE: 651/292-4400 FAX: 651/292-0083
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
MARCH 5, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Population and Household Trends 1
3. Age Breakdowns 3
4. Relationship, Household by Type and Race 5
5. Housing Occupancy and Housing Tenure 5
6. Occupations 5
7. Income 6
8. Forecasts 7
9. Findings and Conclusions 12
10. Summary 13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Household Trends 2
Table 2. Population Trends 2
Table 3. Household Size 3
Table 4. Age Breakdowns--2000 4
Table 5. Occupations in Lake Elmo and the T.C. Region--1990 6
Table 6. Median Household, Family and Nonfamily Household Income in 2000 7
Table 7. Population Forecasts, 2000-2020 8
Table 8. Population Forecasts By Age, 2000--2020 10
Table 9. Household Forecasts, 2000-2020 11
Table 10. Employment Forecasts, 2000-2020 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Population Percent Change 9
Figure 2. Households Percent Change 11
i
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
MARCH 5, 2002
1. Introduction
Lake Elmo is on the eastern edge of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. It is bounded by the City of
Grant on the North, Baytown Township and West Lakeland Township on the East, Woodbury on the
South and Oakdale on the West. It consists of approximately 25 square miles, most of which is not
intensively developed.
Compared to some of its neighboring cities, the City of Lake Elmo has experienced moderate growth
in the past. Both Oakdale, which is almost completely developed, and Woodbury, which still has
considerable available land, have developed at urban densities based upon availability of public
services, especially public sewers and water.
Lake Elmo's past growth has resulted from the City's desire to remain largely rural and rural
residential. Although some public sewer serves commercial, business and institutional development
in the southwest corner of the City, most development in the City is on private septic systems or
congregate treatment systems at rural densities. For the most part, the City intends to continue
developing at rural densities, with some higher -density development without public sewers in the Old
Village Area.
2. Population and Household Trends
In the last 30 years, population and household growth rates in the City of Lake Elmo have exceeded
growth in both the metropolitan area and the state. Between 1970 and 2000 the number of
households grew 155 percent in the City, 75.2 percent in the region and 64.3 percent in the state
(See Table 1). Population increased at a slower rate in Lake Elmo during this period (70.2 percent),
the region (37.9 percent) and the state (29.2 percent) (See Table 2). The most important growth
decade for Lake Elmo was the 1970's, which witnessed considerable rural growth as well as
occupancy of Cimarron, a 505 unit manufactured housing development created between 1967 and
1969. In the 1980's, the City grew more rapidly than the state, but fell behind regional growth. Since
1990, the City grew faster than the region; this growth is the result of mostly rural, clustered
development that has attracted "second house" professionals and business people to the City.
Although Lake Elmo is generally perceived as lukewarm to growth, the data indicates that Lake Elmo
has generally exceeded both the state and the region in population and household growth rates.
Therefore, one could describe growth in the City compared to the region and the state as moderate to
rapid over the last few decades.
Since the 1970's, Lake Elmo, like the state and the region, has experienced faster growth in
households than population. This is the result of the "Baby Boom Generation's" coming of age,
beginning in the 1970's, leaving home, forming households and families. Since the household is the
basic unit for which local governments must provide services, this number is critical in planning
facilities and services in the future.
1
Lake Elmo
TC Region
State
Table 1
Household Trends
Change
1970-
1970 1980 1990 2000 2000
918 1,687 1,937 2,347 155.66%
573,634 721,357 875,504 1,005,000 75.20%
1,153,946 1,445,222 1,647,853 1,895,127 64.23%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 2
Population Trends
Change
1970 1980 1990 2000 1970-2000
Lake Elmo 4,032 5,296 5,903 6,863 70.21%
TC Region 1,874,612 1,985,873 2,288,729 2,586,340 37.97%
State 3,806,103 4,075,970 4,375,099 4,919,479 29.25%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Lake Elmo has, in the last three decades, maintained a bigger average household size than either the
region or the state. In 1970, the average household size in Lake Elmo was 4.3 persons per
household (See Table 3), whereas the average household size in the state and the region was 3.3.
Since 1970, household size has consistently decreased nationally, and within the state and the
region. This trend is reflected in the gradual decrease in persons per household in Lake Elmo as
well, to 2.9 persons per household in 2000. This is still a larger number of persons per household
than the state and the region, which both show 2.6 average persons per household.
2
Lake Elmo
TC Region
State
Table 3
Household Size
1970 1980
4.3 3.1
3.3 2.7
3.3 2.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
1990 2000
3.0 2.9
2.6 2.6
2.6 2.6
There are several reasons for higher persons per household in Lake Elmo. Of the total number of
households in the City in 2000, 82 percent are family households, and 41.6 percent have their own
children under 18 years of age at home. In comparison, only 64.4 percent of households within the
region are family households and only 33.4 percent of all households have their own children under
18 years of age. In Lake Elmo, only 18 percent of households were nonfamily (one or more unrelated
individuals), whereas in the region 35.6 percent were nonfamily households. Nonfamily households
often consist of small households of one or two people, oftentimes young singles setting up their own
apartments or elderly and widowed individuals. As the next section will show, Lake Elmo has smaller
percentages of its population in these age categories (20 - 34 and 65 - 65+) than either Washington
County or the region.
3. Aae Breakdowns
Lake Elmo, in 2000, had a slightly higher percentage of males than females, (50.7 percent males,
49.3 percent females) (See Table 4). This is unusual since Washington County, the Metropolitan
Area and the state all have a slightly higher number of females than males. This is largely due to the
fact that Lake Elmo has a smaller proportion of older people than either the county or the region; 7
percent of the City's population was 65 and over, whereas 7.6 percent of the County's population was
65 and over and 9.7 percent of the region's population was 65 and over. This reflects the fact that
there are no facilities for the elderly within Lake Elmo at present. When an elderly person needs
assisted care or even a nursing home, they must move to a nearby city such as Stillwater or Oakdale.
Even with the lower percentage of very elderly people in Lake Elmo, the median age in the City (37.3
years) is higher than the County's (35.1), the region's (34.3) or the state's (35.4). This means that
there is a higher proportion of people in the "middle ages" in Lake Elmo. In Lake Elmo, in 2000, 47.2
percent of the population was between the ages of 35 and 44; in Washington County the proportion
was 42.5 percent, in the region it was 39 percent and in the state it was 38.5 percent. This suggests
that there is less migration in and out of Lake Elmo than elsewhere and, due to the cost of housing,
those who are moving in are a little older, probably buying their second house. Aside from Cimarron,
there are few "affordable" housing opportunities in the City.
3
Subject
Table 4
Age Breakdowns--2000
Washington
Lake Elmo County T.C. Region
Number Percent Number 1 Percent Number Percent
Total Population 6,863 100 201,130 100 1 2,642,056 100
Sex and Age
Male
Female
I Under 5 Years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Median age (years)
18 years and over
Male
Female
21 years and over
62 years and over
65 years and over
Male
Female
3,477 I 50.7 99,970 49.7 1,301,693 49.3
3,386 49.3 1 101,160 50.3 1,340,363 50.7
487 7.1 15,346 7.6 188,236 7.1
552 8.0 16,946 8.4 198,690 7.5
594 1 8.7 1 17,037 8.5 197,611 7.5
543 7.9 1 14,564 7.2 183,491 6.9
324 4.7 9,058 4.5 173,732 6.6
648 9.4 27,341 13.6 411,155 15.6
1,361 19.8 38,877 19.3 469,324 17.8
1,185 1 17.3 30,210 15.0 363,592 13.8
402 5.9 1 9,850 4.9 117,051 4.4
286 4.2 1 6,634 3.3 83,929 3.2
330 4.8 8,830 4.4 1 130,615 4.9
121 1.8 4,782 2.4 90,292 3.4
30 0.4 1,655 0.8 34,338 1.3
37.3 X 35.1 X 1 34.3 X
4,859 70.8 141,905 70.6 1,944,522 73.6
2,452 35.7 69,795 34.7 944,588 35.8
2,407 35.1 72,110 35.9 999,934 37.8
4,618 67.3 135,455 67.3 1 1,839,982 69.6
630 9.2 18,889 9.4 302,605 11.5
481 7.0 15,267 7.6 255,245 9.7
233 3.4 6,572 3.3 1 102,871 3.9
248 3.6 8,695 4.3 1 152,374 5.8
Source: U. S. Cenus Bureau
4
A recent report of the St. Paul Association of Realtors listed median housing prices based upon sales
in 2001. In 1996, the median housing price in Lake Elmo was $179,000, which rose to $345,000 in
2001, a 92% increase in five years. Median house prices for 2001, ranged from $187,000 in Oakdale
to $215,000 in Stillwater to $448,000 in West Lakeland Township.
Lake Elmo is very similar to Washington County in terms of the percentage of children in the
population. In both cases, 31.7 percent of the populations were 19 years of age or younger. The
region had 29 percent in these age cohorts and the state had 29.1 percent in these cohorts.
4. Relationship. Household by Type and Race
The preponderance (99.4 percent) of people in Lake Elmo in 2000, lived within households. Only 0.6
percent or 43 people lived in group quarters. Children in households made up 35.1 percent of the
population in Lake Elmo, which is slightly higher than the regional percentage of 30.2. The higher
number of children in Lake Elmo contributes to the larger household size of the City. In addition, the
percentage of female householders with no husband present is only 7.8 percent in the City, compared
to 8.5 percent in Washington County and 9.9 percent in the Metropolitan Area. This lower percent in
Lake Elmo is probably the result of a combination of factors: fewer single people move into Lake
Elmo (only 4.1 percent of Lake Elmo's housing stock is rental) and the high cost of housing ($345,000
was the median cost of a housing in 2001) which requires two incomes to support.
Racially, Lake Elmo is predominantly white (97 percent) compared to 93.6 percent in Washington
County and 84.7 percent in the region. The majority of nonwhites in Lake Elmo are Asian (2.0
percent), which is similar to the County's percentage (2.1). Unlike the County, which has 1.8 percent
Black or African American, Lake Elmo has only 0.7 percent Black or African American.
5. Housing Occupancy and Housing Tenure
Of the total number of housing units in the City, at the time of the Census only 1.8 percent were
vacant, which is a very low vacancy rate. In Washington County, the vacancy rate was 3 percent
while the vacancy rate in the Metropolitan Area was 2.5 percent. The City's very low vacancy rate
contributes to the relatively high cost of housing in the City. The majority of housing in the City is
owner occupied (95.9 percent) with only 4.1 percent renter -occupied. In Washington County 85.7
percent is owner -occupied and within the Metropolitan Area 71.4 percent is owner occupied. The
high ownership rate in Lake Elmo also contributes to the low vacancy rate in the City.
6. Occupations
Information on occupations for minor civil divisions like Lake Elmo will not be available from the 2000
Census until later in 2002. In order to obtain some understanding of the occupations of residents of
Lake Elmo, it is necessary to rely on 1990 Census data. Although it is dated, it can give some clues
as to the occupational makeup of the population of the City.
Table 5 shows the occupational breakdown of the City in 1990, compared to the similar breakdown
for the entire region. Generally the breakdowns of occupational categories are similar between Lake
Elmo and the region. The City has a slightly smaller percentage of workers in the category
"Executive, administrative and managerial" than the region, 12.9 percent to 14.5 percent. However,
the City has a higher percentage of people in the category "Professional specialty occupations" than
the region, 18.2 percent to 15.5 percent. This can be explained by the higher number of scientists,
engineers and others who work at 3M and Imation nearby.
