HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2002 Planning Commission packet4
CITY OF
LAKE
iiikELMO
1. AGENDA
City of Lake Elmo
Phone: 651-777-5510
Fax: 651-777-9615
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Planning Commission Meeting
AGENDA
August 12, 2002, 7:00 p.m.
2. MINUTES — July 8, 2002, (Planning Commission Portion Only)
July 22, 2002, (Planning Commission Portion Only)
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT /OP DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN & CUP
Sunfish Ponds — St. Croixland Development/Krongard
4. PRELIMINARY PLAT/AMENDED OP DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN & CUP
Bluestem at the Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition — Robert Engstrom Companies, Inc.
5. AMENDMENT TO 300.07 SUBD. 4.K.3 — ALLOWABLE CONDITIONAL USES
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURN
to 4: printed on recycled paper
MINUTES APPROVED: JULY 16, 2002
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 2, 2002
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: June 11, 2002
June 18, 2002
3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL:
Huff'N Puff Proclamation: Lake Elmo Jaycees Liquor License
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Claims
B. Partial Payment to T.A. Schifsky for 50th Street Project
C. Partial Payment to Tower Asphalt for 15th Street Project
D. Change Order for Well House No. 2
E. Finance Director Appointment
5. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. Clarification of work on Fire Station
6. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING:
A. Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit —EnProperties/Laidlaw
Transit
B. Update on Metropolitan Council Issues
C. Shafer Mining
D. Resolution Adopting Water Conservation Plan
E. Closing City Hall on July 5th
7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
Mayor Hunt called the Council meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Council chambers.
PRESENT: Siedow, Dunn, Hunt, Armstrong, DeLapp, City Engineer Prew, City Planner
Dillerud, City Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner.
1. AGENDA
ADD: 6B. Update on Met Council Issues, 6C. Shafer Mining, 6D. Resolution adopting
Water Conservation Plan, 6E. Closing City Hall on July 5th
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow - to adopt the July 2, 2002 City Council agenda, as amended.
(Motion passed 5-0).
2. MINUTES: June 11, 2002
M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn — to accept the change requested by Council member Siedow to
delete the words "to 10th Street" on page 3, 3rd Paragraph, 3rd sentence. (Motion passed
5-0).
M/S/P Siedow/DeLapp - to adopt the June 11, 2002 City Council Workshop Minutes, as
amended. (Motion passed 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 2, 2002 1
MINUTES: June 18, 2002
M/S/P Armstrong/Dunn - to adopt the June 18, 2002 City Council Minutes, as amended.
(Motion passed 5-0).
3. PUBLIC INOURIES/INFORMATIONAL:
A. Huff N Puff Proclamation, Non -Intoxicating Liquor License: Lake
Elmo Jaycees
MAYOR HUNT PROCLAIMED AUGUST 8,9,10 AND 11, 2002 AS HUFF'N PUFF
DAYS AND URGED ALL CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY TO GIVE FULL
REGARD TO THE PAST AND CONTINUING SERVICES OF THE LAKE ELMO
JAYCEES.
Linda Wagner, representing the Lake Elmo Jaycees, requested Council approval of its
On -Sale Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for its annual HuffN Puff festival, to
waive the fees for the liquor license and ballfield lights. Approval has been received
from the Washington County Sheriff. Linda announced that the baseball game against
the City will be played on Saturday, August 10th.
The Council noted how nice the newly installed bleachers looked at Lions Park and
thanked the Jaycees for purchasing the new bleachers and thanked the Parks dept. for
installation.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to proclaim August 8-11, 2002 as Huff Puff Days, to approve
an on -sale non -intoxicating malt liquor license for this annual festival and to waive the
fees for the liquor license and for the ballfield lights. (Motion passed 5-0).
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Claims
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-057, A Resolution approving claim
numbers 21890 through 21903 used for the June 27, 2002 payroll and claim numbers 28,
27, 21889 and 21904 though 21945 in the amount of $260,269.52. (Motion passed 5-0).
B. Partial Payment to T.A. Schifsky for 50th Street Project
In his memo dated June 27, 2002, Tom Prew reports the contractor T.A. Schifsky and
Sons, has completed the turf establishment. Tree planting and stormwater gardens should
be done within the next month. Prew recommended approval of Partial Payment No. 5 in
the amount of $76,982.99 for work completed through June 25, 2002.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-058 approving Partial Payment No.
5 to T. A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. for 50th Street Construction in the amount of
$76,982.99 for work completed through June 25, 2002, as recommended by the City
Engineer in his memo dated June 27, 2002. (Motion passed 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 2, 2002 2
C. Partial Payment to Tower Asphalt for 15th Street Project
In memo dated June 28, 2002, Tom Prew reports that work is nearly complete on this
project. The turnaround needs to be modified slightly to make turning easier for the snow
plows. The project is within budget. Prew recommends approval of Partial Payment No.
3 to Tower Asphalt in the amount of $24,285.24.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-059 approving Partial Payment No.
3 to Tower Asphalt for l 5th Street Construction in the amount of $24,285.24, as
recommended by the City Engineer in his memo dated June 28, 2002. (Motion passed 5-
0).
D. Change Order for Well House No. 2
In his memo dated June 27, 2002, Tom Prew reports that a change order is necessary to
add/delete items listed from the Well Pump House No. 2 project. The change order will
increase the original Contract amount of $447,744.00 by $6,650. The revised Contract
amount will be $454,394. Prew recommends approval of Change Order No. 1.
M/S/P DunnlSiedow — to approve Change Order No. 1 for Well Pump House No. 2 in the
amount of $6,650.00 for their items listed in Tom Prew's memo dated June 27, 2002.
(Motion passed 5-0).
E. Finance Director Appointment
On June 25, 2002, the Council interviewed three candidates for the Finance Director
position. A draft resolution appointing William Omdahl as the City's Finance Director
was offered for Council consideration.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-060, A Resolution Appointing
William Omdahl as the City's Finance Director. (Motion passed 5-0).
5. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. Clarification of work on Fire Stations
At the June 18th meeting, the Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare plans to
repair the exterior walls at Fire Station No. 1. In his memo dated June 26, 2002, Prew
provided three different options and asked for Council direction as to the method of wall
repair desired.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to direct the City Engineer to proceed with Method 1 - Replace
bricks on front that have spalled off, seal cracks, re -grout blocks where necessary, and
paint block wall. Estimated cost $3.00/SF or $10,125. (Motion passed 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 2, 2002 3
6. PLANNING, LAND USE AND ZONING:
A. Conditional Use Permit — EN Properties/Laidlaw Transit
On June 18, 2002 the Council tabled this application and directed Staff to prepare a
Resolution of approval incorporating the Findings and Conditions presented by the
Planning Commission recommendation; the City Attorney's recommendations for
additional conditions; and, other conditions the Council requested. The City Attorney
proved a draft of the modified approval Resolution for consideration by the Council.
Evidence of title needs to be submitted for verification by Attorney Filla.
Mayor Hunt acknowledged an e-mail from Colleen Lacher, Cimarron, indicating
concerns on diesel, anti -freeze, and oil leaks from the 60 buses and support staff vehicles.
Mr. MacFeeley, Laidlaw Transit, commented on these concerns that they were regulated
by MPCA.
Council member Dunn pointed out that Hudson Blvd, is being taken care of by MnDOT,
but this frontage road will be turned over to the City and may be an egress/ingress issue
for snowplowing.
Terry Emerson asked if the dry charge sprinkler can be retrofitted in the shop and storage
area and not in the office area.
M/S/F DeLapp/Dunn — to direct the Building Official and Fire Chief to come up with a
recommendation to the next Council meeting on sprinkling. (Motion Failed 2-3:Hunt,
Armstrong, Siedow).
M/S/P Siedow/Dunn — to include a clarification that Terry Emerson needs to only install
a dry -charged sprinkler system for only the workshop area. (Motion passed 4-1:DeLapp:
If these buses were stored in Stillwater or anywhere outside of this site in Lake Elmo, the
buildings would be sprinklered.)
Terry Emerson asked if Laidlaw could occupy the site before the 10th street site is
cleaned -up and the sprinkler system can be installed because it will take 60 days to bid
sprinklers. The 10th Street clean up of construction buildings, equipment, trailers,
materials will be done by July 25th, and the antique equipment will be moved into the
pole barn. In the gravel area of the 10th Street site, Terry explained he will move the dirt,
shape it up and spread topsoil so he can seed it.
M/S/P Siedow/Dunn — to allow Laidlaw Transit to move into the 11530 Hudson Blvd.
prior to the July 25th deadline, subject to Mr. Emerson agreeing to pay the City 150% of
the clean up cost should he fail to do it himself, and the City hires a contractor to clean
the site. (Motion passed 5-0).
M/S/P Siedow/Hunt - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-062, repealing the existing
Conditional Use Permit of E&H Properties, LLC and E&N Properties, LLC, dated March
6, 2002; and approving a Conditional Use Permit, as amended on July 16th, for a school
bus office/shop/storage area serving Laidlaw Transit as a Non -Agricultural Low Impact
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 2, 2002 4
Use on a 70 acre site at 11530 Hudson Blvd. in accordance with site plans and operating
documentation staff -dated May 22, 2002. (Motion passed 4-1:DeLapp).
B. Update on Metropolitan Council Issues
Planner Dillerud, Administrator Kueffner and Attorney Filla updated the Council on their
meeting with the Metropolitan Council staff. Planner Dillerud will respond, with
Attorney Filla's review, to the 37 page staff report. Confirmation notice will be mailed
out for the July 17 Metropolitan Council Bus tour itinerary of the City with lunch
scheduled in the Regional Park.
The Council agreed that local land use control should be retained by the City of Lake
Elmo and not to relinquish that right to the Met Council.
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong — to reaffirm that the City of Lake Elmo not participate in the 10
Million Dollar Concept Lake Elmo Sewer Interceptor plan as proposed by the
Metropolitan Council and any additional mentioning of sewering 1-94 be removed from
their project list. (Motion passed 4-1:Siedow).
Council member Dunn added that the existing sewered land on I-94 in Lake Elmo will
only be used for Business Park. The City of Lake Elmo doesn't want to negatively
impact any of the Regional Systems and realizes that the Met Council has cities with
higher needs and priorities.
C. Shafer Mining
Planner Dillerud reported he inspected both Shafer Mining and Hammes Mining. He
asked the Washington County Deputies to provide a list of complaints/tickets involving
Shafer Mining Council member DeLapp asked when the neighborhood meeting will be
scheduled.
M/S/P DeLapp/Dunn — to hold a workshop with Shafer Mining and the affected
neighbors on Monday, July 22", 5 p.m., before the Planning Commission meeting, and to
send the neighbors a note stating the City will receive a report from Planner Dillerud on
the prior mine issues and the recent inspection on August 6th. (Motion passed 5-0).
D. Resolution adopting Water Conservation Plan
Administrator Kueffner provided a resolution initiating Level 1 of the City's Water
Conservation Plan based on restrictions caused by water shortage in the Municipal Code.
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong — to adopt Resolution No. 2002-061 adopting restriction on
water usage for the Old Village water system. (Motion passed 5-0).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 2, 2002 5
E. Closing City Hall on July 5th
Administrator Kueffner asked if City Hall could be closed on Friday, July 5th to make a
4-day holiday. Karl Horning, Part -Time Building Official, will be on call and the
Maintenance Foreman has a cellphone for emergency contact.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to permit City Hall to be closed on Friday, July 5th with all
employees taking it off as a vacation day. (Motion passed 5-0).
Council adjourned meeting at 6:45 p.m. and convened the Executive Session at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Sharon Lumby, Deputy Clerk
Resolution No. 2002-057 Approve claim numbers 21890-21903 used for the June 27,
2002 payroll and claim numbers 28, 27, 21889 and 21904-21945 in amount of
$260,269.52
Resolution No. 2002-058 Approve 2002-058 approving Partial Payment No. 5 to T.A.
Schifsky & Sons for 50th Street Construction in amount of $76,982.99
Resolution No. 2002-059 Approve Partial Payment No. 3 to Tower Asphalt for 15th Street
Construction in amount of $24,285.24
Resolution No. 2002-060 Appointing William Omdahl as the City's Finance Director
Resolution No. 2002-061 Adopting restriction on water usage for the Old Village water
system
Resolution No. 2002-062 repealing the existing CUP for E&H Properties and E&N
Properties and approve a CUP for a school bus office/shop/storage area
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 2, 2002 6
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2002
Planning Commission Chairman Tom Armstrong called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
in Council Chambers. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Armstrong, Taylor, Deziel, Bunn, Sedro, Sessing,
Berg, and Ptacek. Also present: City Council Members: Mayor Hunt, Rosemary Armstrong, Steve DeLapp,
and Chuck Siedow; Old Village Special Projects Planning Commissioners: Wyn John, Jennifer Pelletier, David
Herreid, and Todd Williams; City Planner, Charles Dillerud and Administrative Secretary, Kimberly Schaffel.
AGENDA
M/S Ptacek/Armstrong To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
MINUTES
The Minutes of May 29, 2002 were amended as follows. With regard to the Patrick Kinney/PJK Realty
Variance Application, the Motions and Votes on page 3 should have read,
"M/S Ptacek/Sedro To deny the variance application submitted by Patrick Kinney and PJK Realty based
upon Findings in the Staff Report of April 3, 2002. VOTE: 3:4 (Deziel/TaylorBunn/Helwig) FAILED."
"M/S Deziel/Taylor To approve the application, and instruct staff to prepare Findings in favor of granting
this variance, and give them directly to the City Council. VOTE: 4:3 (Sedro/Ptacek/Armstrong)
PASSED."
Page 5, Paragraph 9: One mile away from this site is Westaate. a residential development.
Page 6, Paragraph 8: He never anticipated whether properties adjacent to Interstate 94 would use this zoning.
M/S Armstrong/Ptacek To accept the Minutes of May 29, 2002 as amended. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
PRELIMINARY PLAT: RECO, LAKE ELMO BUSINESS PARK
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
A Public Hearing was called to consider a Preliminary Plat to be known as Lake Elmo Business Park, by RECO
Real Estate. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette. Affected property owners were
notified.
This 28.5 acre site is located at the corner of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard. The existing zoning is
GB (General Business). A grading permit was sought and approved in the early 1980's for the southeast portion
of the site. In 1999/2000, we had hearings on the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan classification for
that area was discussed. Following those discussions, the applicant appealed to the Metropolitan Council to
remain a commercial site. If the site remains classified RAD, we would rezone it within 9 months, and this plat
would then be non -conforming. However, we have to acknowledge a preliminary plan submitted under GB. At
this time, the zoning supports a plat of this type. We have no idea what the uses would be in this plat. There is
a long list of acceptable uses to choose from.
The preliminary plat shows seven lots and two outlots. The size and configuration of those lots meet standards
of GB or LB. The outlots are located in the northwest and northeast corners of the plat. An Engineered
Wetland System would serve all seven lots. The engineering of the wastewater system will be critical, based
upon usage, when we get to the final plat. The northeast corner of the plat is to be used for stormwater drainage
to serve most of the site.
Except for minor setback issues, the plat appears to be in compliance. 50 feet is the standard rear setback for
each lot. That should be indicated on the plat as the Code dictates - at 50 feet.
The County sent a letter saying they had no objections since the plat proposes no access to a County road. The
plat designer made assumptions regarding street right-of-way. One portion of the plat seems to question
whether or not the right-of-way is dedicated. Staff would like it dedicated on the final plat.
Nanning i,s `iil`: €t?iz l'i€ft=.lie:, Jun.: 10, 2.00
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July S, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
The City of Woodbury asked for a copy of the application materials. We sent them, and received no response.
Valley Branch Watershed will not say much until the final plat is presented.
The Applicant has not indicated the source of potable water. An Erosion Control Plan is required but was not
submitted.
The City Engineer requested some supplemental items be submitted; he would like a Traffic Study and Trip
Generation Report. Traffic could be a problem on Hudson Boulevard at Lake Elmo or Manning Avenues.
These items are not mandated but they may be required, and both the City Engineer and the City Planner
recommend them.
The Engineer recommended an island in the cul de sac. Other items recommended that should be required are
the Declaration of Covenants to show how the wastewater treatment facility will be governed. A Landscape
Plan should be applied here because the site is devoid of natural landscaping except for the southeast corner. An
Erosion Control Plan will be needed. Trip generation must be based on something, so the possible uses for each
of the sites will be necessary.
The Planner recommended tabling the application after the Public Hearing to request the recommended
information.
Commissioner Deziel
Tabling would not inhibit their rights.
Commissioner Sessine
He asked the uses of properties north and east of the site.
City Planner
North is the golf driving range and there is one residence. The drive-in is east. Northeast is the Non-ag Low
Impact Use in the AG Zone.
Commissioner Bunn
She asked if, at this early stage, we can reasonably request more information about types of businesses to use
this site.
City Planner
It is reasonable because uses could be more intense than streets can accommodate.
Commissioner Bunn
She said the setbacks need to be modified to conform to the Code.
Dave Dunav, Surveyor, Folz, Freeman, & Dunav
He did not think a Trip Study would be necessary because the entrance to the site is onto a service road.
Setbacks indicated on the plat are building setbacks. If the Commission wants them on the preliminary plat he
we will do it.
Commissioner Deziel
He asked if the septic system would be standard or a wetland system, and whether it must be placed at the
northeast end of the site.
Dave Dunav, Surveyor, Folz, Freeman, & Dunav
The best soils ate there; it is the highest area He is not sure whdheritwould bea large drairifeldorawetland system.
The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Jim Anderson, Homeowner
He and his wife Linda own the house adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed plat. Whatever is done
Planning 1.;4`Fiii311S 1€=ie 3''1311.E`c'l lime 10. 20€:2
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
on the site should be done correctly. He would like to know about the wastewater treatment because their home
is immediately adjacent to it. If it does not smell, and works okay, he has no objection to it. He would like to
know the types of businesses that would occupy the site, the quality of the buildings, how they would sit on the
sites, and the tenants. How the site will be utilized impacts him and visitors to the area. There is already a lot of
traffic there. The design and construction should be top-notch.
Linda Anderson, Homeowner
They live where traffic goes by. They frequently see accidents on the other side of the freeway. When the
drive-in lets out there are many close calls. She would like to see a traffic study done for that area, and asked
when it will be done.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Commissioner Deziel
The Building Code requires high quality. If the wastewater system is located where it is indicated on the
preliminary plat, The Andersons will have 320 feet of buffered open space.
Commissioner Bunn
She asked what type of traffic study would be done; whether it would study only the number of trips or if it
would also address the impact. The City Engineer should look at cumulative impact.
M/S Ptacek/Berg To table the application pending submission of supplemental information as recommended
by the City Planner. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
SECTION 520 SITE PLAN FOR GORMAN'S RESTAURANT
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
This 4.4 acre site remains as it was created in 1973. A proposed expansion in 1982 was reduced in scale
because of the highway setback. Valley Branch Watershed suggested at the time that the parking lot expansion
be excluded from the expansion plans.
The wastewater treatment system was upgraded in 1991. Handicap accessibility was added in 1995. A sizable
addition is now proposed. The addition at the rear would be the building that was moved onto the site. Decking
will also be added. There is also a planned addition to the foyer. The site would be more formalized.
Paving will be done at the rear of the restaurant for parking. They will raise the elevation there. The big mound
of dirt, a bone of contention in the past, will be used to elevate the rear parking area. There will be a new
stormwater drainage pond. There is room to add on to the present wastewater treatment facility. A tower and
dormers will be added, and the addition will maintain the same roof line as the historic building being added.
Wood removed from the area getting stone facing will be moved to the addition so the treatment looks the same
throughout.
The GB Zone has new exterior surfacing rules adopted 60 days ago by the City Council. This project is
probably exempt since it increases building area less than 100%. They propose to use existing surfacing, and
while the stone may not be to Code, it probably meets the intent.
A substantial amount of paving is to be added to the existing parking lot. As proposed, the applicant would like
to continue to have parking along Highway 5. That parking lot is right on the right-of-way. Setbacks for
parking there are not met. The Twin Points' parking lot was permitted to remain, and no variance was granted
for it. The Commission may treat this the same, deny the parking, or entertain a variance. A variance cannot be
done tonight; there was no notice for a public hearing.
Some landscape island areas are indicated on the Site Plan but the Planner has no idea of the Landscaping Plan
for those islands. In lieu of setback for the front parking lot, Mr. Gorman has suggested he work out with
Mn/DOT as to how to landscape in the right-of-way. The site is 200 square feet short of landscape island at the
rear.
.htr c 10. 2002
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
Surface water drainage is the number one issue in the Old Village. City Code says you shall not have more
water leaving a site post -development than pre -development. The City Engineer has no surface water
calculation for the new stormwater drainage pond to see if it can handle all the water that will be leaving the site.
Also, is the capacity of the existing drainfield enough to handle future uses?
Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the Staff Report, with drainage calculations confirmed
by the City Engineer, and confirmation by a septic system designer that the existing system is of adequate size
prior to the application being sent to the City Council. Staff would also like to see the Landscape Plan for the
highway area and the restaurant.
The Planner is not addressing the setback issue for parking on Highway 5. If it is determined that a variance is
necessary, he would recommend tabling this application until then.
Commissioner Bunn
She asked if Mr. Gorman anticipates pedestrian access, sidewalks, or paths adjacent to the north parking area
along the right of way. She asked the Planner if they were desired in the future, would those then be in the
right-of-way or in the business setbacks.
City Planner
The ditch section on a big part of the highway prohibits it but this site could potentially take a trail.
Commissioner Ptacek
He asked if the speed limit has already slowed down there.
City Planner
It has but not much before there.
Dave Herreid
The drainage ditch running east of the site could use some work. With spring runoff, the retaining walls at this
site are showing their age. Railroad ties are falling because erosion took a lot of it away.
Ed Gorman, Owner
He bought the restaurant in 1980. Erosion took away much of the parking lot and the retaining walls. Those
will be refurbished. He will have the walking bridge refurbished. The pile of dirt will be used to raise the level
of the parking lot at the rear of the site. Schiltgen field drains across the parking lot. He has a Civil Engineer
and Linders working on a plan.
He provided a detailed Landscape Plan but it is not attached to the Staff Report. Mn/DOT provided him with a
list of plants that would be acceptable along the right-of-way. The City put in flowering crabs but half are dead
due to salty conditions. Five in front of his restaurant are dead. They flowered on the field side. He has hired a
septic system designer. His current dishwasher uses one gallon opposed to three gallons before. He is the only
property owner around who ponds his water.
Todd Williams
His only concern is proximity of the drainage pond to the drainfield should it overflow.
Ed Gorman
There is a berm that will prevent that. This pond is also located away from the City drainfield.
City Planner
Groundwater migration is a function for the septic designer. It is a valid concern because we have a 201 system
just to the south of this site.
Ed Gorman
It has to be ponded.
°1an.ninz' Vill?utc:1 June if;, 2001
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
City Planner
We may have to specify a pond lined with clay to keep water from migrating into either drainfield.
Rosemary Armstrong
The parking lot being composed entirely of asphalt results in a large amount of impervious surface.
Ed Gorman
That part of the parking lot is currently graveled.
Rosemary Armstrong
She said compacted gravel is not impervious. She asked if the drainfield is just his or the neighbor's too.
Ed Gorman
Gorman's only.
Commissioner Berg
He stated his preference would be to continue parking within the right-of-way because it is allowed for a similar
site, and would allow for more flexibility with stormwater management. He hoped the City would have the
opportunity to work with the applicant to deal with stormwater drainage issues which affect the Old Village. He
also suggested constructing the required landscape island into a stormwater retention pond.
Ed Gorman
Yes, and then buffer it with landscaping.
City Planner
There is no provision in the Code for preserving a non -conforming parking setback situation. The Commission
did the same for Twin Points. The ponds are in the south portion of the site to handle stormwater, while the
north portion can have parking. The site is a sort of gateway to the Old Village.
Commissioner Deziel
He commended the applicant for preserving the old railroad building because of its historical significance. The
applicant is integrating it well with the existing building.
MIS Ptacek/Taylor To approve based on Findings in the Staff Report but add to Item 3 of conditions,
"Submission of landscape plan and approval by Mn/DOT." VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
Chairman Armstrong
A similar site was allowed to retain parking even when non -conforming to the setback. He asked what action
would trigger modification of that setback. There appears to be no guiding in the Code.
City Planner
Non- conforming setbacks can even be increased in some cases, everything except parking setbacks is addressed
by the City Code.
Commissioner Ptacek
We allowed some others like Lake Elmo Oil and Lake Elmo Repair to be right up to the right-of-way.
Grandfathering grants some rights that we shouldn't take away.
ADJOURN at 8:15 p.m.
RECONVENE at 8:25 p.m.
OLD VILLAGE SPECIAL PROJECTS PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
The topic of tonight's meeting is Sidewalks and Streetscapes in the Old Village. The Old Village Special
f'lanni
)001
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
Projects Planning Commission meets periodically, discussing the implementation of what Thorbeck designed
for the City two years ago. We have concepts that we thought were a good idea, and included them in our
Comprehensive Plan.
The County will not participate with us. All we have is the City share of tax abatement which is $88,000 and
going up by $50-60,000 each of the next eight years. A portion was originally allocated to the Old Village as
backup to financing the water system improvements; the balance is dedicated to Old Village Improvements
without specificity. The Council did not commit abatement to the water system financing plan recently
approved. Right-of-way improvements to include drainage were the first order of business. The Commission
made a recommendation to the City Council to hire an engineer to accomplish something like the Thorbeck
plan. The Council decided not to go forward.
The Old Village Special Projects Planning Commission requested this joint meeting to find out what the City
Council wants them to do.
Mayor Hunt
Part of what was withheld was due to the Council's uncertainty about spending money on the water system.
Councilmember DeLann
Lake Elmo is not getting and receiving what other cities get from the County with tax abatement. They
subsidize their development. So we have to subsidize the Old Village.
Maybe we can do a match for in -kind donations by residents. That might give it momentum.
Commissioner Herreid
As a business owner in the Old Village, he has been struggling with sidewalks and drainage for 10 years. The
fire department siren goes off pointed at this building. The department is looking at whether it might make
sense to place sirens throughout the City or sirens that turn. Anything presented by the Old Village Special
Projects Planning Commission was never addressed by the City Council. Tabling the sidewalk stuff means the
Council is not living up to their responsibility to the City's infrastructure.
Councilmember DeLanD
At Hamlet on Sunfish Lake, the residents raised the funds to add supplemental landscaping to their boulevards.
They had drainage issues in those lakes. We helped them financially to accomplish those goals.
Commissioner Herreid
By addressing the infrastructure of the Old Village we are increasing its value. It is time to deal with the
Village. This Commission is composed of individuals who want to be involved, and contribute their time. Do
not ask them to be on committees then ignore everything they recommend.
Councilmember Armstrong
Stormwater money should not be used for this at all.
City Planner
Those stormwater monies are not intended for this type of work. Is this a stormwater issue or an aesthetic
improvement issue?
Councilmember Armstrong
Sidewalks are a visible thing. The City has been subsidizing the Old Village for a long time. Most residents
have separate water systems yet are paying for the Old Village system as well. The Council is not overlooking
and abandoning the Old Village; it is not getting short-changed.
Commissioner Williams
This Commission has told the City Council for more than six months that we have the money; it is supposed to
go to improvements for infrastructure. We are very unhappy that the Council has not acted on our request.
Councilmember Armstrong
The school district and County dropped out of tax abatement for Lake Elmo.
0, •
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
Commissioner Williams
We always knew what our portion of these projects would be. We are not speaking of millions of dollars. It is
just a short distance - from Highway 5 to the railroad tracks, on both sides of Lake Elmo Avenue.
Mayor Hunt
There should be a better way to design sidewalks with curbs and gutters to be proactive, and help the ponding
issue.
City Planner
Yes, with a little bit of design work, there may be other ways of addressing stormwater problems.
Commissioner John
There is frustration with the City Council among the members of the Old Village Commission. Maybe we can
get some design studies, and organize the sidewalks. The City Council never communicated why the
recommendation was turned down.
Councilmember Siedow
Sidewalks down by the post office and library are dangerous in the winter. In the Old Village, stormwater
runoff is the most important thing. Water is ponding in his yard. This is a very bad problem in the Old Village
since the drainage was dammed by the downstream field owner. Their must be a way to carry the water all the
way through the City.
Councilmember DeLaau
He supports any integral design plan incorporating sidewalks, road width, landscaping, and drainage.
City Planner
Councilmember Siedow's drainage situation is far beyond Lake Elmo Avenue. Solving that problem is not the
same discussion. Stormwater is bigger than just the Old Village.
Councilmember DeLapp
He thinks they should be solved concurrently.
Mayor Hunt
He goes along with Councilmember DeLapp. He supports the design of the streetscape but is concerned about
surface water runoff. The money the City has should be used to measure impacts and mitigations. That is why
the City chose not to rebuild LaVerne Avenue. Wet basements and flooding are problems. The swale across
from Schiltgen's property causes problems. We must figure out a solution to all of that. Sidewalks in the Old
Village should not be that big an additional problem. He would like to look at an integrated plan.
City Planner
Is the City prepared to commit the necessary resources?
Mayor Hunt
Yes, then we can analyze the drainage separately or concurrently. The City is well -funded for surface water
runoff.
Citv Planner
We may have other resources as well.
Mayor Hunt
The City is well -funded on surface water runoff.
Councilmember Armstrong
The first step is to have an engineer look at it. She thinks sidewalks are a big part of the stormwater problem,
and should be last on the priority list.
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
Councilmember John
He supports Councilmember Siedow. It is basic to the health, safety, and welfare of the City. Schiltgen filled
his swale to flatten the land in order to plant it. We need to ask him to correct the problem. We need to look at
where the swale used to be, and create a wetland or holding pond so the water will not back up on the berm.
Then we need to look further away at Down's Lake. All of this should be done in combination.
Councilmember Siedow
Sidewalks are a small issue compared to runoff, especially considering the number of septic systems in this City.
All this water running over the drainfields and going into our farms and our food is a serious concern. The City
Council should really be working on it, and it should be a separate thing.
Mayor Hunt
We need to begin the preliminary work. Maybe we need piping around or through Schiltgen's property.
TKDA should have some engineering information regarding this problem. He will vote to spend the money to
get the consultant. If we can do the stormwater stuff at the same time, we will do that too.
City Planner
He will put this on the City Council agenda, and get a TKDA quote. He thought the Environmental
Commission was charged to look at the stormwater problems.
Commissioner Williams
The problem has been bouncing around for at least 15 years. Finally the City has some money to work with. He
encouraged the City Council to spend that money.
Councilmember Siedow
Health, safety, and welfare should be the priority.
Mayor Hunt
He believes it is appropriate to put that money into the budget because a new budget cycle is about to begin.
Commissioner Berg
Stormwater is not an Old Village issue. Down's Lake improvements were recently approved by the City
Council. That is the tail end of the watershed; the beginning is Sunfish Ponds. We need to look at it in a
broader context. Can old TKDA studies be found? We need to keep stormwater where it drops.
City Planner
Ponds are east of Sunfish as you approach this direction. The water goes under Highway 5 when it rains hard.
Commissioner Sedro
She supports an integrated approach. Sidewalks are great but not a logical first step. She likes what she is
hearing.
Mayor Hunt
We are talking about the whole streetscape design.
City Planner
The cost will be about $15-20,000 for just the design.
City Planner
Maybe $1-2 million, depending on if we do it in stages.
Councilmember DeLapp
It will probably be proportionate to the design cost.
Mayor Hunt
He will vote to go ahead with the design and the stormwater issue.
Approved: Pages 6 through 9, July 8, 2002;
Pages 1 through 5, July 22, 2002
Joint Commission
The Old Village Special Projects Planning Commission's opinion is that it appeared that all Council Members
present were in agreement.
OTHER BUSINESS
City Planner
The Met Council has sent us an answer to our Comp Plan; they will make the decision about it soon. The City
Council will have a workshop on this tomorrow at 5 p.m. All available Commissioners are asked to attend.