5
Table 5
Occupations in Lake Elmo and the T.C. Region--1990
Managerial, professional specialty
Technical, sales, administrative support
Service
Farming, forestry, fishing
Precision production, craft, repair
Operators, fabricators, laborers
Total
Source: U.S. Census
Lake Elmo T.C. Region
Number Percent Number Percent
988 31.2 374,325 30.1
1,143 35.9 448,556 36.1
304 9.6 152,169 12.3
31 1.1 9,811 0.8
359 11.4 I 112,156 9
348 10.8 I 146,620 11.7
3,173 100 1,243,637 100
The percentage of workers within the "Technical, sales and administrative support occupations" is
very similar in the region (36.1 percent) and Lake Elmo (35.9 percent). Service occupations,
generally lower paying jobs, employ 12.3 percent of the regional workers, but only 9.6 percent of the
City's workers. "Precision production, craft and repair occupations" make up a slightly higher
percentage of workers in the City (11.2 percent) than the region (9 percent) as well. This reflects
employment at Andersen Windows in Bayport, which employs many workers within this category.
The occupation category "Operators, fabricators and laborers", which consists of machine operators,
assemblers, inspectors, transportation occupations, handlers, helpers and laborers, makes up 10.8
percent of the workforce in Lake Elmo and 11.7 percent in the region. In general, the occupational
workforce in Lake Elmo was more "white collar" especially in terms of scientific workers than the
region. Lake Elmo also had a lower percentage of workers in the traditionally lower paying service
sectors. These conclusions are confirmed in the income discussion of this report.
7. Income
Income data, like occupation data, will not be available for some time from the 2000 Census. As a
rough approximation, one can take 1990 Census income information and apply a factor (1.4282),
which represents the change in the U.S. Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers. Applying
this factor to 1990 median incomes gives some idea of relative incomes in the City and the region.
Table 6 compares median household, family and nonfamily household incomes in Lake Elmo and the
region. Median household income represents income coming into a household for all kinds of
households - families, room -mates and singles, or some combination. For Lake Elmo in 2000,
median household income was $65,243, which was 24 percent higher than median regional
household income of $52,383. Family income, which reflects families of at least two related people,
was again much higher in Lake Elmo ($72,946) than the region ($62, 528). Median nonfamily
household income was also higher in the City ($33,662) than the region ($31,787).
The combination of a number of factors including occupations, the higher percentage of people in the
prime working ages, the proximity of major employers and higher housing prices affect the overall
income levels of people within the City of Lake Elmo. More people engage in higher paying
occupations and more of those people are at their prime earning ages. Major employers including
6
3M, Imation, State Farm Insurance, Andersen Windows and Hartford insurance are located around
the edges of the City, making commutes easy and short. High housing prices effectively self-select
the kinds of people who can live in the community, thus continuing the higher income status of the
community.
Table 6
Median Household, Family and Nonfamily
Household Income in 2000*
Lake Elmo Region
Median Household Income $65,243 $52,383
Median Family Income $72,946 $62,528
Median Nonfamily Household Income $33,662 $31,787
*Adjusted from 1990 Census income data
Source: U. S. Census
8. Forecasts
The basis for planning is population, household and employment forecasts. Within the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Council traditionally prepares these forecasts for the region,
counties, cities and townships. Historically, the Council prepared forecasts for 20 years, thus 2020. In
the planning process, the local municipalities either accept and adopt the regional forecasts, or
develop their own. The forecasts, whichever are adopted, form the basis for the comprehensive plan,
including the community facilities portion of the plan. Since households are usually the unit that
demands services of a municipality, they will be the focus of this discussion.
In its comprehensive plan, the City of Lake Elmo adopted the forecasts of the Metropolitan Council.
(It should be noted that the Metropolitan Council is developing new forecasts as a result of the 2000
Census. These forecasts will be available about mid 2002.) The City believes it can accommodate
these forecasts with continued rural cluster development and some "Village Scale Housing" around
the Old Village.
Table 7 and Figure 1 show population forecasts for Lake Elmo, Washington County and the Region.
Population in Lake Elmo is expected to grow by 82 percent over the next 20 years or by 4.1 percent
per year. This will increase the population of the City by 5,637 people, or about 280 people per year.
This growth represents an increase in the rate and amount of population compared to 1980 - 2000,
during which the City's population grew by 29.6 percent or 2,831 (141 people per year).
Between 2000 and 2010, Washington County's population is anticipated to grow by 40.7 percent,
while the region's growth is expected to be at 17.2 percent. From a population perspective, Lake
Elmo will grow considerably faster than the last 20 years, and substantially faster than either
Washington County or the Region.
7
Lake Elmo
Washington
County
T.C. Region
Table 7
Population Forecasts, 2000-2020
%Change
2000 2010 2020 2000/2020
6,863 8,700 I 12,500 82%
201,130 238,560 282,960 40.70%
2,642,056 2,842,770 3,097,130 1 17.20%
Source: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, March 1997
As important as overall forecasts are, it is critical to understand how the population will look in terms
of age. Age structure will affect the need for governmental services in the future. From its plan, the
City indicates that it intends to "stay the course"; that is, to continue the policies of the last 10 years in
the City. From a development view, this means continued clustered development in the majority of
the City with some "village level density" around the old village. Most likely, village level density will
be low density by urban standards (one third to one half acre lots), which will continue the high cost of
land and the high cost of housing. Given this reality, Lake Elmo can expect to continue to attract
people of similar income levels to the City. This results in families in the 35 to 45 year age levels with
families for the most part already established.
8
50
40
C. 30
as
0
a) 20
a
10
0
Figure 1
Population Percent Change
1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 2010-
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Years
Lake Elmo
® Washington Co.
o T.C. Region
Given these assumptions, the population will grow proportionate to its makeup today with a slight
aging due to the high numbers of people in the 35 to 54 age bracket now (See Table 8). Birth rates
and death rates will not vary appreciably in the next 20 years, so one can expect to see more people
in each age cohort. Of course, unless some form of housing suitable for elderly is made available,
the 65 and over age cohort will continue to drop off as elderly move to other cities after retirement.
Providing housing opportunities for the elderly is a policy decision that the City will need to address as
part of its Village Area planning.
The major effect of the population increase by age will be the greater numbers of people in each age
cohort. In other words, the school age population (5 to 19 years) will increase by 1,385 students from
1,689 in 2000 to 3,074 in 2020. This will, of course, have implications for area schools but also for
the City if the population of young people reaches a size where parents expect some level of
recreation opportunities.
Without deliberate policy changes to affect housing choices and opportunities, the City will continue to
see a relatively small proportion of its population in the 20 to 34 years age group, which is the age
group where family units are formed. On the other hand, the 35 to 54 years age group will continue
to be the dominant age group in the City, with well over a third (37 percent) of the City's population in
this age group.
9
Under 5 Years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Total
Table 8
Population Forecasts By Age, 2000--2020
2000 2010 2020
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
487
552
594
543
324
648
1,361
1,185
402
286
330
121
30
6,863
7.1
8
8.7
7.9
4.7
9.4
19.8
17.3
5.9
4.2
4.8
1.8
0.4
617
699
753
688
411
822
1,725
1,502
511
363
418
153
38
7.1
8
8.7
7.9
4.7 1
9.4 1
19.8 1
17.3
5.9
4.2
4.8
1.8 1
0.4 1
100 1 8,700 100
Source: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, TKDA
887 7.1
1004 8
1081 8.7
989 7.9
591 4.7
1,180 9.4
2,479 19.8
2,158 17.3
733 5.9
522 1 4.2
600 1 4.8
221 1.8
55 1 0.4
12,500 100
Household growth and formation will increase even more rapidly than population over the next 20
years (See Table 9 and Figure 2). The number of households in Lake Elmo will grow from 2,347 in
2000 to 4,700 in 2020, an increase of 100.2 percent. In order to reach these forecasts, the City will
need to add about 118 new housing units to the City per year. Between 1980 and 2000 the City
increased the number of households by 660 or 33 housing units per year. Between 2000 and 2020,
both Washington County and the Region will grow by considerably Tess than the City - Washington
County by 51.7 percent and the Region by 23.4 percent. As with population, the City of Lake Elmo
will show substantial household growth over the next 20 years.
The pressure for increased growth will come as a result of several push/pull forces. Pulling will be the
attractive character of the City, its available land, its good transportation access and its proximity to
major employers such as Andersen Windows, 3M, State Farm Insurance, Hartford Insurance, Imation
as well as the two central cities and the Bloomington Strip. Push factors include the fact that Oakdale
is mostly developed, Woodbury will slow its growth rate, and the City of Grant will take minimal
growth. From the East, West Lakeland is gradually filling up, and Stillwater is expanding westward.
10
Table 9
Household Forecasts, 2000-2020
Change
2000-
2000 2010 2020 2020
Lake Elmo 2,347 3,200 4,700 100%
Washington
County 71,462 88,570 108,420 51.70%
T.C. Region 1,021,454 1,134,000 1,265,000 23.80%
Source: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, March 1997
100
80
Z. 60
a)
a) 40
0
20-
0-
Figure 2
Households Percent Change
1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 2010-
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Years
Lake Elmo
® Washington Co.
o T.C. Region
Employment is also expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years (See Table 10).
Employment will grow by 79 percent in Lake Elmo by 2020; employment growth in Washington
County will clip at 37.4 percent; and employment Region -wide will expand by 16.9 percent. As with
population and households, employment will be on the upswing in Lake Elmo over the next 20 years.
The City has planned for this growth primarily in the corridor between 10th Avenue and 1-94.
11
Lake Elmo
Washington
County
T.C. Region
Table 10
Employment Forecasts, 2000-2020
% Change
2000 2010 2020 2000-2020
1,480 2,150 2,650 79%
56,770 70,160 78,030
1,514,000 1,685,990 1,770,730
Source: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, March 1997
9. Findinas and Conclusions
37.40%
16.90%
In the last decade, the City of Lake Elmo has grown more rapidly than the seven -county
metropolitan area; most of this growth has occurred on rural lots and rural clustered development.
. Lake Elmo historically has a larger persons per household than either the state or the region; in
2000, the number of persons per household was 2.9 in Lake Elmo and 2.6 in the region and the
state. This slightly higher number of persons per household will likely continue through 2020.
• The family unit has been the predominant household in Lake Elmo (82 percent in 2000)
compared to 64 percent in the region. This trend will likely continue as single family dwelling
units continue to be the predominant housing type in the City.
▪ Lake Elmo will continue to have lower percentages of its population in the elderly ages (especially
75 years of age and older) unless housing that fits this age group is produced in the City.
The City had a higher median age (37.3 years) than the County (35.1) or the region (34.3) in
2000, and this trend will continue as a result of the cost of housing in the City, the lack of multi-
family housing, and the tendency of some elderly to "hang onto" their existing housing as long as
they can.
■ Lake Elmo, like Washington County, will continue to have a slightly higher percentage of children
in its population (31.7 percent) vs. 29 percent in the region. The number of children in Lake Elmo
will increase 82 percent from 2,176 in 2000 to 3,961 in 2020.
• Today over 99 percent of people in Lake Elmo live in households, less than one percent in group
quarters. There is no reason to expect these percentages to change in the future. Today 97
percent of people in Lake Elmo are white. There is no reason to expect these percentages to
change.
• Vacancy rates in Lake Elmo in 2000 were very low (1.8 percent). Without increase in building of
multifamily units, there is no reason to expect the rate to increase in the long run, although
depending upon the market, short-term rates could increase.
12
With stable, well -paying companies ringing Lake Elmo, and the relatively high cost of housing in
the City, the occupational makeup of the population will likely stay the same over the next 20
years.
For the same reasons, income levels will remain high in the City, certainly higher than the region
and the county. It should be noted that in a recent national analysis, Washington County was one
of the richest in terms of family income in the Country.
• Housing prices, which relate to land prices, will continue to remain high in Lake Elmo. This will
determine who can move to the City based on income and occupations.
• Percentage wise, the population of Lake Elmo will grow (82 percent) much more rapidly than
Washington County (40 percent) or the region (17 percent) between 2000 and 2020.
▪ Households will grow even more rapidly than population during this period, by 100 percent in
Lake Elmo compared to 51 percent in Washington County and 23 percent in the region.