Councilmember DeLapp
It is important to have ideas of what we have to do, the time we have, and what the sequence should be. Met
Council is talking about a 1.5 billion dollar investment against the Comp Plan; it will be very hard for us to fight
it financially. Woodbury was blown under by developers.
Commissioner Taylor
Will they make a decision on June 26?
City Planner
They will be in tough shape if they do not make a decision by August.
Councilmember DeLapp
Everything was in place over one year ago but they pretended it was not there.
ADJOURN 9:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Kimberly Schaffel
Recording Secretary
June J . 'OP P)
Approved: July 22, 2002
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
MAINTENANCE ADVISORY SPECIAL PROJECTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 24, 2002
Planning Commission Chairman Tom Armstrong called the Joint Meeting of the Maintenance Advisory Special
Projects Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Armstrong, Deziel, Bunn, Sessing, Berg, Helwig, Ptacek. MAC COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Dege, Talcott, and Stanley. Also present: City Planner, Charles Dillerud, Fire Chief Malmquist, and
Administrative Secretary, Kimberly Schaffel.
AGENDA
M/S Sessing/Armstrong To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 11:0 PASSED.
MAC MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2002
Commissioner Bunn noted that the portion of the line at the top of page 3 that states, "Not to exceed a page in
length," were not her words, and she requested deletion.
The Commission agreed to amend Page 3, paragraph 2, to add, "The City Planner advised the Commission to
limit those comments to a single page," and delete the portion that Commissioner Bunn referenced.
M/S Helwig/Deziel To accept the Minutes as amended. VOTE: 11:0 PASSED.
PZ MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2002
The minutes of the last Planning Commission Meeting were not reviewed.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES/STAFFING FORECAST
Staff Report. City Planner. Charles Dillerud
The City Planner did not think the draft study received early the prior week was complete enough to mail to
department heads, and it is too large to study in the short time since its arrival in a more complete form. He
recommends setting up a workshop with department heads, council members, and commissioners to discuss the
draft.
The two lead consultants are present. The ultimate destination for the Facilities Plan is the City Council for
approval. The study would then become part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Paul Steinman and Dick Thompson, TKDA
They presented highlights of the draft study as found in Chapter 7 - Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations.
The heart of the study was the pre -selection of 8 cities to compare with Lake Elmo.
Commissioner Bunn
She asked why they went back to the old approach of using the entire Twin Cities Region. The preliminary
forecasts for households and people are very different from Met Council's new 2030 projections. TKDA should
incorporate those new figures, at least, for the purpose of discussion.
Dick Thompson and Paul Steinman
They used that profile because of growth over the next twenty years. The recommendation is not to cut
yourselves short for land or building facilities. You do not have to build that large but allow room for growth and
expansion. You may still grow beyond 2020, and a population of 12,500.
City Planner
It was coincidental that we met the 2020 population forecast given us by Met Council in preparation of the 2020
Plan.
'V1 .7Plann n
• 24-, 2002
Approved: July 22, 2002
Commissioner Deziel
We hired these consultants, and should use their numbers.
Paul Steinman and Dick Thompson
Dick spoke with staff in many of these cities. Two cities just built city halls over 11,000 square feet. Both are
young, and will experience considerable growth. They discovered that the younger the building, the larger it was
built. Some of the fire hall data will be revised as it is acquired.
Some cities have built far into the future. The addition of employees is timed with the expansion of facilities.
Commissioner Stanley
Estimated populations should be indicated as a reminder when you are projecting for future years.
Commissioner Deziel
In the year 2015, 10 of those 14 additional staff are police.
Commissioner Bere
He asked if we discussed police service with Washington County, and if there are cut-off policies.
Paul Steinman
The County is fighting to keep those contracts.
City Planner
There may be community interest in local policing in later years.
Dick Thompson and Paul Steinman
Lake Elmo does not contract for snow plowing, other cities do. While we may be satisfied with police now, that
could change when costs rise.
Per square foot building costs are accurate. Programming and design costs are far less accurate. Most of our
facilities are in good shape but they are too small, and are bursting at the seams.
City Hall is most grossly undersized. Temporary facilities should be found while you are searching for land
located in the Old Village for a City Hall of at least 11,000 square feet, estimated at $1.4 million. When the new
City Hall is built, convert the old building into a community center.
Fire facilities are neither large enough nor up to date enough. They suggest we hire someone to look at the
overall system. TKDA is not qualified to do that. A Fire Hall is very specialized; it includes showers, eyewash
stations, and a place for hazardous wastes. They are state of the art; they need more equipment and more space.
The old Fire Hall site could be reused for a downtown -type use.
The Parks Facility is most valuable for the land. Most cities include Parks in Maintenance.
Commissioner Stanley
The charts in the draft study are difficult to read in black and white.
Commissioner Deziel
He appreciates the need for a fire consultant. The study provides a framework to work from. Overall it looks
practical.
Paul Steinman and Dick Thompson
Operationally, these are the leanest staffing levels to maintain the same level of service now provided.
Commissioner Bunn
She would like to see income levels as compared to other cities. Tax rates were not compared.
Ci37Ttm ion Minute.::; U. 24, 200?
Approved: July 22, 2002
Dick Thompson and Paul Steinman
The City must move forward. Anything is acceptable except inaction. Momentum is growing.
ADJOURN 8:00 p.m.
RECONVENE at 8:05 p.m.
MAC: SIREN PROJECT
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
The issue of sirens is discussed every year during Capital Improvement time. Fire Chief Malmquist obtained
information from Washington County to learn what siren coverage is available from existing sirens in surrounding
communities. Oakdale has almost wall-to-wall coverage, and overlaps slightly into Lake Elmo. Coverage on the
south end of Lake Elmo is by Woodbury, Cimarron and the fire station. Oak Park Heights has a bit of overlap
too. He displayed the City Land Use Map overlaid with existing siren coverage to present required coverage over
the highest population density in the city.
There are two types of popular sirens, 128 db rotating give one -mile radius under certain conditions. Sound
reduces with distance, and the distance or edge is where the sound drops to 70 db. That assumes there are no
interfering buildings, hills, or large trees.
Commissioner Dege
He asked about coverage during wind or storms.
City Planner
This plan represents the minimum coverage the City could deal with. Lake Elmo Park Reserve should provide for
itself. In the proposed plan, there are very few dead spots; some of them are very small. This afternoon the
FEMA schedule came. They use the same radius the Planner used in his presentation. The plan is for six new
facilities, and replacement of one of the old sirens. The Old Village Fire Station siren could be relocated to the
park area just north of 30th Street. After examination, he is unsure the Old Village siren is worth moving.
The primary vendor of sirens had very small price increases since 1999. A large, single, rotating siren is $16,000
installed with backup battery, pole, etc. Small units with a series of horns are less effective but are closer to
$12,000 installed on the pole.
He reviewed the Capital Schedule through 2006 which includes the Civil Defense Fund. $7,000 will be added
this year, for a total of $32,000 at end of this year. The Capital Improvement Project is coming up in July. The
Commission may wish to get a change in funding. $40,000 could get it started in some combination in 2003.
If the Commission only wanted to buy two at first, they should be placed in the northwest quarter of the City
where population is greater. Most of the new ones would be located in parks. The Jesuit Retreat might be a
problem even though it is an ideal location for coverage..
Commissioners Helwig and Deziel
They thought the Planner did a good job with research, design, and presentation.
Commissioner Sessing
Maybe one siren could be eliminated if we locate them differently — accounting for Oakdale overlap.
Commissioner Dege
Maybe a smaller one could be used if we move them a little bit closer together.
Commissioner Helwig
He said the sirens blow at noon and 9 p.m. because of tradition.
MAC/Planning Commission sion :. ,., June 24,14 i)r'
Approved: July 22, 2002
Fire Chief Malmquist
Guys working at the lumberyard use the whistle to respond to fire calls.
Commissioner Stanley
What does the plan look like topographically?
City Planner
That is the next step. Elevations may make a difference.
Fire Chief Malmquist
Does the smaller siren have battery backup? Whenever there is a big storm, we lose power, and there are no
sirens.
City Planner
The siren at Cimarron is not backed up, and neither is the one at the fire station.
Fire Chief Malmquist
They could leave the Old Village siren there until it dies.
City Planner
There is the potential for the purchase of three in 2003 but we have to ask the City Council for more money. He
is ambivalent about the Old Village siren.
Commissioner Bunn
The Old Village siren could still be used for fire calls but not for everything.
Commissioner Stanley
Use it just for emergencies.
Commissioner Deziel
Do they have to sound the siren at noon and 9?
City Planner
He will ask the City Council. Each existing siren costs $1500 to upgrade to batteries.
Commissioner Bunn
She would like to have sirens at Tartan Park. Tornado emergencies are particularly dangerous to people outside.
She is concerned about the Cimarron siren not having battery backup.
City Planner
Cimarron owns it.
Fire Chief Malmquist
He requested we have a plan laid out and sirens in place before the next storm season in order to get the coverage
we want. We have experienced some very serious storms the last few years. He would like to see us get
Washington County on board, and part of this program.
M/S Dege/Sessing The first two locations should be installed in 2003, based on population. In 2004, we should
install the number six siren, hopefully with a slightly larger budget in the CIP by adding about $9,000 per year.
Try to rearrange the plan to eliminate one of the sirens if possible. VOTE: 11:0 PASSED.
City Planner
He will take it to the Council, and bring it back after the CIP, if they approve and concur.
MAC/Pa.nll r.
2002
Approved: July 22, 2002
Commissioner Bunn
She liked the idea of coordinating with the County. Depending where they might locate a siren in Lake Elmo
Park Reserve, there might be additional overlap.
Fire Chief Malmquist
He thought we had $35,000 in the budget this year. 2003 puts us into another full storm season. Could poles and
power be installed with existing money this year, and get the sirens up prior to next year's storm season?
Commissioner Dege
He thought that was a good suggestion.
City Planner
That is an operational issue that can be looked at.
MAC: ADJOURN 8:40 p.m.
CONVENE AS PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
The City Council has asked for thoughts on two issues. One is the OP Concept Plans; the City Council is
disappointed with the nature of plans for recent projects. Quantitatively they meet the Code but they are not of
the same quality the Council had in mind. They suggested that OP Concept Plans could be submitted to a
landscape architect or architect for compliance with the more qualitative aspects of the Ordinance. They are
thinking about street widths, landscaping, building exteriors, etc. More ornate structures are what the City
Council had in mind.
The applicant would pay the fees, adding perhaps another $1.000.
Commissioner Sessing
He understands but we still have to give an architect qualitative ideas to guide him. If we cannot put it on paper
for ourselves, how can we put it on paper for him? If the property owner is paying, they will low -ball the quality
and expense.
Commissioner Deziel
We ran into problems with the last one. This suggestion will not help. Lot size was one problem. Size and
aspect ratio in long strips of about 20 acres made for unattractive plans. If we change the aspect ratio, it would be
more attractive. OP Outlots should be required to be part of the HOA responsibility with non -development
clauses, and as part of the development, not an adjacent parcel.
Chairman Armstrong
3 or 4 others came through that had OP not owned by their HOA's. Originally, OP came about in the 1990's
when the smallest lots were zoned RE. Criticism included large lots create more roads, and no space set aside.
When clustering came it was 6 houses for 20 acres. Fears of the "taking" issue created the bonus program up to 9
per 20. Now it is 8 per 20. He recommends we reduce the density, and get back to the original 6 per 20. If we
allow 16 houses on 40 acres, we can't expect the developers to change their plans to make the neighbors happy.
He thinks the City Council should change the Code back to what it was originally. This has been the entire
problem since the beginning. There has been only one plan where they have not taken every single lot allowed.
OP is not mandatory. It can be developed other ways if they do not like OP. Lower the density, and make a more
quality development. It would not have to be more expensive. The first OP application was for Homestead,
Fields was second with the brand new Ordinance. They did not need six variances for a 100 acre site. There was
no hardship or basis for it. Amend the Code. If they need to be emotionally and visually appealing, match it in
the Code.
N4 A( } £rn i r?;_ Commis' `S?ifsiiic.': Je 24. 2002
Approved: July 22, 2002
Commissioner Deziel
He agrees with Chairman Armstrong's comments.
Commissioner Sessine
Are view sheds for existing or new residents?
City Planner
Ask the City Council to come in to explain what they mean or nothing will get done.
Commissioner Bunn
She supports what Commissioner Sessing said. What environmental aspects are they talking about? An architect
we hire but they pay does no good unless we have guidelines to make it what the Council wants.
Commissioner Ptacek
He agrees about density. There are problems with aspect ratios. Qualitative things are subjective. We cannot
dive into aesthetic concerns, whose view is better, or side versus front siting garages on the lots. The City
Council must give us some technical concerns we can fix.
Commissioner Sessing
He would like to see the entire City Council here for a workshop with the Commission.
M/S Sessing/Helwig To schedule a workshop with the City Council to discuss OP Development concerns.
VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
The second directive from the Council is a concern that it has been since the 1979 Ordinance was created. The
City Council would like the Commission to look at GB as they did with LB. If you read the Comprehensive Plan,
the Old Village is our retailing area; we are deducting from the Old Village when we have similar uses elsewhere
in the city.
Chairman Armstrong
None of the uses on the GB List seem objectionable. He thinks zoning might be the response, not uses.
Whenever a list was developed, it was an agonizing process.
Commissioner Bunn
All business zones except the MUSA area soon will become LB and non -business with the Comprehensive Plan.
This would be a non -issue.
City Planner
All these uses are fine for Old Village commercial. Do we want neighborhood mini shopping centers?
Commissioner Sessing
That cannot happen unless it is zoned for it.
Chairman Armstrong
Uses along I-94 may be the only area where there might be a problem.
M/S Armstrong/Helwig If the City Council wants to discuss uses in the General Business Zone, it should be done
in the same workshop as the OP. VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Bunn
She is very excited about the Old Village Neighborhood Design Study, and thinks there should be Old Village and
public involvement. At the time consultants gave bids, the time frame was different. We asked for innovative
m?1CIP;a1111i;" (:01131133:z';i0ti tltT::1 5 June 24 2002
Approved: July 22, 2002
ideas for public involvement, and we did not get them. It was her conclusion that this consultant would hire
another person to give us that public input structure. The schedule submitted has regular Planning Commission
Meeting dates. She assumed they would be separate meetings. Trying to get public input on Monday nights in
summer seems ineffective. The whole process is overlapping with City Council and staff being distracted by
matters having to do with the Met Council. July 8 is a scheduled meeting for Staff and the Planning Commission.
The City Council should be involved in the beginning.
City Planner
He remembers it that way too.
Commissioner Berg
He shares Commissioner Bunn's frustration. In his experience, it does not matter when you hold a meeting.
When people get angry they show up. He would love to get the public involved. The time of year will not matter.
Commissioner Ptacek
The most important thing is that the Old Village Special Projects Commissioners are part of this. He assumes
there is an excuse why the letter was dated June and not January or February.
City Planner
Community Facilities were delayed, the consultants were in Italy, and we were working on data collection. The
County took a while to get the digitized data to him. The rezoning ordinance will be coming up pretty soon. He
will get this going as early as possible.
Commissioner Bunn
She would like Old Village Special Projects work phone numbers. She would like to hold the public forums at
any time but a Monday night, and not simultaneous with Planning Commission Agendas. July 22 is a key
meeting.
City Planner
July 8 is the scheduled kick off.
Commissioner Bunn
The discussion should be about public input.
Commissioner Deziel
There was a big response to a good mailing of 300 to Old Village residents. Residents expect us to do much of
this for them. They are not going to schedule a conflict that is vague or uncertain. Don't assume residents are not
concerned.
Commissioner Bunn
The MAC made suggestions about Facilities Planning. For discussions, we should be sure Thorbeck is aware of
the study.
M/S Bunn/Deziel To commit to the initial meeting of July 8 but to include the Old Village Special Projects
Commission, and to direct staff to get the consultant to understand our need to know how community
involvement will happen, and to get the Old Village Special Projects Planning Commission's response to that.
VOTE: 8:0 PASSED.
ADJOURN at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Schaffel, Administrative Secretary
DRAFT MINUTES
Old Village Special Projects
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2002
Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Bunn, Deziel, Ptacek, Sessing, Sedro, Helwig, John, Pelletier, Herreid, Berg, and Williams.
Commissioner Bucheck arrived at 7:35 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: City Planner, Charles Dillerud
and Administrative Secretary, Kimberly Schaffel.
AGENDA
M/S Helwig/Armstrong To approve the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 12:0 PASSED.
MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2002
Working from Page 6 forward: Commissioner Williams suggested the following change to Page
7, "We are very unhappy that that the Council has not acted on our request." Delete second
sentence, "Aesthetics, safety, and pride." Add, "The Old Village Special Projects Planning
Commission's opinion is that it appeared that all Council Members present were in agreement,"
after Mayor Hunt's comments but not attributed to anyone in particular.
M/S Williams/John To accept the Minutes of June 10, 2002 as amended. VOTE: 11:0:1
(Abstain: Helwig) PASSED.
Staff Renort, City Planner, Charles Dillerud
Today is the Kickoff to the Old Village Neighborhood Design Study. He introduced our guests,
Dewey Thorbeck of Thorbeck Architects, and Bob; Sykes who does storm and wastewater.
Dewey Thorbeck, Thorbeck Architects
Mr. Thorbeck displayed an aerial photograph of part `of Lake Elmo, and discussed some density
calculations. He said Lake Elmo's population is not uniform at all in various areas of the city.
New development in several zones adjacent to the Old Village would reflect densities already in
existence. He showed areas around the Old Village that might be useful for drainage of
stormwater and wastewater. collection. ,.
Mr. Thorbeck reported that he spoke with the Sch lttgens about the historic farmstead. The
character of that entry into town will be important to keep as it exists on both sides of Highway
5. The Planning Commission should consider moving the VFW and/or Lions Ball fields, and
replacing them with senior housing close to downtown. Only one street crosses Hwy 5, and that
is Laverne Avenue. That is part of the quirkiness of the City. Perhaps the City should consider
enhancing some of the commercial area around the bank with more shops; they could even have
housing upstairs.
The forested area north of 39th could extend, and create a greenway and drainage/retention area.
He did not have a firm, set lot size in mind; there should be flexibility.
City Hall area would fall under a Village Green Plan. The existing building could be opened up
for retail. A transit park and ride would be a possibility, perhaps some garden apartments.
There are certain guidelines for how much land area is necessary to collect and distribute
wastewater. The City could do underground piping perhaps to a single tank spread among
several drainfields. Stormwater holding and infiltration could be extended into the buffer zone.
Spec.a! Project �....."il€i;?t' ..i)Ti)a'1]! tits Meeting Mino :s f Ju y 8, 2002
DRAFT MINUTES
He wondered how much longer it will be viable to farm adjacent to the Old Village. Crossing
Hwy. 5 is becoming exceedingly difficult. How do you treat those large areas in the future?
Two acre lots over a large area may destroy the landscape you are trying to maintain.
Open areas are necessary close to housing to hold the stormwater but you can make it an
amenity. The trail system could bring people into the commercial area.
One way to engage the community would be a website. The Thorbeck website has the Glentorro
Project. www.thorbeck.com. It is effective to get out information. Met Council has an
interactive web about their 2030 Plan. We could put ours into our web page. You can design
survey questions that will help identify locations of the interested public. Give two weeks'
notice before meetings, and try to make it more of a relaxed meeting, less an agenda meeting.
City Planner
Open space brings density to a lower net. That then gets you to a more efficient spot density in
an amount similar to the existing Old Village density. The idea is to be sure we are mirroring
what already exists.
Commissioner John
Compare what is shown here now to what it would be if developed as c3
that to the public.
ently zoned, and show
Commissioner Bunn
What Mr. Thorbeck has suggested appears to be twice the density of what is there now.
We have talked about moving the park and City Hall, and combining the fire station and public
works. There could then be housing in that area. A new City Hall is to be built in the next 10
years. There was talk about it being in the Old Village area. Could there be a new complex
combining fire and possibly police?
Dewey Thorbeck
Many communities keep their fire departments further away because of traffic. There are also
the problems of storm- and wastewater.
Commissioner Bunn
Even the Council has problems with shared systems versus individual systems. She is very
concerned for public involvement. How would the meetings be run? What would be the
advertising and marketing plan to get the public involved?
Dewey Thorbeck
He was not prepared with recommendations. He can prepare more for the next meeting. He'd
like ideas from the commissioners about how to get public involved.
City Planner
Our approach was to draw a line around the area of greenbelt and developed area.
Commissioner Bucheck
We do not like this density housing; two or three story units. This is not the character of Lake
Elmo.
(.old Vill S t°,:.riuir_Of July 8. '_'002
DRAFT MINUTES
City Planner
How do we define old village housing character? There are few 2.5 acre lots in the Old Village.
Commissioner Pelletier
She would like Mr. Thorbeck to consider an overpass over Highway 5. She would like to see
how existing farms would be developed. Where is the sense of community? If you do have two
acre lots, the character is lost too.
Dewey Thorbeck
This plan may be somewhere around 300 houses, versus 1000 houses. It is better to look at
visually than in the form of numbers.
Commissioner Williams
He wanted to know the status of a facilitator. He thought the City Council authorized funds for
that purpose. It takes time to get someone on board.
Commissioner Bunn
She said it would be more than facilitating; it would also be advertising and promotion.
M/S John/Helwig To propose a recommendation to staff to immediately recruit a facilitator to
develop a public information strategy, organize the publicity, and be present at all public
meetings to facilitate them.
VOTE: 13:0 PASSED. The City Planner said he will bring this Motion to the City Council on
July 16, 2002.
Discussion
Commissioners Bunn, Bucheck, John, and the City Planner thought the newsletter would be a
good way to promote those meetings.
Commissioner Deziel
He asked what we were counting on in our Comp Plan for this area of the City — the undeveloped
areas of the Old Village`
City Planner
All undeveloped Old Village lands (except the GB Zoning along 39th Street) were calculated in
the 2020 Plan based on Open Space density, which was then at 18 per 40, now at 16 per 40, and
Guided RAD.
Commissioner Bunn
The denser we go the more green space can be placed into permanent easement. We are only
conserving pieces of open space now.
Commissioner Bucheck
People who own the land don't necessarily have to sell it. Some of it is still Green Acres.
Commissioner Deziel
This is a way to sell our own Comprehensive Plan. He would rather have greater density and
preserve open space.
(Md Vil a c' Special 7'r:.? ; s t ;".:.:arii ;g Ct. mission n,
DRAFT MINUTES
City Planner
We would like that area to reflect the character of the Old Village.
Commissioner Williams
Whatever we plan, we have to move the stormwater out of the Old Village.
Dewey Thorbeck
The attitude of the undeveloped lands' owners he spoke to is to do something that is right by the
community as well as for themselves.
Commissioner Herreid
There is a disconnection between good ideas and public opinion. Elderly housing is another
carrot everyone is behind.
City Planner
He thanked Dewey Thorbeck for his work and his presentation.
ADJOURN AT 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
y
Kimberly Schaf
Administrative Secretary
Plans ,fsrss-:sz; <z ; vt<'4t',t<i iz ue :s aak' Juiv 8. 2t:
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 9, 2002 for the Meeting of August 12, 2002
Applicant: St. Croix Land Co., Inc.
Location: Southeast Quadrant of 43rd Street North and Kindred Way
Requested Action: OP Development Stage CUP/Preliminary Plat — "Sunfish Ponds"
Land Use Plan Guiding: RAD
Existing Zoning: RR
Site History and Existing Conditions:
The site of the proposed OP Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat is comprised of a single
34 + acre parcel; and a 6+ acre portion of a second parcel — a total of 40.74 acres. The existing
parcel from which the 6+ acres will be taken (Wier) now exists as a 16.655 acre parcel (net of 43rd
Street North ROW). If the OP is eventually approved and platted, the remainder of the Wier site
will continue to comply with the RR minimum parcel size of 10 acres.
The 16.655 acre parcel was created by a Minor Subdivision approved by the City in 1983. A home
was constructed in 1986, and a pole barn was constructed in 1987.
The 34+ acre parcel was created by a Minor Subdivision approved by the City in 2001. There are
no structures on this parcel, and no other City Records.
The combined site is rolling with limited forestation, but does present a DNR Protected wetland
(84-484W) at the southeast corner. In addition, it appears that there may be additional wetlands
(Jurisdictional) along the entire west periphery of the site.
The City Council approved the OP Concept Plan for this site by Resolution #2002-053 on June 4,
2002. As approved, the Concept Plan differed to some degree from that which the Planning
Commission had recommended on April 8, but the Development Stage Plan is responsive to the
basic design conditions the Commission had recommended. The Council's approval action on the
Concept Plan included a number of conditions — both design and process.
Discussion and Analysis:
Section 301 of the City Code governs the content of OP Development Stage Plans. The Staff
report to the Commission is intended to review the compliance of the applicant's plans with those
content requirements; the OP design standards; and the relationship of the Development Stage
Plan proposed to the approved Concept Plan, including any conditions to that approval. Since the
Preliminary Plat is also required at this OP Stage, staff review also includes the applicant's
compliance with Section 400 documentation requirements and standards. Much of Section 400
addresses matters (such as Public Infrastructure) that is within the purview of the City Engineer.
Staff review of the submitted documentation concludes the applicant has complied with
submission requirements for OP Development Stage applications. The necessary graphics and
written documentation is complete as submitted.
Staff review of the applicant's documentation for compliance with OP design standards reveals the
following:
1. "Pathways" proposed exceed in length the center line length of the roads. Should any of
the proposed trails be Public?
2. Lot areas exceed the minimums for "communal" wastewater solutions. Individual septic
tanks and communal drain fields are proposed.
3. Both the number of proposed "boulevard trees" and the total tree count are in compliance
with Section 400 standards. (32+240)
4. Proposed Preserved Open Space exceeds 50% of the gross site area.
5. At least 60% of the preserved Open Space is provided in parcels of at least 10 acres area.
The proposed Development Stage Plan appears to be in general layout conformance with the
approved Concept Plan. Compliance with the conditions of that Concept Plan approval appears as
follows:
1. A Wetland Evaluation has been completed by a qualified Evaluator and submitted to the
City. The City has, in turn, submitted that Evaluation to the Valley Branch Watershed
District — the City -designated review agent for Wetlands Evaluations. Valley Branch has
not, as yet, completed their review.
2. The applicant has submitted no evidence or statement regarding review of the Plan by the
Minnesota Land Trust, as was a requirement of Condition #2 of Concept Plan approval.
The applicant has submitted a draft Open Space Easement running to the City. Staff
understands the purpose of Concept Plan Condition #2 to be to gain the review comments
of the Land Trust, rather than their affirmative decision to accept Open Space easements.
3. It does not appear that the City Engineer's Concept Plan recommendation to remove the
entrance street island has been complied with. Also, it does not appear that "significant
trees" (existing have been noted on the Grading Plan, as recommended by the City
Engineer. Other City Engineer Concept Plan recommendations appear to have been
complied with.
4. It appears that the roadway width is 24 feet (and 18 feet at the proposed entrance median)
rather than the required (by City Council Concept Plan Condition #4) 22 feet.
5. The roadway "bubble" has been removed as required by the Council Concept Plan
condition.
6. The "tree dispersal" condition of Concept Plan approval appears to be complied with.
7. We can not determine if the mature existing trees on the west side will be disturbed, since
they are not located on the Grading Plan.
The applicant has submitted documentation in application for OP Development Stage
CUP/Preliminary Plat that require review by external technical parties (City Attorney, City
Engineer and Watershed District, in this case). Because of the Statutory maximum review period
accorded cities, it is our practice to Notice a Hearing on such applications based on the general
completeness of application documentation — well before receipt of external technical analysis of
the materials or the detailed internal analysis related to preparation of a Planning Staff report to the
Commission. This sometimes results in technical issues remaining outstanding by the time the
Planning Commission meeting and Hearing is conducted. Occasionally Staff recommends a
Planning Commission action, but withholding of the application from the City Council Agenda
until the technical issues are resolved — particularly where those technical issues will not impact
the general project design.
In the case of this application, we have review comments from the City Attorney and City
Engineer that recommend certain enhancements or modifications — all of which can be
accomplished, we believe without significantly changing the design of the Plan or Plat. We do not,
however, have the review comments of the Minnesota Land Trust, nor the review of the Valley
Branch Watershed of the Wetland Evaluation at this time. Either, or both , of those could influence
the Plan and Plat design.
We recommend the Planning Commission conduct the Hearing, and Table these applications
pending receipt of the Land Trust and Valley Branch reviews - to August 26. That will also
provide the applicant an opportunity to modify the Plan and Plat to accommodate the
recommendations of the City Engineer and City Attorney — and address the lot width issues noted
above.
Findings and Recommendations:
We recommend the Planning Commission conduct the Hearing, and Table these applications
pending receipt of the Land Trust and Valley Branch reviews - to August 26. That will also
provide the applicant an opportunity to modify the Plan and Plat to accommodate the
recommendations of the City Engineer and City Attorney — and address the lot width issues noted
above.
Planning Commission Actions Requested:
Table both applications to August 26, 2002 for modifications recommended by the City Attorney,
City Planner, and City Engineer; and, receipt of review comments from the Minnesota Land Trust
and . the etlands Eval tion by the Valley Branch Watershed District.
Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution #2002-053
2. City Council Minutes of June 4, 2002 — Concept Plan
3. Approved Concept Plan — Subject to Conditions
4. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2002 — Concept Plan
5. City Engineer's Memo
6. City Attorney's Letter
7. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics
an Ag site, and there are at least two Ag sites around this land. Also, he stated that
Krongard Homes does not have a good track record in OPH according to the newspaper.
Doug Olson, 3834 Kindred Way, stated Hamlet on Sunfish Lake oulot is in the MN Land
Trust and is a DNR wetland. Planner Dillerud responded that we need a wetland
delineation along the west side of the plat.
Dennis Kelly, 4233 Kindred Way, asked if there will be zero use change to the 6 acres.
Since the landscape plan has divided the 6 acres. He asked if the City could give a
variance for the 40 acres? Dillerud answered the purpose of the 6 acres is to get the total
to 40 acres. The purpose of the OP ordinance is to reduce the units ultimately developed
in the city.
John Krueger voiced his concern on fragmentation of open space. He made the following
comments: Outlot B will not be visible due to the tree line on the north side. Outlot A
will not benefit the community in general. The ridge where the homes will be located are
35' tall without basements. He asked why not put them in the lower area where it's not
so intrusive. The City should look at all the water flows. The open space ordinance is not
subjective, and asked if this property layout constitutes the definition of rural.
Bruce Bolles, 4375 Kimbro Avenue N., stated it would be nice if the houses are lower,
such as ramblers. He stated that there are bikers and joggers on the road, and he is
concerned with the fast moving traffic in the curve of road. He noted that the 40 mph
limit is a joke.
Pete Schiltgen voiced his concern of the cul-de-sacs next to his property and would like
them moved to the north. He suggested the developer knock off the southern four lots
because he is getting closed in.
artr a -i#-the-le i t 3
Street would be the back of the houses.
Jim Graupner, 4477 Kimbro Avenue N., indicated development transforms the
community, and there is a certain grace about the scene of Schiltgen's Farm. He stated
that this is beautiful, precious land; and there is a piecemeal quality here.
Chairman Armstrong closed the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Tim Freemen, Folz, Freeman and Dupay, stated the maximum the code allows is 35' high
houses. The desire would be to place more ramblers. Landscaping is taken care of by a
nursery.
Mark Skeie, 4156 Kindred Way, asked if Outlot C would be open to the public. Planner
Dillerud responded in the negative.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 8, 2002 3
M/S/P Helwig/Berg - to recommend approval of the open space concept plan, Sunfish
Ponds, conditioned upon the three conditions stated in Planner Dillerud's memo; and
with the recommendations to move the developed area to the north to create more of a
contiguous open space, the cul-de-sac can then be shortened and moved to the north.
Berming may not be needed. (Motion passed 9-0.)
5. Conditional Uses in the LB Zoning
M/S/P Armstrong/Sessing - to publish Planner Dillerud's draft of Conditional Uses in the
Limited Business Zone, as presented. (Motion passed 9 -0.)
CONVENE AS MAINTENANCE ADVISORY SPECIAL PROJECTS
1. AGENDA
M/S/P Herber/Sessing — to approve the Maintenance Advisory Special Projects agenda,
as presented. (Motion passed 9-0.)
2. TKDA — Community Facilities Forecast
1. Richard Thompson provided revised demographic information.
2. Mikaela Huot provided revised and additional information re -
Services for other cities
3. Terry Olsen provided a report on Building Inventory Condition
Analysis.
4. Next Steps
The TKDA representatives will develop a better fix on the facilities and put the
information together for a meeting on May 6th, 7:00 p.m.
3. Public Works Request for Capital Improvement
tks Request. ibr-Capivai I provemcui
Planner Dillerud provided a memo with the request of Dan Olinger, Public Works
Superintendent, for two capital equipment units: (1) a 1-ton truck with dump box to
replace the 1989 unit; and (2) a heated pavement patching trailer — new unit. He reported
that both of these units appear in the approved 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program,
with funding for the purchases from the Public Works Equipment Fund.
Rick Gustafson, Public Works Dept., explained the 1-ton truck has a diesel engine and is
a heavier truck. The wood chipping top has been eliminated. Dan is still looking into the
possibility of purchase vs. lease of the heated pavement patching trailer.
M/S/P Stanley/Talcott — to approve the specifications, as presented, for the 1-ton truck
with dump box and recommend approval by the City Council for purchase as described in
the City Planner's memo, dated April 4. (Motion passed 13-0).
The Commission adjourn meeting at 10:00 p.m.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 8, 2002 4
TKDA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
August 8, 2002
Planning Commission Members
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Re: Preliminary Plat Review - Sunfish Ponds
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
TKDA Commission No. 11979-021
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
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I have reviewed the Preliminary Plat dated July 26, 2002, and have the following comments:
General: The Preliminary Plat is in general conformance with the approved concept plan.
Streets: Twenty-four foot wide streets are planned. This meets our minimum street width. The entrance
area will have landscaping in the center of the entrance.
Sight distance on 43rd Street is adequate.
Grading and Drainage: The grading plan shows some house sites with a variable style of building on it.
These lots show grading for lookout homes, but the plan notes that a walkout may be built. This change
will cause significant grading changes. I am most concerned about those lots which have drainfields on
them or adjacent to them. This change in house style may require grading on the drainfield areas. This
would ruin the drainfield area. I recommend that the grading plan show the exact style of house to be built
along with 1st floor and walkout, or lookout, finished grade in the rear yard.
The developer should provide a bench mark on each lot prior to digging the basement so that the building
inspector can verify the first floor elevation.
Ponding meets City requirements.
I recommend that a low, one foot high, berm be built in the southeast corner of Outlot A to promote
infiltration prior to runoff entering the neighboring farm field.
The outlet from Pond 1 should be piped to the pond on Outlot C. The City has had recurring erosion
problems with outlet pipes that daylight across fields. The simple solution is to pipe the water to the
downstream pond.
Erosion Control plan and drainage computations need to be approved by the VBWD.
A catch basin should be installed on the west leg of the intersection at the north end of Outlot B.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Preliminary Plat Review - Sunfish Ponds
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
August 8, 2002
Page 2
The low point catch basin is too close to the two driveways. We have had problems with catch basin
adjacent to driveways.
Septic System: Shared drainfield areas are shown. In some cases, the primary drainfield area is located
off -site, while the back-up area is shown on the lot. I would like to have the primary area be on the lot,
and the back-up area off -sight. I am afraid that over the years, the back-up sites will be graded, or built
upon, and be rendered unusable for a drainfield.
Some of the primary and back-up drainfield areas have grading shown over them. The grading should be
deleted, or the drainfield area shown differently.
Easements for the joint drainfields need to be recorded with the Plat.
Soil borings need to be submitted for approval prior to final Plat approval.
Plat: A drainage easement is required on Outlot C for the wetland and for the drainage path to it from
Pond 1.
I am concerned about the three narrow frontage lots. The driveways will be on the utility easements.
Drainage easements should be labeled on Outlot B.
Landscaping: Trees at the entrance must be at least 32-feet from the centerline of the street.
Existing trees should be shown and protected. Tree protection fencing should be shown around protected
trees on the plan.
Tree planting needs to be coordinated with proposed and future drainfield areas.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Preliminary Plat be approved, with the changes I have noted made before preliminary
plat approval by the City Council.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Prew, P.E.
City Engineer
TDP:art
Aug-05-2002 12:37 From-PETERSON -4AM BERGMAN
6512281753
T-988 P.002/003 F-577
Warren E. Peterson
Jerome h Ella
Daniel Wilf Fram
Glenn A. Bergman
lohn Michael Miller
Michael T. Oberie
Steven 1.1. Brun"
Paul W. Fahning-
Esther E. McGlnnls
Cameron S. Mcl.eltand
Mr. Charles Dillerud
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
RE: Sunfish Ponds
Our File No.: 11150.020005
Dear Chuck:
August 5, 2002
Suite 300
50 East Fifth Street
Si. Paul, MN 5511)1-1 I07
(651) 291-89SS
10511 225-1753 racsimile
Direct Dial #(651) 290-6907
I have reviewed the preliminary plat narrative, the proposed open space easement, and the
proposed declaration of covenants for the Sunfish Ponds development. i offer the following
comments:
A. Easement.
1. Developer needs to provide proof of title
2. The form of easement anticipates that a written statement of the current
character of the protected lands will be placed on file with the City
(Section C.)
3. The protected lands cannot be physically divided from the remainder of
the property without consent of the City (Section 4.)
4. No fences.
5. The date for completing improvements needs to be revised (Section 8).
6. Need to reconcile "trails for horseback riding" with City definition of
agricultural use and other terms of easement (Section 13). The present
use of the property is not agricultural, as that term is defined by the City
Code. This issue needs to be resolved before this matter proceeds to the
City Council.
'AI r.;•! AI+MItN'A• (>N:>iN
Aug-05-2002 12:3T
From-PETERSON °QAM BERGMAN 6512281753 T-988 P.003/003 F-577
August 5, 2002
Page 2
7. The 60 day rule for City approval is more restrictive than current State
law and should be modified so that the City has 60 days for review from
the date of the completed application, plus an additional 60 days, if
necessary, to obtain all appropriate information prior to a decision
(Section 15).
8. Will there would be a public trail on the protected areas? If so, it needs
to be dedicated with the plat or conveyed by easement (Section 16).
9. Please note the owner is responsible for maintenance of protected areas.
If there is an association, this obligation should be conveyed to the
association by the terms of the declaration of covenants (Section 18).
B. Declaration of Covenants.
1. The Declaration does not apply to the protected areas. The association
needs to be responsible for Tong -term maintenance of protected areas
just as it is responsible for the long-term maintenance of common areas
(Article I).
2. The Declaration anticipates monument signs (Article III).
3. Any provision in the Declarations which requires Tong -term maintenance
of protected areas and the assessment of maintenance costs should not
be amended without consent of the City (Article IX).
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very y yours,
ilia
JPF:jtc
cc: Ms. Mary Kueffner, City Adminisr (via "acsimile)
F:\userAlanxe\Dady Dlctath n (5-02).wpd
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-053
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUNFISH PONDS OPEN SPACE
CONCEPT PLAN FOR ST.CROIXLAND/WIER
WHEREAS, at its June 4, 2002 meeting, the Lake Elmo City Council conducted a
Public Hearing regarding the Open Space Preservation Concept Plan application (dated
May 31, 2002) from St.CroixLand/Jed Wier to develop a combined site of 40 acres with
16 single family detached building sites.
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed this Open Space Preservation
Concept Plan and made the following findings:
1. The Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose of the Open Space
Preservation Ordinance.
3. The Concept Plan complies with the development standards of the
Open Space Preservation Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Lake Elmo City Council hereby
approves the Sunfish Ponds OP Concept Plan for St.CroixLand/Wier, staff -dated May
31, 2002; based on the following conditions:
1. Prior to submission of the Preliminary Plat/Development Stage Plan,
the applicants' secure a Wetlands Evaluation from a qualified
Wetlands Evaluator. The OP Development Stage Plan shall reflect
protection of the identified wetlands; and, OP Preserved Open Space
calculations shall be adjusted to also reflect the area of those identified
Wetlands. No waiver of the Buildable Area/Preserved Open Space
formulas of the zoning ordinance is approved.
2. Concurrent with the submission of the Preliminary Plat/Development
Stage Plan, the applicants shall provide the City evidence of review of
the Plan by the Minnesota Land Trust together with a decision by the
Land Trust regarding the acceptability of the Preserved Open Space
for Land Trust easement and stewardship activities. Acceptance of the
Preserved Open Space by the Land Trust is not necessarily a condition
of Plan approval.
3. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations.
4. That the road paving width will not exceed 22 feet.
5. That the roadway bubble adjacent to Lots 3, 4, 5, Block 2 will be
removed.
6. That the trees along the property line on the east side be divided and
dispersed rather than forming a physical separation between the lots in
Block 2 and Outlot C.
7. That the mature existing trees on the west side will not be disturbed.
ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 4th day of June, 2002.
/216e/17f
Lee Hunt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ma Ku ner, City dninistrator
Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc.
but
David L. Dupay, LS
President
W E
LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
(651) 439-8833 • Fax (651) 430-9331
Timothy J. Freeman, LS Bruce A. Folz, LS
Vice President 1939 —2001
Narrative
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SUNFISH PONDS
July 26, 2002
History:
This property consists of a joint effort of two adjoining property owners... as was the
objective when the revision of requiring the 40 acre minimum parcel size was added to
the OP Ordinance. The larger parcel, 34.0 acres was formerly in the Krueger family, and
is now owned by St. Croix Land Development Co. (Jack Krongard). The easterly parcel
is owned by the homeowner to the east of the Krongard parcel (Jed Wier). These two
owners have cooperated in combining their parcels to create an overall parcel of 40.6
acres. The parcel on the west end of the Wier property is included in the development,
and will be ultimately retained by Mr. Wier, subject to a Conservation Easement that will
restrict it's future use to agricultural uses only, and no further housing density. The
concept plan was approved by the City Council on June 4, 2002.
Physical Features:
The property has a two tiered elevation layout. The upper area is predominantly in the
southerly areas. The lower areas are in the northeasterly, northwesterly, as well as the
southwesterly areas of the Krongard parcel. There is an area in the very southwesterly
comer of the Krongard parcel that contains a jurisdictional wetland area, noted as DNR
Protected Water No. 82-484W. Graham Environmental Services has performed a
wetland delineation report, copies have been submitted for staff review. The limits of the
wetlands have been shown on the plans and encompassed by proposed easements.
Project Details:
The details of the project are consistent with the approved OP Concept Plan. The
minimum requirements of the ordinances for an OP Development have been
painstakingly adhered to. The home sites will utilize shared drainfield areas throughout
the development. The soils have been tested for the drainfield system areas, and the
results have been submitted for staff review. There are suitable areas for primary and
future septic treatment to serve each lot. The details of the joint use drainfield areas that
have been tested and approved are shown on the Septic Sewer Plan. Individual wells on
each parcel will provide water to the home sites.
1
The ponds being created in the northeast area will provide for increased storage capacity
to reduce the runoff rate and volumes, as well as treat the runoff water for water quality
prior to any discharges. The created pond is designed for storage of standing water to a
specified elevation, as well as infiltration ponds above that elevation. With some water
standing in the bottom areas of the ponds, they will serve as an amenity to the project, as
well as the neighborhood in general. The details of the storm water system is contained
in the Drainage Report that has been submitted to staff for their review.
We have submitted the Homeowners Association documents for staff review. These
documents include the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. The association will
be the owners of Outlots A and B, and responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of this
open space. Outlot C will be owned privately by Jed and Darlene Wier, and the upkeep
and maintenance of this open space will be their responsibility.
The proposed Open Space Easement has been submitted for staff review.
The Architectural Standards, proposed guidelines for the Architectural Control
Committee, along with examples of home styles have been prepared by Design Forum,
and have been submitted for staff review. We anticipate having Design Forum
participate with the Architectural Control Committee. They have extensive experience
with Lake Elmo's OP Design Developments.
Conclusions:
The request is for approval of the Preliminary Plan for this OP Development as well as
the Conditional Use Permit that is required to allow an OP Development. The proposal
as submitted meets the letter of the ordinance, as well as the spirit and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2
SUNFISH PONDS
RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
PURPOSE
The purpose of establishing architectural standards is to insure that a neighborhood follows
and maintains a set of design criteria that will create an overall pattern of consistent design
features and characteristics. The intended result of this process is to establish a neighbor-
hood with personality and visual quality.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
The design of the Sunfish Ponds homes will follow the patterns of regional/historic styles
illustrated in the enclosed photo examples. Approved home styles are:
• Traditional
• Shingle/New England
• Rural American
• Craftsman/Cottage
SPECIFIC DETAIL CRITERIA
House design should follow the historic features and detail characteristics of the selected
style category as close as possible. Appropriate use of materials, roof pitches, scaled ele-
ments, trim, windows, offsets, and colors are to be maintained.
• HOUSE EXTERIOR FACES
Houses should be designed to incorporate like trim features on all four sides of
the structure. Detailing only the front elevation without consideration to the other sides is
not allowed. Movement, offsets, pop outs, overhangs, eyebrow roofs, porches, sun
rooms, fireplaces, and decks should be used to create architectural interest on all sides of
the house.
• GARAGES
Garages should not dominate a house elevation. The garage should be set back
from the house front or porch. Side loaded garages are encouraged if a lot allows for the
remaining space between the adjoining lot and driveway to be effectively landscaped in or-
der to shield the neighbors' view of the garage doors. The garage doors should be appro-
priate for the selected architectural style. Garage door faces should be detailed with plant
on trim board designs that reinforce the selected architectural style.
• ROOF PITCHES
The degree and number of roof slopes used on the house should be consistent with
the selected architectural style.
• SIDING
Siding materials selected for the front elevation should be used on side and rear ele-
vations as well. Window trim should be applied to all elevations. Color finish should be
the same on all sides. Window styles and details should be consistent on all sides. Wind-
ow grids should be appropriate for the architectural style used.
• COLORS
Color should be used to reinforce the historical/design style used. The use of same
or similar color groupings on more than two houses is not allowed. Builders are encour-
aged to select a variety of color schemes to offer contrast between homes.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping is an important design feature in creating a visually pleasing neighborhood.
Theme, plant selection, and view lines should be considered. A landscape plan should be
prepared as part of the architectural submission package and will be subject to review and
approval.
a4,1,
•
• •
" 611t'^i49tIO'VOItt 4-2rIrt-,11
_11 or ti _
m kv. A
Washington County C.I.M. At
N1/4 Comer Section 11,
729N, R21W
SUNFISH PONDS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Existing Conditions
North One Of
The 5E1/4
1309.57
5895437W
Washington County GI.M. At'
EI/4 Comer Section 11,
729N, R21W
SCALE:
1 Inch = 100 Feet
b tiMe 3)0
July 26, 2002
SONFISf/PONDS
LEGAL DESCRII770N
Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc.
(T�y LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
L111112-
_5820 MEIAORLLL AVENUE NORTH . STILLWATEA. MINNESOTA 55082
(851) 439-0833 • F. (851) 430,3331
OWNERS:
JED WIER
10875 NORTH 43RD STREET
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
(651) 770-0298
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, LNC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
DEVELOPER:
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
(Document Number 3195068)
All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and all that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,
all in Section 11, Township 29 North, Range 21 West Washington C,mmty, Minnesota, Described as follows, to wit
Beginning at the southwesterly comer of the North 837.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence easterly
along the southerly line of said North 837.00 feet a distance of 612.00 feet more or less, to the easterly line of the West 61200
feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence northerly along said easterly line 0.77 feet, more or less, to the
centerline of43rd Street North; thence easterly along said centerline 696.03 fret, more or less, to the easterly line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence southerly along said easterly line and along the easterly line of said Southwest Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter 1142.43 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the South 658.02 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter, thence westerly along said northerly line 1305.95 feet, more or less, to the westerly line of said Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence northerly along said westerly line and along the westerly line of said Northwest Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter 1135.62 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.
Subject to the right of way of43rd Street North along the northerly line thereof
Subject to and together with any other valid easements, reservations or restrictions.
ALSO,
That part of the West Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 29 North, Range 21 Wes(
Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly of the south 660.00 feet thereof and lying southerly of the following descrbed line:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said south 660.00 feet of the West half of the East Half of the Southeast Quintet, thence
North 00 degrees 12 minutes 39 seconds West, assumed bearing along the east line of said West Half of the East Half of the
Southeast Quarter, a distance of 347.86 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 59 degrees 38
minutes 17 seconds West, a distance of278.11 feet; thence South 69 degrees 33 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of314.83
feet: thence North 27 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, a distance of 259.08 feet to the west line of said West Half oftbe East
Half of the Southeast Quarter, and said described line there terminating.
Contains 6.60 acres, more or less, subject to valid easements and restrictions ofrecord if any.
VICINITY MAPISEC. 11, T29N, R21W
471N 5r. N.
�fd1�3T1
1L
ri
NE,jk
U . 4JR0 Si N.
Svc � k 1/C77
L
-dap No.02-I09 Shen 1 of 6 Shan
Note: Existing contours and elevations were supplied by Washington County Land Management /Land
Survey Division. The horizontal and vertical datum for the mapping is based on the Washington
County Coordinate System NAD83 and the NAVD, 1988 adjustment The data was developed under a
contract with GRW Aerial Surveys, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky.
0 2002 — Folz, Fromm, Dopey A Associates, hK —All Rights Reserved
EXISTING NETLAND f
Drainage Easement
//
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING WETLAND
159
6
0.97 Acf
165
230
SUNFISH PONDS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Lot & Roadway Layout
`0.78 Act;
43RD STRKRT NORTD--
POND 2
--18 FE
327
0.76 Act
i
9
l"
0.78 Act'-1
•
/
,'/ 0.77 Act
OUTLOT A
0.79 Act
4
0.83 Acf
OUTLOT A
YY
CO
i
Fol; Freeman, Dopey & Associates, Inc.
LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
5620 MEMDRIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55662
��1 (651)4396833 • Felt OM) tlOdTJ1
OWNERS:
JED WIER
10875 NORTH 43RD STREET
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
(651) 770-0298
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
DEVELOPER
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
SCALE:
1 Inch = 60 Feet
July 26, 2002
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME DR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND 111AT I AM
A DULY UCENSED LAW SURVEYOR UNDER 1HE LAWS OF 1HE STATE
OF MINNESOTA.
DAVIO L DUPAY MINNESOTA RECISTRATICN NO. 17252 DATE
1NAOTHY J. FREEMAN MINNESOTA REOISIRARCN NO. 16989
Mep No. 02-109 Sheet 2 of 6 Sheets
0 2002 — Fole, Fri, Dupe), & Msocieree, loc—All Rights Reserved
. • 1 `
f / t
�.�
/ t"I- `� '
• I
f ti
EXISTING WETLAND . O '
i 4 /
I /. i
I I ,
/
/
ii /,
/ //
1 t r 1, EXISITNO WERAND
'\
EXISTING WETLAND
I
1
W.S.E.
959.9
•
♦ POND 3
NWL 951
MM. 959.2 (100 YR
•
♦
♦
J6
SUNFISH PONDS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Grading & Erosion Control Plan
r 'Dr���rr
L7 NTH"- _.
y!"a
O UTLOT
1
04180 ♦/031 ,
♦♦
1. `•"`-�•� _--,�
O UTLOT A
/
f f ` — - -
A , ,
t /•
•
•
•
\
♦
•
•
♦
Y V
•
•
•
`9 s,•\
•
♦ •
• \
♦
•
♦♦ 1
♦
• \ •
♦
\ ♦ ♦
♦
•
•
1
1
Backfllt Over Top of
Fabric and Compact
the Sol
Fol4 Fireman, Dupay & Associates, Inc.
LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
5820 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STALWATER MINNESOTA 5E082
(ast) 43Se833 • Fax (BM) 430x331
OWNERS:
JED WIER
101175 NORTH 43RD STREET
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
(651) 770-0298
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430.2314
DEVELOPER
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
SCALE:
1 Inch = 60 Feet
d �m
July 26, 2002
LEGEND:
DENOTES EXISTING SURVEYED POINT ELEVATION
DENOTES COSTING CONTOUR
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR
,(94100) DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED HOUSE PAD LOCATION
DENOTES EROSION CONTROL FENCING
CONSTRUCTION OF SILT FENCE
Fifer Fcbrk
Fastened to Post
NX Trent i'
J
Steil or wood Post
30 Minimum Height
21 Minimum Depth
ELEVATIONS ARE ON N.GV.D. MEAN SEA-LEV41.
1929 ADJJSILENT.
BEARINGS ARE ON AN ASSUMED DATUM
CONTOURS OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LIMITS FROM COUNTY
AERIAL DATA
♦ I HEREBY CERTFY THAT 1145 SURVEY. FLAN OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM
\ t A DULY LICE SED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF 'ME STATE
\ ♦ ♦ ` OF MINNESOTA.
\ 1
45
DAVD L DUPAY MINNESOTA REGISTRATION N0. 17252 DAZE
TIMOTHY J. FREEMAN MINNESOTA REGISTRA1ICN N0. 16989
.JpNo.02-I09 Sheet 3 of 6 Shea
0 2002 —Fold, Freeman, Dupo7 & Auariar.. Inc —All Ripka R0ava
EXISTING WETLAND rM
EXISTING WETLAND
W.SE
959.9
1
POND 3
NW. 958.0
HWL 959.2 (100 YR)\\
1 \�
EXISTING WETLAND
1 )
5 1 1
j " .„-----------\
I l
M , n
i o ,,
i ., ,
/ l 7 , , ��
, 7,
7 „,
r
SUNFISH PONDS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Utility Plan
3RD STREET ORTH
POND 2
NWL 954.0
HWL 955.1 (100 'IRO
0 UTL O T A
1�1
1`
OUTLOT A
Folz Fieemaa, Dupay & Associates, Inc.
• LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
L V I J • IEB2o MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MEMESOTA S5062
�• (8.5s)4302833 • Fax(851) 4303331
ETidam Engitee ng &
Design Group, Inc
5620 Memorial Avenue N.
Stiwater, MN 55082
Phase 651439.0588
Fax 6514395717
Ema1 :,rooeedg;,ccc 1t
OWNERS:
JED WIER
10875 NORTH 43RD STREET
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
(651) 770-0298
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
DEVELOPER:
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
SCALE:
1 Inch - 60 Feat
beo
July 26, 2002
LEGEND:
—• 12•D--= •— PROPOSED STORM SEWER W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S.
1 12•D _ a EXISTING STORM SEWER W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S.
1 HEREBY CERTFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER 4Y DIRECT SUPERNSION AND THAT 1 AM
A DULY LICENSED ONL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
C /�/(I � � " //w-r 1-
TW,fD A ER1Ot WNESOTA REQSTRA/IM N0. 40418 GATE
Map No. 02-109 Sheet 4 of 6 Shet.
0 2002 —Fete, Ream, Ducey & Ameiatee, lee. —All Rights Reserved
W.S.E.
959.9
/ j_
r4"
•
'{
1
1`
®r 4
�J- STREET - NORTH
-
SUNFISH PONDS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Landscape Plan
SCALE:
1 nth a 50 Feet
JtA.LY Zb)ZaoZ
OWNERS:
JED WEER
10875 NORTH 43RD STREET
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
(651) 774-0298
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
1479168TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55882
Office: (651) 430-2314
DEVELOPER:
ST. CROIX LANs COMPANY, INC.
1479168TH STREET NORTH
SfILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651)430-2314
�✓l `7 --rx • /4 ..--t9
oQ
NURSERIES 1
2002, 51 Gov Trail Norm 2100 Tun. Dr.
Sca,Mr, rN 550n 801n w,1rt1 55062
(6511 U0-2431 (6511439-2140
Map No. 02.109
Sheet No. 5 of 6
C 2002 — Foli. Freeman, Dupry & Asaocnlcs, In<- — Al: Rights Rc4wa,
EXISTING WETLAND t O)
7
EXISTING WETLAND
W.S.E.
959.9
LOT 1, BLOCK 1
FUTURE SEPTIC AREA
P111
J ..
EXISTING WETLAND
\--` LOT 3, BLOCK 1,
PRIMARY & FUTURE
`tSEPTIC SYSTEM 0
TLOT B
B114 0
B11501
SUNFISH PONDS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Septic Sewer Plan
8119 0 811812)
8116 0 8117
LOT 1, BLOCK 1
PRIMARY SEPTIC
SYSTEM 0 OUTLOT B
LOT 1, BLOCK 1
/ FUTURE SEPTIC
SYSTEM 0 OUTLOT A
2
LOT 2, BLOCK 1,
PRIMARY & FUTURE
SEPTIC SYSTEM 0
OUTLOT 8
LOT 5, BL8cI( 1, SEPTIC
SYSTEM 0 OUTLOT A
816,
815
13163
6162
0 0 0
8165 P161
LOTS 5-7, BLOCK 1 P151 0
PRIMARY & FUTURE
SEPTIC SYSTEM AREA
81550
8161 0/
�8171
131520
_ 4RD STREET- NORTTh
08297 0 293
8298 0P292
B294
0 P261
82920
LOT 9, BLOCK 2
FUTURE SEPTIC AREA
82905 0P291
B291
LOTS 6-9, BLOCK2
PRIMARY 0 OUTLOT B 9
82810
B286 0 P28828201
:12 8128
0 B2•
LOTS 1, BLOCK 1 PRIMARY 8269
SEPTIC SYSTEM P122 0
B126 0 ^ LOTS 6-7-8-9, BLOCK 2
�', J{ PRIMARY SEPTIC SYSTEMS
0 OrC
LOTS 2-3-4, BLOCK 1 Ott 826E
PRIMARY & FUTURE k) \i Y fiD
SEPTIC SYSTEMS O
,. 0172
P1710 81750 P172
P1520
B154 8153 08173
8174
7
B273
B27788
LOT 6-8, BLOCK 2
FUTURE SEPTIC AREA
B271
LOTS 6-9, BLOCK 2
OPRIMARY 0 OUTLOT 8
8262
B251
OUTLOT A
,\
LOT 5, BLOCK 2
PRIMARY & FUTURE
0 OUTLOT A
8245824141
8232
0 0
8231 P231
P231
08234
08236
08235
P232 PRI{,IM
B2530
8254 0
P252
ii �-8Pj251
257
0TS,T-5, BLOCK 2
Y & FUTURE
,5tynC SYSTEM AREA
82) / P212
B215
8217
EDGE GP SEP11C AREAS (TR.)
OUTLOT A
8255
0�O
s.
� v
Folz Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc.
LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH . STILLWATER. M*WESOTA S50E2
(061) 434A^23 • Fax (851) 43993f1
OWNERS:
JED WIER
10875 NORTH 43RD STREET
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042
(651) 770-0290
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STH.LWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
DEVELOPER:
ST. CROIX LAND COMPANY, INC.
14791 60TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
Office: (651) 430-2314
N
W E
S
SCALE:
1 Inch = 60 Feet
LEGEND:
A W
July 26, 2002
/BORING OR TEST LOCATION
BORING NUMBER
B257
B = HAND AUGER BORING
P = PERK TEST
LOT NUMBER
BLOCK NUMBER
Map No. 02-109 Sheet 6 of 6 Shorts
J
O 2002 — Foto. Ftaemso, Dupq & Associates, Inc — All Rights Rcava.
FoL, Ftnemno, DDpay & Associates, Inc.
LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANMNG
t La1•L� " • I+1.1510MWEertmuveciE • 8111111A1f1EIpNEEI0tA ®m
061).19.11044 . FP f1151)4110.07011
761
170
a646A
200
g 7
0.55 A
200
'd' 0.55 A
200
9
55 Ac
200
0.55 AA
2 200
g 11
a55
E
12
I $ 0.93 Act \
a \ 85
186
8
.55 Act
170
8
51 Al
17D
14) "g
0.51 Act
170
317
\ 3.01 Act
120
'4 2
0.74 Act
Lal�
to 1
0.78 Act
13
Act
" / 220 120
O
PR LIMINAR Y PLAT
THE FIELDS 0 ST. CROIX 2ND ADDITION
LOT AND ROADWAY LAYOUT PLAN
I 1
OUTLOT D
I I 20.05 Act
28
a
N89'1 '29"E
284 '.49
259 Iji 770 110
18
a73 Act 1, $ 1 14 1 13 12
0.551 ct 0.50 Ae! a51 Act 0.53 Act 0.98 Act
7t0 110 1
658' AAct .518'
109
1108 110 1721
�g
Io 0.39
Lt I yR
> 11 0111 act a5 Ao£
ti 0LOCK FOUR 0.35 A
1 I 770
18 7
0.B0 Act a50 Act
e 6
I.41 Ad J 3
iI 4 9
/ /0:92 Act pg 0.64 Act .67 A
t•bI / \
•
l / BLOC'...'' FIVI
OUTLOT E I l
%__
//0o I Ic6
"'c .1 i OUTLOT Y,7
* --r x / , ,'7 Act
w tV E+ Q / . _ 79
1l 4N /
O
2ro✓a 010
4 1
/ l '^Y o 5 I Act 1\
�� 4 o.e3 Aft
1 I
OUTLOT E
19.29 Act
5
173
1.04 Act
a5o.
210
120
rr
too
al
iIIY 268
11
0.77 Act
254
/75
8
0.51 Act "0.81 Act
/0 ,
0.85 Act
.70
3
0.85 Act
4/0
2
1.38 Act
OUTLOT B
3.87 Act
112--
a
FICALEI
t incn ='I00CU Feet
August 18, 1999
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 2002 for the Meeting of August 12, 2002
Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies
Location: Northeast Quadrant of State Highway 5 and Little Bluestem Trail
Requested Action: Amended OP Development Stage Plan and preliminary Plat
Land Use Plan Guiding: RAD
Existing Zoning: AG (Subject to a Conditional Use Permit for OP Development)
Site History and Existing Conditions:
On July 6, 1999 the City Council approved an OP Concept Plan for Fields of St. Croix Phase 2.
(Resolution #99-41) That Concept Plan included 12 attached dwelling units on this 4.83 acre
portion of the Fields 2 site.
On September 21, 1999 the City Council approved an OP Development Stage Plan/CUP; a
Preliminary Plat; and, a CUP for attached housing development for this portion of the Fields of St.
Croix, Phase 2. The Final Plat of Fields 2 was approved on January 18, 2000, by which this site
was designated Outlot C. A short portion of Little Bluestem Court — serving this site — was
dedicated in the Final Plat as well. Site platted as outlots are not eligible for development without
replatting as lots/blocks.
The 1999 OP Concept Stage Plan , Development Stage Plan and Conditional Use Permit for
attached dwelling units on this site specified approval for 12 units total. In a companion action, the
Council denied the application to develop Outlot A (immediately south of this site) with non-
residential uses of limited scale — including CSA sales and administrative facilities. No
development of any type has been approved for Outlot A.
Discussion and Analysis:
The basic Preliminary Plat application submitted is to both slightly reconfigure the property line
between Outlot C and Outlot A (to match the platted road); and, to create the additional road right-
of-way and lots/blocks to serve Outlot C in the attached housing configuration. Each of the
proposed two -unit attached dwellings will be platted on its own individual tax lot (half of 3,324
square feet and half of 3,867 square feet.; and, the Association will hold all surrounding lands in
common as a new Outlot A.