Because the City's Comprehensive Plan will maintain the status quo in the City in terms of land
use policies, the age structure of the population will resemble the current age structure with the
greatest percentage of people in the 35-55 year age cohort. The proportion of children will
remain the same, and the proportion of elderly will remain the same. The overall population will
age slightly as the Baby Boomers continue to age in place.
10. Summary
In 20 years the City of Lake Elmo will look very similar to today in terms of demographic
characteristics —age structure, occupations, incomes, racial makeup, number of people in families,
types of housing, etc. The major changes will be in the numbers of people per household, which will
likely continue to decrease nationally as well as locally. Of course the overall population of the City
will be considerably larger, by 82 percent, which will have implications for community facilities and
services. As more people enter the community, demand for additional services from snow plows to
meeting space to parks, will grow.
13
Group 1 - Population Forecasts for 0-5 years (2000-2005) - Population up to 7,000
2000 Population:
General Government:
Contracted engineering?
No, number of in-house?
Contracted planning?
No, number of in-house?
Other major contracted services?
Public Safety:
Contract Police?
Yes, agreement?
No, number of full-time police officers?
No, number of police facilities and size?
Planned expansions of police facilities?
Contract Fire?
No, number of full-time firefighters?
No, number of volunteer firefighters?
No, number of fire stations and size?
Planned expansions of fire facilities?
'Does public safety cover civil defense?
Public Works:
Number of full-time public works employees?
Number of public works facilities and size?
Planned expansions of public works facilities?
Public Satisfaction of Level of Services:
Does City feel it provides adequate:
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Parks & Recreation
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
Hugo
6,363
Yes
0
No
1
Legal
Yes
County - 1 full-time deputy
0
0
not for next 3 years.
No
0
23
1
not for next 3 years
2
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CITIES
Corcoran
5,630
Yes
0
Yes
0
City Assessor, Bldg Inspector, City
Attorney
No
3 plus 1 chief
1
Facilities Committee established to
review future expansion
Yes, with Rogers, Hanover, Loretto,
and Hamel
0
0
0
Facilities Committee established to
review future expansion
Yes
4 full-time and 1 part-time
2 (1 office and 1 shop)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DRAFT
Lake Elmo
6,863
Yes
0
No
1
Animal Control, City Attorney,
Assessing
Yes
County - 2 full-time deputies
0
0
To be determined
No
0
28
2 - 1 is shared with Public Works
To be determined
2 full-time and 1 shared
1 shared with fire
To be determined
Group 2 - Population Forecasts for 5-10 years (2005-2010) - Population of 7,000-10,000
General Government:
Contracted engineering?
No, number of in-house?
(Contracted planning?
No, number of in-house?
2000 Population:
'Other major contracted services?
Public Safety:
Contract Police?
Yes, agreement?
No, number of full-time police officers?
No, number of police facilities and size?
Planned expansions of police facilities?
Contract Fire?
No, number of full-time firefighters?
No, number of volunteer firefighters?
No, number of fire stations and size?
Planned expansions of fire facilities?
'Does public safety cover civil defense?
Public Works:
Number of full-time public works employees?
Number of public works facilities and size?
(Planned expansions of public works facilities?
Public Satisfaction of Level of Services:
Does City feel it provides adequate:
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Parks & Recreation
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
I 1
1
Orono
7,538
Yes
No
1 I
City Attorney
No
CITIES
Shorewood
7,400
Yes, occasionally
2 - engineer and eng. tech
No
City Attorney
Yes
Joint powers with Excelsior, Tonka
Bay, Deephaven, Greenhaven
18
1 2
potential police/fire station through
No EDA
Yes, with Mound, Long Lake, Maple
Plain, & Wayzata
0
110
4, 1 each city, 0 in Orono
No
Yes
9
1 + small water plant
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Joint powers with Excelsior, Tonka
Bay, Deephaven, Greenhaven
0
40
2
potential police/fire station through
EDA
Yes
8
1 shed
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lake Elmo
8,700
Group 3 - Population Forecasts for 10-15 years (2010-2015) - Population of 10,001-12,400
CITIES
2000 Population:
General Government:
Contracted engineering?
No, number of in-house?
Contracted planning?
No, number of in-house?
'Other major contracted services?
Public Safety:
Contract Police?
Yes, agreement?
No, number of full-time police officers?
No, number of police facilities and size?
Planned expansions of police facilities?
Contract Fire? _
No, number of full-time firefighters?
No, number of volunteer firefighters?
No, number of fire stations and size?
Planned expansions of fire facilities?
Does public safety cover civil defense?
Public Works:
Number of full-time public works employees?
Number of public works facilities and size?
Planned expansions of public works facilities?
Public Satisfaction of Level of Services:
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
Farmington
12,365
Yes
3, assistant city eng., eng. Tech., &
secretary
No
1
No
12
1 - City Hall (2,500 sq. ft.)
1 - completed in May (15,000 sq.ft.)
No
1 paid professional
36 volunteers
1
Yes - 5-7 years, when pop. reaches
20,000
10
1 will be completed in June - 41,000
sq.ft., sharing with parks department
1 will be completed in June - 41,000
sq.ft., sharing with parks department
Mendota Heights
11,434
No
Yes
0
I City Attorney, Ambulance Service 1 I
No
30
1
No
No
part-time fire marshall and chief
30
1
No
Yes
10
1
No
Lake Elmo
10,500
Group 4 - Population Forecasts for 15-20 years (2015-2020) - Population of 12,401-
CITIES
2000 Population:
General Government:
Contracted engineering?
No, number din -house?
Contracted planning?
No, number of in-house?
lOther major contracted services?
Public Safety:
Contract Police?
Yes, agreement?
No, number of full-time police officers?
No, number of police facilities and size?
Planned expansions of police facilities?
Contract Fire?
No, number of full-time firefighters?
No, number of volunteer firefighters?
No, number of fire stations and size?
Planned expansions of fire facilities?
Does public safety cover civil defense?
Public Works:
Number of full-time public works employees?
Number of public works facilities and size?
Planned expansions of public works facilities?
Public Satisfaction of Level of Services:
Does City feel it provides adequate:
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Parks & Recreation
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
Lino Lakes
16,791
Yes
0
Yes
2
Assessing with County
No
21
1_
Will add 1 officer in 2002
Joint powers with Centerville, Circle
Pines, and Lexington
0
52
3, only 1 located in city
No
Yes
21, includes utility and parks workers
1
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1 I
1
Rosemount
14,619
Yes
3 - engineering tech.
Yes
2
Legal
No
15
1
No, completed expansion in 2001
Yes
0
31
2
No
Yes
17
No, completed 2 years ago
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lake Elmo
12,500
Group 1 - Population Forecasts for 0-5 years (2000-2005) - Population up to 7,000
CITIES
Hugo Corcoran Lake Elmo
2000 Population: 6,363 5,630 6,863
SERVICES
General Government
Mayor and Council
Elections
Administration
Clerk
Septic Committee
Treasurer
Finance Director
Planning and Zoning
Newspaper/Newsletter
Auditing
CityCenter
Professional/Community Services
Assessing
Accounting Services
Legal Services
Engineering
Building Inspector
General Government Building_
Other General Government
IExpenditures
18,660
6,184
130,619
Per
Capita I Expenditures
3
52,152 8
66,914 11
65,772 10
26,078 4
7,185 1
77,597 12
226,320 * 36
- 0
38,076 6
General Government Total 715,557 112
Public Safety
Police Protection
Fire Department
Building Inspection
Animal Control
236,380 * 37
149,244 23
DRAFT
Per Per
Capita I Expenditures Capita
10,694 2 90,357 13
3,945 1 10,390 2
77,036 14 172,169 ** 25
72,496 13
90 0
63,974 * 11 113,430 ** 17
4,867 1 -
4,600 1
31,700 6
34,747 * 6
44,465 *
46,559 8
23,598 3
15,919 2
68,550 10
53,025 8
90,401 13
395,173 70 1 637,839 93
321,823 57
132,000 * 23
123,827 19 40,319 * 7
5,005 1 -
Public Safety Total 514,456 81 I 494,142 88 1 486,381 71
269,161 * 39
198,972 29
18,248 * 3
Public Works
Streets and Highways 86,620 (1) 14 388,938 69 267,630 39
Street Lighting 41,059 (1) 6 13,072 " 2
Streets 213,493 (1) 34 - -
Snow and Ice Removal - - 12,807 2
Engineering 26,060 * 5
Recycling 44,844 8
Public Works Total I 341,172 54 I 472,649 84 1 280,702 41
Community Development
Total
55,598 9
Community Development Total 55,598 9
Parks and Recreation
Parks
Hockey
Weed Control
Parks and Recreation Total
Sanitation and other:
Flood pumping
Recycling
Storm emergency
Sanitation and Other Total
lather Unallocated
Total
Other Unallocated Total
Total Expenditures 1 1,699,172
19,871 3 49,153 9 122,940 18
3,359 1 -
129 0 1 -
19,871 3 I 52,641 9 1 122,940 18
52,518 8
52,518 8 I J
267 1,414,605 251 1,591,867 232
2,922 0
61,083 9
64,005 9
(1) Hugo does not have public works category - these three combined under Highways and Streets category
* Full contracted services
** Partial contracted services
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
Group 2 - Population Forecasts for 5-10 years (2005-2010) - Population of 7,000 -10,000
CITIES
Orono Shorewood
2000 Population: 7,538 7400
SERVICES
Lake Elmo
8,700
Per Per Per
lExpenditures Capita I I Expenditures Capita Expenditures Capita
General Government
Mayor and Council 66,071 9 114,543 13
_"2
Elections - - 17,400 Administration 134,152 18 217,500 ** 25
Finance 103,103 14
Professional Services * 321,279 * 43
PrOpston41/Community Services
Assessing 26,100 3
Accounting Services 17,400 2
Legal Services 87,000 10
Engineering * 69,600 8
Planning and Zoning 88,364 12 147,900 ** 17
General Government Buildings 93,655 13 - -
Building Inspectorw - 0 114,598 13
Other General Government 177,962 24 - -
General Government Total
Public Safety
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Animal Control
Building Inspection
Public Works
General Maintenance
Streets and Highways
Street Lighting
Snow and Ice Removal
Traffic Control
Public Safety Total
Sanitation and Waste Removal
Tree Maintenance
Parks and Recreation
Parks
Recreation
Culture and Recreation
Public Works Total
Parks and Recreation Total
Sanitation and other:
Flood Pumping
Recycling_
Storm Emergency
Sanitation and Other Total
Total Expenditures
or
* Estimated 2010 Population for the City of Lake Elmo
* Full contracted services
** Partial contracted services
984,586 133 812,041 93
549,882 * 74 339,300 * 39
191,175 * 26 252,300 29
18,574 3 26,100 * 3
1 67,852 9 - -
827,483 112 617,700 71
223,471 30 -
113,102 15 339,300 39
17,400 * 2
32,110 4 - -
38,217 5
7,679 1
20,445 3
435,024 59
135,891 18
356,700 k 41
156,600 18
135,891 18 156,600 18
- 2,382,984 322
2,871 0
78,300 9
81,171 9
2,024,212 233
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
Swimming Pool
Senior Center
Parks and Recreation Total
Sanitation and other:
Flood Pumping
[Recycling_
'
Storm Emergency
Sanitation and Other Total' I
Total Expenditures
Group 3 - Population Forecasts for 10-15 years (2010-2015) - Population of 10,001 -12,400
CITIES
Farmington Mendota Heights Lake Elmo
2000 Population: 12,365 11,434 10,500
SERVICES
General Government
Mayor and Council
Elections
Administration
(Planning and Zoning
Professional/Community Services
Assessing
Accounting Services
Legal Services
Engineering
Building Inspector
'Administration and Finance
'Community Development
General Government Total
Per
Expenditures Capita
59,671 5
796,087 64
424,781 34
Per Per
Expenditures Capita Expenditures Capita
1,280,539 104 I
136,500 13
21,000_...__.._ 2
262,500 ** 25
178,500 ** 17
31,500 3
21,000 2
105,000 10
84,000 8
136,500 13
976,500 93
Public Safety
Police 1,222,766 99 - 409,500 * 39
Fire 253,377 20 304,500 29
'Animal Control - - 31,500 * 3
(Rescue Squad 35,797 3 - -
Public Safety Total I 1,511,940 122 - I 745,500 71
Public Works
Streets and Highways
Street Lightir
En ineerin
Streets
172,274
14
495,703 40
Public Works Total I 667,977 54
Parks and Recreation
Parks
Tree Management
Recreation 116,994 9
30,331 2
Park and FacilityMaintenance 325,583 26
110,697 9
77,699 6
661,304 53
4,121,760 333 . I
* Estimated 2015 Population for the City of Lake Elmo
* Full contracted services
** Partial contracted services
4,121,760
409,500 39
21,000 * 2
- I 430,500 41 I
189,000 18
r
189,000 18 I
3,465 0
94,500 9
97,965 9
2,436,000 232 I
Group 4 - Population Forecasts for 15-20 years (2015-2020) - Population of 12,401-
CITIES
Lino Lakes Rosemount
2000 Population: 16,791 14,619
SERVICES
Lake Elmo
12,500
Per Per I Per
Expenditures Capita Expenditures Capita jExpenditures Capita
General Government
Ma or and Council 88,905 5 63,329 4 162,500 13
Executive___. 260,493 18
Elections 40,436 2 15,293 1 25,000 2
Administration 351,585 21 - 312,500 ** 25
-
Planning and Zoning 212,500 ** 17
Professional/Community SeOpes
Assessing - 37,500 3
Accounting Services 25,000 2
Legal Services 125,000 10
Engineering - 100,000 8
Building Inspector - - 162,500 13
Finance 270,462 16 149,825 10 -
Cable TV 1,819 0
-
Consultants 147,100 9
'economic Development 202,797 12 -
Planning and Zoning Commission 142,766 9
Engineering/Planning 176,101 * 10
Senior Service 13,858 1 Charter Commission 1,053 0
General Government Buildings 333,646 20
Community Development - 386,431 26
General Government - 267,039 18 -
General Government Total' 1,770,528 105 1,142,410 78 I 1,162,500 93
Public Safety
Police Department
1,656,590 99 1,407,562 96 487,500 " 39
Fire Department 294,005 18 171,476 12 362,500 29
Animal Control - - 37,500 * 3
Building Inspection
207,751 12
Public Safety Total 2.158,346 129 1,579,038 108 I 887,500
Public Works
Streets and Highways
Street Lighting
Government Buildings Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Street Maintenance
Park Maintenance
Parks and Recreation
Parks
- - 264,148
259,665 15 354,889
526,755 31 945,116 65
18
24
Public Works Total 786,420
323,417
71
487,500 39
25,000 *
22 -
47 I 1,887,570 129 I 512,500 41
441,399 26 225,000 18
Recreation 214,464 13
Parks and Recreation - 691,126 47 -
Parks and Recreation Totall I 655,863 39 691,126 47 225,000 18
Sanitation and other:
Flood Pumping
Recycling
Storm Emergency
Sanitation and Other Total
Conservation of Natural Resources
Forestry
Storm Damage Cleanup
Environmental
Solid Waste Abatement
70,226
40,791
30,974
IConservation of Natural Resources Total 141,991 8
Total Expenditures
5,513,148 328
* Estimated 2020 Population for the City of Lake Elmo
* Full contracted services
** Partial contracted services
4,125
112.500 9
- I I 116,625 9
5,300,144 363
2,904,125 232
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/5/02)
DRAFT
Lake Elmo
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 25, 2002
Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 3800 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
Present: Commissioners Bunn, Taylor, Mandel, Helwig, Sedro, Sessing, Berg,
Williams, Ptacek, Herber, Herreid, Deziel, Pelletier, Bucheck. Also present:
Planner Dillerud.
Convene as Old Village Special Project Planning Commission
1. Agenda
M/S/P Helwig, Sedro - to approve the agenda, as presented.
(Motion Passed 16-0).
2. Minutes
M/S/P Helwig/Sedro - to approve the Meeting Minutes — October 10,
2001, as presented.
(Motion Passed 11-0-4). Abstain: Taylor, Bunn, Williams, and Pelletier
3. Discussion: Old Village Issues
Planner Dillerud reported that the City Council approved the Planning
Commission recommendation to hire Thorbeck Architects as the consultant
for the Community Development Grant regarding Old Village Design
Guidelines; discussed State Aid
Discussed State Aid for LE Avenue; has not made any engineering studies,
hopefully the first bridge will be crossed at the next CC meeting.
Commissioner Armstrong asked if there was anything the Planning
Commission could do to aid Thorbeck Architects at this time.
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 1
Planner Dillerud said proper public involvement was necessary, so in some
manner a third party would be involved, but that he had nothing to offer at this
point.
Commissioner John asked what the advantages would be for the City to
maintain ownership of Lake Elmo Avenue.
Planner Dillerud said the day may come when signalization of Highway 5 and
Lake Elmo Avenue would happen, and if the City is proud owner of Lake
Elmo Avenue, 1/3 of the cost for installation of the signal equipment would
become City expense; if the County maintained ownership, City would have no
cost involvement. He mentioned another solution is that MnDOT has other
thoughts for the intersection, and the problem is Highway 5, and that they do
not care what Lake Elmo thinks regarding traffic calming ideas.
Commissioner Sessing asked if the City done any study for funding regarding
maintenance of Lake Elmo Avenue.
Planner Dillerud said no studies had been done, but facilities forecasting was
being approached.
Commissioner Bunn said she was impressed by the Thorbeck suggestion of
more up front discussion, and that they needed clearer guidance regarding
definitional and concept things.
Planner Dillerud said he did not support too much time be spent discussing
ideas without the consultant's attendance.
Commissioner Williams said he was concerned that the call for sidewalks in the
Old Village has still gone nowhere.
Commissioner Mandel said he also does not understand the delay in getting a
time -table and estimates for sidewalks.
Commissioner Deziel said he did not think the public was motivated for
[installation] sidewalks. He suggested waiting another 6-9 months for the
Thorbeck design results.
Commissioner Mandel reminded Commissioner Deziel of the Minnesota
Design Team input and the public input, as well.
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 2
Commissioner Herreid said he talked to County 10 years ago, and lots of folks
have to walk in the street, and he also has a problem with flooding in front of
his business on Lake Elmo Avenue.
Commissioner Williams said he does not know the ultimate design for the
Thorbeck design, and eventually, the Planning Commission may decide a big
fancy sidewalk is not necessary. He said one factor that would make a
difference in a recommendation would be to at the very least, have the figures
available for review.
Commissioner Bucheck said if the City Council is not willing to approve a
study, would they approve and inventory of what is currently available
[sidewalks in the old village].
Planner Dillerud said the City Council took no action when this issue was
brought before them last fall.
Commissioner Williams asked that the sidewalk issue and the discussion with
Thorbeck not occur at the same meeting.
Planner Dillerud agreed.
M/S/P Williams/Armstrong — to request the City Council take action to
approve the services of the City Engineer to begin designing a sidewalk
system in the Old Village area from Highway 5 to the railroad tracks.
(Motion Passed 14-0).
In was agreed that the April 15th, 2002 meeting will include discussion with the
residents of the Old Village regarding April, 15th will be OV Special Projects
Planning Commission, include in the discussion with the residents of the Old
Village.
ADJOURN AS OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS PLANNING
COMMISSION
CONVENE AS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Agenda
M/S/P to approve the agenda, as presented.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 3
2. Minutes
M/S/P Armstrong/Helwig - to approve the February 11, 2002 Meeting
Minutes as presented.
(Motion Passed 9-0).
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Variance for Front Setback
Greg Kissner — 9873 55th Street
Planner Dillerud explained that the Final Plat for Lake Elmo Vista
neighborhood was approved by the City Council on June 5, 2001 and five lots
were platted on the 55`h Street cul-de-sac. He noted that Kissner Homes
submitted an application for a building permit to construct a home on Lot 2 on
January 9, 2002 and the documentation included a survey that proposed a
home to be located 64.01 feet from the 55th Street property line. He said
construction commenced reaching a stage of completed and backfilled
basement foundation.
Planner Dillerud explained that he was advised of the inconsistency with RE
Zoning setback standards and confirmed an error in the approval of the
building plans based upon the front setback on Lot 2. He said a "Stop Work
Order" was immediately issued and the builder was notified.
Chairman Armstrong opened and closed the comment portion of the
Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. NO COMMENTS
Commissioner Deziel asked the applicant what his considerations were when
he was establishing site lines and determining placement of the structure.
Mr. Kissner said he had "walked the lot" several times, but was not aware of
the 100 foot setback requirement. He explained he thought he was in
compliance with City Codes when he applied for the building permit. He noted
the plan reflected the best location for the house, and that grading and
landscaping were taken into account.
Commissioner Taylor asked the applicant how many houses he had built in
Lake Elmo.
Mr. Kissner said he worked for Santani Homes, who built homes in Torre
Pines, and his company built three homes in Meyer's Pineridge, which is an OP
residential development.
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 4
Commissioner Deziel suggested that applicants sometimes take much more
time to note conditions than the Planning Commission does when determining
setback requirements.
Commissioner Bunn asked the applicant if he read the RE Zoning
requirements before applying for the building permit.
Mr. Kissner said he had not.
Commissioner Bunn stated the City should not be in the business of granting
variances, and did not find the findings compelling enough to provide a
recommendation for approval.
Commissioner Ptacek said just because the City made an error, the applicant
should understand they have some responsibility to understand zoning
standards, as well.
Commissioner Deziel stated the applicant has a strong case against the City,
based upon the Cardinal Ridge issue.
Mr. Kissner said he was aware of the Cardinal Ridge issue, as well.
Commissioner Sessing agreed that the variance should be granted, and the City
has to accept some responsibility.
Commissioner Sedro stated she could get by the fact that the only hardship is
economic.
Commissioner Deziel stated if we [City] don't recommend approval of the
variance request, there could be a lawsuit.
Chairman Armstrong said legal issues are very grey; the applicant has an
investment, and relied on the City for that investment; and he would
recommend the variance be approved.
Commissioner Helwig stated that it may be fine for this lot, but would the
adjoining property owner ask for the same setback.
Planner Dillerud said he was not worried about a request in the RE Zoning
District.
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 5
Commissioner Berg asked about conditions of the Cardinal Ridge situation,
and if they were applicable to this scenario.
Planner Dillerud said no, they are not the same conditions.
M/S/P Mandel/ Herber — to recommend of a zoning variance to permit
a front setback of 64.01 feet on Lot 2, Block 1 Lake Elmo Vista (9873 55th
Street North) based upon:
1. The combination of minimal RE lot depth, and plan
review oversight by the City present a unique and
extraordinary set of circumstances regarding the front
setback proposed by the variance application.
2. Approval of the requested variance will not inure
particular rights to this applicant that would not be
available to other property owners in the RE zoning
district under exactly the same circumstances.
3. The special circumstances unique to this applicant
and property are not solely the result of the applicant's
actions.
4. The granting of the variance under the particular
circumstances of this application will not confer on
the applicant privilege denied to other property
owners in the RE zoning district.
5. The variance is the minimum required to alleviate the
hardship.
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to
the purposes of the zoning Ordinance.
7. The variance is not based on economic hardship
alone.
(Motion Passed 5-4).
Commissioner Bunn suggested amending the forms which applicants agree to
at the time of issuance of building permits.