There appears to be a conflict between the lot/block configuration proposed by the applicant and
the quantitative terms of Section 301.06. The City Code minimum individual lot size for town
homes in the OP is 8,000 square feet. As noted, the applicant has designed the plat with individual
town home lot sizes of 3,324 square feet and 3,867 square feet. It should be noted, however, that
the overall size of the town home site is slightly over 5 acres. Therefore the effective site area per
dwelling unit (@14 units) is 16,148 square feet. Whether the City Code intended to measure
platted town home lot area, or effective town home lot area, is unclear. Since spot density is
usually the issue that dictates lot size minimums in a Code, it is a usual practice to calculate the
effective lot size over a town home site rather than focus on the individual lot/block configuration.
We have assumed that here; and, suggest that no real conflict exists.
As noted above, both the OP Concept Plan and previous OP Development Stage Plan were
approved by the City with 12 units of town homes on Outlot C. The applicant, by this application,
proposes to instead construct 14 units on essentially the same outlot area. (1 additional structure/2
additional units) The applicant, in his July 26, 2002 narrative to the application, states that, "The
number of units in this phase includes the original 12 town home units and the two units
originally reserved for the CSA farmstead farmers and workers and the neighborhood shops
area. These commercial components of the project have been dropped from the proposal."
Our review of 1999 documents relating to the "Master" Fields Phase 2 approvals finds that the
Concept Plan approved by the City depicted a "Farmstead & Commercial Area" in Outlot A, but
no details of proposed uses beyond that general statement. The applicant had provided the City
Planner documents from the 1995 approval of Fields Phase 1 that depicted the CSA-related
structures then intended to occupy the Outlot at the southwest corner of 50th Street and State
Highway 5. The implication was that those same CSA structures would instead be located in
Outlot A of Fields 2, but what was meant by "Commercial Area" was unclear.
Condition #5 of Resolution #99-41, approving the Fields 2 Concept Plan reads as follows:
5. The Development Stage Plan shall provide substantial detail with respect to the design of
and proposed uses of the Non-residential component adjacent to State Highway 5.
It is apparent that at that time (July, 1999) the City did not anticipate any residential uses for
Outlot A; and, wanted more details regarding CSA and "Commercial " uses proposed at the OP
Development Stage.
The September 10, 1999 Staff Report regarding the OP Development Stage application references
Concept Stage Condition #5 by noting that no Findings could be made regarding the non-
residential land use CUP for the Outlot A area because no specific information was available from
the applicant as to type, scale and number of uses proposed. The applicant advised City Staff that
he would discuss this issue with the Planning Commission meeting September 13. The September
13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes reflect that discussion. Regarding the development of
Outlot A, Mr. Mazzara, architect for the applicant, stated (according to the Minutes) that there
would produce and other goods sold by and for CSA subscribers, as well as an antique store.
There was no mention of residential uses — CSA workers, or otherwise. Following the discussion
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the CUP for Outlot A on a 4-3 vote (Armstrong,
Sessing and Berg opposed). On September 21, 1999 the City Council denied the CUP for Outlot A
— unanimously.
There does not appear to be a Public Record of prior proposals to include residential uses in Outlot
A. It is therefore difficult for Staff to support the logic that 2 units should be added to the Outlot C
town home project based on 2 units "lost" on Outlot A. If, however, the applicant has truly
"dropped from the proposal" any use of Outlot A - as his 2002 narrative suggests may be the case
- an argument could be made that, in return for an Open Space Easement precluding any future
development of Outlot A, the City could justify two additional townhouse units on Outlot C. That
justification would be based on the permanent net reduction in use intensity of the overall Fields
OP by eliminating any use of Outlot A , and substituting 2 additional town home units (1 building)
in Outlot C. The applicant has not suggested that approach at this point.
We have attached copies of the Valley Branch Watershed District and City Engineer's reports on
the Preliminary Plat technical drawings. Some technical issues remained to be resolved prior to
any Council actions on the plat.
Findings and Recommendations:
Staff Findings and recommendations regarding the amendment to the Development Stage
Plan/CUP and the CUP for attached residential to increase the number of attached units from
12 to 14 are:
1. The overall dwelling unit density of all phases of the Fields of St. Croix, including 14
units of townhouse on Outlot C Fields Phase 2 is within the range defined by the
Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City; and therefore an amendment to increase the
allowable townhouse units from 12 to 14 on the condition that Outlot A be subjected to an
Open Space Easement is in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, on the
condition that Outlot A be subjected to an Open Space Easement
2. The increase from 12 to 14 townhouse units appears to present no additional significant
negative impacts on the health, safety , morals, convenience or general welfare of
occupants of surrounding lands, on the condition that Outlot A be subjected to an Open
Space Easement .
3. There would appear to be no significant additional impacts on traffic and parking on
adjacent streets that would result from the amendment.
4. Because of the location of the additional townhouse units, the two additional units (total of
14) will not result in additional impact on property values in the surrounding area.
5. No significant additional impacts on schools and utilities will result from increasing the
townhouse units from 12 to 14, on the condition that Outlot A be subjected to an Open
Space Easement .
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the OP Development Stage Plan and CUP for
attached housing of the Fields of St. Croix Phase 2 to allow 14 town home units (7 buildings) as a
substitute for the 12 units (6 buildings) previously approved by Resolutions #99-60 and Resolution
#99-62 upon the condition that the applicant enter into a Open Space Easement running to the City
that precludes future development of Outlot A, Fields of St. Croix Phase 2.
Staff finds the Preliminary Plat of `Bluestem at the Fields of St. Croix" staff dated August 6, 2002
generally responsive to the requirements of Section 301 and Section 400 of the City Code, subject
to the concurrence of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the specific Condition
of the Development Sage Plan and CUP amendment.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of `Bluestem at the Fields of St. Croix" subject
to the following conditions:
1. Prior approval of the Development Stage Plan and CUP Amendment with the Staff -
recommended condition.
2. Compliance with the August 6, 2002 recommendations of the City Engineer, including
those portions of the Valley Branch Watershed District August 5, 2002 recommendations
concurred in by the City Engineer.
3. Approval by the City Attorney of the draft HOA Covenants and Declarations.
Planning Commission Actions Requested:
Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage Plan, CUP and Preliminary Plat
of "Bluestem at the Field" per plans staff dated August 6, 2002 and upon Findings and
subject to conditions recommended by the August 6, 2002 Planning Staff Report.
Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Final Plat of Fields of St. Croix Phase 2 (Note Outlot Designations)
3. City Engineer's memo
4. Valley Branch Watershed Letter
5. Related Minutes/Resolutions
6. Applicant's Documentation
Location Map
T32N
T3IN
T30N
T29N
T28N
T27N
R21W R2OW RI9W
T32N
T3IN
T29N
T2SN
T27N
R22W R21W R20W
Vicinity Map
0 2400
Scale in Feet
Tha drexvg'Y No SaeaaryPa�bn
rapmdcoon of IaM recwtls u Yiey
m:.g. we.mn�on cann arks..
err,^ manemweo+arre�weMe
oaoowe a%. Wy mats Cwayunn
�eepmtlb4 for mY vmccursJ.
6au2e'. wemmpmn CoumY Suroeyale 00kv.
PIm—(651) 4308875
Pw . oele neeed on AS400 Manelpn
,.n„nec 3O.
5`DM'�n�ed'. MVaI 8.2
O 2 ;5 ..
17130
• .35525
,4 $ 74
...
4 8 ..S cc
450
▪ 'at- cc
• S 5
i pi k 2
,...5 o
:03
Ali
7
- U
.-1
'ORAINAP
EASEME
5
m .60
5 los es
.54
3
100 DO 100 00
378.01
Location Map
8
S DRAINAGE EASEMENT
'au
153.53
8
8
g
1
7
410 00
4,
410.00 el
45525
111.83
THE FIELDS OF ST CROIX 2ND ADDMON
15000
77
774
08
R2IW R2OW RI9W
T32N T32N
T31N T3IN
T3ON
T29N 129N
T28N T28N
T27N T27N
822W R2IW R2OW
Vicinity Map
0 245
Scale in Feet
This drawing Wo rasa of a amaation
agroclucton ol land rapes as nay
Wow in yams Washington County offices.
TN:drawing Mould be La. a mass.
nun... oily Washington Cowry re not
responsible lor ony inaoarasag.
Soma Washington County Sawyer, On.
Piano (551)130.75
Pena Pala lased on AS400 mina:Won
currant inrough June SO, 2002
Map pawn. August 8, 2002
TKDA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
August 6, 2002
Planning Commission Member
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Re: Bluestem at the Fields
Preliminary Plat Review
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
TKDA Commission No 11979-021
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
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I have reviewed the preliminary plat dated July 26, 2002, and have the following comments:
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary Sewer pipes have already been extended thru this plat while construction of Fields of
St. Croix II was being done. Waste water will be treated at the wetland treatment system used
for previous phases of this development. The system was initially sized to accept flow from this
addition.
The sewer pipes will be a homeowners association owned facility.
Watermain
Again, watermain was previously installed. The City will need 20-foot utility easements over
this watermain wherever it is placed outside of the street right-of-way. No buildings may be
placed within this easement.
The City will need to be present when excavation is done near this watermain. Testing will be
done after the main has been tapped.
An additional hydrant is needed near the first driveway east of Little Blue Stem Trail.
CB 102 is too close to the watermain. A ten -foot separation is required.
Test holes will need to be dug over the watermain to insure that there is a minimum of 8 feet of
cover.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Planning Commission
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
August 6, 2002
Page 2
Streets
It appears the large island will have two-way traffic around it. It should be posted "No Parking"
at all times.
Drainage
We are concerned about the large amount of impervious area that is planned to drain down the
hill towards Little Bluestem Trail and the neighboring property to the north. I would like to see a
diversion swale or berm constructed to collect this water while still on Outlot A.
The infiltration pond should have a piped outlet for those occasions when the amount of runoff
exceeds the infiltration capacity. This pond will need to be cleaned out by the developer after the
home building activities are complete, and turf is established.
An additional set of catch basins are needed to maximize the amount of runoff that reaches the
infiltration basin.
A VBWD permit is needed for this project.
Other
If possible, the City staff would like to see punch list work completed on the two previous phases
of these developments before they are allowed to begin a new one.
Thomas D. Prew, P.E.
City Engineer
TDP:mrk
August 5, 2002
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
?T n
✓VC/:. Laverne L"i-✓vli 4\. North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re: Bluestem at the Fields of St. Croix, Lake Elmo
Dear Mr. Dillerud:
On August 5, 2002, I received the copies of the proposed Bluestem at the Fields of St. Croix
development plans that you forwarded. You requested my comments by August 6, 2002. The
following are my comments on behalf of the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD).
The VBWD issued a permit for the site in 1999, but the current proposed plans differ from those
approved by the VBWD Board of Managers. Therefore, a VBWD permit amendment should be
obtained. The site ultimately drains to the landlocked Goetschel Pond so it is critical that the volume
of stormwater runoff be kept as low as possible. Erosion prevention is also priority.
Some of the issues that will be reviewed further through the VBWD permit amendment process
include:
1) Determining whether or not the area north of the proposed buildings will remain stable or
if gully erosion will be a problem;
2) Exploring whether the developer and city would be willing to minimize the impacts of
the proposed imperviousness of the loop road by depressing the center island (as
originally planned) and/or by reducing the radius;
3) Asking the city and developer if the proposed trails can be made any narrower or if they
could be pervious trails instead of paved trails to reduce imperviousness impacts;
4) Analyzing how the proposed stormwater pond's outlet will function and if erosion will be
a problem between it and the street intersection.
DALE BORASH DAVID BUCHECK DONALD SCHEEL LINCOLN FETCHER DUANE JOHNSON
VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 838 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538
Mr. Chuck Dillerud
August 5, 2002
Page 2
Thank you for submitting the plans to me to review. If you have any questions about my comments,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
-We-t--
J,•` n P. Hanson, P.E.
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY
Engineers for the District
c: Robert Engstrom, Robert Engstrom Companies, 4801 West 81 St., Suite 101, Minneapolis, MN 55437
Tim Freeman, FFD & Associates, 5620 Memorial Avenue North, Stillwater, MN 55082
Tim Fr re-1 e City Engineer to concur there isp�parK4 nl�radius for maintenance equipment and
s comfortable with 18' street even though the s for 14'. Curbs will be bituminous with low shoe
profile.
M/S/P Delapp/Siedow - opt Resolution No. 99-57, approving the Open Space Development Stage Plan
for Tana Ridge esolution No. 99-58 approving the Preliminary Plat for Tana Ridge based upon the
Findin s with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. (Motion passed 4-1:
A ong: the concept plan had larger Iots, more in keeping with our rural character. The ability to get
bonu ce.
E. Preliminary Plat, OP Development Stage Plan, Conditional Use Permits (3) - Fields of St. Croix
Phase II: Robert Engstrom
At its September 13th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the OP in AG
Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Development Stage Plan and Conditional Use Permit for
Townhouse Dwelling Units upon findings that the plans submitted substantially respond to the approved
Concept Plan, Chapter 300 CUP standards, Chapter 300 OP standards, and Chapter 400 subdivision
preliminary plat standards.
Much of the Council discussion centered on the non-residential component of the OP Plan adjacent to
Highway 5. Bob Engstrom stated he would have a greenhouse, move in an historic building to show the
thrashing machine owned by the Goetschel family and a roadside stand. Council member DeLapp saw a
justification for this proposal as an integral part of the development. People will be more social and want a
gathering place.
Planner Dillerud stated the antique store and the concept of produce sellers bringing in produce from
outside raised concern by the Planning Commission.
According to Attorney Filla the Open Space regs has permitted uses and conditional uses so what goes into
this area has to satisfy these conditional uses. To facilitate this, the City has to expand the conditional uses
and look at certain building configuration. In Fields 1, selling produce, wayside stand is allowed because it
is an AG use.
The Council was interested in a CSA Farm for this area, but had a problem with the uses Mr. Engstrom
proposed because they are not allowed in the code
M/S/P Delapp/Siedow — to approve Resolution No. 99-59, A Resolution approving a conditional use permit
for an Open Space Development Project in the Agricultural Zoning District as The Fields of St
Croix, Phase II. (Motion passed 5-0.)
M/S/P Delapp/Siedow — to approve transfer of 17 units from Fields of St Croix Phase I to St Croix Phase II.
There is more of an enhancement of preservation of open space with Tana Ridge and Fields of St. Croix.
(Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong:There is nothing on record that Bob Engstrom is entitled to the 17 lots from
Fields 1 to 2 and should not proceed with assumptions)
Mr. Engstrom responded that there is some honor among Council that the agreement was to get lower
density in Fields I and transfer to Fields II. Council members Delapp and Hunt vouched for this. Council
member Armstrong felt transfer of density is causing the lots to be very small. Dunn stated she is not a
proponent of small lots, but this development will be done well. According to the Planner if these 17 lots
were not transferred, it doesn't mean the lots would be any bigger.
Planner Dillerud stated there is a need to form a date for a workshop on radius for turnarounds and curbs to
work with our existing equipment before the final plat.
M/S/P Delapp/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No 99-60, A Resolution approving an Open Space
Development Stage Plan known as the Fields of St. Croix — Phase II. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong:What
are we doing to rural Lake Elmo. Because of the number of bonuses Mr. Engstrom received, he was able to
get 18 lots. The ability to get bonuses should be eliminated from the OP Ordinance
M/S/P Delapp/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No 99-61, A Resolution approving preliminary plat of an open
space development known as The Fields of St. Croix, Phase II. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong)
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 4
M/S/P Delapp/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No. 99-62, A Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit
for 12 townhouse units in an open space development stage plan known as the Fields of St. Croix, Phase II.
otion passed 4-1:Armstii
M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow — to adopt Resolution No, 99-63, A Resolution denying a CUP for non-
residential use in the Fields of St. Croix. (Motion passed 5-0.)
Mayor Hunt reported on an informational m g with Ted Mondale and elected officials on Monday,
September 20t. On Thursday night, there will i - a meeting with VBWD, 7 p.m., to discuss proposal on
water problem in the City of Grant.
Council member Delapp reported on the St. oix Expo with Gaylord Nelson and Ted Mondale. Some of
the Council thought HB and CB were elimi ted from the code. He asked if there was any appetite to
continue this. Lake Elmo is not interested i more HB because it is not an appropriate use for the City.
Administrator Kueffner responded the mo on to repeal the HB ordinance failed. The City has existing HB
and supports those. The Council asked th - the Planning Commission study Convenience Business,
Highway Business to determine if the C as e should be modified and/or consider alternate definition to be
consistent with area when they address ,f e Comprehensive Plan.
11. UNFINSIHED BUSINESS:
12. NEW BUSINESS:
13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S ' i PORT:
A. Pay Increase and Structure
Administrator Kueffner reviewed h recommendation for the proposed 1999 pay. She proposed to review
the employees on their anniversary ate and suggested setting up personnel groups as the City had done in
the past.
Per the proposed pay chart, Counc t member Armstrong indicated it is not fair some of the employees are
out of the high limit and asked if ti'is could be corrected. The 3 percent increase will not help this issue.
M/S/P Dunn/Siedow - To appro the 3 percent cost of living raise, as proposed by the City Administrator,
retroactive to the first of the year 1999), including the City Administrator, and approval of the
reclassification of the City Plan r. (Motion passed 5-0.)
The Administrator will require arterly or on a monthly basis for dept heads to come to Council to give
updates.
B. Web Page
Administrator Kueffner repo "ed Steve Gustafson had done a good job on developing a City web site, but
has a way to go. The Counc agreed that the City needed someone that is responsible and accountable to
the Council and was in fay. ` of a formal proposal for a web page. They asked that school kids get involved
in the Mayor's corner TV ow and look at where volunteers could help.
The Council adjourned meeting 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitte. `.y Sharon Lumby, Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No. 55 ;;.proving Minor Subdivision of George Krueger
Resolution No. 56 pproving Minor Subdivision of Wm & Teresa Boylan
Resolution No. Approving OP Development Stage Plan of Tana Ridge
Resolution No 8 Approving Preliminary Plat for Tana Ridge
Resolution 59 Approving CUP for Open Space Dev. Project in Ag Zoning Dist known Fields of St.
Croix, Ph.: - II
Resolu No. 60 Approving OP Dev. Stage Plan known as Fields of St.Croix, Phase II
Res. • lion No. 61 Approving Preliminary Plat of Open Space Dev. Known as Fields of St. Croix, Phase II
Res iuuvu i4u. l'L pp��" �,�a nPtaQP plan known as Fields of
St.Croix, Phase II
•
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
5
Planning I ommission Monday, June B8, 1999
M/S/P Berg/Herber — to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 99- _ a resolution approving the
Concept Plan for Fields of St. Croix -Phase Two to include the following conditions:
1. The Development Stage Plan shall include a proposal to legally guarantee that the Preserved
Open Space, the Public Park and the common waste water treatment system, all of which
require common actions with the adjacent OP project, will be accomplished completely and in
a timely manner, as proposed by the Concept Plan.
2. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer's Review Letter
3. Subject to Park Commission recommendation regarding the proposed Public Park Dedication.
4. Any modifications to the Tana Ridge Concept Plan that results in adjustments to the aggregate
Park or OP Preserved open space calculations shall void this recommendation.
C5. The Development Stage Plan shall provide substantial detail with respect to the design of and
proposed uses of the Non-residential component adjacent to State Highway 5.
(Motion Passed 8-0) Opposed: Brass; double counting of lots, lot size, not enough information
provided regarding the CSA Farm location.
The Plannin • t its Junne 28 meeting, adopted a recommendation that the City request a
secon extension of the Metropolitan C.ounc.. u - ,,....'9 - ^ 1 1 Q99 - the same date as the City's initial
request.
M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong — to adopt Resolution No. 99-39, A Resolution requesting the Metro, .litan
Council to extend the submission date for the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update • . -cember 31,
1999. (Motion passed 5-0).
C. Northeast Annexed Area — Comprehensive Plan A ent
Planner Dillerud reported the Planning Com
guiding for the Northeast Annexed
Rural Regional Blueprint des'
M/S/P Dunn/A
Council t
Ann
n at its June 14th meeting, reaffirmed RAD land use
d to recommend adopting a resolution requesting Permanent
on for the Northeast Annexed Area.
ong — to adopt Resolution No. 99-40, A Resolution Requesting the Metropolitan
th- 11721 :h Strategy Area Designation for the Northeast
otion passed 5-0). (Motion passed 5-0).
OP Concept Plan — Fields of St. Croix — Phase 2
City Planner Dillerud reported at its June 29, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this OP Concept for 54 single family detached lots; 12 units of attached housing; and a
CSA/Commercial area on this site of 115 gross acres. (the former Fields Phase 2 site +35 acres of the
former Emerson/Forliti site). The recommendation was on an 8-1 vote to "double count" open space/public
park; and the commercial area. This concept was reviewed in combination with the Tana Ridge concept
plan with regard to unit count, Preserved Open Space, Public Park Dedication and Common wastewater
treatment.
At its June 21 meeting, the Parks Commission recommended that Sections labeled "B" (southwest
rectangular area) and "D" (drainfield area) to be excluded form consideration as park dedication land in the
Tana Ridge/Fields of St. Croix Phase 2 proposed park plan. The Commission recommended the Council
accept 9 acres comprised of Section's A and C as part of the Park Dedication fulfillment and to accept fee
in lieu of land for the remaining 5.17 acres. It was the consensus of the Parks Commission, the ball field be
redesigned to a radius of 300 feet to accommodate a regulation size ball field and the change be reflected in
the Preliminary Plat, the boundary of the park is to be extended further south.
Council member Dunn would rather see a neighborhood park than an active park. Planner Dillerud
explained the Parks Commission focused on the Park Plan and this is why they made the recommendation.
Tom Prew suggested off-street parking should be located for the park. Bob Engstrom stated there are six
designated parking spaces and on -street parallel parking is available. Restricting the parking spaces will
make sure this will not become a regional park, but stay a local city park. Bob Engstrom said he is
prepared to spend the money to install the tot lot and the field. Tim Freeman explained the Parks
Commission had a problem with the size of the ball field. He had drawn a softball field, which is smaller
than a regulation baseball diamond, but expects, typically, little kids playing softball so it really is not
undersized at all for a softball field.
The Planning Commission's recommendation includes several conditions, including continue coordination
with the Tana Ridge OP Pan; compliance with the Park Commission recommendations, compliance with
the City Engineer's Memo; and further definition of the CSA/Commercial Area with the Development
State Plan. The Planner pointed out the CSA site is an enlargement from the concept plan. In the larger
context of the city and Highway 5, there is a concern that we do not do anything here of a commercial
nature that would in any way detract what we would do in the Old Village. Bob Engstrom indicated there
would be a storage building for equipment and vehicles, a farmstead market, and other buildings suitable
for native plants.
Council member Dunn would look more favorably on the plat if Lot 12, Block 3 was eliminated and there
would be more open space.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 6, 1999 5
Tim Freeman, Folz, Freeman and Dupay, representing Will Zintl on Tana Ridge, is working with Bob
Engstrom in coordination with the Fields of St. Croix. It was their intention to draw the two cul-de-sacs in
the Fields to meet the standard plate for the city engineering standards. He felt that requiring concrete curbs
in the OP development are not appropriate. If these subdivisions had sanitary sewer as referred to in the
subdivision code, rather than sharing a common sewage treatment system, then concrete curb and gutter
should be installed. He is sensitive to the Maintenance Department's ability to maintain the streets and
would like to be invited to the workshop on street design standards. The Council asked that the
developers work with Dan Olinger to see if the he could make the radius with the City equipment. Council
member Siedow asked that they check with the Maintenance Dept. to see what street width works for them.
Armstrong wanted to make sure busses and fire trucks can make turns.
In his memo dated July 1, 1999, Tom Prew recommended when concept plan approval is given, the city
proceed with a feasibility study for a second well. Mr. Freeman asked for clarification of the feasibility
study. Would the study get into technical issues such as sufficient capacity or pressure, or get into the
monetary issues. Mr. Dillerud answered this would be a technical feasibility of the project; such as, can we
get water, volume, pressure, what additional trunk facilities is necessary and then deal with the costs of the
• City. —
I ■
11
M/S/P DeLappnn - to adopt Resolution No. 99-41, A Resolution Approving the Concept Plan for the
Fields of St. Croix — Phase 2, as amended. ADD. Condition #12. Lot 12, Block 3 will be relocated or
eliminated because of existing development. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong: The lots are too small, make
larger lots and less open space, adding a hardship on Highway 5... already a problem with no right side
bypass lane.)
ran — i'ana R.i lgt
Tim Freeman explained the Concept ' an for Tana Ridge has hardly changed from the last concept plan
with the exception of adding two its, but not increasing units overall. Council member Armstrong felt a
bonus for the Village Green an• •P was ridiculous. She asked why you need a 10' setback variance on
open land. Freeman respond • that it's not a variance, but a variation from the code requirements. The
10'setback allows people .re flexibility with side -loaded garages, which the ordinance encourages. The
lots are 125' wide and u o 185' wide and all are 3/4 of an acre in Tana Ridge.
Based on Council in
plantings along pro
the landscape pl
road. When you
He brought thi
been in the ro
professional
, Freeman explained, the road has been moved and they will provide screening and
rty line, particularly where there is an opening. Council member DeLapp stated on
hows all the trees outside of the right-of-way rather than creating a crown over the
et to the west property line, the long stretch of the road has no trees inside of the r-o-w.
p because in Parkview Estates the trees were planted on the property line that should have
way. Mr. Freeman responded that the landscape plan is for illustration only. A
dscape plan will be submitted with the preliminary plat.
M/S/P Si; . ow/Hunt - to adopt Resolution No. 99-42, A Resolution Approving the Concept Plan for Tana
Ridge, th the understanding that the preliminary plat will reflect the landscape issue. (Motion passed 3-
2:Dun; . too many houses on strip (ridge) should listen to the land, concern on wetlands and drainage,
rem ed the developer there is not an outlet to Goetschel Pond or on the other side of 50th Street,.
A trong: would have voted for the plat if it came in as platted in the first place).
. PUD Development Stage Plan & Preliminary Plat — Eagle Point Business Park
G. Site Plan — Higher Dimension Research
ecause of the late hour, the applicants were aske ii .al e' -stpone consideration of this
item until a special meeting can be . ubeuss only these agenda items. Dale Glowa and George
urkards, Unite. ' s ated HDR is in a rush to proceed, but agreed to postpone these items and
atte . - pecial Council meeting.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 6, 1999 6
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 99-41
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN
FOR THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX — PHASE 2
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed the Concept Plan for the Fields of
St. Croix -Phase Two, at its June 28, 1999 meeting and recommended approval to the City Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo City Council does hereby
approve and accept the Concept Plan of the Fields of St. Croix -Phase Two for 54 single family lots; 12
townhouse units; and an Agricultural Products Market Site as the same as on file, dated May 28, 1999, with
the City Administrator based upon the following findings:
1. The Concept Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The Concept Plan, when executed in combination with the Tana Ridge Concept Plan and the
recommendations of the Park Commission, is consistent with the purpose of the Open Space
Preservation District.
3. The Concept Plan, when executed in combination with the Tana Ridge Concept Plan and the
recommendations of the Park Commission, complies with OP development standards.
4. The Concept Plan, when executed in combination with the Tana Ridge Concept Plan and the
recommendations of the Park Commission, preserves the required open space.
FURTHER, the following conditions shall be attached:
1. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's memo.
2. The Development Stage Plan shall include a proposal to legally guarantee that the open space
and public park components (subject to Park Commission recommendations) and the common
waste water treatment system, all of which require common actions with the adjacent OP
project, will be accomplished completely and in a timely manner, as proposed by the Concept
Plan.
3. Subject to any Park Commission recommendation regarding the proposed public park.
4. Any modifications to the Tana Ridge Concept Plan that results in adjustments to the aggregate
en space calcula 11 void this recommendation.
5. The Development tage ' an shall provide su. .uuai detail with respect to the design of and
proposed uses of the Non-residential component adjacent to State Highway 5.
u. LAP existing aevelopmeni dlitduy
there.
ADOPTION, by the Lake Elmo City Council this 6th day of July, 1999.
Lee Hunt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Kuef, , City Aor
� ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES t-
BL UESTEM AT THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
PRELIMINARY PLAT NARRATIVE
July 26th 2002
Bluestem at The Fields is the final phase of The Fields of St. Croix. It consists of seven two unit
buildings at the location of the townhome component of the originally approved overall plan.
The number of units in this phase includes the original twelve townhome units and the two units
originally reserved for the CSA farmstead farmers and workers and the neighborhood shops area.
These commercial components of the project have been dropped from the proposal.
The design development numbers normally generated for an OP development in Lake Elmo have
been satisfied by the previously platted phases of The Fields of St. Croix. The entire amount of
Open Space, Trails, Village Greens, etc. required by the ordinance, have been previously
satisfied. The design of the townhome component is nearly identical to the drawings previously
approved with Phase Two of The Fields of St. Croix. Homeowners will be members of The
Fields of St. Croix Community Association and thereby, will enjoy the existing pathways, open
space and the restored barn owned by the Community Association. In addition, exterior
maintenance and landscaping services will be provided.
The street serving this phase is proposed to be a public street, with a slight realignment of the last
75 feet of the previously platted right of way. This portion of the street needs to be vacated, in
favor of the new alignment being platted with this phase. We request that the vacation be
approved and recorded along with the approval of this phase. There is also a slight shift in the
property line between Outlot B and Outlot C from Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition. This is
necessary to accommodate the revised alignment of the loop street. Sanitary sewer and city of
Lake Elmo water laterals were installed as part of the Phase II development.
The architecture is a distinctively unique stylized rural and features porch entries, detailed wood
and stone fireplaces, lap siding, double hung windows, and variable roof pitches. The attached
double garages are located by the site configuration in a manner that hides the impact of garage
doors and driveways. The 1 1/2 story designs provide for a master bedroom on the main floor.
Extra storage is available with the full basements.
The site contains an existing wooded area of mostly boxelder trees and emergent shrubs. Several
mature spruce trees are at the entrance. Most of the existing vegetation will be retained. A
landscaped berm is located at the southeast corner. A stormwater/rain garden is adjacent to the
entrance road. The cluster arrangement permits the retention of the view corridor of State
Highway #5. Internal sidewalks and pathways connect to the previously installed pathway
system.
Huntington Homes, Jim Rasmussen, owner, will be the builder. Robert Engstrom Companies will
complete the site development and landscaping.
...RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS...
4801 West 81st Street. Suite 101 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437• (612) 893-1001 • Fax (612) 893-1841
• —
•
•
Location Map
•
R21W R2OW RI9W
R22W R21W R2OW
Vicinity Map
0 680
Scale in Feet
This tlreevp I. Ne result of e con.. ten
end repronuction w lend mcwas es e.y
.weer n v.wu. Westinunoffices. County
Tnnate1y Noah Ee usM for reference
Mons uMat Wallin.Caw,is not
reewn.ue to any..owaR.
Space: Wesnepron CouaM1surseYPle dike.
PMae (651) 4.6975
P.reel Mu ease! anASe00Moneation
,a<35.X@
Ma, PM. nwam2. 2502
10" ••••,
i
BLUESTEM AT THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Existing Conditions
Folz Freeman, D++P'IY dt Associates, Inc.
A LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING. IfO110pIML AVENUE 101 tH . I1IIIM19l LMMOM aaa2
(as1141.033 - F. D6?)..ace
OWNER:
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
4801 West 81st Street, Suite 101
Minneapolis, MN 55437
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Outlot C and Part of Outlot B,
THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
3ND ADDITION, according to
the plat on file and of record in
the office of the County
Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
F
SCALE:
1 Inch = 40 Feet
1 ^^ 1
July 26, 2002
SEC. 12, T29N, R21 W
\\
\X
J ,No. 02-136 ShaRNo. 1 of 5
02002—Fo1z, Frtemm, pqy t Associate Im—AR RighRRow,;
0.64 Act
BLUESTEM AT THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Lot & Roadway Plan
y-. _ —
'.... , ' .
/ /- __-, \
/ /( / ,L, '\ ...;\
/ .