4. Site and Building Plan Review: United Properties
Eagle Point Business Park
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 6
Planner Dillerud stated that the applicant has made the following modifications
to the Site Plan and recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval based upon: The site has been increased in area from 12.69 acres to
13.45 acres; The structure has been enlarged from 10,000 square feet to
118,600 square feet, with 100,970 to be constructed in Phase 1; The total
parking proposed to be constructed with Phase 1 is 460, with an additional 112
stalls with the later building phase; The exterior surfacing has become all glass
and brick, with a banding of light brick, rather than the "CMU Block"; The
grading and landscaping plan has been modified to provide a significant
screening component along the north property line — both by discontinuous
berm and landscape treatment. He noted the engineers continue to work on
the surface water containment and treatment issues.
Commissioner Sedro inquired concerning the height of the parking lot lighting.
Planner Dillerud replied that they were 25', well within the approved standards
for the Planned Unit Development.
Commissioner Taylor asked where the pending will be located on the site.
George Burkards
United Properties
Mr. Burkards explained the location of the pending on the entire Eagle Point
Business Park site. He also noted that the South Washington Watershed
District has reviewed the plan and is agreeable to, and likes the pending plan
they have proposed.
Commissioner Ptacek asked if the new plan reflected shifting the building site
further to the south. He said he supports the plan considering an agreement
with Xcel has been executed.
Commissioner Sedro suggested additional conifers be added to the landscaping
plan near the west end of the north berm.
M/S/P Taylor/Deziel — to recommend approval of the Site Plan for
United Properties that is Staff -dated February 22, 2002 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Modification of the surface water plan as required by the City
Engineer.
2. Compliance with all requirements of the City Engineer.
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 7
3. Submission of a landscape contractors cost estimate for the
landscape; and, provision of security to the City to assure
landscape plan execution and 2 years survivability.
4. Payment of Park dedication fee -in -lieu, as prescribed by Eagle
Point Business Center Development Agreement.
5. Modification of the exterior lighting plan to eliminate "hot spots"
of 3 candle power; or, City Council waiver of the 3 candle power
standard/amendment to Section 1350.05 Subd.2 to accommodate
lighting "hot spots".
6. Approval of a Final Plat creating the site from Outlot B; and, a
Development Agreement Addendum for Eagle Point Business
Park addressing utility and public street improvements required to
support this site.
(Motion Passed 8-1). Opposed: Sedro: Not opposed to the development,
but would like to see more conifers in the Xcel easement berm.
5. Limited Business — Amend Conditional Uses
Planner Dillerud acknowledged the City Council's direction to the Planning
Commission to consider permitted and conditional uses in the Limited
Business Zoning Text. He asked Commissioner Bunn to discuss amendments
as presented in her written proposal to the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Bunn reviewed her recommendations, as found in her memo
dated February 19, 2002 to the Planning Commission.
Deziel thanked Commissioner Bunn for providing an analysis.
Commissioner Ptacek said he favors working to get the two zones in line; liked
the use of limited retail uses directly related to the primary use, eliminating
retail sales, but it may be impossible to keep a functioning list.
Commissioner Sedro stated she likes the "hybrid" approach; and, liked
Commissioner Bunn's ideas concerning accessory to the primary uses for retail
business.
Commissioner Deziel said if the fear is "big -box", this could be solved simply
by regulating the size of the building.
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 8
Chairman Armstrong said he was not supportive of creating a bunch of rules
to make all kinds of existing businesses non -conforming. He noted that the
"other similar" clause may put the City in a more defensive posture.
Commissioner Bunn suggested taking out the current conditional uses that do
not exist.
Planner Dillerud agreed to provide the Commissioners with an inventory
of current Limited Business Uses.
Chairman Armstrong adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young -Planning Secretary
Planning Commission — Meeting Minutes Monday, February 25, 2002 page 9
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: March 5, 2002 for the Meeting of March 11, 2002
Applicant: Daniel Rude
Location: West Side of Kraft Circle, South of 32nd Street
Requested Action: Zoning Code Variance(s)
Land Use Plan Guiding: SRD (Single Family Residential)
Existing Zoning: R-1
Site History and Existing Conditions:
The Planning Commission denied a variance application at this location on September 24, 2002.
The Commission's denial action was appealed by the applicant. The appeal was not heard by the
City Council. The applicant has requested City reconsideration of the previous variance
application based on an enlarged site area. Staff has agreed to present this modified application to
the Planning Commission/City Council as an amendment to the earlier application. A Public
Hearing Notice has been published, however, to overcome any potential process issues regarding
consideration of the amended application. For all practical purposes, therefore, this becomes a new
application.
The City Code has been amended as to Zoning Variance process since the 2002 consideration of
this application. Based on the present Code procedures, the Planning Commission will conduct the
Public Hearing; and, adopt a recommendation to the City Council, rather than render a decision.
The necessity for Findings in support of that recommendations remains, however.
The detailed "Site History" regarding this site is addressed in the attached copy of the September
18, 2001 Planning Staff Report, and therefore not repeated here. Since preparation of that report,
the applicant has petitioned the City for connection of this site to the 32nd Street 201 Wastewater
Treatment System. We have attached the Staff memo to the City Council from the February 5,
2002 City Council meeting, at which the applicant's request was considered. I have also attached
the City Council Minutes of February 5, 2002, which describe the discussion of the applicant's
201 connection request, as well as the Council's action denying that request.
Discussion and Analysis:
There are two major differences between the applicant's 2001 variance application, and that which
is now before the Commission:
1. The area of the land parcel for which a variance from the R-! lot area standard is
requested.
2. An increased site area over which drain fields for a private wastewater system are possible
— making the ability to provide area for those two drain fields probable, rather than
doubtful.
Both of those are "conditional" in nature, however. This application is made on the assumption
that the City will sell the applicant approximately 12,000 square feet of the City -owned land
located immediately West of the applicant's 12,000 square foot (or 10,000 square foot, depending
on whether the area of the lot under Kraft Circle ins included) parcel. A portion of this City -owned
land was sold earlier this year (subject to appropriate parcel division/consolidation) to a
neighboring land owner in immediate need of a replacement drain field location. The City Council
has directed that no further sales of City -owned land be made until a Policy is established
governing such sales. The City Council will be considering a draft Policy at its February 6, 2002
meeting.
Based on the assumption that the City will sell the additional 12,000 square feet of land to the
applicant, this application is to allow construction of a new home on a parcel of 22,000-24,000
square feet with private on -site wastewater treatment. Since the parcel assumed is not a "Lot of
Record" in its assumed configuration, the standard from which variance is requested is 1.5 acres
(65,340 square feet). In addition, the applicant is the owner of three other contiguous parcels, the
sum area of which does not meet the 1.5 acre R-1 minimum lot area requirement. A second
variance is required from the terms of Section 300.09 Subd.2., regarding the required combination
of separate contiguous non -conforming parcels of land under single ownership. Finally, a variance
is required form Section 300.09 Subd. 8, regarding the need for at least 1 acre of on -site sewage
treatment area for each dwelling unit.
The applicant has concurrently applied to combine his other three tax parcels (all fronting 32nd
Street North) into a single parcel. The sum of all 4 of the applicant's parcels, plus the area of land
proposed to be acquired from the City is still well short of 1.5 acres (approximately 45,000 square
feet, or 7/10 of an acre, including Kraft Circle)
Most of the "Discussion" found in the September 18, 2001 Planning Staff Report on the previous
application focused on two areas of concern:
1. The high probability that there would not be adequate space on the 12,000 square foot
parcel for a second drain field.
2. Concern with the effective residential density that would result from approving a new
residence on a lot ; and, the potential compounding of that density by future variance
actions using that application as a precedent.
Assuming that the applicant's land purchase from the City is consummated, the probability that a
second "back up" drain field site can be accommodated is increased — but not assured. At this
point, the applicant has not invested in the investigations necessary to determine soils suitability
for drain fields. One impediment to the variance for lot area would, therefore, likely be reduced or
eliminated by adding lot area, as proposed.
The second issue — that of effective residential density — is reduced by a factor of one-half when
compared to the previous application. If one assumes that there is a certain measure of logic to
support the lot area standards of the R-1 zoning district, one may (at this proposed lot area —
24,000 square feet) conclude that the residential density issue is partly addressed as well. The
rationale for residential density standards (incorrectly, but commonly, reflected by minimum lot
size requirements) is a function of several factors that will result from land development —
sometimes referred to as "externalities". Those include traffic generation, impacts on municipal
and educational services and facilities, and others. Whether or not a site is served with public or
private wastewater handling is but one of those externalities. Where public sewer is available, it
becomes a matter of conveyance and treatment system capacities — the capacity is either there or it
is not. The permitted residential density can — and often is — based on that factor (treatment
capacity) alone when public waste treatment is available.
That same concern/logic is likely one basis for the 1.5 acre R-1 lot area minimum in the Lake
Elmo zoning ordinance. In Lake Elmo's case, however, it is not the capacity of a wastewater plant
at issue, but rather the aggregated wastewater treatment carrying capacity of the soils. While
individual on -site wastewater treatment systems may be of adequate size and design to each
function properly for the residence, at some point the combined impact (density) of multiple
individual systems in a given geographic area may exceed the capability of the soils to process the
waste product from the multiple drain fields. The density of homes/private septic systems at which
that soils capability is lost will vary with the types of soils encountered. A density equal to home
sites not less than 1.5 acres in area (6/10 units per acre) has been determined to be a safe
assumption for soils caring capacity for the R-1 areas of in Lake Elmo (primarily the areas of the
City that were platted under earlier — or non-existent — zoning regulations).
Findings and Recommendations:
We have carefully considered the 7 Findings recommended by Staff, and adopted by the Planning
Commission regarding the 2001 variance application. This review was to determine how those
findings could now be different, given the increased site size the applicant now conditionally
proposes, together with any impact on those findings that may result from recent interpretations of
the City Code confirmed by the City Council (particularly the intended meaning of the zoning
ordinance terms, "with sanitary sewer"). Considering those factors, the Findings of September 18,
2001 appear remain accurate and valid essentially as written:
1. The requested variance does not exhibit extraordinary or exceptional circumstances which do
not apply generally to other properties in the R-1 zone or vicinity of the site. A significant
number of vacant tax parcels, zoned R-1 and of a similar parcel area exist within the platted
area of the Old Village.
2. The granting of the variance will confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by
standards of the Zoning Ordinance to other owners of land under similar circumstances within
the R-1 district. Numerous vacant tax parcels of similar area are denied the privilege to
construct a residence that would be conferred on the applicant by approval of the variance.
3. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance by establishing s significantly reduced standard for unsewered R-1 lot area.
Granting of the variance request would nearly triple the land use intensity from that assumed
by the Zoning Ordinance for unsewered parcels.
4. The hardship claimed by the applicant is economic alone.
5. The hardship claimed is the direct result of actions by the applicant by his failure to combine
several substandard lots of record that are contiguous.
6. The applicant's existing reasonable use of the subject parcel is established by the fact that,
when the area of the subject parcel is combined with the area of the three additional contiguous
parcels owned by the applicant, and the land area proposed to be purchased by the applicant
from the City, the resulting sum area is substandard for a single residence by R-1 standards.
There is no hardship demonstrated by lack of reasonable use of the subject parcel.
7. The approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 300.09,
Subd. 2 of the City Code regarding contiguous non -conforming parcels of record in common
ownership.
Planning Commission Actions Requested:
Motion to recommend denial of the application of Daniel Rude for variances to Section 300.07
Subd. 4C3 (R-1 Minimum Lot Area); Section 300.09 Subd.2. (Contiguous Parcel Ownership);
and, Section 300.09 Subd. 8 (Minimum Sewage Treatment Area) based on the seven Findings
found in the Planning Staff Report dated March 5, 2002.
Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant's Documentation
3. City Council Minutes of February 5, 2002
4. Staff Memo to Council for February 5, 2002
5. Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2001
6. September 18, 2001 Planning Staff Report
R2IW R2OW R19W
T32N T32N
T31N T31N
130N T3ON
R22W R2IW R2OW
Vicinity Map
0 400
Scale in Feet
nee drawled le the result of completion
Intl esprocluaos of WA records id May
spear en veenut Westincern Gooey otecu
1Te drawing sP:xect be used tor relerenee
purposes only. Washington County Is not
responee. lor any ...en....
Source: Veseningion County Swerves Ofte.
Phone (651)430-8076
Parcel dela batrati AS.InbrFrelon
current through: January 31.2002
Map printed. neemn .S2002
DANIEL B. RUDE
3250 KRAFT CIRCLE NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MIN_NESOTA 55042
Home: 651.779.6564
Office: 651.779.9435
dbrude@EDCHome.com
Wednesday, February 6, 2002
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Av. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
re: Amended Variance Application
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
RECEIVED
r e 5 6 21102
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
I hereby withdraw my request to appeal the September 25, 2001 Planning Commission action on my
variance application. I am reserving my right to appeal following further Planning Commission
consideration.
I would like to exercise my option to appear before the Planning Commission with an amended variance
application, as we discussed in a phone conversation on October 16, 2001, and confirmed in your
October 17, 2001, letter.
I would like to amend the application to include:
an request to purchase the lot offered by the City
an application to combine my lot and the City lot into a single tax parcel
a application for a lot size variance from R-1 zoning requirements
a site plan showing primary and secondary septic IAW with R-1 zoning (included)
an application combine my other three parcels into a single tax parcel
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Daniel B. Rude
J
N P�££
'f-30' —►
Z Plagule.IQ
120.16'
I PlaguleJQ
Kraft Circle. Site Plan
City's Vacant Lot
(12,016 sq. ft.)
0
0
'120.16' A
20'
o o
CD
a
'0-30' —►
Vacant Lot to be Developed
(12,016 sq. ft.)
Garage
3250 Kral): Circle North
Rude's House
gJoN 3IaI 1J Jx
North
M/S/P Siedow/DeLapp — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-06, as amended, A Resolution
granting a Minor Subdivision to MFC Properties 94 L.P. (Motion passed 5-0).
M/S/P Siedow/DeLapp — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-07, A Resolution Granting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guiding Land Use From RED to RAD to MFC
Properties 94, L.P. (Motion passed 5-0).
M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp - to adopt Ordinance No. 97-99, An Ordinance Amending
Section 300.07 "Zoning District Map" of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code for MFC
Properties 94. L.C. to rezone property from RR to AG based on conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan. (Motion passed 5-0).
M/S/P Siedow/DeLapp — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-08, A Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit for a Golf Practice Facility to Hiner Development. (Motion
passed 5-0).
B. Request for 201 Sewer System Connection — Dan Rude
The City Planner provided a chronology of the communications, assumptions and
actions, since mid-2001, of Dan Rude's request to hook up to the 201 system on 32nd
Street.
The City Planner referenced a February 1, 2002 memo to the City from the City Engineer
regarding design capacity of the 201 system on 32nd Street. According to this memo, the
drainfield was designed to accommodate 1500 gallons per day or 10. bedrooms, using a
soil sizing factor of 2.0. Further review of the soil indicates a factor of 1.27 could have
been used, and the actual number of bedrooms that the system is designed to treat is 16.
Dan Rude provided comments to the Council and staff regarding his requests to hook up
to the 32nd Street 201 system. This document is made part of these minutes by reference.
The City Administrator reminded the Council that the 201 Program was a federally
funded program to upgrade faulty or failing septic systems in sensitive areas within the
City (Such as lakeside properties), and was not intended to replace on -site systems for
new construction. The Administrator recommended that any remaining capacity in the
32nd Street 201 be reserved for other lakeshore properties in the general vicinity of the
32nd Street system, as specified in Section 700 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code.
There was a home on 32" Street that was recently allowed to hookup to the existing 201
system. The new home is set back 75 feet back (away from the lake) from the original
home, but bydoing that, the property owner eliminated a viable site for an on -site septic
system. There is an agreement between the City and the property owner that the original
home will be removed before a certificate of occupancy will be given for the new home.
Council member Armstrong, who was on the Council at the time the 201 program was
instituted, and Council member Dunn agreed the program was never intended to be a city
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2002 6
wide convenience, but for lots with existing homes around the lake with faulty septic
systems.
Council member DeLapp commented that the target audience was not to subsidize new
development, but where we might need an incentive to improve an existing situation.
Dan Rude asked if the vacant land owned by the City is still available to purchase, as he
would want to purchase a lot and add on to his lot to create a 24,000 sq.ft. lot. The staff
responded to Mr. Rude that there would not be any sale of city -owned property until a
policy for selling city -owned land was developed by the staff, and approved by the
Council.
M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn — to deny the request by Dan Rude for hookup to the 32°a Street
201 System based on the City Engineer's report dated February 1, 2002, and based on the
staffs report dated February 5, 2002. (Motion passed 5-0).
The City Administrator will draft a policy for the sale of city -owned property and present
it to the City Council for consideration at the March 5th meeting.
The City Administrator will also draft a policy for the use of city -owned property for
failing septic systems for Council consideration at the March 5th meeting.
C. Eagle Point Business Park — Amendments to Development Agreement
City Planner Dillerud reported two issues, as noted in the Request for Council Action
Memo, have surfaced that require Council consideration for amendments to the
Development Agreement. One issue is to incorporate City payment of Park dedication
and Sanitary Sewer assessment (only) on Outlot D. Further, that the street assessment
levied on Outlot D be the financial responsibility of the developer; and that there is no
amendment to the cost of the bridge improvements and resulting Administrative Fee.
Mr. Burkards, United Properties, was sick and asked that the matter be tabled.
In his letter dated December 19, 2001, Mr. Burkards asked the City to consider reducing
the administrative fee on the two bridges of this project because the box culvert could
have been built instead of the arch bridges that have been installed and did not use any
additional staff time to review and approve the bridges that we would have for the box
culverts. City Engineer Prew responded this is true, but our policy is that we figure our
administrative fee by what is designed and built.
The Council agreed that the Development Agreement should be as comprehensive as
possible and made the following motion.
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn — to approve amendment to the Eagle Point Business Park 2nd
Development Agreement to incorporate City payment of Park Dedication and Sanitary
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2002 7
Lake Elmo
City Council
February 5,
2002
Agenda Section: Planning, Land Use and Zoning No. 9B
Agenda Item: Request for 201 Sewer System Connection — Daniel Rude
Background Information for February 5. 2002:
Mr. Rude is the owner of 4 contiguous tax parcels lying between Kraft Circle and 32nd Street North. Three
of those tax parcels front 32nd Street North, and essentially make up Mr. Rude's existing home site. The
fourth tax parcel owned by Mr. Rude is the extreme southwest "lot" of those several lots that front the Kraft
Circle cul-de-sac — and it is the only one of those Kraft Circle parcels that remains vacant. This parcel
measures 100 feet (frontage on Kraft Circle) by 120 feet (measured to the center of Kraft Circle); or 100
feet (measured to the west edge of the Kraft Circle ROW). Therefore that parcel is of 12, 000 square feet or
10,000 square feet area, depending on the point of measurement. Mr. Rude has requested connection to the
existing 32nd Street 201 system as wastewater treatment to service a new house on the 12,000 square foot
parcel.
As requested by the Council we have prepared the chronology of the communications, assumptions and
actions regarding this issue since mid-2001. We have also discussed the several issues involved with Tom
Prew, Jerry Filla, and Larry Bohrer . Based on these discussions, and careful review of the City Code (both
Sections 300 and 700) we advise the Council as follows regarding Mr. Rude's request:
1. At the time the R-1 lot area standard of 24,000 square feet "with sanitary sewer" was placed in
Section 300 of the Code, the terms "sanitary sewer" meant municipal sewer connected to
Metropolitan Interceptor, and conveyed to the Metropolitan Sewer Plants for treatment.
Therefore, connection of a parcel of land to the 201 system does not qualify as "with sanitary
sewer" for the purposes of determining allowable minimum lot area. The City Planner, lacking
that historic perspective, has incorrectly interpreted Section 300 regarding what qualifies a parcel
to be conforming at 24,000 square feet of area.
(Rude — Continued on Page 2)
Action items:
Motion(s) by the Council providing Staff and Mr. Rude with
direction with regard to his requests.
Attachments:
1. Daniel Rude Letter of January 8, 2002
2. Location Map
3. Chronology of Correspondence/Actions
Per
responsible:
anner
Time Allocated:
(Rude - Continued from Page 1)
2. Section 700 governs 201 systems. Section 700.04 Subd.2B2 states the law as to
the circumstances under which a new house may be connected to 201 System
(Community Sewer System). New construction connections (such as requested by
Mr. Rude) may only be permitted "...if capacity is available in all components of
the particular community sewage system over what is needed to accommodate all
existing structures."
3. The City Engineer has determined that the 32nd Street Community Sewage
System has a design capacity for 16 bedrooms. He has further determined that 8
bedrooms are presently connected to this system. The attached graphic displays
the parcels now served, as well as other parcels that are on private septic systems
within what could be considered the 32nd Street 201 system's "service area".
4. Based on the foregoing, there is no remaining capacity in the 32nd Street
Community Sewage System (201) to accommodate new construction. According
to the terms of Section 700, the request of Mr. Rude to connect a new
construction structure to the 32nd Street Community Sewage System (201) should
not be approved.
Chronology/Documents — Rude/ Hegna
City Staff was contacted by a perspective purchaser of the Rude Kraft Circle parcel (Mr.
Hegna) early in 2001 regarding the ability of that perspective purchaser to obtain a City
permit to construct a new home on that parcel. There was also a realtor involved, as well
as Mr. Rude, resulting in several independent inquiries regarding the same situation. Staff
(City Planner) advised all parties as follows:
1. That the subject parcel is zoned R-1, carrying a minimum parcel area standard
of 1.5 acres (65,340 square feet) "without sanitary sewer"; and 24,000 square
feet "with sanitary sewer". More on that distinction will follow. The lot width
standard is 125 feet in both cases. The parcel is clearly non -conforming, by
either area minimum standard.
2. That the subject parcel probably qualifies as a "Parcel of Record" — that is, it
existed as non -conforming at the time the R-1 zoning standards were adopted
by the City. As such, the Zoning ordinance (300.09, Subd. 1) provides for two
possible ways that the R-1 minimums may be modified:
a. If the parcel is at least "...60% of the minimum requirements..." (60%
of 1.5 acres equals 39,204 square feet), or
b. The parcel "...was of record as of October 16, 1979..." and was of at
least one acre in area.(43,560 square feet)
It appeared to staff that this parcel would qualify for either exception, but (at
12,000 square feet) it would still be non -conforming as to area, and not
buildable without approval of a variance — if less of a variance in degree as the
result of it qualifying as a "parcel of record".
3. That no permit could be issued for construction of a home on the parcel
without a variance from one of the area standards specified by the Code.
4. That wastewater treatment would be a key issue (but not the only issue) with
any variance application. We could not see how the parcel was large enough
to accommodate a home and 2 septic drain field sites. This was well before we
heard that another parcel on Kraft Circle (Peterson) was having problems with
its single drain field.
5. That the zoning issue of lot area might be positively influenced if the parcel
was served by "sanitary sewer" — 60% of 24,000 square feet gets one a lot
closer to the 10,000 or 12,000 square feet the parcel offers.
6. That the terms "sanitary sewer" are defined by Section 150 of the City Code
imply that wastewater discharged to a common collection pipe is "sanitary
sewer" - not necessarily connection to Regional Sewer treatment. In that case,
if the parcel were connected to an existing 201 system (or a new system of a
similar common treatment design, by another name), the parcel may qualify as
being "with sanitary sewer", and therefore be subject application of the 60%
of 24, 000 square feet minimum area standard. A lot area variance would still
be necessary, but the wastewater issue would be addressed, and the degree of
parcel area variance would be substantially less.
7. That an existing 201 system is located in the neighborhood, with a force main
lateral running down 32nd Street. At that time we were unaware of the
remaining capacity of that system, or whether connection of a new home
(versus an existing home with a failing private septic system) was consistent
with City policies.
8. That the City was shown as the owner of land lying west and contiguous to
the subject parcel, which may be available for either enhancing this parcel's
lot area, and/or as the location for the second drain field for this parcel.
Staff advised the parties that we would request the City Engineer's opinion as to both the
capacity if the existing 201 system; and, his understanding of the City's policy regarding
connection to any 201 system. Mr. Prew responded to our request by a letter dated July 2,
2001. Mr. Prew did not specifically suggest that there is, or is not, remaining capacity in
the 32nd Street 201 system — except to say that present volume used is about 50% of
design volume. He did say, however, that he was hesitant to recommend connection of
this parcel to that system. We advised Mr. Rude of the City Engineer's recommendations
by our letter of July 9, 2001.
During an August 15, 2001 meeting on the subject, Mr. Rude's realtor hand delivered to
the City Planner a copy of a July 15 letter. The letter acknowledged the non -conformity
of the subject parcel, and made a series of requests of the City — including requests (but
not formal application) for zoning variances.
On August 18, 2001 Rude/Hegna submitted a formal application for the necessary zoning
variances to overcome the parcel area non -conformity, and allow construction of a new
home. Staff certified the application materials as "complete" on August 28. The variance
application did not propose 201 connection, or additional lot area being added to the
subject parcel — it simply requested a variance to 60% of the R-1 area standard. The
Planning Commission considered the application at its September 24 meeting; and.
denied the variance, based on 7 findings. (copies of all pertinent documents related to the
variance application/processing are attached)
Mr. Rude delivered a letter to the Planning Commission Chair - appealing the variance
denial - on the evening of September 24, immediately following the action by the
Commission. Administrator Kueffner acknowledged the appeal by her letter of
September 25, 2001. The appeal did not appear on the Council agenda for two reasons:
1. Planning Staff miscalculated the timing of the appeal to the Council. At that
time, the Code provided a 10 day "window" to present the appeal, as well as a
separate 10 day "window" to advise the applicant. (these Code provisions have,
since then, been repealed by the Council) The Council meeting of October 2
would have been too early, and we overlooked the mandatory 10 day written
Notice to the Appellant of our intent to place the appeal on the October 16
Council agenda. Beyond that date, it was technically too late — although we
certainly would have proceeded with the appeal had Mr. Rude so desired, and we
advised him of that fact.
2. After we advised Mr. Rude of the timing issue, he suggested that he desired to
request reconsideration of the variance by the Planning Commission anyway,
based on modifications to his application — to which planning staff concurred by
our October 17, 2001 letter.
Thereafter we spoke both with Mr. Rude, and his attorney, resulting in his attorney's
letter of November 6, 2001, where the attorney requests that the 201 connection issue,
and the adjacent City owned land issue, be brought to the Council for decisions. We did
not move on this request immediately since, by that time, the entire Kraft Circle
sewer/City land issue was being addressed. We believed then (and advised Mr. Rude)
that his answers regarding a sewer solution would come out of the Kraft Circle research
and discussions that were then under way.
Once the overall Kraft Circle matter was concluded Mr. Rude knew how that resolution
did and did not impact his situation. In a letter received by the City on January 8, 2002
Mr. Rude again asked for a place on the Council agenda to address the 201 system
connection. The City Planner had handled all matters concerning Mr. Rude's parcel to
that date; and, was the proper staff member to prepare the cover materials for the Council
regarding Mr. Rude's January 8 request. Since the City Planner was out of the office that
entire week, the matter did not appear on the January 14 Council Agenda, as expected by
Mr. Rude.
Hegna/Rude Variance
2001
City of Lake Elmo
Washington County, Minnesota
Resolution No. PZ 2001-93
A RESOLUTION REGARDING ZONING STANDARDS VARIANCE
Robert Hegna - Daniel Rude
3250 Kraft Circle North
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission, at its September 24, 2001 meeting,
reviewed and heard testimony regarding the application of Robert Hegna and Daniel Rude, to vary
from the standards of Section 300.07 Subd. 4.C.3. R-1 One Family Residential - Minimum District
Requirements of the Lake Elmo City Code with respect to the property located at:
The parcel the vacant lot of 3250 Kraft Circle N, legally described as Part of Lot 7
being S 100 F 1 of E'ly 120.16 FT of W'ly 240.32 FT 1st REARR Lot 3.
WHEREAS, said variance is described as follows:
The applicant proposes construction of a residential structure on a parcel of record that is
less than 60% of the R-1 District minimum parcel area for a parcel of record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings concerning said variances:
1. The requested variance does not exhibit extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances, which do not generally apply to other properties in the R-1
zone or vicinity of the site. A significant number of vacant tax parcels, zoned
R-1 and of a similar parcel exist within the platted area of the Old Village.
The granting of the requested variance will effectively amend the provision
of the City Code establishing the special provision addressing a reduced
allowable lot area for "Lots of Record" in the R-1 zoning district.
2. The granting of the variance will confer on the applicant a special privilege
that is denied by standards of the Zoning Ordinance to other owners of land
under similar circumstances within the R-1 district. Numerous vacant tax
parcels of similar area are denied the privilege to construct a residence that
would be conferred on the applicant by approval of the variance.
3. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes
of the Zoning Ordinance by establishing a significantly reduced standard for
R-1 lot area on "Parcels of Record." Granting of the variance request would
triple the land use intensity from that assumed by the Zoning Ordinance; and
likewise assumed in the design and function of the various elements of Public
infrastructure that are dependent on land use intensity.
4. The hardship claimed by the applicant is economic alone.
5. The hardship claimed is a direct result of actions by the applicant by his
failure to combine several substandard lots of record that are contiguous.
6. The applicant's existing reasonable use of the subject parcel is established by
the fact that, when the area of the subject parcel is combined with the area of
the three additional contiguous parcels owned by the applicant, the resulting
sum area is substandard for a single residence by R-1 standards. There is no
hardship demonstrated by lack of reasonable use of the subject parcel.
7. The approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the provisions of
Section 300.09, Subd. 2 of the City Code regarding contiguous non-
conforming parcels of record in common ownership.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission hereby
denies this order.
ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo Planning Commission this 24th day of September 2001.
Thomas Armstrong, Chairman
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
Chairman Armstrong acknowledge a petition of 81 names in favor of the
installation of the tower.
Chairman Armstrong closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Commissioner Deziel stated the new ordinance was adopted and published
August 29, 2001. The original ordinance was not read properly by the
building official and there was no permitting process before.
M/S/P Armstrong/Brass 5-0-1: Abstain:Taylor - to recommend to the City
Council approval of an amateur radio antenna tower pelinit for Bob Helwig,
8247 27th Street N., based on the following findings:
1. That Mr. & Mrs. Bob Helwig have FCC Amateur Radio Licenses.
2. That the tower is minimum size and dimensions to overcome high wire
obstacles.
3. That the tower is a professionally designed Rohn manufactured tower.
The applicant has provided numerous drawings and engineering specs for
assembly of tower.
4. That it is recommended the City obtan.:,
or a knowledgeable party stating the t
the Helwigs are still using the tower h
City has no liability with this tower.
5. That the distance is adequate with a fall
tip from adjoining property.
an annual letter from Bob Helwig
over is in good working order, that
as'homeowners insurance, and the
down tower radius a minimum of
4. PUBLIC ARING Variances (continued from September 10.
20011 Joe Kiesling, 9359 Jane Rod
N.
The City received a letter from Joe Kiesling's Attorney requesting this
item be tabled until the October 10th Planning Commission meeting.
M/S/P Armstrong/Brass - to accept Joe Kiesling's request for his variance
request item be tabled to October 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
(Motion passed 6-0) Bob Helwig not in attendance for vote.
5.PUBLIC HEARING: Variances Hegna/Rude 3250 Kraft Circle
Planner Dillerud presented the history of the rearrangement of Lake Elmo
Park. He reported that since the division of Lot 7, all but one of the 8
parcels now owned by the City were sold to individuals and homes were
constructed on each of those 7 parcels. The one remaining parcel has
Lake Elmo Planning Commission minutes September 24, 2001
3
Chairman Armstrong acknowledge a petition of 81 names in favor of the
installation of the tower.
Chairman Armstrong closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Commissioner Deziel stated the new ordinance was adopted and published
August 29, 2001. The original ordinance was not read properly by the
building official and there was no permitting process before.
M/S/P Armstrong/Brass 5-0-1: Abstain:Taylor - to recommend to the City
Council approval of an amateur radio antenna tower permit for Bob Helwig,
8247 27th Street N., based on the following findings:
1. That Mr. & Mrs. Bob Helwig have FCC Amateur Radio Licenses.
2. That the tower is minimum size and dimensions to overcome high wire
obstacles.
3. That the tower is a professionally designed Rohn manufactured tower.
The applicant has provided numerous drawings and engineering specs for
assembly of tower.
4. That it is recommended the City obtain an annual letter from Bob Helwig
or a knowledgeable party stating the tower is in good working order, that
the Helwigs are still using the tower, has homeowners insurance, and the
City has no liability with this tower.
5. That the distance is adequate with a fall down tower radius a minimum of
110' tip from adjoining property.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variances (continued from September 10,
2001) Joe Kiesling, 9359 Jane Road N.
The City received a letter from Joe Kiesling's Attorney requesting this
item be tabled until the October 10th Planning Commission meeting.
M/S/P Armstrong/Brass - to accept Joe Kiesling's request for his variance
request item be tabled to October 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
(Motion passed 6-0) Bob Helwig not in attendance for vote.
5.PUBLIC HEARING: Variances Hegna/Rude 3250 Kraft Circle
Planner Dillerud presented the history of the rearrangement of Lake Elmo
Park. He reported that since the division of Lot 7, all but one of the 8
parcels now owned by the City were sold to individuals and homes were
constructed on each of those 7 parcels. The one remaining parcel has
Lake Elmo Planning Commission minutes September 24, 2001 3
remained a separate tax parcel of approximately 12,000 sq.ft. owned by the
Rudes. The sum area of the Rude's 4 separate and contiguous tax parcels is
approximately 33,780 sq.ft. and does not meet the 60% Lot of Record rule in
R-1 zoning.
Planning Commissioner Deziel brought up the Anthony Carlone variance in
terms of the findings. Planner Dillerud responded the applications are not
parallel.
Mr. Rude presented a verbal presentation of reasons why he thought his
variance request should be approved. He stated the 201 program could be a
backup, but did not get a copy of the 201 policy.
Dillerud responded he could not find any policy stating the 201 program can
only be used for failing systems as Tom Prew and Mike Bouthilet have
attested. If there were a lack of policy for joining the 201 Program, then the
Council would have to set policy.
Chairman Armstrong opened up the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
No one spoke for or against the variance request.
Chairman Armstrong closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Planning Commissioner Deziel stated no one had applied in 10 years for a
201 permit. If there are 35 vacant parcels in the City, he doesn't see this as a
bad thing. He does have a problem with class distinction with our civil
servants not being able to find affordable housing in Washington County. A
wastewater treatment system, as in Fields of St. Croix, could be installed,
which would make these small lots developable at an affordable price.
Commissioner Berg indicated the Old Village does need its own standards
and would like to see this as a front burner issue. This is a legislature
function. Currently, the R-1 zoning district requires 1 1/2 acre minimum,
which does not work in the Old Village.