4-1-- ( 0.67 I
/ t'
...r.r ! . Al
-- - --4
... \ \`...'•• "",-,'
----, ...„,:•,-,
0-UTLOT E 7r
\
,-•
0.63 AM
'10
y.
t!,
S
rfs
0-- Oil
I ;
R...0..
CP
OUTLOT A
•••••••-'
EV.1 30,0100,
„,• •
, •A• V
- No. 02426 51.40 N. 2.81
•••••-..
- - -
DRAINAGE E ASEIAIDIT
1
merriew'w
4.31.40
OUTLOT A
5.19 Act
PRGPOSED LOT UNE
ExisfiNc LOT UNE
3.67 Act
1)111)0 t
0
13
; I
Fein Freeman Dopey & Assocades, roc.
imp SURVEYING • LAW PLANNING
FIN `4. INMOVINIMIL NOME MORN • 1.1111,1MIK 1111•Eaffit
9181)...598813 - Fax (659.0.0a51
OWNER:
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
4801 West 81st Sticet, Suite 101
Muureapolis, MN 55437
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Outlot C and Part of Outlot B,
THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
3ND ADDITION. according to
the plat on file and of record in
the office of the County
Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota.
SCALE:
1inch o< 40 Feet
July 26, 2002
1 HEREBY CERTIFY 111AT 11)0 SURVEY. PUN OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED ElY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERIADON AND 111AT 1 AM
A DULY UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF 111E STATE
OF MINNESOTA.
MAO L. CAMAY MINNESOTA REGISTRATION NO 11252 DATE:
TIMOTHY J. FREEMAN MINNESOTA REG/5111,110N NO. 16989
0 2002 — Fel; Tram Apr/ Assosiatts, Toe- — %gbh ROOM'
BLUESTEM AT THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Grading & Erosion Control Plan
M.N.02436 S1.e6Na. 3 of S
Folg Freeman, Dopy & Associates, Inc.
. LAND SIdnVEYING • L1N() PLANNING
• Imemrho EIMt INBLUE 11DRM . QTWl1FAT9L IqEIpRA ■tQ
•
o ml
I. 1 ()
OWNER:
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
4801 West Slot Stieet, Suite 101
Minneapolis, MN 55437
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Outlot C and Part of Outlot B,
THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
3ND ADDITION, according to
the plat on file and of record in
the office of the County
Recorder. Washington County. Minnesota.
SCALE:
1 Inch = 40 Feet
July 26, 2002
DENOTES EHSRNG CONTOUR FRCFA COUNTY AERIAL DATA
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR
r942.00 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
r I DENOTES PRCPOSEO HOUSE PAD LOCATION
DENOTES EROSION CONTROL FENCING
EIEVAI1ONS ARE ON N.G.0.D. MEAN SEA -LEVEL.
1929 ADJUSTMENT_
BEARINGS ARE ON AN ASSUMED DAMN
CONSTRUCTION OF SILT FENCE
FIelencd rta 20421 '
SteN or Weed Past
30 4Fahwm Height
24 Minimum Depth
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1NI5 SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM
A DULY UCENSED LOUD SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF MI NESOTA.
DAVID L OIPAY MINNESOTA REGISTRATION N0. 17252 DATE
TIMOTHY J. FREEMAN MINIESOTA REGISTRATION NO. 16989
02002—Ye%o. Frmn,A*y 3 Asseei4a.,Ix — AYAi¢b2EaarN
,Q,UTLO T E
\S
7
/
lc \ / /
/
/
1
/ • ,� /
/ ••,%'.: /
/ ti
/ /` 444''' `'
BLUESTEM AT THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX F°Freeman, = `E m
USII. MI
RN 93196
NV. 923.07E
923.97 W
NV. 923.87 N
EPSne COMM
RM 93125
NV. 92461
1
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Utility Plan
£(TEAR 8' YMTE701MI
& RELOCATE 035114G
5' HYDRANT (NEW TLP
NOT ELEV. 6 942.6a)
ADJUST CASTING
TO ElEYA11G 841.92
ADJUST OM STOP I
BOX TO ELEV. 940.6
CURB STOP
BOX TO ELEV. 940.E
RP RAP OtERFLOWI
• ELEV. 937.00
OUTLOT A
938.0
Y]818 E
IIt. 928.00 W
0
ADJUST CASING TO
l ETEVAIXTN 93690
L
PROPOSED t-1/2' CCFPERI
WATER SERMCE
PRCPOSFD 6' SANITARY
5R10E • 1.04%
PROPOSED CLEANOUTI
RIM 942.9
NV. 932.00
MUST CAIEVALW
TO ELEVATION 942.00
ADJ15T CASING 10I
ELEVA11131 941.70
NOTE:
1) ALL WATER SERVICES 1- COPPER
UNLESS NOTED.
2) ALL SANITARY SEANCES 4' PM:
SCR 26 OW FCS NOIED.
Erickson Engnefing &
Design Croup, inc
5620 Memorial Avenue N.
St)water, MN 55082
Phase 651439.0588
Fax 651439.5717
Email irrfooeedg-iuccom
OWNER:
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
4801 West 81st Street, Suite 101
Mutneapolis, MN 55437
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Outlot C and Part of Outlot B,
THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
3ND ADDITION, according to
the plat on file and of record in
the office of the County
Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota.
SCALE:
1 Inch 40 Feet
29
July 26, 2002
LEGEND:
—0-8'w { - PROPOSED WATERMAIN W/ G.V., HYDRANT & REDUCER
A 9 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER W/ M.H.
•012.1YIARIMI PROPOSED STORM SEWER W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S.
----e8'w • EXISTING WATERMAIN W/ G.V., HYDRANT & REDUCER
6's e ® EXISTING SANITARY SEWER W/ M.H.
T 170 01 - EXISTING STORM SEWER W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S.
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY M: OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM
A DULY LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF 111E STATE
OF MNNESOTA.
TODD A. ERICKSON MIMCSOTA REG151RA110N NO. M3918 DATE
Map No. 02-136 Shed No. 4 of
02002 —Fel; Pry Dog,' A Ass mist., la. —All RiRIK Roaro4
r"-
{' T) ' .7
r ,
,
PRELIMINARY PLAT
BLUESTEM AT THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
Landscape Plan
f 51,t1r
- • I
' 1
i Cc-os.
N , •
_IL 2
• •„,
• \ • l'•",•\•.7-•• • .N• "••••• •
••• • ••• •••„„ •
• '.;>}', " I
'
-11*16(1,t3W°
„31
, ,,TTFA41.;6410ifiagar • .
0
1
, Is
-. 7
5,, •
— „
— „
--„,-; --- —
',a; i
„ ,
t
EXISTIN
WOOD
.elorevisAic
936
404I„Lr'' OE 7.1 Or
-Atro..
N.4
ed°1), !BOULDER OLROIROPPINOS
EVEJECIR N TREE
/ Xi)
, LDFLOWARS, NATIVA &
A "ONNAMENTAL OFIASSILS
RAIN GARDEN /
STORMWATER
INFILTRATION BASIN
LDFLOWIMS, NATIVI
OA
g42
-
so
TREE
13
LANDSCAPED BERM
Planted with ovor/uneerstory
shrubs & grsiustisewsr *ante
4-
1
• .•
9 42,
7
Foln. Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc.
LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
EEO 960:11,1FS.OUR NIEBUE NORM - MU -WATER. 10.1141re-SOTA tem
(660) 439-8833 • Fm (651) 430.9931
ROBERT ENGSTROM MANTES
OWNER:
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
4801 West 81st Street, Suite 101
Minneapolis, MN 55437
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Outlot C and Part of Outlot B,
THE FIELDS OF ST. CROIX
3ND ADDITION, according to
the plat on file and of record in
the office of the County
Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota.
LANDBOAM PLAN ",
PREPARED &Vs'
DESIGN FORUM INC.
ASS, W. WV' STREET
SUITE 101
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437
PHu 082.131.5o2s '
74
SCALE:
Inch = 40 Feet
A2 40
July 26, 2002
DATE1 7-2S.02
PLANT PAL161111
PLANT MATERIAL WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE FOLLOWING PALETTE
00AINION / BOTANICAL NA=
•
owtiotious Toms . ,34
Several hundred Insisting deeSdisowe INtree BremenieVed )
EMERALD LUSTRE NORWAY MAPLE. we' PNWPItlee Pone,
FALLOW" ASH. hasinue nista 'IMO&
PRAIRIE SPIRE ASSI. Buts* oenneylverica 'rg,/
CEINONO ASPEN. pecvlos trensubidse
RED SPLENCOR CRABAPPLE mean Yea .1161.Ce
SPRN3SNOW CRAISAFPLE PIM» *dna anon,
SENTRY AMERICAN LINDEN, ela imerieene *NOY
AUTUMN BLAZE MAFIA treernanli lethoesokr
BUR OAK. quescus macron/se
.00,-.A.D EDELUS, PePUS* POWs. Now.,
MOEN WEEFIN3 WILLOW. aa/lx site VW
CORKSCREW PILLOW, Nate Matelltlara
RUSSIAN OUVE elmegnoa encualltolIs
svititoitERN TEAM*
WHITE SPRUCE. num MM. 4.11.1•1 Urea HP
PONDEROSA NNE, Once otmletosa
SHRUBS
CARCINAL DOGWOOD, corms We. tandInse
SMOKEBUSH, menus 'pre.'
BLAOKHAW VIBURNUM. vacomum prwilloGurn
NANNYBERRY VIBURNUM, Hesinum Wino
AMERICAN CRANBERRY VIBURNUM, vicumurn BON*
counts= FILBERT, =yam &velem cessIcrla
SMOOTH SWAG. Moo Cliabl.
BTAOHORN SUMAC. Mu *pit.
PUSSYVVILLOW, eats caves
BUM leCNETSUCKLE, de•Wle *Now*
GRAY 000W000. coma, reseiness -
MUSKINGUM O00W000, ecrimie taros. nw.m'
PiRENNIALS
ELAZINORTAR. Soap*
FILACSEVE0 SUSAN whiner. pupae&
RUSSIAN SKIE. oatmeal&
YEU.OW DONEFLOWER ruck.
DANEV, hernsmealle 'Mega de ore'
Rout.. sedum 'autumn Iss.
VERONICA, work.
UGULNBA, 10ulerla Pe locker
...KB ME weep, eupshalorn
COREOP918, °creeps* 'moonbem'
YAFEKBE actelea 'ocronation °old
BEE SALK soonest:la
ASTEBE Nab
OLOBE THISBE. iserinoos
DAISY. leseetrinemurn
LADY'S INAHR.E..honlilla
CORAL BELLS. neuchent
MALLOW PINE met. ekes
GOLDENROD, esildeso
MAPLE ASTER 1011. 'aunt. Orr,
MIRE
WER. achInseea ',NNW won'
BUTTERFLVWEED, est:boles
SILVER ISNO, **erne* PelmAthina
HOSTA. hosts
GRASS= .
LffILItaLutarem, sensedrun Wow,.
INMAN GRASS. prohearvm nutria ••
BIDEOATS CIAAM41 bouteloosa tiorepenciA•
BID BLUESTEM. erPropepon 0stenS1
CANADA WILD RYE. *MEN NaNdomi
JUNEORASS, kdlerla cash*.
ZEBRAGRAGS. mfecantnue TebrInus.
SILVER FEATHER, trieanPus *labs *101041140*.
NAM GRASS, rriecsnihus Owns* Porouressena'
FEATHER REED watt, tattmtatolt. 30.50r0
FEATHER REED ORAEB. 04114041400eas iminelneem 'overetam•
FOUNTAIN °RABB, pennieMon seisms°
t 'Mt
10 S'+ ille/SPADE
t 30 11113./POT
380 SPVPOT/Nalto
IMO
miulsoT/MillO
Map No. D
02002 — Fol., human, Dupay & Associates, Inc. — All Rights Reservej
Lake Elmo 2000 Land Use
Work Map
5,
Alternative 3 — urban residential @ 5 du/ac, sewered employment @ 40/acre
3% Urban by 2020, 11% Urban Reserve, 86% Rural
Lake Elmo 2000 Land Use
Work Map
ReSetZ
a02.0 (Arbdri
?3 /0e/ac
ii
Alternative 1 — urban residential @ 3 du/ac, sewered employment @ l0/acre
5% Urban by 2020, 22% Urban Reserve, 73% Rural
Lake Elmo 2000 Land Use
Work Map
Alternative 2 — urban residential @ 4 du/ac, sewered employment @ 20/acre
4% Urban by 2020, 15% Urban Reserve, 81% Rural
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
0
Presentation
Meetin. date: June 12, 2002
ADVISORY INFORMATION
Executive Summary
Agenda Item: 2002-156
Date:
Subject:
District(s), Member(s):
Policy/Legal Reference:
Staff Prepared/Presented:
Division/Department:
June 3, 2002,
Lake Elmo 2000 — 2020 Comprehensive Plan -- Referral File No. 18608-1
Metropolitan Council District 12 (Marc Hugunin, 651-430-3515)
Minn. Stat. § 473.864, Subd. 2 and § 473.175, Subd. 1
Jim Uttley, AICP, Planning Analyst (651-602-1361)
Eli Cooper, Director, Planning and Growth Management Dept (651-602-1521);
Caren Dewar, Deputy Regional Administrator, Policy Alignment and Development
Division (651-602-1306)
Policy Alignment and Development /Planning and Growth Management
OVERVIEW
The Regional Growth Strategy contained in the Metropolitan Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint identifies
Lake Elmo as being in three policy areas: permanent rural, urban reserve and illustrative 2020 MUSA. The
regional system plans for aviation, transportation and water resources management are based on and
designed specifically to support the Regional Growth Strategy.
The concepts of a "Regional Growth Strategy", "Regional Blueprint" and the three
Metropolitan Council -devised policy areas of "permanent rural", "urban reserve", and
"Illustrative 2020 MUSA" are not reflected by, or even mentioned in State Statutes or State
Rules as basis for a determination as to whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with,
or in conflict with, Regional Systems. The City suggests that it was not the intention of the
Legislature for the Metropolitan Council to engage in regional master planning or land use
zoning - directly or indirectly. In mandating that local units of government comply with
concepts such as the 1996 Regional Blueprint, and_ the_ Regional_ Growth Strategy by
suggesting authority to enforce compliance with such mandates utilizing MSA 473.175, the
Metropolitan Council is, in fact, indirectly engaging in land use planning, and also (by the
terms of MSA 473.858 linking land use zoning to a comprehensive plan) the Metropolitan
Council is also, therefore, indirectly engaged in land use zoning.
In 1996, after an extensive public participation process, the Council adopted a 2020 Regional Blueprint and
regional system plan chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide for aviation, transportation and water
resources. The Regional Blueprint is part of the comprehensive development guide prepared and adopted by
the Council in conjunction with its implementation of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As part of its
Blueprint, the Council established a new regional vision for the metropolitan area called the Regional
Growth Strategy which outlines an urban growth and development pattern for the seven -county metropolitan
area and identifies wide-ranging policies and actions needed to implement that development pattern. The
Regional Growth Strategy recognizes that regional services like highways, transit, wastewater treatment, and
airports play key roles in supporting new development and that regional investments must be provided in an
efficient and effective manner. The Regional Growth Strategy was incorporated by reference into the
regional system plans for transportation and water resources in such a way that any local plan that is
inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy automatically is inconsistent with and therefore not in
conformity with the Council's regional system plans.
1
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
The concepts of a "Regional Growth Strategy", "Regional Blueprint" and the three
Metropolitan Council -devised policy areas of "permanent rural", "urban reserve", and
"Illustrative 2020 MUSA" are not reflected by, or even mentioned in State Statutes or State
Rules as basis for a determination as to whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with,
or in conflict with, Regional Systems. The City suggests that it was not the intention of the
Legislature for the Metropolitan Council to engage in regional master planning or land use
zoning — directly or indirectly. In mandating that local units of government comply with
concepts such as the 1996 Regional Blueprint, and the Regional Growth Strategy by
suggesting authority to enforce compliance with such mandates utilizing MSA 473.175, the
Metropolitan Council is, in fact, indirectly engaging in land use planning, and also ( by the
terms of MSA 473.858 linking land use zoning to a comprehensive plan) the Metropolitan
Council is also, therefore, indirectly engaged in land use zoning.
According to the Council's Regional Growth Strategy, communities identified as "permanent rural" should
plan to support a rural lifestyle and have a rural residential density of one dwelling per 10 acres. Clustering
on small lots with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) or smaller lots with community sewage
treatment system and drainfield is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained.
At a December 19, 2001 meeting of the Rural Issues Work Group committee of the Metropolitan
Council, a Work Group Member asked the planning consultants to the Metropolitan Council (Biko
and Associates and URS), "...if there was any significance in keeping housing density at 1:10..." The
consultants responded that, "...the number is not magic, but it reflects current policy and current
planning while allowing the ability to maintain rural character...". There is no established quantitative
foundation related to Regional Systems for maintaining a standard of 1 dwelling per 10 acres, or any
other density standard. It appears that the density standards are a function of unchallenged historic
usage by the Metropolitan Council.
Council policy with respect to "urban reserve" says that communities identified as urban reserve should
protect such areas for future urbanization that is expected to occur before 2040. Such areas are not intended
to support a rural residential life-style, and the overall density should be one dwelling per 40 acres.
Clustering on small lots with ISTS or smaller lots with a community sewage treatment system and drainfields
is permitted as long as the overall density is maintained. The principal policy concern is to preserve such
areas for future urbanization. Short-term open space protection related to cluster platting is acceptable, but
long-term or permanent open space protection is not acceptable for areas that should be designated "urban
reserve." Communities may plan for limited, interim rural residential uses for areas designated as "urban
reserve," as long as such development reflects Council density guidelines and will not have the effect of
making future urbanization difficult.
The City can not identify direct statutory authority for the Metropolitan Council to impose the
concept of "urban reserve" in review of local comprehensive plans for conflict or compliance with
Regional Systems. No definition exists for the terms "rural Life-style", nor does direct statutory
authority appear to exist for the Metropolitan Council to engage in determining life-style choices for
residents of the Region by determining where or when any such life-styles would geographically occur.
No quantitative basis has been demonstrated to support an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 40
acres (as distinguished from 1 unit for 30 acres, or 1 unit per 50 acres). At the referenced Rural Issues
Work Group meeting a Metropolitan Council Member asked, "...why the Metropolitan Council is not
2
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
going to let people develop at densities that are Euided by what the land will allow...". (emphasis
added)
In conjunction with the implementation of its Regional Blueprint, the Council established an "illustrative
2020 MUSA" which is best described as an overlay district. It overlays portions of the region's urban
reserve area and identifies those areas of urban reserve that may be needed to begin to urbanize before 2020.
The "Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy" map, which was adopted as part of the 1996 Regional
Blueprint, identifies a large area of illustrative 2020 MUSA in Lake Elmo. This is the area within which the
city is expected to plan for urbanization to help accommodate regional growth and development that is
anticipated to occur within the near future. However, the map does not show the extent of expected
urbanization in Lake Elmo by 2020. The amount of urbanization for which local communities are expected
to plan is identified in the Council's system statement. The regional system plans for transportation
(generally) and water resources management (specifically) establish the Council's plans for infrastructure
needed to support the Regional Growth Strategy and identify how much urbanization (affecting regional
sewer flow and transportation systems) a community should plan to accommodate by 2020.
The concepts of a "Regional Growth Strategy", "Regional Blueprint" and the three
Metropolitan Council -devised policy areas of "permanent rural", "urban reserve", and
"Illustrative 2020 MUSA" are not reflected by, or even mentioned in State Statutes or State
Rules as basis for a determination as to whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with,
or in conflict with, Regional Systems. The City suggests that it was not the intention of the
Legislature for the Metropolitan Council to engage in regional master planning or land use
zoning — directly or indirectly. In mandating that local units of government comply with
concepts such as the 1996 Regional Blueprint, and the Regional Growth Strategy by
suggesting authority to enforce compliance with such mandates utilizing MSA 473.175, the
Metropolitan Council is, in fact, indirectly engaging in land use planning, and also ( by the
terms of MSA 473.858 linking land use zoning to a comprehensive plan) the Metropolitan
Council is also, therefore, indirectly engaged in land use zoning.
The Metropolitan Council does not appear to have direct Legislative authority to prepare and
enforce regional land use plans or land use zoning. The term "overlay district" is a land use
zoning term. The use of the Regional Systems protection authority that the Legislature has
accorded the MetropolitanCouncilas a -tool to -"back -in -to" local land use planning -and --land
use zoning (directly, or indirectly by `linkages") does not appear to be authorized, or
anticipated, by the Legislature.
Individual community system statements were sent to communities in early 1997, as required by the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat. §473.856). The system statements identified specifically how
much urbanization local communities should plan to accommodate and provide information about the
location, size and timing of regional infrastructure that the Council will have in place to support that growth.
Under the Act (Minn. Stat. §473.857), communities have 60 days to request a hearing to resolve
disagreements over the content of the system statement. The content of the 1997 system statement was not
disputed or challenged by the city. Lake Elmo did not request a hearing or contact the Council to advise that
it had a disagreement with its system statement.
The position of the City of Lake Elmo regarding the 1996 Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth
Strategy was clearly communicated by the adoption of Lake Elmo City Council Resolution #96-39 on
November 19, 1996. (Copy Attached) That Resolution was presented by Mayor Wyn John as Lake
3
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Elmo's position at the November 20,1996 Public Hearing on the 1996 Blueprint/Strategy that was
conducted by the Metropolitan Council at the Oakdale City Hall. There is no evidence that the
position of the City changed in any respect by 1997 — or even by 2002.
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires communities to plan for development as outlined in the system
statement, a reflection of regional system plans as they pertain to individual communities. Local
communities have flexibility in determining the most suitable locations and mix of uses so long as they plan
reflective of regional systems policies and directions. What this means in practice is that some communities,
with several possible locations to urbanize, can decide the most appropriate areas to begin their urbanization.
In Lake Elmo's case, it could choose the staging.and location of where urbanization will occur but not
whether or when it will occur. It could choose to trade some permanent rural residential area in one part of
the city for urban reserve elsewhere, if the net results of the "trading" remains approximately the same in
overall acreage.
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act does not appear to require communities to "Dian for
development as outlined in the system statement" (emphasis added). The Statute instead appears to
require local governments to ensure that local comprehensive plans remain in conformity with
metropolitan system plans. (wastewater, transportation, and regional recreation open space). No
mention is made in the Statutes of conformity with Regional Blueprints or Regional Growth Strategy
maps. It is the position of the City that the intent of the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act is to
protect the specifically named regional systems from the irrational and uncontrolled suburban
development pressure experienced in the 1970's, rather than provide the Metropolitan Council a tool
by which urban development could be forced upon Iocal government.
Lake Elmo is currently a rural, mostly unsewered community. The city is approximately 8 miles (10 minutes
on I-94) east of Council offices at Mears Park Centre. It is immediately adjacent to the fastest growing city
in the region in the 1990's, the city of Woodbury.
Lake Elmo City Hall is actually 14.34 road miles from Meares Park Centre. Our residents that
commute to downtown St. Paul report that the driving time is significantly greater than 10 minutes
anytime, and significantly longer than 10 minutes during AM and PM rush hour.
Our neighboring city, Woodbury, made a deliberate choice to become the fastest growing city in the
region in the 1990's, as is their privilege. Who is in conflict with whom? Four of Lake Elmo's other
"immediately adjacent" neighbors (Grant to the north, and Baytown/Lakeland/Afton to the east) have
made opposite choices regarding development. Are those communities wrong and Woodbury right, or
vice versa? Neither is the case. Each community has made a local decision as to development posture —
as has Lake Elmo.
The Council's Regional Growth Strategy, as identified in its Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map and
1997 system statement, as it pertains to Lake Elmo, calls for substantial urbanization of the community by
2040. The Council based its decision on several factors:
• the region's (then forecasted) need to accommodate 320,000 new households and 380,000 new jobs in
the region between 1995 and 2020 (2000 Census data suggest the estimated number of new households
and new jobs in this metropolitan area by 2020 will be substantially more than previously estimated)
The Metropolitan Council Staff procedure of long term household, population and employment
forecasting — while technically as good as any other available - suffers to a degree from the travails of
regression analysis (forecasting the future in terms of the past). The winding road of the national
economy (influenced by events such as 9/11); and, other events and policies out of our control, could
and does seriously impact the validity of those projections — particularly when those forecasts extend
over multiple decades. The contention of the Metropolitan Council Staff that regional growth of any
4
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
scale is a predetermined and uncontrollable event; and, in the ultimate best interests of any parties but
the real estate and land speculation/development industries may itself be flawed, but remains
unquestioned by the Metropolitan Council Staff at this point.
• the close proximity of Lake Elmo to one of the core cities (St. Paul) in the region
See earlier City representations as to distance/travel time.
• the availability of the highest level (principal arterials) of regional transportation infrastructure
immediately adjacent to the city on both the north and south sides
The location of State Highway 36 and Interstate 94 were neither the product of Lake Elmo nor
Metropolitan Council planning or strategies, nor were the locations of those arterials based on
assumptions regarding the future urbanization of Lake Elmo. As such, a finding of non -conformity
with the Region's transportation system based on Lake Elmo's decision to not urbanize to the degree
proposed by the 1996 Growth Strategy relies on historic locational coincidence, not on more recent
transportation system strategies. The City does not believe that the future character of the City should
be based on such a historical coincidence wrapped in present day Metropolitan Council Staff logic of
"linkages".
• the potential for transit services to the community
While a freight rail line does transit Lake Elmo; and, while the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan before
the Metropolitan Council does recognize that fact (and suggests that Old Village planning incorporate
a Iocation for a transit hub), several other commuter rail corridors have been identified in earlier
studies as having substantially higher priorities for commuter rail service. What little bus transit
service Lake Elmo had in the past has been recently reduced.
• the availability of an existing and as yet under -used regional park preserve within the city
It appears to the City that, for the Metropolitan Council Staff to today maintain that urbanization of
Lake Elmo is necessary to realize the purpose, location and intent of the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve is effectively a modification of history to serve the ends of linkage of Regional Systems to
comprehensive plans. Planning and acquisition of the Park Reserve was initiated in the 1960's. The
Master Plan for the Park was prepared by y Brauer & Assoc., under contract to Washington County.
The Master Plan (Page 6), addresses the locational considerations for Park Reserves to be: 1.) Located
primarily on the basis of availability and uniqueness of the natural resources that exemplify a major
landscape type; 2.) Generally should be distributed throughout the Metropolitan Area and accessible
to all segments of the population; and, 3.) Generally located within 45 minutes(within 45 minutes of
what or who was not specified).
The City supported and encouraged creation of the Regional Park Reserve in the 1960's/1970's based
on those locational criteria — and it still does support the Park in many ways (Public Safety services
,and loss of a major real estate tax base, among those). For the Metropolitan Council staff to now
conclude the park is underutilized because Lake Elmo has not planned urbanization at its doors is to
re -state the original locational criteria and purpose for the Park. The access to the park remains 45
minutes (or less) from most of the urbanized region; and, the aforementioned commuter rail corridor
adjoins the Park to the north — if it ever happens.
• the availability of regional wastewater services to serve the community in a cost-effective manner
5
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
The City is unaware of existing regional wastewater services to serve the community in a cost effective
(or any other) manner. The present service to Lake Elmo (120 acres) is comprised of (partially)
borrowed SAC units. The sole regional interceptor sewer serving Lake Elmo (WONE) does not have
capacity for additional service; and the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" does not physically exist. The
inclusion of the aforementioned Lake Elmo Interceptor in a Metropolitan Council Capital
Improvements Program is at least 5 years; and, at least $10 million removed from "availability".
The city is very well served by regional systems (Figure 3) that reflect major regional, state and federal
infrastructure investments. The city is bounded on the south by I-94 and on the north by State Highway 36,
both of which are principal arterials (the highest class of regional highway). I-694, also a principal arterial
highway, is one mile west of the city. State Highway 5, an A -minor arterial (the second highest class of
regional highway), runs through the center of the city. In the three and one-half mile section of I-94 along
the southern edge of the city, three interchanges serve residents of Lake Elmo and nearby communities. Two
I-694 interchanges serve Lake Elmo residents.
None of the transportation "infrastructure investments" here noted were requested or advocated by
Lake EImo for service to its residents. Any and all capacity or access improvements made to those
roadways were made, over time, in the absence of request or petition by the City Of Lake Elmo. In
fact, further improvements to those roadways to increase capacity and/or access have been opposed by
the City on a regular basis.
One hundred twenty acres of Lake Elmo in the southwest corner of the city is presently served by regional
wastewater services (Figures 3 and 5). Additional sewer capacity has been planned and programmed for the
city. A $10 million Lake Elmo -Metro Interceptor sewer is scheduled for construction in 2006-2007 and
currently is included in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program. The 2,065-
acre Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park
reserves totals $7.6 million, including $5.6 million for land acquisition. The city also received tax -
equivalency payments when the regional park reserve originally was established.
The City is unaware of regional wastewater services to serve the community in a cost effective (or any
other) manner. The present service to Lake Elmo (120 acres) is comprised of (partially) borrowed SAC
units. The sole regional interceptor sewer serving Lake Elmo (WONE) does not have capacity for
additional service; and the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" does not physically exist. The inclusion of the
aforementioned interceptor in a Metropolitan Council Capital Improvements Program is at least 5
years and $10 million removed from "availability".
The City supported and encouraged creation of the Regional Park Reserve in the 1960's/1970's based
on locational criteria for Regional Park Reserves in place in the 1960's/1970's when the Park was first
proposed and planned — and the City still does support the Park in many ways (Public Safety services
,and loss of a major real estate tax base, among those). For the Metropolitan Council staff to now
conclude the park is underutilized because Lake Elmo has not planned urbanization at its doors is to
re -state the original locational criteria and purpose for the Park. The access to the park remains 45
minutes (or less) from most of the urbanized region; and, the aforementioned commuter rail corridor
adjoins the Park to the north — if it ever happens.
The City does not have record of the receipt of "tax equivalency payments" following the acquisition of
park property. We have been advised by Metropolitan Council Staff, however, of the formula by
which such payments are normally made. The City does not claim the payments were not made,
however. The City does note that 13,000 lineal feet of Lake Elmo water frontage and over 2,000 acres
of land within the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve would have considerable value as tax base in
2002. The City also suggests that over 30 years of Public Safety services to the Park; and, a costly fight
to save a portion of the Park from being converted to a garbage dump in the late 1980's have been
6
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
substantial Lake Elmo contributions to the Region's Open Space programs — far in excess of any "tax
equivalency payments" the City may have received.
The Minnesota State Legislature, in 1967, established the Council to plan and coordinate development in the
seven -county metropolitan area. The legislature directed the Council to develop a development plan
(framework) and regional system plans for aviation, parks and open space, transportation and wastewater. In
1976, the Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring the Council to issue system
statements to local communities and for local communities to prepare comprehensive plans based on those
system statements.
The Minnesota Legislature, in 1995, authorized and directed the Metropolitan Council to prepare and
adopt a comprehensive development guide — not a Regional Plan, or a Regional Blueprint, or a
Regional Growth Strategy Map.
In 1995, the Legislature amended the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to require all communities in the
metropolitan area to review, and if necessary, amend their entire comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and
official controls by December 31, 1998 and at least once every ten years thereafter. In conjunction with the
1995 amendments, the Council updated its policies and regional system plans to serve as a basis for the new
round of comprehensive plans. The Council undertook an 18-month process with extensive public meetings
and participation by local government officials and other stakeholders, and after a series of public hearings,
adopted the 2020 Regional Blueprint and three extensively updated regional system plans (aviation,
transportation and water resources), as well as less extensive modification to the regional system plan for
recreation open space in December 1996.
The Regional Blueprint contains a preface, executive summary, overview, and five strategy chapters:
regional economic strategy, regional reinvestment strategy, regional strategy for building strong
communities, regional environmental strategy, and a regional growth strategy. Each chapter contains
policies and action statements. The Regional Growth Strategy sets the urban growth and development
pattern for the seven -county metropolitan area as well as the identification of wide-ranging policies and
actions needed to carry it out. The intended result is to accommodate 330,000 additional households and
650,000 more people by 2020. In this review report, the term Regional Growth Strategy refers to the
policies, action statements, maps and text found in the Regional Growth Strategy chapter of the Regional
Blueprint, pages 43 through 65. The Council's adopted forecasts and their relationship to the Regional
Growth Strategy are discussed generally on pages 74 through 77 and in Appendix J in the Regional
Blueprint.
The Regional Growth Strategy and other chapters of the Regional Blueprint set the overall policy direction of
the Council and serve as the framework or basis for each of the regional system plans. In 1996, the Council
adopted the Regional Growth Strategy chapter as part of the regional system plans for transportation and
water resources management, making it an integral part of those system plans. A discussion about the
relationship of the Regional Blueprint to the regional system plans is found in Appendix A, pages 66 though
69.
The Regional Growth Strategy identifies Lake Elmo as a community within the region that should plan to
have urban services i.e. sewer services, provided to it by 2010. The Council made a preliminary projection of
200 sewered households and 600 sewered employees in 2010 and 1,500 sewered households and 1,000
employees by 2020. These projections were approved by the Council as part of the Water Resources
Management Policy Plan and sent to the city as part of the Council's 1997 systems statement.
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
The projections were made on assumptions of when metropolitan sewer services could be made available to
the city and how long it would take the city to extend sewer services to a MUSA boundary to be designated
by the city. The projections were to be revisited at the time the city's comprehensive plan was reviewed by
the Council. It was anticipated that the Council would have completed its facility plan for the new Southeast
Regional WWTP and Interceptor with a schedule for the sewer services by that time.
The Minnesota Legislature, in 1995, authorized and directed the Metropolitan Council to prepare and
adopt a comprehensive development guide — not a Regional Plan, or a Regional Blueprint, or a
Regional Growth Strategy Map.
On August 24, 2001, Lake Elmo submitted its 2000 -- 2020 comprehensive plan to the Council and adjacent
communities for review and comment. The Council review could not begin until after a 60-day period for
adjacent local government review and comment. On October 21, 2001, the Council began its formal review
of the Lake Elmo plan. The plan was found incomplete and the review suspended until additional
information was received. On February 8, 2002, Council staff completed an evaluation of supplemental
materials submitted by the city and determined that the city's 2000 -- 2020 comprehensive plan was
complete for review and the review was restarted. Under state law (Minn. Stat. § 473.175), the Council has
up to 120 days to complete its review once a plan is determined to be complete. A local community and the
Council may mutually agree to extend the review period.
On May 13, 2002 the Metropolitan Council requested an extension of the 120 day review period for the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan — to August 16, 2002. The Lake Elmo City Council agreed to the
extension requested by the Metropolitan Council on May 16, 2002; and, to a subsequent extension to
September 13, 2002.
The Council completed the facility plan for the new Southeast Regional WWTP and Interceptor in 2000.
Representatives of the city of Lake Elmo were members of the task force that reviewed the various
alternatives studied and agreed that the proposed alternative of providing regional wastewater services to the
city starting at the city's southwestern corporate limits was the city's desired alternative. The facility plan
provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor that is scheduled
for construction in 2006-2007 in coordination with expansion of I-94. Coordinating the construction of the
regional sewer interceptor with MnDOT's planned expansion of I-94 in 2006-2007 will permit the Council to
realize substantial cost savings. If the Council is required to construct the interceptor at some unspecified
future date after MnDOT's I-94 expansion project is completed, the cost of constructing the Lake Elmo
Metro Interceptor will escalate significantly.
However, the proposed comprehensive plan for the city does not include the phasing of sanitary sewer
services to this area of the city that would show an orderly progression of urban growth, consistent with the
Council's planned extension of regional sewer service to the city, nor does the comprehensive plan preserve
the Urban Reserve for future urban development.
The Lake Elmo representatives on the Southeast Regional WWTP task force strongly objected to the
proposed interceptor to Lake Elmo from Cottage Grove, through Woodbury. Not only did they object
to the location at which the interceptor would enter Lake Elmo, but also to the proposed volume and
service scale of the interceptor. On July 7,1998 Bryce Pickart, Councilmember Charles Arnson, Guy
Peterson, and Wayne Rikala (all representing the Metropolitan Council) attended a workshop of the
Lake Elmo City Council to discuss the interceptor alternatives being considered by the Southeast
Regional WWTP task force. At that Workshop it was stated that the Lake Elmo Council's only
acceptable option for regional sewer was resubmission of the 440 acre MUSA option for sewer service
via the WONE interceptor. It was represented by the Metropolitan Council representatives that
sufficient capacity could be made available to accommodate the 440 acre Lake Elmo MUSA option by
redirecting some of Woodbury's flow to the Cottage Grove/Woodbury interceptor; and, paralleling
8
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
some existing under -capacity pipes on the WONE route to Pigs Eye. The City was left with the
impression that this would require an investment by the Metropolitan Council of something less than
$200,000 - and that the Metropolitan Council representatives were clear in their understanding that
this alternative (440 through the WONE) was the only regional sewer that Lake Elmo would ever have
interest in supporting - and then only if the resulting development was high quality office, such as that
now being constructed in the majority of the existing 120 acres of MUSA.
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, did include the
geographic area paralleling I-94 to Keats Avenue as 2020 MUSA - in keeping with the foregoing
understandings regarding the City Council's position on regional sewer. Upon adoption of the 2020
Comprehensive Plan (subject Metropolitan Council review) the City Council deleted any MUSA
enlargement beyond the existing 120 acres, but advised City Staff that they (the City Council) would
be open to reconsidering that deletion at such time as the City adopted architectural performance
standards that would insure the quality of development desired within the 440.
City records do not, at any time, reflect discussion of - much less City concurrence in - the "Lake
Elmo Interceptor" in 1998, or at any point since 1998. The inclusion of the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" as
a planned Capital Improvement by the Metropolitan Council is a Metropolitan Council initiative, and
not "community -based" planning. The City of Lake Elmo has presented a Comprehensive Plan to the
Metropolitan Council that reflects the City's position regarding regional sewer. The only conflict
appears to be with what the Metropolitan Council Staff believes to be in the best interests of the City.
The Metropolitan Council, on the recommendation of its Staff, appears to have created a conflict with
a regional system by ignoring the community's decision regarding Regional sewer service by adopting
a Capital Improvements Program that conflicts with the Legislative Goals regarding community -
based planning. The City can only conclude that the unilateral decision by the Metropolitan Council to
include the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" in the Environmental Services CIP (thereby becoming a part of
the Water Resources System Plan) is to create a circumstance of system plan non -conformity should
Lake Elmo resist urbanization by its comprehensive plan - as the City historically has.
While Lake Elmo's plan proposes only 200 fewer households overall (4,500) than the Council's 2020
household forecast of 4,700 households (March 1997). the plan fails to provide for any of the 1.500 sewered
households identified in the regional system plan for water resources management.
The City has never agreed to provide 1,500 (regionally) sewered households.
While the Regional Growth Strategy map (Figure 2) anticipates urban development in Lake Elmo in the 2000
- 2020 planning period and calls for the maintenance of a substantial urban reserve area of 8,188 acres, Lake
Elmo's plan fails to plan for any urban reserve.
The City has never agreed to the concept of Urban Reserve, since it is the City's belief that only cities
have right to plan and zone land use. By operation, the concept of "urban reserve", if enforced by the
Metropolitan Council by the Council exercising the terms of MSA 473.175, is local land use planning
and (by the terms of MSA 473.858) local land use zoning.
While the Regional Growth Strategy calls on Lake Elmo to plan to keep a portion of the city in permanent
rural land use at an overall density of 1 unit per 10 acres, the Lake Elmo plan (Figure 5) proposes to allow
rural residential development that is four times more dense than Council guidelines for the permanent rural
area.
At a December 19, 2001 meeting of the Rural Issues Work Group committee of the Metropolitan
Council, a Work Group Member asked the planning consultants to the Metropolitan Council (Biko
and Associates and URS), "...if there was any significance in keeping housing density at 1:10..." The
consultants responded that, "...the number is not magic, but it reflects current policy and current
planning while allowing the ability to maintain rural character...". There appears to be no established
9
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
quantitative foundation related to Regional Systems for maintaining a standard of 1 dwelling per 10
acres.
Looking ahead, by 2030, Lake Elmo is now forecasted to grow to a total of 6,000 households by 2020
(versus 4,700 household in 2020 included in the Council's Regional Blueprint in 1996) and 9,500 households
by 2030, according to the Council's new preliminary forecasts.
The City has been advised by Metropolitan Council Staff that reference to draft Metropolitan Council
Policy related to the 2030 Blueprint is inappropriate in the context of the present Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan review, even though that draft Policy (as recommended by the Rural Issues
Work Group) would better support the development concepts of the Lake Elmo Plan than the 1996
Regional Blueprint and Growth Strategy. It is therefore equally inappropriate for the Metropolitan
Council Staff to reference 2030 "preliminary" household and population forecasts. Also, see the City's
comments regarding Metropolitan Council forecasting procedures — found above.
Lake Elmo's neighboring city of Woodbury has been supportive of the Council's Regional Growth Strategy
taking 3,000 additional households by 2020 according to its comprehensive plan reviewed by the Council.
Neighboring Oakdale has also been supportive of the Regional Growth Strategy, although its available land
supply caused the city to come in short of Council household forecasts. Lake Elmo's failure to plan for
future urbanization, to protect lands for future urbanization, and to plan for lower densities in its rural area
are contrary to the planning of its neighbors as well as the Regional Growth Strategy.
The City suggests that what may be "contrary to the planning of its neighbors" is a matter of
perspective — and an opinion of Lake Elmo's neighbors. Both Woodbury and Oakdale made conscious
decisions to adopt a pro -development strategy. Lake Elmo has taken little issue with those local
decisions of our neighbors, even though the traffic (Woodbury and Oakdale), storm water (Oakdale),
and potential groundwater drawdown (Woodbury) impacts of those decisions by our neighbors each,
in some manner, negatively impacts portions of Lake Elmo. At the same time, many of Lake Elmo's
other neighboring communities (Baytown Township, West Lake land Township, Grant and Afton)
have adopted development strategies even less intense than that of Lake Elmo.
In light of the foregoing, it appears clear that Lake Elmo' s 2000 -- 2020 comprehensive plan is inconsistent
with the Regional Growth Strategy and does not conform to metropolitan system plans.
The City contends that the Lake Elmo 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan does not negatively impact
existing regional systems in the manner anticipated by the Legislature, and reflected in the State
Statutes. The Metropolitan Council Staff has unilaterally created regional system capacity (such as
the "Lake Elmo Interceptor"), and created after -the -fact logic regarding under -utilization of decades
old infrastructure (the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, State Highway 36, State Highway 5, and
Interstate 94) that since has been since defined as a part of a regional system. In both cases the
Metropolitan Council Staff has then created a link from the respective regional system plans to the
1996 Regional Blueprint and 1996 Regional Growth Strategy to utilize in finding non -conformity
between Regional Systems and the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
The plan proposes a substantial rural residential area, but it does not establish an area of urban reserve and
does not propose to urbanize a portion of the community consistent with Council plans and the system
statement. The city's plan proposes that the community remain permanently rural. This is inconsistent with
the Council's Regional Growth Strategy calling for future urbanization of the community beginning by 2010.
The plan does not establish an urban reserve in the community, and fails to protect land for any future
urbanization. The city does not plan for 1,500 sewered households by 2020 as envisioned in the Regional
Growth Strategy and the Council's regional system plan for Water Resources Management.
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan accommodates over 2.000 new households by 2020. Those new
households will be served by either Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems (CWWT)
10
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
or by state-of-the-art ISTS. Both of these wastewater treatment alternatives to regional sewer, when
properly monitored and maintained, provide wastewater treatment that is as environmentally
responsible as protective of the Public Health as regional sewer. Lake Elmo has a formal ISTS
monitoring and maintenance program in place that requires regular system inspection and
maintenance, and requires all CWWT Systems to be supported by monitoring and maintenance
agreements by qualified firms.
The city's plan is, therefore, not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional
system plans for recreation open space, transportation and water resources.
The City does not agree that the Lake Ehno 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan is either non -conforming
with, nor representing a substantial departure from, any of the regional systems — as such departure is
properly defined, or intended by the Minnesota Legislature.
If the Council agrees with staff's findings and conclusions, the Council may require Lake Elmo to modify its
plan to bring it into conformity with regional system plans.
Agreed, with due process, as provided for by State Statute (MSA 473.175).
BACKGROUND
Lake Elmo is ranked 33rd among metropolitan communities in anticipated growth to 2020 based on the
Council's 1997 forecasts. In 2000, Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households and 1,635 jobs.
According to Council forecasts (March 1997), Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate 12,500 people in
4,700 households and 2,650 jobs in 2020.
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan before the Metropolitan Council essentially parallels the Council
2020 household, population and employment forecasts — calculated from the Lake Elmo Plan, not from
the Council forecasts via sector assignments.
While this plan is not expected to address them, the preliminary new Council forecasts for Lake Elmo, based
on the region's need to accommodate over 900,000 new people by 2030, shows 6,000 households for 2020
and 9,500 households for 2030.
If the Plan is not "expected to address them" then this Staff Memo should not be addressing the "new
preliminary forecasts" either. See the City's earlier comments regarding Metropolitan Council advice
as to use of 2030 draft policy— and 2030 forecasts.
Lake Elmo is easily accessible to east metro employment centers (Figure 8). Nearly 40,000 jobs are within
five miles and nearly 200,000 jobs are within ten miles of Lake Elmo Those jobs represent 2.5 percent and
13 percent of the region's jobs, respectively.
Lake Elmo supports the concept of linking employment to housing. The Housing Element of the Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan addresses the City's perspective in detail. The City, today, provides a
housing resource (a significant percentage of which is "affordable" by Metropolitan Council
standards) in excess of the City's employment -based demand. Many East Metro residents that are
employed by the lower wage service and hospitality businesses of our neighboring communities now
reside in the existing affordable housing located in Lake Elmo. The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan
supports a continuation of the local policy of housing those employed in the City; and, maintaining the
viability of the existing affordable housing resource of the City — regardless of where the residents of
that housing may be employed.
According to the city's plan, the majority of land in Lake Elmo is planned for development as Rural
Agricultural Density (RAD). RAD development normally occurs at a density of 16 units per 40 acres or one
11
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
unit per 2.5 acres on cluster -platted lots with the undeveloped portion of the property placed in "permanent"
easement.
The actual terms for RAD are Rural Agricultural Development. "Cluster -platted" in Lake Elmo is
called "Open Space Preservation" (OP). Land parcels must be of at least 40 acres to qualify for OP,
which is not mandatory in the RAD land use classification, but has been the nearly exclusive land
development tool exercised by developers to create 12 new neighborhoods in Lake Elmo over the past
5 years. The developer is required to commit at least 50% of the gross area of the parcel as permanent
open space. The preservation of the open space is assured via easements to the City, or the Minnesota
Land Trust — or both. The balance of the parcel may be developed with individual lot sizes of 3/4 acre
(common wastewater treatment), or 1 acre (ISTS).
Communal wastewater treatment has been the option most often selected; and, state-of-the-art
Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment (CWWT) is the predominant wastewater treatment
technology utilized for communal wastewater treatment. CWWT systems processing 10,000 gallons
per day or more are licensed by the MPCA. There are two systems of that scale in Lake Elmo. The six
CWWT systems in Lake Elmo not licensed by the MPCA (due to process volumes of under 10,000
gallons per day) are required by the City to retain the on -going services of a private firm to regularly
monitor and maintain the systems — and those firms are required to report all findings to the City.
The January , 2000 "St. Croix Valley Development Design Study", by Calthorpe Associates, describes
CWWT as, `...an innovative, biological solution to wastewater treatment. While offering a high degree of
protection and reliability, they eliminate the need for discharging treated effluent into surface water,
which can adversely affect the environment. Constructed wetlands are designed to meet drinking water
standards to protect ground water." The Calthorpe design study was coordinated by the Metropolitan
Council utilizing private foundation funding.
All ISTS in Lake Elmo (whether OP or conventional platting) are subject to regular inspection and
pumping by licensed private firms that are licensed by the City, and are required to report all ISTS
services and findings to the City. Records of ISTS in Lake Elmo are maintained by a custom designed
d:Base system.
Lake Elmo is one of the -foremost -practitioners ofxural cluster_platting and is recognized_ as a_ regional leader
in its approach to incorporation of permanent rural residential with permanent open space protection. The
Council staff accepts this aspect of the city's plan, as long as it is applied in the area of permanent rural
identified in the Regional Growth Strategy.
This approach may be acceptable in the urban reserve and future urban areas but only if the undeveloped
land is not set aside in "permanent" open space, new home -buyers are fully informed of the planned
urbanization and of the requirement that unsewered residences must hook up to public sewer within two
years from the time local sewer service becomes available, and current development does not prevent future
efficient and cost-effective urbanization in the community.
The City does not concur with the Metropolitan Council's designation and application/enforcement of
zoning overlay districts such as "permanent rural", as identified in the Regional Growth Strategy. The
City believes that such designation, application and enforcement of overlay districts is contrary to the
provisions of MSA 4A.08 (Goal #8), regarding the basis for all decisions and actions related to land use
being community -based. In this case, the community (Lake Elmo) has determined, following Public
Hearings, what the land use character of the community will be.
12
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
LINKAGE TO COUNCIL STRATEGIES
H Infrastructure: The city's plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and not in conformance
with and is a substantial departure from the regional system plans for recreation open space, transportation, and
water resources. As proposed, the plan would cause the Council to spend additional regional tax dollars to build
duplicate infrastructure to accommodate future urban growth elsewhere in the region that otherwise would have
occurred in Lake Elmo.
The Lake Elmo Plan does not negatively impact (over tax the capacity of) Regional Systems; and,
therefore, the Lake Elmo Plan is not a departure from Regional System PIans. The Metropolitan Council
has not spent "regional tax dollars" to construct regional transportation and park infrastructure on the
assumption that Lake Elmo would urbanize. Those transportation infrastructure dollars were invested for
reasons unrelated to Lake Elmo urbanization many years prior to Regional Blueprints or Regional
Growth Strategy in the cases of transportation and regional parks.
The Metropolitan Council has not spent regional tax dollars on wastewater infrastructure on the
assumption that Lake Elmo will urbanize. Instead, the Metropolitan Council has unilaterally included
such future wastewater expenditures in a Capital Improvements Program without the request or
concurrence of the local community; and, Metropolitan Council Staff has determined "substantial
departure" by Lake Elmo from the wastewater regional system plan based on this Metropolitan Council
initiated Capital Improvements Program inclusion. A Metropolitan Council strategy of this description
would appear to be contrary to the concept of community -based planning found in State Statute.
H Quality of life: Implementation of the city' s plan as proposed could divert to other metropolitan -area
communities current and future urban growth that otherwise would occur within the city, which likely would
result in additional local public infrastructure investments and unnecessary duplicative regional infrastructure
investments.
The likelihood of "future urban growth" being "diverted" to other communities of the Region as the
result of Lake Elmo's Plan resides with those communities — as it should. There may be those communities
that welcome that growth and locally plan to accommodate the growth. Future regional infrastructure
investments should be directed in a manner that also accommodates growth in those communities that
have established urban scale development as a local goal. The infrastructure investments that have
already been made that relate to Lake Elmo were made for reasons that were not related to Lake Elmo's
urbanization. Investments to accommodate growth elsewhere (where such growth is consistent with local
land use policy) will not be duplicative.
E1 Communication/constituency building: The city should modified its plan to reflect future urbanization
consistent with the existing and planned regional systems for this area of the region and to incorporate medium -
and high -density housing elements into its plan to help provide adequate housing opportunities to meet existing
and projected local and regional housing needs and promote the availability of land for the development of low -
and moderate -income housing.
Which constituency is the Metropolitan Council Staff referring to by this comment? Housing (affordable
or otherwise; and, regardless of density) is not a Regional System. The City has demonstrated in the
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan that a significant percentage of the existing housing stock of
the community is "affordable" by the standards of the Metropolitan Council.
13
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
H Alignment: The city's plan is not consistent with regional policies and until the plan is found to be
consistent, the Council will apply its alignment policy to the city of Lake Elmo. This means that the city will
receive no priority for funding of grants and loans over which the Council has advisory or discretionary approval
authority and the city may be ineligible to qualify for other funding and for certain regional system
improvements.
The City is aware of the "alignment policy" of the Metropolitan Council regarding the distribution of
grants and loans to Local governments in the Region.
ATTACHMENTS
Comprehensive Plan Policy Matrix
Review Record -- Review of the City of Lake Elmo 2000 — 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 1 - Location Map, City of Lake Elmo
Figure 2 - Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas, City of Lake Elmo
Figure 3 - Regional Systems, City of Lake Elmo
Figure 4 - Existing Land Use, 2000, City of Lake Elmo
Figure 5 - Land Use Plan, City of Lake Elmo
Figure 6 - 2000 Aerial Photography, City of Lake Elmo
Figure 7 - Properties Seeking Sewer Service, City of Lake Elmo, 1998
Figure 8 - Employment Within 5 and 10 Miles of Lake Elmo
Figure 9 — Regional Recreation Open Space System, December 1996 (1997 system statement)
Appendix A - Land Use Plan, excerpt from the Lake Elmo 2000 — 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Appendix B - Intergovernmental Comments
Appendix C - Public / Property Owner Comments
Appendix D — 1997 System Statement — Lake Elmo
Appendix E — Adoption of Amended Regional Blueprint, Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan,
Water Resources Management Policy Plan, Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan and Regional
Recreation Open Space System Plan. Report of the Committee of the Whole, December 19, 1996
V:\Library\ComDevRp\Fake Elmo CPU 18608-1
14
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY MATRIX
15
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
2020 Forecast
4,700 Households (1,500 new 4,500 Households (no new The city had 2,347 households and 1,636 jobs
sewered) sewered) in 2000. Its plan proposes fewer households
2,650 Jobs (1,000 new sewered) 2,100 Jobs (no new sewered) and employment by 2020 than Council
forecasts overall, and no new sewered
households or employment by 2020.
The Lake Ehno Comprehensive Plan
accommodates over 2.000 new households by
2020. Those new households will be served by
either Constructed Wetlands Wastewater
Treatment Systems (CWWT) or by state-of-the-
art ISTS. Both of these wastewater treatment
alternatives to regional sewer, when properly
monitored and maintained, provide wastewater
treatment that is as environmentally responsible,
and as protective of the Public Health, as
regional sewer. Lake Elmo has a formal ISTS
monitoring and maintenance program in place
that requires regular system inspection and
maintenance, and requires all CWWT Systems to
be supported by monitoring and maintenance
agreements by qualified firms.
The plan is inconsistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy. It is not in conformance with
and is a significant departure from the regional
system plans for transportation and water
resources because the timing and proposed
densities are not consistent with the types of
density and development for which existing and
planned regional systems are designed to
accommodate.
The City contends that the Lake Ehno 2000-2020
Comprehensive Plan does not negatively impact
existing regional systems in the manner
anticipated by the Legislature, and reflected in
16
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Residential Density
• Urban
• Urban Reserve
• Permanent Rural
• 3 units/acre (approx. 500 acres
+/- of new urban)
• 1 unit/40 acres (approx.7,688
acres)
• 1 unit/10 acres (approx. 6,272
acres)
• None planned
• None planned
• 1 unit/ 2.5 acres average
the State Statutes. The Metropolitan Council
Staff has unilaterally created regional system
capacity (such as the "Lake Elmo Interceptor"),
and created after -the -fact logic regarding under -
utilization of decades old infrastructure (the
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, State
Highway 36, State Highway 5, and Interstate 94)
that since has been since defined as a part of a
regional system. In both cases the Metropolitan
Council Staff has then created a link from the
respective regional system plans to the 1996
Regional Blueprint and 1996 Regional Growth
Strategy to utilize in finding non -conformity
between Regional Systems and the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan.
The city's plan identifies over 7,700 acres of
vacant and agricultural land in the city in 2000.
It plans for 181 acres of existing urban and no
new urban residential by 2020. It also plans for
805 acres of rural estate development (RED) at
1-unit/3.2 acres, and 7,400 acres of rural
agriculture development (RAD) at 1 unit/2.4
acres density. The plan is inconsistent with the
Regional Growth Strategy. It is not in
conformance with and is a significant departure
from the regional system plans for
transportation and water resources because the
timing and proposed densities are not consistent
with the types of density and development for
which existing and planned regional systems
are designed to accommodate.
The City contends that the Lake Elmo 2000-2020
Comprehensive Plan does not negatively impact
existing regional systems in the manner
17
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Land Use
• Plan for expanded urban service
area (181 + 500 acres residential +
500 acres other = 1,127 acres of
urban land)
• Balance housing & jobs.
• Plan for Urban Reserve or
otherwise protect land for future
urbanization
• Plan for Permanent Rural
• 181 acres urban, but no
new urban
• Balanced housing and
jobs but excludes urban
residential
• No urban reserve
• Rural residential planned
but at higher densities
anticipated by the Legislature, and reflected in
the State Statutes. The Metropolitan Council
Staff has unilaterally created regional system
capacity (such as the "Lake Elmo Interceptor"),
and created after -the -fact logic regarding under -
utilization of decades old infrastructure (the
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, State
Highway 36, State Highway 5, and Interstate 94)
that since has been since defined as a part of a
regional system. In both cases the Metropolitan
Council Staff has then created a link from the
respective regional system plans to the 1996
Regional Blueprint and 1996 Regional Growth
Strategy to utilize in finding non -conformity
between Regional Systems and the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan.
The city's plan does not provide for new urban
development by 2020, does not plan for urban
reserve or otherwise protect land for future
urbanization.
It does generally balance housing and jobs and
does provide for rural residential development
but at higher than recommended densities.
At a December 19, 2001 meeting of the Rural
Issues Work Group committee of the
Metropolitan Council, a Work Group Member
asked the planning consultants to the
Metropolitan Council (Biko and Associates and
URS), "...if there was any significance in keeping
housing density at 1:10..." The consultants
responded that, "...the number is not magic, but
it reflects current policy and current planning
while allowing the ability to maintain rural
18
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
character...". There appears to be no established
quantitative foundation related to Regional
Systems for maintaining a standard of 1 dwelling
per 10 acres.
The plan is inconsistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy. It is not in conformance with
and is a significant departure from the regional
system plans for transportation and water
resources because the timing and proposed
densities are not consistent with the types of
density and development for which existing and
planned regional systems are designed to
accommodate.
The City contends that the Lake Elmo 2000-2020
Comprehensive Plan does not negatively impact
existing regional systems in the manner
anticipated by the Legislature, and reflected in
the State Statutes. The Metropolitan Council
Staff has unilaterally created regional system
capacity (such as the "Lake Ehno Interceptor"),
and created after -the -fact logic regarding under -
utilization of decades old infrastructure (the
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, State
Highway 36, State Highway 5, and Interstate 94)
that since has been since defined as a part of a
regional system. In both cases the Metropolitan
Council Staff has then created a link from the
respective regional system plans to the 1996
Regional Blueprint and 1996 Regional Growth
Strategy to utilize in finding non -conformity
between Regional Systems and the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan.
19
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Housing
Regional Systems
• Aviation
• Recreation Open
Space
• Mix of housing
• Plan for multiple family and
affordable home ownership
• Affordable housing provider
Protect regional airspace
• Plan for regional park reserve
• Plan for regional trails
• Plan for future urbanization of
part of city consistent with
Regional Growth Strategy to
allow more access to park
• No future mix planned
• No land planned for MF
• No provider
• Not an LCA participant
Acceptable
• Plans for regional park
and local park system
• Trail missing
• No plan for future
urbanization or urban
reserve
The city has some existing affordable
manufactured home development, but the city's
plan does not appear to make land available for
the development of low- and moderate income
housing. The plan is inconsistent with the
Council's housing policy.
The City's existing affordable housing
resource is well documented in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. That
inventory includes not only 505 units of
manufactured housing, but a significant
resource of affordable SFD housing in the
Old Village, Tri-lakes and Tablyn Park
neighborhoods.
Housing is not a Regional System, nor is
LCA participation mandatory.
No issues
The city's park plan is generally well done, but
a regional trail is missing from the map and
should be added. Because of the missing trail,
the city's plan is not in conformity with and is a
departure from the regional system plan for
recreation open space.
The City has agreed to amend the existing
Park & Trail Plan to include the missing
Regional Trail that was omitted by oversight.
The city's overall plan is inconsistent with the
Regional Growth Strategy. Because the
regional recreation open space system is
20
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
designed to support the Regional Growth
Strategy and serve the region's existing and
future population, the city's overall plan is not
in conformity with and is a significant departure
from the regional system plans for recreation
open space.
The City contends that the Lake Elmo 2000-2020
Comprehensive Plan does not negatively impact
existing regional systems in the manner
anticipated by the Legislature, and reflected in
the State Statutes. The Metropolitan Council
Staff has unilaterally created regional system
capacity (such as the "Lake Elmo Interceptor"),
and created after -the -fact logic regarding under -
utilization of decades old infrastructure (the
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, State
Highway 36, State Highway 5, and Interstate 94)
that since has been since defined as a part of a
regional system. In both cases the Metropolitan
Council Staff has then created a link from the
respective regional system plans to the 1996
Regional Blueprint and 1996 Regional Growth
Strategy to utilize in finding non -conformity
between Regional Systems and the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan.
21
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
• Transportation
• Plan to minimize adverse impacts
on the regional highway system;
traffic calming is inappropriate on
major roadways
• Plan to support transit
• Plan for future urbanization of
part of city consistent with
Regional Growth Strategy
• Plan for lower density in rural
area
• Plan proposes traffic
calming on A -minor
roadway
• Plan does not support
regional transit
• No plan for future
urbanization or urban
reserve
• Plan allows much higher
density in rural area
The city's plan proposes traffic -calming
measures for STH 5, which is not in conformity
with and represents a departure from the
regional system plan for transportation (TPP).
The city is encouraged to change its plan to
bring it into confoinuity with the TPP for traffic
calming.
The traffic calming measures suggested by the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for a short
segment of the State Highway 5 are those
recommended by Thorbeck Architects in the Old
Village Design Study. That work was completed
for the City in 2000 utilizing a Metropolitan
Council Planning Grant. The completed design
study (including the traffic calming features) has
been on file at the Metropolitan Council since it
was completed.
Additionally, the Metropolitan Council
sponsored and funded St. Croix Valley
Development Design Study by Calthorpe
Associates has suggested traffic calming for a
short segment of State Highway 5 in Lake Elmo
very similar to that suggested earlier by
Thorbeck (pedestrian crossings, landscaped
median, and landscaped boulevard).
This issue is not considered a "substantial"
departure.
However, the city's plan does not support
regional transit, does not plan for future urban
development and urban reserve, and does not
follow Council guidelines for rural residential
development densities. The city's plan is
inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy,
and not in conformance with and represents a
substantial departure from the TPP.
22
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
• Water Resources
Management
• Plan for future urbanization of
part of city consistent with
Regional Growth Strategy
• Plan for 1,500 sewered
households and 1,000 sewered
employees by 2020
• No plan for future
urbanization or urban
reserve
• Plan provides for no new
sewered households or
employment
The City contends that the Lake Elmo 2000-2020
Comprehensive Plan does not negatively impact
existing regional systems in the manner
anticipated by the Legislature, and reflected in
the State Statutes. The Metropolitan Council
Staff has unilaterally created regional system
capacity (such as the "Lake Ehno Interceptor"),
and created after -the -fact logic regarding under -
utilization of decades old infrastructure (the
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, State
Highway 36, State Highway 5, and Interstate 94)
that since has been since defined as a part of a
regional system. In both cases the Metropolitan
Council Staff has then created a link from the
respective regional system plans to the 1996
Regional Blueprint and 1996 Regional Growth
Strategy to utilize in finding non -conformity
between Regional Systems and the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan.
The city's plan does not provide for future
urban development of 1,500 sewered
households and 1,000 sewered employees by
2020, and does not plan for urban reserve or
otherwise protect lands for future urban
development through 2040.
The City has never agreed to provide 1,500
(regionally) sewered households. The Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan accommodates over 2,000
new households by 2020. Those new households
will be served by either Constructed Wetlands
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CWWT) or by
state-of-the-art ISTS. Both of these wastewater
23
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
treatment alternatives to regional sewer, when
properly monitored and maintained, provide
wastewater treatment that is as environmentally
responsible, and as protective of the Public
Health, as regional sewer. Lake Elmo has a
formal ISTS monitoring and maintenance
program in place that requires regular system
inspection and maintenance, and requires all
CWWT Systems to be supported by monitoring
and maintenance agreements by qualified firms.
The City can not identify direct statutory
authority for the Metropolitan Council to impose
the concept of "urban reserve" in review of local
comprehensive plans for conflict or compliance
with Regional Systems. No definition exists for
the terms "rural life-style", nor does direct
statutory authority appear to exist for the
Metropolitan Council to engage in determining
life-style choices for residents of the Region by
determining where or when any such life-styles
would geographically occur. No quantitative
basis has been demonstrated to support an
overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres (as
distinguished from 1 unit for 30 acres, or 1 unit
per 50 acres). At the referenced Rural Issues
Work Group meeting a Metropolitan Council
Member asked, "...why the Metropolitan Council
is not going to let people develop at densities that
are guided by what the land will allow...".
(emphasis added)
The city actively participated in planning for an
expansion of an interceptor sewer to serve the
community but its plan does not recognize or
plan for its use.
The Lake Elmo representatives on the Southeast
24
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Regional WWTP task force strongly objected to
the proposed interceptor to Lake Elmo from
Cottage Grove, through Woodbury. Not only did
they object to the location at which the
interceptor would enter Lake Elmo, but also to
the proposed volume and service scale of the
interceptor. On July 7, 1998 Bryce Pickart,
Councilmember Charles Arnson, Guy Peterson,
and Wayne Rikala (all representing the
Metropolitan Council) attended a workshop of
the Lake Elmo City Council to discuss the
interceptor alternatives being considered by the
Southeast Regional WWTP task force. At that
Workshop it was stated that the Lake Elmo
Council's only acceptable option for regional
sewer was resubmission of the 440 acre MUSA
option for sewer service via the WONE
interceptor. It was represented by the
Metropolitan Council representatives that
sufficient capacity could be made available to
accommodate the 440 acre Lake Elmo MUSA
option by redirecting some of Woodbury's flow
to the Cottage Grove/Woodbury interceptor;
and, paralleling some existing under -capacity
pipes on the WONE route to Pigs Eye. The City
was left with the impression that this would
require an investment by the Metropolitan
Council of something less than $200,000 — and
that the Metropolitan Council representatives
were clear in their understanding that this
alternative (440 through the WONE) was the
only regional sewer that Lake Elmo would ever
have interest in supporting — and then only if the
resulting development was high quality office,
such as that now being constructed in the
majority of the existing 120 acres of MUSA.
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, as
recommended by the Planning Commission, did
25
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
include the geographic area paralleling I-94 to
Keats Avenue as 2020 MUSA — in keeping with
the foregoing understandings regarding the City
Council's position on regional sewer. Upon
adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
(subject Metropolitan Council review) the City
Council deleted any MUSA enlargement beyond
the existing 120 acres, but advised City Staff that
they (the City Council) would be open to
reconsidering that deletion at such time as the
City adopted architectural performance
standards that would insure the quality of
development desired within the 440.
City records do not, at any time, reflect
discussion of — much less City concurrence
in — the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" in 1998, or
at any point since 1998. The inclusion of the
"Lake Elmo Interceptor" as a planned
Capital Improvement by the Metropolitan
Council is a Metropolitan Council initiative,
and not "community -based" planning.
The city's plan is inconsistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy, and not in conformance with
and represents a substantial departure from the
Water Resources Management system plan.
The Metropolitan Council, on the
recommendation of its Staff, appears to have
created a conflict with a regional system by
ignoring the community's decision regarding
Regional sewer service by adopting a Capital
Improvements Program that conflicts with the
Legislative Goals regarding community -based
planning. The City can only conclude that the
unilateral decision by the Metropolitan Council
to include the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" in the
26
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Environmental Services CIP (thereby becoming
a part of the Water Resources System Plan) is to
create a circumstance of system plan non-
conformity should Lake Elmo resist urbanization
by its comprehensive plan — as the City
historically has.
27
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS
Overall System Questions
1. Regional Parks. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional
system plan for Recreation Open Space? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a
substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan?
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan will conform to the regional system plan for Recreation Open
Space. The City will amend the Plan to include the Regional Trail Corridor referenced.
2. Transportation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional
system plan for Transportation? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial
departure from the metropolitan system plan?
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan does conform to the regional system plan for transportation. The
Lake Elmo Plan properly identifies the regional functional classification of roadways; and, preserves
the functionality of those roadways — thereby reducing future expenditures of State tax dollars — by
planning housing and non-residential land uses at densities and scale that can be accommodated by
those existing roadways.
3. Wastewater Treatment. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the
regional system plan for Water Resources? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a
substantial departure from the metropolitan system plan?
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan does conform with the regional system plan for Water Resources.
The Lake Elmo Plan does not propose to utilize regional wastewater treatment or conveyance capacity
that does not already exist — thereby saving the expenditure of regional tax dollars.
4. Aviation. Does the proposed Lake Elmo comprehensive plan update conform to the regional system
plan for Aviation? If not, will the plan have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure
form the metropolitan system plan?
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan does conform with the regional system plan for aviation. While
no aviation facilities are Located in Lake Elmo (the Lake Elmo Airport is actually in Baytown
Township), the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the requisite safety and noise zones
recommended by the Airports Commission.
5. Subregional and Regional Interests. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to designate an urban reserve
area or plan for higher density development within the next twenty years: (a) affect other communities in
that area of the Region who must consider regional growth issues and the availability of regional systems
when they engage in their own local planning efforts, or (b) effectively require other metropolitan -area
communities to accommodate urbanization that would have been expected to occur in Lake Elmo given
the regional systems and infrastructure investments that either now serve the City or are planned to serve
the City within the next few years?
No local community of the region (effectively, or otherwise) is required to urbanize. Lake Elmo's
position regarding urbanization is well known by most Iocal governments in the region — and has
been known for many years. In fact, however, the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan does
accommodate growth in keeping with Metropolitan Council forecasts through the planning period
to 2020.
28
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
6. Housing Needs. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area to accommodate a reasonable
amount of urbanization or encourage higher -density residential development within the relatively near
future, how will Lake Elmo fulfill its statutory obligation to adopt a land use plan that provides adequate
housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, particularly in
light of the increases in population, household and employment that are projected to occur within the
next twenty years in this metropolitan area?
The Housing Element of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan addresses the City's historic and
continuing policy of maintaining the viability of the significant affordable housing resource of the
community. In addition the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan accommodates an increase in housing
units within the City through the 2020 planning period that is quantitatively consistent with
quantitative dwelling unit "assignment" for that planning period by the Metropolitan Council. The
City's Plan has complies with the statutory obligation referenced (MSA 473.859, Subd. 2).
7. Efficient Infrastructure Investment Decisions. If Lake Elmo fails to designate an urban reserve area
to accommodate a reasonable amount of urbanization within the reasonable period of time, will the
Council be required to make substantial additional (i.e., duplicative) investments for regional
infrastructure in other areas of the metropolitan area?
No "duplicative" infrastructure investments by the Metropolitan Council will be required based on
Lake Elmo's decisions regarding the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. Any infrastructure now in place
serving Lake Elmo (Regional Parks and Roadways) were made many years ago on the basis of
considerations not related to whether Lake Elmo would ever urbanize. The wastewater infrastructure
referenced repeatedly elsewhere in this Review has not been constructed. No regional investment has
been made that would require duplication; and, none is required.
8. Other Interests. Have neighboring municipalities or other interested persons in the region questioned
the sufficiency of Lake Elmo's proposed Comprehensive Plan Update or recommended that the Council
find Lake Elmo's proposed Plan Update inconsistent with regional system plans, and what weight should
be given to this factor?
Lakes Elmo will stipulate that two- (of a total of 8) of Lake Elmots directly neighboring local
governmental units that received copies of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan provided comments on
the Plan. Of the two neighboring communities that did comment, Oakdale offered advice as to Lake
Elmo's ability to counter growth pressures; and, also offered a "good neighbor" approach to
addressing common issues at the borders of the communities. Woodbury, however, has presented 9
paragraphs of commentary by its letter of October 29, 2001, much of which simply restates
Metropolitan Council Regional Growth Strategy in Woodbury's words. With respect to claimed
impacts on Woodbury by the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, Woodbury states and Lake Elmo
responds as follows:
I. Woodburv's concern with the potential impact of Lake Elmo's policy of waste water treatment
harming ground water. Lake Elmo continues to contend that properly designed, constructed,
monitored and maintained ISTS and Constructed Wetland Wastewater Treatment Systems pose no
threat to groundwater resources. In fact, the environmental consequences of discharging
Woodbury's wastewater to the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers from the Regional Wastewater
Treatment plants may be of greater concern to the Region.
The January , 2000 "St. Croix Valley Development Design Study'; by Calthorpe Associates,
describes CWWT as, "...an innovative, biological solution to wastewater treatment. While
offering a high degree of protection and reliability, they eliminate the need for discharging treated
29
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
effluent into surface water, which can adversely affect the environment. Constructed wetlands are
designed to meet drinking water standards to protect ground water." The Calthorpe design study
was coordinated by the Metropolitan Council utilizing private foundation funding.
2. Woodburv's concern for the "inefficiencies" of providing public services to residential
development not of high density and served by regional wastewater treatment. Most of the
public services Woodbury references are provided by local government. Lake Elmo is cognizant of
the need to provide public services efficiently — while preserving rural character. Relatively low
density development goes to preservation of rural character, while cluster development and
CWWT Wastewater Systems achieve that goal while maximizing the ability to provide public
services in an efficient manner — the best of both worlds.
3. Woodburv's concern for "image" and appearance along the I-94 corridor. There remain a
handful of commercial sites along 1-94 in Lake Elmo that the City inherited from East Oakdale
Township with the consolidation. Lake Elmo's current commercial development codes are as
stringent as nay in the region, and quality development has resulted. The non -conforming
property rights of the businesses Lake Elmo inherited are legally established. The passage of time
will result in a gradual redevelopment of the sites that do not comply with current standards of
appearance and design. Lake Elmo does not believe that its taxpayers are well served fiscally by
utilizing TIF and similar devices to force redevelopment.
4. Woodburv's contention that Lake Elmo in some manner does not focus its planning on
enhancing the regional transportation scheme. Lake Elmo's focus has been, is, and will remain
service to its citizens.. When faced with any conflict between the needs and desires of Lake Elmo
residents and those of the region or Woodbury, Lake Elmo will continue to abide by the will of its
citizens — including transportation related matters.
S. Woodburv's issues with storm water management. Woodbury, in years past, allowed
development on one of its landlocked lakes at elevations that result in occasional flooding of those
homes today. That is unfortunate, and was probably an unavoidable circumstance based on the
status of watershed planning at the time the homes were constructed. The drainage area that flows
to the Woodbury lake -in question is -sizable, with much of it in Oakdale, and -a small fractionin
Lake Elmo. A major portion of the Oakdale -generated surface water drainage to the lake,
however, passes through Lake Elmo over a distance of but several hundred feet in a large
diameter storm sewer, and then under 1-94 to Woodbury. Both Woodbury and the South
Washington Watershed District have proposed several alternatives to the problem of Oakdale
storm water run-off causing home damage in Woodbury, including rate control for Oakdale water
passing under 1-94 — with Lake Elmo holding the Oakdale water that would be pumped upstream
for ponding within the 160 acres of Lake Elmo within the MUSA. Lake Elmo has refused to
entertain this concept, since the ponding would be in an area of the City (one of the few)
designated for high quality Business Park development. Lake Elmo maintains a 1% (post
development) rule for storm water discharge — both rate and volume. Lake Elmo does not
contribute to the Woodbury drainage problem — and, in fact, the Lake Elmo developer has agreed
to hold more than pre-existing run off rate and volume on the Business Park site as measure of
cooperation.
Several Lake Elmo land owners have also submitted letters to the Metropolitan Council that have
requested intercession by the Council on their behalf to force Lake Elmo to modify its plan to
accommodate higher density housing and more intense urbanization. While those Ietters are couched
in terms that reflect concern with regional growth issues, and related matters that would read well at
30
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
the Metropolitan Council, the landowners represented (most of which are absentee landlords, and land
investors/speculators) are only concerned with turning land purchases made inexpensively, based on
Lake Elmo's land use policies over the past 3 decades, into land sales at the much enhanced values
that would result from the Metropolitan Council dictating regional sewer and urbanization in Lake
Elmo.
The landowners' letters should be weighted for what they are: lobbying for personal business nurnoses
— nothing more.
3l
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Regional Water Resources System
9. Policy 12a of the Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan states:
The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth
management strategy adopted as part of the Regional Blueprint and which would
affect the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service will be viewed as a departure
from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system,
requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan.
It says what it says.
10. Is it significant that if the $10 million interceptor project does not occur in 2006-2007 as planned to
coincide with MnDOT's 1-94 improvement project along the southern border of Lake Elmo, the cost of
constructing the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor will be both more costly and more technically
challenging?
It is Lake Elmo's contention that the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" is an unnecessary infrastructure
investment by the Metropolitan Council — in 2002-2007, or ever (which would be, in any case, beyond
2006-2002, based on recent project re -ordering by MnDOT that pushes the I-94 project farther out in
time). The issues of cost and technical challenge can be overcome by simply removing the project from
the CIP. Lake Elmo's Comprehensive Plan accommodates Metropolitan Council forecasted growth in
households and employment through 2020 utilizing environmentally sound wastewater treatment
strategies and systems.
11. If the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor is not built as planned, what are the consequences to property owners
in the southwestern area of the City, residents of surrounding communities and taxpayers of the Region if
on -site sewage systems are installed in the City in lieu of public sewer systems and those on -site systems
fail in the future?
Lake Elmo contends that there will be no consequences - as suggested by Metropolitan Council Staff -
since the presumption by this question is that the on -site systems will fail at some point. ISTS
technology has improved immensely in recent years — to the point that most true experts on
wastewater treatment acknowledge that modern Constructed Wetlands and ISTS technology is as (or
even more) friendly to the Public Health and the environment as are traditional public sewer systems.
Lake Elmo also carefully monitors existing ISTS installations that may not be as technologically
advanced to identify precursors to failure; and, regularly orders ISTS replacement where hints of
pending failure appear.
The City further contends that the consequences of surface water degradation to the rivers of the
Region as the result of regional wastewater treatment systems may be of greater environmental
concern.
12. Is there a financial advantage to the region as a whole to provide regional interceptor sewer service to
communities like Lake Elmo that are well -served by regional systems, rather than constructing regional
interceptor sewer facilities elsewhere in the region to serve a similar number of residential and non-
residential hook-ups?
While Lake Elmo is not party to the engineering studies that resulted in a $10 million price tag for the
"Lake Elmo Interceptor", we suspect that the fact that it could not be reasonably and feasibly
constructed until the I-94 project is undertaken — now sometime beyond 2006-2007 — would lead to a
32
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
cost in excess of the $10 million that has been suggested for the 2006-2007 construction window. Given
the degree of difficulty and high cost urban construction that would result with the "Lake Elmo
Interceptor" — regardless of when it would be constructed — it is reasonable to assume that as many
residential and non-residential hook-ups could be accomplished elsewhere in the region (if that
community so desires) for a lesser cost per hook-up. There may easily be a financial advantage to the
region to find a location for the $10 million expenditure that will yield more hook-ups — if that is the
goal of the Council. This is particularly the case since Lake Elmo has developed a Iocal strategy for
treatment of wastewater that is environmentally as sound as that which would be provided by the
regional system.
13. Is it significant that the City actively participated in the Council's process to develop the South
Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan and that the $10 million interceptor project currently
programmed in the Council's Environmental Services Capital Improvement Program is planned
primarily for the purposes of serving the City of Lake Elmo?
The Metropolitan Council Staff has not defined the terms "actively participated", but Lake Elmo
adamantly contends that there is no significance or relationship whatever between its "participation"
in the referenced wastewater planning exercise and the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" project that has
appeared in the CEP — purportedly as a result of that planning. The location and scale of the proposed
Lake Elmo Interceptor bears no resemblance to the minor investment in the WONE Interceptor to
serve 440 acres of Lake Elmo that Lake Elmo advised Metropolitan Council Staff to be Lake Elmo's
only acceptable regional sewer service alternative. The decision to propose a $10 million Lake Elmo
Interceptor project in the Metropolitan Council CEP was that of the Metropolitan Council, without the
concurrence of Lake Elmo. Participation in a planning project is not the same as endorsement of the
planning project outcome.
Regional Recreation Open Space System
14. What are the consequences of implementing the proposed Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update in
light of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint which, at page 68, states guidelines affecting the location
and operation of regional park facilities?
Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional
Blueprint...Develop regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users
generally in the urban area... If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area,
adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided.
The Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve was endorsed by Lake Elmo sited in the 1960's on the basis
of Park Reserve locational criteria very different than those quoted above. The Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve was acquired and fully operational well before the 1996 Regional
Blueprint. For the Metropolitan Council Staff to now imply that this later regional siting
standard/policy should somehow be applied (effectively, in arrears) to a long -existing facility and
the equally long-standing host community is both arbitrary and unreasonable (and a little bit
sneaky). Any consequences found here are manufactured to accommodate other agendas.
15. Is the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Update consistent with the Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy
map, adopted as part of the Council's 1996 Regional Blueprint, which identifies a significant portion of
Lake Elmo, including the area of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve as urban reserve?
33
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Lake Elmo contends that the question is not whether the 2020 Lake Elmo Plan is consistent with the
Regional Growth Strategy and Blueprint or not but, rather, if any such consistency is required by
State Statute by the manner of linkage the Metropolitan Council Staff suggests.
16. Would the partial urbanization of Lake Elmo proposed in the Regional Blueprint 2020 allow better
access to and utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve? Would it improve access to the park on
local roads and by bike and walking? Would it make improved transit services to the park reserve more
feasible?
Access to and the primary reason for siting the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve remains today
consistent with the original design parameters of the Park. Those access and Park design/use
parameters were agreed to by the City at the Park's inception. The clear choice of the City (today, and
for many years leading up to today) to not urbanize in the manner now advocated by the Metropolitan
Council must not be compromised by a revised definition of "access' and "utilization" for the Park
Reserve.
17. Does Lake Ehno's Comprehensive Plan Update constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan
system plans because it fails to provide for the development of 1,500 sewered households and 1,000
employees served by regional wastewater services by 2020?
The City has never concurred with Metropolitan Council assignment of regionally sewered households
or employees by 2020 or any other point in time. In fact, however, it is likely that at least 1,000
employees will be in regionally sewered facilities well before 2020; and over 2,000 new housing units
are accommodated by the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan with wastewater treatment that is as
environmentally sound (or even better) than regional sewer. There has been no substantial departure
from a regional system demonstrated, on the proper assumption that protection of the public health
and the environment is (or should be) the primary focus of regional wastewater policy.
18. Is it significant that the Council supported the establishment of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve
and invested $7.6 million for its acquisition and development in part as a response to active
encouragement from the City regarding the establishment of a regional park facility within its
jurisdiction and in response to the City's concerns regarding urbanization at that time?
It is significant to understand both the original parameters of the Park design, and the Council's and
County's primary reason for siting the Park in Lake Elmo — availability of a large land tract that
demonstrates unique and significant environmental features within 45 minutes of most of the region. It
is also significant to understand that any concern expressed for urbanization of Lake Elmo during
Park planning in the 1960's and 1970's continues.
Regional Transportation System
19. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban
reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system
plans because the City has exceptional regional highway (principal arterial) access via I-94 and TH 36
along its northern and southern borders and by I-694, and excellent regional north/south highway
(principal arterial) located approximately 1 mile west of Lake Elmo?
The decision by Lake Elmo to not designate an "urban reserve", nor accommodate high residential
densities is not in any manner a departure from the transportation system plan. In fact, those
decisions are complimentary to the system plan by foregoing the higher vehicle trip generation —
and further congestion - and State tax dollars to overcome that congestion — that would result from
those higher residential densities.
34
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
19. Does Lake Elmo's proposal not to accommodate higher density development and designate an urban
reserve area have a significant impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan system
plans because "A" minor arterials in the City —including TH5, County Road (CR) 13, CR 10 and CR19
(all "expanders") and CR 15 (a "connector") —provide excellent interconnections to the regional
transportation system?
The decision by Lake Ehno to not designate an "urban reserve", nor accommodate high residential
densities is not in any manner a departure from the transportation system plan. In fact, those
decisions are complimentary to the system plan by foregoing the higher vehicle trip generation -
and further congestion - and State tax dollars to overcome that congestion - that would result from
those higher residential densities.
21. Will the development of the City at higher density levels make the provision of regional transit service
more economically feasible than in other urbanizing communities in the region because transportation
infrastructure exists in or near the City and Lake Elmo is located near the urban core and major
employment centers?
Regional public transit feasibility is a moving target, and not totally a function of housing densities.
The transit load factors necessary to establish transit feasibility to any geographic location can be a
function of pricing vis-a-vis automobile travel, convenience to riders, type of transit offered (bus,
dedicated rail, or commuter rail). Making a determination of probable transit feasibility based
simply on housing density may be the Achilles Heel of many financially struggling public transit
ventures today. Without analyzing those factors, as well as other communities of the region where
urbanization could be accomplished and infrastructure also exists, no finding regarding transit
feasibility for Lake Elmo in relation to those other communities is reasonable.
22. Would urbanization of western Lake Elmo allow greater utilization of Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve so as to avoid use of the regional highway system?
The City is unaware of concerns regarding underutilization of the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Preserve, or any stated "target" utilization data. The clearly stated original access parameters for
the Park of 45 minutes to major areas of urbanization continue to be met. As such, the City does
not believe that future urbanization of Lake Elmo was a factor considered in the creation, location
and design of the Park - and should not now become a measure of the conformity of Lake Elmo's
Comprehensive Plan with a regional system, or systems.
Regional park utilization and regional highway usage are mutually exclusive considerations.
Even if that were conceded to be a possible outcome, would it be appropriate and reasonable to
today find such a determination to be adequate basis for non -conformity with a regional system?
23. If transportation funding continues to be a major public policy issue, is it likely the region as a whole can
provide as good or better regional highway access to other areas of the region in support of urbanization
if Lake Elmo does not urbanize?
It has not been demonstrated that the region could not provide as good or better regional highway
access to other areas of the region that may desire to urbanize.
35
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
REVIEW RECORD
CITY OF LAKE ELMO 2000 - 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BACKGROUND
The city of Lake Elmo is a developing suburban and rural community located nine miles from downtown
Saint Paul. It is surround by the cities of Oakdale, Pine Springs, Grant, Stillwater/Stillwater Township, Oak
Park Heights, Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township, Afton, and Woodbury. (Figure 1). The city is
15,341 acres (24 square miles) in area. In 2000, Lake Elmo had 6,863 people in 2,347 households, and an
estimated 1,635 jobs. According to Council 1997 forecasts, Lake Elmo should plan to accommodate a total
of 12,500 people in 4,700 households and 2,650 jobs by 2020. Although Lake Elmo's plan is being reviewed
using 1997 Council forecasts, data from the 2000 Census suggest that it would be reasonable to expect Lake
Elmo to plan for and accommodate even more additional household and jobs by 2020.
The City has been advised by Metropolitan Council Staff that reference to draft Metropolitan Council
Policy related to the 2030 Blueprint is inappropriate in the context of the present Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan review, even though that draft Policy (as recommended by the Rural Issues
Work Group) would support the development concepts of the Lake Elmo Plan. It is therefore equally
inappropriate for the Metropolitan Council Staff to reference 2030 "preliminary" household and
population forecasts.
Lake Elmo ranks 33rdth among communities in the region in forecasted household growth for the period
2000 to 2020. The Lake Elmo 2000 — 2020 Comprehensive Plan, hereafter referenced as the "plan,"
establishes policies to guide growth to the year 2020 and, when adopted, will replace the former
comprehensive plan, adopted in 1991. Lake Elmo, in 1997, received a grant from the Council for preparation
of its comprehensive plan, Grant No. SG-97-244, in the amount of $10,530.
The grant received by Lake Elmo in 1997 was not for preparation of its comprehensive plan. That
work was funded totally from Iocal sources. The 1997 grant was to complete a neighborhood design
study for the commercial core of the Old Village Neighborhood — the same area studied by Calthorpe
for the Metropolitan Council somewhat later.
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and
plan amendments to the Council for review and comment (Minn. Stat. § 473.864, Subd. 2). The Council
reviews the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans, apparent consistency with
other adopted plans of the Council, and compatibility with the plans of other local jurisdictions in the
metropolitan area. The Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or
part thereof, which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan
system plans (Minn. Stat. § 473.175, Subd. 1).
HISTORY/PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Growth Pressures
In 1967, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission (soon to become the Metropolitan Council) sent
a memo to Washington County concerning an acquisition program for parkland in Washington County. The
purposed parks were based on the principle of locating parks close to population concentrations and rapidly
growing communities. A 1,005-acre park adjacent to Lake Elmo and Eagle Point Lake was identified as a
possible inclusion into the "Joint Program of the Metropolitan Open Space System." This plan was included
as part of the 1967 Washington County Comprehensive Plan.
In the early 1970's, the Council divided the region into 10 sectors for purposes of determining the number,
size and locations of regional parks and park reserves. Lake Elmo was within Sector 4, which encompassed
the northern half of Washington County and a small portion of the northeastern part of Ramsey County. The
36
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
acquisition standard use by the Council was 7 acres of regional park land and 18 acres of regional park
reserve land per 1000 people.
Washington County, the then Village of Lake Elmo, and the Council continued to jointly support the idea
and requested federal and state monies to initiate an acquisition program. Lake Elmo Village Council passed
a resolution on March 3, 1970 establishing a Metropolitan Park in the Village of Lake Elmo expressing
concern about possible private development in the area. It reads in part...
"Whereas, said [Village] Council...is of the opinion that such private development, inconsistent with the
proposed park plan, is an immediate possibility." "...[T]hat such action as may be necessary for the
acquisition of lands be taken at the earliest possible date because of the immediate possibility of
conflicting private development."
On August 3, 1971, the Lake Elmo Village Council again stated in a resolution the following:
"Whereas, the Village Council is of the opinion that the land for said Park should be acquired at the
earliest possible time so that it may be secured before it becomes the subject of urban development and
is, thereby, lost forever for park purposes."
The original 1973 park acquisition plan considered population density near the regional park and the
forecasted population in the sector in which the Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located. The acquisition plan
projected more population growth than actually occurred by 1990, although the actual population was within
10 percent of the projected growth.
On May 21, 1974, the Village Council urged the Metropolitan Council in cooperation with Washington
County to promptly acquire the "Lake Elmo Metropolitan Park" with the statement:
"Resolved, that the Village Council of the Village of Lake Elmo... does hereby reaffirm its expressions
of approval of the concept of a Metropolitan Park of regional significance...."
The 1974 Legislature enacted the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act, which states that:
"the pressure of urbanization and development threatens the most valuable remaining large recreational
open space areas in the Metropolitan Area at the same time as the need for such areas is increased."
This act provided an initial $40 million appropriation to the Council to provide grants to "implementing
agencies" to acquire what were defined as "immediate action sites." The sites were part of what was called
the Immediate Action Program. The implementing agencies were responsible for the planning, acquiring,
developing, operations and maintenance for the regional facilities. The Council developed the Long Range
system policy plan for Regional Recreation Open Space as part of the Council's Development Guide. Lake
Elmo Park was earmarked for immediate acquisition.
At this time, Dayton Hudson Properties was holding 1,250 acres in the city of Lake Elmo "for the purpose of
developing a major diversified center." The Lake Elmo City Council passed a resolution stating:
"It is essential the Dayton Hudson property be acquired under the first priority acquisition before the
Dayton Hudson development plan is submitted to the City of Lake Elmo." (July 16, 1974)
As part of a memorandum to the Council dated July 16, 1974, Washington County stated:
"...the purpose of the Legislative Act, which provided this 40 million dollars...was so that acquisition
could take place and preserve these twelve regional sites that were in immediate danger of being lost to
development. As far as this one (Lake Elmo) is concerned, if we do not take immediate steps to acquire
the entire park, those parcels not provided for under this funding will be lost to developers within the
next two to three years."
Lake Elmo was originally identified as a regional Park for active recreation purposes. In a report dated July
16, 1974, to the Chair of the Council's Environmental and Transportation Committee the Chairman of Metro
East stated...
37
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
"Since our primary concerns lie with the eastern suburbs, we have spent a considerable amount of time
studying growth patterns as they affect the east metropolitan area. From these studies we have found that
growth is moving eastward into western and central Washington County. Development pressures are
real in this area. Because of these growth pressures and the need for a regional park facility in this area,
Metro East does endorse and support the establishment of the Washington County Lake Elmo Regional
Park."
The Metropolitan Council authorized a grant in July 1974 and executed a contract in October 1974 with
Washington for $4,650,000 to secure a major portion of the park. When the County submitted the master
plan for Washington County Regional Parks, the staff report stated that:
"Lake Elmo Regional Park will be affected by several major proposed developments including Interstate
94, 3M, Dayton Hudson with housing development adjacent to the park on the south and southwest."
The 1977 Washington County Regional Recreation Open Space 5 Year Capital Improvement Program
included Lake Elmo as a park reserve with first priority including the need to purchase the remaining parcels
in the park "...because of intense development pressure and the proposed higher density of new residences in
the area...."
It is the City's contention that the Park was to overcome, not support `higher density of new
residences".
During the last 25 years, capital improvements totaling $7.6 million have been spent on the park for
acquisition and development. The Council paid tax equivalency payments to the city of Lake Elmo for a
period of time after parcels were acquired.
The City does not have record of the receipt of "tax equivalency payments" following the acquisition of
park property. We have been advised, however, of the formula by which such payments are normally
made. The City does not claim the payments were not made. The City does note that 13,000 lineal feet
of Lake Elmo water frontage and over 2,000 acres of land would have considerable value as tax base in
2002. The City also suggests that over 30 years of Public Safety services to the Park; and, a costly fight
to save a portion of the Park from being converted to a garbage dump in the late 1980's have been
substantial Lake Ehno contributions to the Region's Open Space programs — far in excess of any "tax
equivalency payments" the City received.
The Council makes annual operations and maintenance payments to Washington County as a partial
reimbursement.
Today, Lake Elmo Park Reserve encompasses 2,165 acres with 1,995 acres of land and 170 acres of water. It
sees fairly good use with an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45 % of visitors live within
Washington County.
Comprehensive Planning
The Lake Elmo 1990 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Council in 1990 and reviewed in
1991. In its review, the Council found the city's rural density of three units per ten acres, with a minimum
lot size of 2.5 acres, inconsistent with rural policies.
In 1992, the city proposed a 440-acre MUSA expansion in the southwest corner of the city. The proposed
land use designation for all 440 acres was Business Park. At the time there was not adequate sewer capacity
allocated to Lake Elmo to accommodate the expected sewer flow. In a resolution sent to the Council, the city
of Woodbury outlined 11 "negative findings." Woodbury expressed concerns regarding sewer planning,
transportation, storm drainage, septic systems and long range planning. Four of Woodbury's long-range
planning findings follow.
38
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
The Comprehensive Plan does not review development and growth for a long-term period. The plan is
very short term oriented and only for a specific development. The plan should deal (with) overall
community needs.
The proposal involves land only for commercial development. The market area has a sufficient supply
of commercial land, which is already in the MUSA.
The proposed uses to be allowed outside the MUSA are almost identical to those allowed inside the
MUSA. Some of the uses, such as restaurants, are very difficult to operate on septic systems.
The plan made no representation of this being a temporary short-term situation. It appears they intend
these commercial businesses to operate on private systems on a permanent basis. Allowing such
development is not consistent with Rural Development Policies.
The Council review resulted in required plan modifications, and removal of the 440 acres form the MUSA.
In 1994, Lake Elmo addressed the modifications and a 120-acre MUSA expansion was approved. Since
1994, the city has submitted 11 comprehensive plan amendments.
A 1996 amendment established an open space development concept providing for the clustering of rural
housing and the dedication of substantial open space. The Rural Agricultural Density (RAD) land use
designation in the proposed comprehensive plan is a further evolved version of the open space development
concept. The amendment proposed to change the land use designation of 4,460 acres (30 percent of the city)
to Open Space Development. Development was permitted at six units per 20 acres (3 per 10 or 1 dwelling
per 3.3 acres) with performance bonuses up to ten units per 20 acres (16 units per 20 acres or 1 dwelling per
1.25 acres). Permanent dedication of 50 percent of the site for open space was required. The Open Space
development category was not applied to the area between I —94 and 10th Street, sometimes called the I-94
corridor area (Figure 7). The Council review included the following three recommendations:
1. Inform the city of Lake Elmo that it may put the proposed plan amendment into effect and that no plan
modification is required.
2. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo monitor the open space development and forward annual reports
to the Council.,, The reports should include information on on -site systems, water supply, housing
affordability and whether the new development meets the city's intended open space development goals
and objectives.
3. Recommend that the city of Lake Elmo coordinate planning with the Council and with Washington
County as the growth options analysis develops.
The growth options analysis was part of the 1996 Regional Blueprint process. The Council has not received
annual reports monitoring open space development in the city.
From 1996 through 1998, a city -appointed I-94 task force including the Chairmen of the Planning
Commission and property owners met to develop and evaluate alternative development options for the I-94
Corridor Study Area (Figure 7). The task force, with assistance from the City Planner and a consulting
planner, developed three options. The I-94 Economic Development Option featured sewered research and
development/business park sites, rural estate development, open space development, and a large area
designated post 2015 development. The I-94 Livable Community Option was similar except that it
substituted urban sewered residential development for open space development. The I-94 Existing/Future
Land Use Option called for both sewered and unsewered research and development office park sites, open
space development, rural estate development, and a large post 2015 development area. A fiscal impact
assessment of the three options was prepared; however, the city did not end up selecting any of the three land
use options.
The I-94 Study was suspended in 1998 upon a determination that the fiscal forecasting component of
the work to date was seriously flawed regarding FAR assumptions related to non-residential
39
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
development models. The forecasted fiscal outcomes of all three development options were inaccurate,
with significant bias to the Livable Community option as a result.
ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for aviation, recreation open space,
transportation and water resources management, for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other
chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent
governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included:
• The Lake Elmo 2000 — 2020 Comprehensive Plan, submitted initially on August 24, 2001, and found
complete for review on February 8, 2002.
• Other supplementary materials received on November 16, 2001; November 28, 2001; December 21,
2001; December 27, 2001; and April 11, 2002.
REGIONAL BLUEPRINT (Michael R. King, AICP, 651-602-1438 and Jim Uttley, AICP, Planning and
Growth Management Department, 651-602-1361)
Lake Elmo is a substantially rural community with two small urban areas. One is the old village where there
is a mix of commercial development and urban -density residential on individual sewage treatment systems
(ISTS). The other is an area of 120 acres of commercial development in the southwest corner of the city,
adjacent to Oakdale, which is served by public sewer and is connected to the regional water resources
management system.
Three additional areas of the City would qualify as "urban", based on the density of existing housing —
approaching 3 units per net acre: The Tri-Lakes area of northeast Lake EImo; the Tablyn Park area
of west central Lake Elmo; and, the Cimarron Manufactured Housing neighborhood of Southeast
Lake Elmo.
The Regional Growth Strategy shows Lake Elmo as beginning to urbanize in the 2000 — 2020 planning
period. The Regional Growth Strategy map (Figure 2) shows the city of Lake Elmo immediately adjacent to
the region's "urban area." Oakdale is located to o the west. Woodbury is located to the south. Stillwater and
Oak Park Heights are located to the northeast.
The areas North and East of Lake Elmo (Grant, Baytown Township, West Lake land Township and
Afton) are all rural in character, both in fact, and by Metropolitan Council definition.
The Regional Growth Strategy proposes that a substantial portion in the east and northeast sections of Lake
Elmo should plan remain in "permanent rural" land uses. Much of the remainder is proposed by the Council
to be preserved for future urbanization through 2040, with a small area of approximately 525 acres proposed
to urbanize before 2020.
The Regional Growth Strategy policy areas as shown in Figure 2 as applied to Lake Elmo show 120 acres of
existing Urban Area (all commercial); 9,846 acres of Urban Reserve of which 3,907 acres are shown as
Illustrative 2020 MUSA; and 5,375 acres of Permanent Rural. The Illustrative 2020 MUSA was not
intended to show the expected extent of urbanization by 2020. Rather, it shows the general area within
which the city should plan for urbanization to expand in the city consistent with its regional growth forecasts
and the regional water resources management system plan for sewer households and sewered employment
through 2020.
Another way to look at the Regional Growth Strategy guide for Lake Elmo is as follows. Lake Elmo should
plan for 5,275 acres (35 percent of the city) to continue in permanent rural uses through the planning period
40
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
to 2040. It should plan for its existing 127 acres of urban development (0.1 percent of the city) to remain
urban. It should plan to urbanize enough land to accommodate 1,500 sewered households and a sewered
employment of 1,000 by 2020. And, it should protect the remainder of 9,846 acres (64 percent of the city) of
undeveloped urban reserve for future urbanization through 2040. The Council did not tell Lake Elmo how to
urbanize or at what density or how much land to use, beyond applying a minimum density of three units per
acre. If the city planned for the minimum urban density, it would be expected to urbanize approximately 500
additional acres for residential purposes by 2020. With respect to land demand for jobs, the Council uses an
average of 40 employees per acre for its general sewer flow forecasting. The 1,000 sewered employees
reflect a demand for approximately 25 acres of sewered commercial/industrial land by 2020. Thus, if the city
planned to urbanize 525 acres of land by 2020, it should be able to accommodate all of the sewered
households and sewered employees forecasted for the city to 2020.
Lake Elmo's comprehensive plan does identify and propose to continue the existing urban area in the
southwest corner of the city (Figure 5).
The other noted areas of defacto urban density would remain as well.
It proposed no expansion of the urban area and does not plan to accommodate the sewered households and
employment as directed in the regional system plan for water resources management.
"Urban Area", as defined by development density is, in fact, proposed to be expanded by the Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan. Subject to neighborhood design work - under way as of July, 2002 -
significant expansion of the Old Village neighborhood at near -urban residential densities is
contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, with wastewater services provided by Constructed
Wetlands Treatment Systems.
The plan does not identify an area of urban reserve or adequately protect the 9,846 acres of land identified by
the Council for future urbanization.
The City has never agreed to the concept of Urban Reserve, since it is the City's belief that only cities
have right to plan and zone land use. By operation, the concept of "urban reserve", if enforced by the
Metropolitan Council by the Council exercising the terms of MSA 473.175, is local land use planning
and (by the terms of MSA 473.858) local land use zoning.
Council guidelines suggest that cities should plan for rural residential densities not to exceed one dwelling
per 40 acres as a way to protect rural lands for future urbanization. Instead, the city plans for the vast
majority of the city — areas that the Council shows as both urban reserve and permanent rural, to be rural
residential. However, it does not follow the Council's density guidelines for permanent rural areas (an
average of one dwelling per 10 acres).
No quantitative basis has been demonstrated to support an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 40
acres (as distinguished from 1 unit for 30 acres, or 1 unit per 50 acres). At the referenced Rural Issues
Work Group meeting a Metropolitan Council Member asked, "...why the Metropolitan Council is not
going to let people develop at densities that are guided by what the land will allow...". (emphasis
added)
At a December 19, 2001 meeting of the Rural Issues Work Group committee of the Metropolitan
Council, a Work Group Member asked the planning consultants to the Metropolitan Council (Biko
and Associates and URS), "...if there was any significance in keeping housing density at 1:10..." The
consultants responded that, "...the number is not magic, but it reflects current policy and current
planning while allowing the ability to maintain rural character...". There is no established quantitative
41
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
foundation related to Regional Systems for maintaining a standard of 1 dwelling per 10 acres, or any
other density standard. It appears that the density standards are a function of unchallenged historic
usage by the Metropolitan Council.
The city's land use acreage table identifies four residential land use categories: urban residential, suburban
residential, rural estates and rural agricultural development. The "urban residential" category is applied to
the existing Cimarron manufactured housing development of 505 Units, approximately 189 acres in 2000.
No new "Urban Residential" is proposed in the city's plan.
The "suburban residential" category is applied to the existing residential development in the Old Village and
elsewhere. Most suburban residential development took place in the early to mid 20th Century when the city
was 700 acres in size (before annexing East Oakdale Township). The City Planner advises that few parcels
remain unbuilt within these old (suburban residential) plats; and no unplatted land has been proposed for the
SRD designation as yet, total 2000 land use in this category was approximately 1,780 acres. The effective
densities in these old plats range up to three units per acre. According to Chuck Dillerud, the Lake Elmo
City Planner:
The focus of the soon -to -be -started Old Village Neighborhood Design Study (Thorbeck Architects
are under contract) is to address limited Old Village expansion at this elevated density (not unlike the
ideas that Calthorpe gave us a couple years ago for this area) using the engineered wetland
wastewater treatment systems like those now serving several of our OP plats - up to 200 units on a
single combined system. The "trick" that Thorbeck must overcome is to retain the ambiance and
character of the Old Village with 21st Century housing and layout - as well as the wastewater
solution....
The only contemporary plat that is guided SRD is Carriage Station at 55th and Stillwater Blvd. We
added an SRD definition to the 1990 Plan @ 1.4 units per acre, with specific locational criteria, to
accommodate SRD there - as a measure to "step down" density from Oak Park Heights scale to
Lake Elmo scale from north to south across that neighborhood.
The residential estates development (RED) is conventional platting, which at approximately three units per
10 acres. According to the City Planner, nearly every RED guided area on the Plan is existing - with a
couple of minor exceptions, based on statements made to adjacent homeowners. Since 1996 only one RED
plat has been proposed and approved. All the rest (except Carriage Station) have been cluster developments
- 11 in all; with an area of approximately 811 acres in 2000.
The majority of the land in Lake Elmo is proposed for development as Rural Agricultural Development
(RAD) (see Figure 5). RAD permits development of a density of one unit per 10 acres, but is normally
developed at 16 units per 40 acres, with 50 percent of the land area to be dedicated as permanent open space.
Cluster (OP) development is allowed by Conditional Use Permit (case -by -case) in the AG and RR
zoning districts. The RAD land use classification qualifies land for either AG or RR zoning.
Conventional platting in the RR zoning district requires 10 acre minimum parcel size.
The resulting density is 0.4 units per acre or an average of one unit per 2.5 acres of land. This land use plan
category is planned throughout the city, including the southern section of the city. (Figure 5) This density is
four times higher than the Council recommended density for permanent rural areas and sixteen times higher
than the Council's recommended density for areas of urban reserve.
At a December 19, 2001 meeting of the Rural Issues Work Group committee of the Metropolitan
Council, a Work Group Member asked the planning consultants to the Metropolitan Council (Biko
and Associates and URS), "...if there was any significance in keeping housing density at 1:10..." The
42
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
consultants responded that, "...the number is not magic, but it reflects current policy and current
planning while allowing the ability to maintain rural character...". There is no established quantitative
foundation related to Regional Systems for maintaining a standard of 1 dwelling per 10 acres, or any
other density standard. It appears that the density standards are a function of unchallenged historic
usage by the Metropolitan Council.
In 2000, RAD land use category accounted for 7,622 acres.
Most review reports contain a table that compares city and Council forecasts. The table has been omitted
from this review report in place of a more extensive analysis and commentary found in the policy matrix
section of the report immediately following the executive summary.
There are a few areas in the city with compact intensively developed lands, which are of a village or small
town scale. These areas include the Old Village area south of state trunk highway (STH) 5 and County Road
17, the adjacent commercial strip along STH 5 and the Cimarron modular home community south east of
County Road 17 and 10th Street (Figure 5).
In addition significant areas of (historic) compact development exist in the Tri-Lakes neighborhood of
northeast Lake Elmo; and, in the Tablyn Park neighborhood of west central Lake Elmo.
Two areas are proposed for new intensive development. The comprehensive plan calls for the expansion of
the Old Village with new "village scale" residential and commercial development and a surrounding
greenbelt (Appendix A: pages 34 —37 and Map 2). This smart growth concept was developed in part through
the Council funded Saint Croix Valley Design Study. The comprehensive plan also proposes a "limited
business" district along the I-94 frontage road. That district would extend west one mile from the MUSA
line to Keats Avenue (County Road 17). This commercial development area is smaller than that called for in
the Lake Elmo 1990 — 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Both areas are proposed for development without
connection to the regional water resources management system.
The Plan notes, however, that Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment will be a primary method
of wastewater handling in the City. The noted St. Croix Valley Design Study specifically describes this
wastewater technology as "innovative" and environmentally sound.
Sub -Regional Analysis -- Comparing Lake Elmo to Grant
Lake Elmo is a community at the crossroads. It is a community with some of the best transportation access
in the region, with principal arterial highways on two borders (with existing interchanges), and a third
located a mile from one of its remaining borders. It has relatively large parcels of land and may have one of
the best urban development potentials of any city in the region, because it is located near the core cities and
other employment centers and because regional transportation, sewer and park facilities are located within
the city or immediately next to the city. Unlike its urban neighbors to the west, south and northeast, it seeks
a quasi -rural lifestyle like its neighboring townships to the east.
And north.
All of its neighboring communities except West Lakeland Township have had their comprehensive plans
reviewed by the Council. West Lakeland Township has not yet been submitted for Council review.
The city of Grant, located immediately north of Lake Elmo was shown in the Regional Growth Strategy as
mostly permanent rural, but with substantial areas in the western part of the community proposed by the
Council for urban reserve. Grant's plan proposed that the entire city remain in permanent rural at densities
consistent with Council policies for permanent rural areas. The Council's reviewed Grant's plan on January
28, 1999. In its review, the Council said:
43
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
The [city of Grant's] plan does not identify any future sewered areas, but indicates that the city will
reconsider identifying potential sewered areas in the year 2008, during the next plan update. More
importantly, the city will continue to vigorously enforce its 1/10 density policy, which will not preclude
future urban development. Therefore, while the plan is not consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy
and represents a departure from the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, Council staff finds that
the plan does not constitute a substantial departure.
How is Lake Elmo's plan different from Grant's?
The regional water resources management system plan did not propose any sewered residential households
or employment in Grant through 2020, while it does propose 1,500 sewered households and 1,000 sewered
employment in Lake Elmo by 2020.
While the Regional Growth Strategy shows both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA in Grant, the
city was not expected to plan for urbanization before 2020. It was only expected to protect land for future
urbanization. Grant proposes to do this by vigorously applying its 1/10 permanent rural density standard.
Further, Grant agreed to revisit the question of future urbanization in its 2008 update of its comprehensive
plan.
Lake Elmo is also shown with both Urban Reserve and Illustrative 2020 MUSA, but in this case Lake Elmo
was expected to plan for urbanization to begin before 2020. Its plan proposes to permit rural densities four
times higher, and therefore inconsistent with future urbanization. Further, although Lake Elmo's plan
proposes to encourage clustering in the rural area (generally an acceptable practice), it requires the
undeveloped open space in each development to be set aside as "permanent" open space (through easements,
dedications and fee title transfers). This practice, if allowed, would make future urbanization considerable
more difficult if not virtually impossible.
Sand, Gravel and Dolostone Deposits
The Council's study of aggregate resources in the Twin Cities area, Aggregate Resources Inventory of Seven -
County Metropolitan Area, Minnesota (May 9, 2000), identified sand and grave deposits in Lake Elmo, one
area in the northwestern area of the city to the south and west of Lake Jane, Olson Lake and Lake De
Montreville and the other south and east of Goose Lake. Much of the area identified in northwestern Lake
Elmo is considered urbanized or mined out. There are two existing sand and gravel mines; new mines are not
permitted. The plan indicates that by 2020 there will be no more extraction activities in the community.
The assumption of the Lake Elmo Plan is that the two existing sand/gravel operations in the
community will continue operations until "mined out" — which is expected by 2020, based on
remaining deposits. It is not the intention of the City to seek suspension of mining activities during the
planning period as long as the mine operators continue to abide by permit conditions.
Historic Site Preservation; Solar Access Protection
The comprehensive plan does not include a historic protection element or provide an element for solar access
protection. These protection elements as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat. §
473.859, subdivision 2). The city should prepare and submit these elements to the Council for review as
required by law.
The City agrees to do so. There is little or no guidance as to what is expected by the State or
Metropolitan Council in this regard. Clearly this is not major issue in this city, but we agree to comply.
Plan hnplementation
The city has approved the following 2000 — 2020 Comprehensive Plan implementation work projects: the
Community Facilities / Staffing forecast, Zoning Ordinance Redraft, Old Village Neighborhood Design
44
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
Study and the Cimarron Neighborhood Analysis. The city has adopted a 2002 — 2006 Capital Improvements
Program.
Land Use Summary
Lake Elmo's plan is inconsistent with Council's Regional Growth Strategy policies contained in the Regional
Blueprint, adopted by the Council in December 1996.
The concepts of a "Regional Growth Strategy", "Regional Blueprint" and the three
Metropolitan Council -devised policy areas of "permanent rural", "urban reserve", and
"Illustrative 2020 MUSA" are not reflected by, or even mentioned in State Statutes or State
Rules as basis for a determination as to whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with,
or in conflict with, Regional Systems. The City suggests that it was not the intention of the
Legislature for the Metropolitan Council to engage in regional master planning or land use
zoning — directly or indirectly. In mandating that local units of government comply with
concepts such as the 1996 Regional Blueprint, and the Regional Growth Strategy by
suggesting authority to enforce compliance with such mandates utilizing MSA 473.175, the
Metropolitan Council is, in fact, indirectly engaging in Iand use planning, and also (by the
terms of MSA 473.858 linking land use zoning to a comprehensive plan) the Metropolitan
Council is also, therefore, indirectly engaged in land use zoning.
It is inconsistent with the Council's 2020 household and employment forecasts.
The reported inconsistency with the Council's household forecasts (4%) is not significant in a 20 year
forecast context.
In the present context, the variance particularly in employment forecasts raises concerns because they are
reflected in significantly lower forecasts from the city for sewered households and employment, which are
found later in this review to be substantial departures from the regional system plan for water resources
management.
The Metropolitan Council Staff distinction between "sewered" households and employment and
households/employment forecasts by Lake Elmo is not significant from an environmental or public
health protection perspective, given the alternative wastewater handling strategies of the City.
The city does not plan for future urbanization in the city beyond an existing 127-acre urbanized area in the
southwest corner of the city. The city does not establish an Urban Reserve area in the community as directed
by the Regional Growth Strategy and does not attempt to protect land in the city for future urbanization
through 2040 by establishing densities approaching one dwelling per 40 acres as Council guidelines suggest.
The city does have an area of "permanent rural" but its densities of one dwelling per 2.5 acres are four times
more dense that the Council's guidelines of one dwelling per 10 acres. The city's plan proposes densities
four times denser than Council guidelines in the permanent rural area and 16 times denser than Council .
45
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
EXISITINGG LA1�1U S
Single -Family Residential
Multiple -Family Residential
Farmsteads and Seasonal
Manufactured Housing
Commercial
Industrial
Extractive
Public/Semi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Golf Courses
Roadways
Subtotal - Residential
Subtotal
Agricultural Land
Vacant Land
Total Agricultural and
Open Water
cres'
2,685 18
2 0
130 0
113 0
2,930 19
189 1
89 0
80 0
257 2
2,173 14
302 2
244 2
—Other Developed 3,334 22
Total Developed 6,264 41
4,325 28
3,414 22
Vacant Residentia 50
Total Lan 1.4,003 91
1,338 9
TOTAL 15,341 100
46
± ,liu.o'2020 Land Use Maps
Urban Residential
Suburban Residential
Residential Estate Density (RED) (12/40 or 1 unit /3.2
acres)
Rural Agricultural Density (RAD) (16/40 = 1 unit/ 2.4
acres)
Subtotal - Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Limited Business
Public/Semi Rural
Right of Ways / Railway
Open Water
RSV
181 1.2�
1,684 11.0
805 5.2
7,410 48.3
10,080 65.7
91 0.6
0
256 1.7
3,171 20.7
862 5.6
Subtotal —Other Developed' 4,380 28.6
Total Developed 14,460 94.3
Total Land
TOTAL
14,460
881
15,341
94.3
5.7
100
The Bold Face Material of this Document is the response of the City of Lake Elmo
July 24, 2002
guidelines for areas of urban reserve. Additionally, Lake Elmo's plan allows rural clusters where substantial
land is placed into "permanent" open space. This technique is permitted in the Council's permanent rural
area when associated with lower density rural residential development (1 per 10 not 1 per 2.5).
At a December 19, 2001 meeting of the Rural Issues Work Group committee of the Metropolitan
Council, a Work Group Member asked the planning consultants to the Metropolitan Council (Biko
and Associates and URS), "...if there was any significance in keeping housing density at 1:10..." The
consultants responded that, "...the number is not magic, but it reflects current policy and current
planning while allowing the ability to maintain rural character...". There is no established quantitative
foundation related to Regional Systems for maintaining a standard of 1 dwelling per 10 acres, or any
other density standard. It appears that the density standards are a function of unchallenged historic
usage by the Metropolitan Council.
However, it is inconsistent in areas that the Council has designated as urban reserve, where such permanent
open space would significantly add to the costs for extending urban infrastructure, perhaps making
urbanization financially infeasible.
The concepts of a "Regional Growth Strategy", "Regional Blueprint" and the three
Metropolitan Council -devised policy areas of "permanent rural", "urban reserve", and
"Illustrative 2020 MUSA" are not reflected by, or even mentioned in State Statutes or State
Rules as basis for a determination as to whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with,
or in conflict with, Regional Systems. The City suggests that it was not the intention of the
Legislature for the Metropolitan Council to engage in regional master planning or land use
zoning — directly or indirectly. In mandating that Iocal units of government comply with
concepts such as the 1996 Regional Blueprint, and the Regional Growth Strategy by
suggesting authority to enforce compliance with such mandates utilizing MSA 473.175, the
Metropolitan Council is, in fact, indirectly engaging in land use planning, and also (by the
terms of MSA 473.858 linking land use zoning to a comprehensive plan) the Metropolitan
Council is also, therefore, indirectly engaged in land use zoning.
The City can not identify direct statutory authority for the Metropolitan Council to impose the
concept of "urban reserve" in review of local comprehensive plans for conflict or compliance with
Regional Systems. No definition exists for the terms "rural life-style", nor doesdirectstatutory
authority appear to exist for the Metropolitan Council to engage in determining life-style choices for
residents of the Region by determining where or when any such life-styles would geographically occur.
No quantitative basis has been demonstrated to support an overall density of 1 dwelling unit per 40
acres (as distinguished from 1 unit for 30 acres, or 1 unit per 50 acres). At the referenced Rural Issues
Work Group meeting a Metropolitan Council Member asked, "...why the Metropolitan Council is not
going to let people develop at densities that are guided by what the land will allow...". (emphasis
added)
REGIONAL SYSTEMS
Aviation (Chauncey Case, Transportation and Transit Development, 651-602-1724)
The city of Lake Elmo is within the airport influence area of the Lake Elmo Airport and involves airport -
planning considerations. The comprehensive plan includes an aviation element. This city's plan adequately
addresses the airspace protection requirements and is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan.
Recreation Open Space (Arne Stefferud, Parks, Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Planning and Technical
Assistance Office, 651-602-1566, Michael McDonough, Planning and Growth Management Department,
651-602-1054)
47
The Lake Elmo 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan is not in conformance with and represents a substantial
departure from the Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan. The 2,165-acre Lake Elmo Park Reserve
lies in the center of Lake Elmo. The regional investment in the park reserve totals $7.6 million, including
$5.6 million for land acquisition. Lake Elmo received tax equivalency payments for a period of time after
parcels were acquired. In addition, Washington County, as the Implementing Agency, receives partial
reimbursement annually for operations and maintenance costs for the regional system, including Lake Elmo
Park Reserve. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve had an estimated 398,000 visits in 2000. Approximately 45%
of the visitors live within Washington County. The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is a regional amenity and an
substantial infrastructure investment that was invited and welcomed by the city of Lake Elmo.
While the principal considerations in establishing regional parks and park reserves have more to do with
protection of regionally significant open space more than locating them for ease of access to regional park
users, park users are a consideration. Urban level development would allow more access to the park by
alternative transportation, such as biking, walking, and using the transit system. It also permits more people
to access the park without using the regional highway system, thereby reducing demands on that system.
The 1996 Regional Blueprint in Appendix A, pages 66-72, establishes guidelines affecting regional systems.
In its first section, entitled, "Directions for Regional Systems," it says...
"The Blueprint will be used to help interpret policies in the Council's system plans and its other
regional plans. All of the Council's regional plans need to reflect the policies of the
Blueprint... which is the keystone chapter (of the Metropolitan Development Guide)."
On page 68, the Blueprint says"...
Set regional objectives for the open space system consistent with the Regional Blueprint... Develop
regional recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in the urban area...If it is
necessary to develop such facilities in the rural area, adequate support services such as roads and
sewers must be provided.
The Lake Elmo Park Reserve is located within the area that the Regional Growth Strategy identifies as urban
reserve (future urban), which is consistent with the concept expressed above of developing regional
recreation facilities that attract large numbers of users generally in an urban area. Lake Elmo's plan to keep
the area rural and prevent it from urbanizing in the future is not in conformity with Council policy and
represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan for Regional Recreation Open Space. The
city should be required to modify its plan to make it consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.
The City supported and encouraged creation of the Regional Park Reserve in the 1960's/1970's based
on locational criteria for Regional Park Reserves in place in the 1960's/1970's when the Park was first
proposed and planned — and the City still does support the Park in many ways (Public Safety services
,and loss of a major real estate tax base, among those). For the Metropolitan Council staff to now
conclude the park is underutilized because Lake Elmo has not planned urbanization at its doors is to
re -state the original locational criteria and purpose for the Park. The access to the park remains 45
minutes (or less) from most of the urbanized region; and, the aforementioned commuter rail corridor
adjoins the Park to the north — if it ever happens.
The City does not have record of the receipt of "tax equivalency payments" following the acquisition of
park property. We have been advised by Metropolitan Council Staff , however, of the formula by
which such payments are normally made. The City does not claim the payments were not made,
however. The City does note that 13,000 lineal feet of Lake Elmo water frontage and over 2,000 acres
of land within the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve would have considerable value as tax base in
2002. The City also suggests that over 30 years of Public Safety services to the Park; and, a costly fight
48
to save a portion of the Park from being converted to a garbage dump in the late 1980's have been
substantial Lake Elmo contributions to the Region's Open Space programs — far in excess of any "tax
equivalency payments" the City may have received.
Lake Elmo's Park Plan is generally very comprehensive. However, the trail plan includes a proposed
regional trail intended to connect the Big Marine Regional Park Reserve in northern Washington County
with the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park in southern Washington County. A combination of the
proposed community and neighborhood trails could make this connection. The city's plan is not in
conformity with and is a departure from the regional system plan because it does not show the regional trail
as described above and included in the 1996 Regional Recreation Open Space System statement. The city
should modify its plan map show the connection as a future regional trail.
The City agrees to modify its Plan regarding the region trail corridor, as requested. Exclusion of that
trail corridor was an oversight.
Transportation (Ann Braden, Planning and Growth Management Department, 651-602-1705)
The city' s plan is not in conformity with and represents a departure from the regional system plan for
transportation (Transportation Policy Plan [TPP]). The plan recommends traffic calming for TH 5 through
the Old Village area of Lake Elmo. TH 5 is currently carries about 12,000 vehicles per day. Strategy 11H of
the regional Transportation Policy Plan states that traffic -calming measures are not appropriate on principal
or minor arterials because they inhibit the highway from fulfilling its regional role of providing mobility.
Traffic calming measures on TH 5 that would impair mobility along TH 5 would be inconsistent with
Council policy. The city should revise the language in its plan regarding traffic -calming measures on TH 5.
The traffic calming measures suggested by the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for a short segment of
the State Highway 5 are those recommended by Thorbeck Architects in the Old Village Design Study.
That work was completed for the City in 2000 utilizing a Metropolitan Council Planning Grant. The
completed design study (including the traffic calming features) has been on file at the Metropolitan
Council since it was completed.
Additionally, the Metropolitan Council sponsored and funded St. Croix Valley Development Design
Study by Calthorpe Associates has suggested traffic calming for a short segment of State Highway 5 in
Lake Elmo very similar to that suggested earlier by Thorbeck (pedestrian crossings, landscaped
median, and landscaped boulevard).
In addition, the city's plan is not in conformity with and represents a substantial departure from the regional
system plan for transportation. In its adoption of the Transportation Policy PIan on December 19, 1996, the
Council incorporated its Regional Growth Strategy into the TPP (page 10), which says...
The Metropolitan Council's regional growth strategy was adopted as part of its Regional Blueprint.
`...to ensure that this regional growth strategy is implemented, the Council's regional growth strategy is
hereby incorporated into the Council's system plan for transportation. Local government plans will be
reviewed by the Council for their consistency [sic] with the Council's metropolitan system plans. The
Council's metropolitan system plans including the regional growth strategy, will serve as the basis for
the Council's determination to require a local plan modification if a local plan or any part of a local plan
has a substantial impact on or contains a substantial departure from the Council's metropolitan system
plans.
Lake Elmo has some of the best transportation access of any community in the region. Lake Elmo is
bordered by two principal arterials: I-94 on the south and state trunk highway (TH) 36 on the north. "A"
49
minor arterials in the city include TH 5, County Road (CR) 13, CR 10, and CR 19 (all "expanders") and CR
15 (a "connector"). Since the plan was drafted, Metro Transit Route 63 service between downtown St. Paul
and the Cimarron Neighborhood in southeastern Lake Elmo has been eliminated. In addition to Metro
Transit express Route 294 service, Washington County's Human Services, Inc. provides ADA paratransit
service to Lake Elmo from 5:00 am to 7:00 p.m.
The city's plan, as was noted earlier, is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy with
respect to forecasts, sewered households and employment, lack of future urbanization, lack of urban reserve,
inconsistent density policies needed to protect urban reserve and permanent rural areas. The Regional
Blueprint, on page 67, states...
Recognize that the cumulative impact of small-scale development inconsistent with the Council rural
area policies may have a substantial negative impact of the Council's transportation policy plan or
constitute a substantial departure from the plan. Similarly, in the urban area the cumulative effect of
very low densities and inefficient land uses may lead to underutilization of regional facilities and may
constitute a substantial negative impact on the system or constitute a substantial departure from the
system plans.
Lake Elmo's plan for city-wide low -density rural residential development and permanent open space makes
it economically infeasible to provide the citizens of Lake Elmo and some adjacent communities with cost
effective transit services. The Regional Blueprint, on page 68, states that the Transportation Policy Plan shall
"emphasize and promote transit services...and which reduce automobile dependence to improve air
quality... decreasing congestion, promoting community character, and devoting less land to transportation
facilities."
The location of State Highway 36 and