Chairman Armstrong added they needed to identify what lot size would be
appropriate. The major concern is wastewater in the Old Village. Density
was too much and that is why the City needed the 201 program.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission minutes September 24, 2001 4
M/S/P Ptacek/Brass — to draft a resolution to deny zoning variances
requested by Hegna/Rude based on seven findings stated in the City
Planner's staff report. (Motion passed 6-1:Abstain Dreziel: The City could
install a common wastewater treatment for the Old Village.)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Conditional Use Permit
Country Air Golf Facility, Ray & Jane Salus 404 Lake Elmo Avenue
Planner Dillerud reported that a Conditional Use Permit was approved for a
"Golf Driving Range" on this 24-acre site in 1990. That CUP was amended
in 1993 (Resolution No. 93-19) to include a "three hole golf practice
facility". Work on the golf practice facility was initiated, but never
completed or placed in service. The 1993 CUP amendment approved the
use of the northeast quarter of the site (approximately 8 acres) for 3
regulation length golf holes. The present application for amendment
proposes to substitute 18 "pitch and putt" holes on the same area of the site.
Ray Salus explained the reason for the "pitch and putt" is to enjoy natural
beauty while playing golf, provide a fun and safe place for family. All
income levels can afford this. Trees will be planted, and there will be no
grading except for the holes. Holding ponds will look like a park.
Chairman Armstrong opened up the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
No one spoke for or against the amendment.
Chairman Armstrong closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
M/S/P Armstrong/Deziel - to recommend an amendment of the CUP for a
Golf Driving Range approved by Resolution 93-19, with the substitution of
18 pitch and putt holes on the same area of the site as the previously
approved three hole golf practice facility. (Motion passed 7-0).
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Text Amendment Add "Therapeutic
Massage" to General Business
Planner Dillerud reported the Staff noticed a Public Hearing to consider
amendment of the text of the General (GB) zoning district to add the use
"Massage Therapy". This consideration and Commission direction
regarding the Hearing was the result of inquiries received by staff as to the
legal zoning status of this use. In response to an inquiry for a prospective
new massage practitioner, staff deteiiiiined that no forms of massage are
Lake Elmo Planning Commission minutes September 24, 2001 5
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: September 18, 2001 for the Meeting of September 24, 2001
Applicant: Hegna/Rude
Location: End Lot, West Side of Kraft Circle, South of 32nd Street North
Requested Action: Zoning Variances
Land Use Plan Guiding: SRD (Single Family Residence)
Existing Zoning: R-1
Site History and Existing Conditions:
The subject site is a part of platted Lot 7, Block 3 Rearrangement of Lake Elmo Park — and there
was more than one rearrangement of that plat it appears. The original Lot 7 was 4 acres in area,
while the lots of Block 3 lying south of Lot 7 (and fronting 32°d Street North) all appear to have
been platted in the 11,000-12,000 square feet area range.
At some point after the "rearrangement" noted above, Lot 7 was further divided in some manner to
create 10 separate tax parcels. each with a "long legal", not Lot/Block number. This was perhaps
some form of (not so) "Minor Subdivision". There are no City records that document when, how
and why that happened. The east 2/3 of that 4 acre parcel was, in this manner, divided into 8
parcels of 12,000 to 16,000 square feet each, together with what must have been an easement to
create Kraft Circle as an overlay to the parcels — not as a platted street.
The west 1/3 (approximately 54,000 square feet) of the 4 acre Lot 7 was divided, in the same
manner and at the same point (we assume) into two long, narrow parcels. For reasons unclear to
present City Staff, the City became the owner of the two west parcels at some point. This is not
park land, nor the site of a 201 system. It has been suggested that the City became the owner as the
result of tax forfeiture — but that has not been confirmed.
During the many years (decades) since that mysterious division of Lot 7, all but one of the 8
parcels not owned by the City were sold to individuals, and homes were constructed on each of
those 7 parcels. The one remaining parcel has remained a separate tax parcel of approximately
12,000 square feet, owned by the Rudes.
The Rudes are also shown by County Records as the owners of three additional separate tax
parcels of 10,172 square feet (on which the Rude home is physically located); 5,470 square feet,
and 6,034 square feet, all of which are physically contiguous with the subject parcel. The sum area
of the Rude's 4 separate and contiguous tax parcels is approximately 33,800 square feet — 3/4 acre.
Section 300.09, Subd. 2 of the City Code clearly specifies that, where separate contiguous tax
parcels are owned in common, "no sale or development" of any of the parcels can be undertaken
if one or more of the parcels are substandard by reason of width or area.
There are limited City records regarding this site. The address records available for the Rude
address relate only to the original home construction, and subsequent improvements to that home.
Discussion and Analysis:
The recollections and records of Staff that predate this application extend back to earlier in 2001.
Mr. Rude contacted City Staff several months ago with basic questions regarding possible
construction of a new home on the subject 12, 000 square foot tax parcel. Staff advised Mr. Rude
that we detected two major issues regarding such a scenario:
1. The 12,000 square foot parcel was significantly smaller than the 1.5 acre (65,340
square feet) minimum lot size in the R-1 zoning district for parcels "without sanitary
sewer" (R-1 standards from 300.07 Subd. 4C3 of the City Code, Page 300-25). Even
assuming the parcel existed at the time of adoption of these standards, and therefore
qualified for "grandfather" treatment under Section 300.09 Subd. 1 (60% of the
standard), the parcel would still be far short of the 39,204 square feet that 60% of 1.5
acres calculates to.
2. It would be extremely unlikely that two drainfield sites (a primary and backup) could
be located on a 12,000 foot lot. Possible, but not likely.
Our discussion then turned to exactly what the R-1 Code language "without sanitary sewer" and
"with sanitary sewer" means — since there is no sanitary sewer, in the usual sense, in this (and
most) of Lake Elmo. We observed to Mr. Rude that we recalled at least one Tri-Lakes case of
house reconstruction on a substandard lot that was served by a 201 septic system where that
wastewater solution was considered "with sanitary sewer" for the purposes of lot area calculations.
Since a force main to the 32nd Street 201 system runs by the Rude "home" lot on 32nd, we
suggested that there may be some question as to whether hook-up of this parcel could mitigate
(but not totally overcome) the huge lot area problems with R-1 standards; and, address the lack of
area for drain fields on the 12,000 square foot parcel. We suggested Mr. Rude request a Finding as
to whether capacity exists in the 32" Street 201 system before even considering that strategy.
Mr. Rude made that inquiry in writing on June 8, 2001 (letter attached). On July 9 Planning Staff
responded to Mr. Rude's inquiry in a manner consistent with the City Engineer's letter of July2,
2001 (copies of both letters attached) — essentially saying that while there may be capacity
available in the 201 system, that capacity has been essentially reserved for private system failure
events in this area near the lake — not new homes.
Mr. Rude then drafted a second letter (July 15 — also attached) requesting a waiver of the City
Engineer's recommendation regarding hook-up to the 201 system. This was delivered to Staff by
Mr. Rude's realtor. We have no evidence that the original was ever mailed to Administrator
Kueffner.
At some point during this span of 3+ months from Mr. Rude's initial inquiry of Stafh he entered
into a Purchase Agreement with Mr. Hegna for sale of the subject 12,000 square foot parcel —
hence, Mr. Hegna has joined in this variance application.
Mr. Rude's variance application appears to seek relief from the standards of Section 300.09,
Subd.1 to permit construction of a single residence on a parcel of record that is less than 60% of
the minimum lot size standard of the R-1 zoning district. As it stands at this time, the variance
would be from 60% of the 1.5 acre R-1 standard for minimum lot size "without sanitary sewer".
The applicant proposes to construct a residence on a parcel of record of approximately 12,000
square feet where the 60% standard would require a minimum of 39,204 square feet. No other
variances are specifically applied for at this time — nor have any other variances been Noticed. The
applicant's submitted graphics show a house on the lot, as well as a proposed septic system —
neither is an issue at this point.
This variance application must be reviewed for compliance with the same variance standards of
the Zoning Ordinance as any other. All of the listed standards that apply must be found by the
Planning Commission to approve the variance. The applicant has submitted documentation in
support of this variance that relies exclusively on the existence of the parcel as a separate tax
parcel. The argument appears to be that, since it is a separate tax parcel, it is a hardship to the
applicant to not be allowed to build a residence on it.
Regardless of what some property rights advocates may contend, there is such a thing as an
"unbuildable parcel". The courts have upheld the concept of unbuildable as something different
than "public taking" at both the State and Federal levels. Unbuildable because of the probability of
harmful impacts that will result to the Public. Those harmful impacts (in the case of a substandard
lot area) relate to the increased land use intensity — beyond that assumed by the stated minimum
lot area of the Code. That increased land use intensity leads to issues of excessive surface water,
excessive wastewater, excessive potable water consumption, excessive traffic generation and to
the other quantifiable factors over which the Public maintains a vigilance in the persona of
Planning Commissions and City Councils. Of course there are the other less quantifiable issues of
"space" and "crowding" as well.
Surely it is difficult to imagine that one more house would tip the balance of quantifiable impacts
on the Public to "negative". But, it could (and likely would) go much further than that in this case.
Of 635 tax parcels within the general geographic area of the Old Village, 108 parcels are both
vacant and are of less existing lot area than 60% of the R-1 lot area minimum of 1.5 acres. Many
of those existing tax parcels are less than the 12,000 square feet area of the subject (including Mr.
Rude's two other vacant tax parcels), but 35 are of an area between 12,000 square feet, and the
39,204 square feet that is the 60% "Lot of Record" minimum in R-1.
Even assuming some of these 35 tax parcels to be land locked, wetlands, City owned, or in some
other manner physically constrained (therefore unbuildable for reasons other than size), it is
probable, as well, that other geographic areas of the City with older platting (or division actions)
have similarly -sized vacant parcels. The potential for Public impacts, as described above, become
very real when viewed from a City-wide and precedence perspective. The argument could (and
would) go to substandard tax parcels beyond this single applicant's.
Findings and Recommendations:
Staff makes the following Findings with regard to this variance application, in the terms of the
required Planning Commission Findings of Section 300.06, Subd. 3A:
1. The requested variance does not exhibit extraordinary or exceptional circumstances which do
not apply generally to other properties in the R-1 zone or vicinity of the site. A significant
number of vacant tax parcels, zoned R-1 and of a similar parcel area exist within the platted
area of the Old Village. The granting of the requested variance will effectively amend the
provision of the City Code establishing the special provision addressing a reduced allowable
lot area for "Lots of Record" in the R-1 zoning district.
2. The granting of the variance will confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by
standards of the Zoning Ordinance to other owners of land under similar circumstances within
the R-1 district. Numerous vacant tax parcels of similar area are denied the privilege to
construct a residence that would be conferred on the applicant by approval of the variance.
3. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance by establishing s significantly reduced standard for R-1 lot area on "Parcels of
Record". Granting of the variance request would triple the land use intensity from that
assumed by the Zoning Ordinance; and likewise assumed in the design and function of the
various elements of Public infrastructure that are dependent on land use intensity.
4. The hardship claimed by the applicant is economic alone.
5. The hardship claimed is the direct result of actions by the applicant by his failure to combine
several substandard lots of record that are contiguous.
6. The applicant's existing reasonable use of the subject parcel is established by the fact that,
when the area of the subject parcel is combined with the area of the three additional contiguous
parcels owned by the applicant, the resulting sum area is substandard for a single residence by
R-1 standards. There is no hardship demonstrated by lack of reasonable use of the subject
parcel.
7. The approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 300.09,
Subd. 2 of the City Code regarding contiguous non -conforming parcels of record in common
ownership.
Based on the foregoing, Staff recommends that the variance be denied.
Planning Commission Actions Requested:
Motion to adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution # , denying the variance
application of Robert Hegna and Daniel Rude, based on the Findings provided.
Should the Planning Commission conclude alternative Finding that would form the basis for
variance approval, Staff requests those Finding be stated; and, Staff be directed to provide an
approval resolution containing those Findings for consideration of the Commission at its next
regular meeting. In that case the Hegna/Rude application should be tabled.
Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution of Denial
2. Location Map
3. Staff Graphics
4. Referenced Communications
5. City Engineer's Recommendations
6. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics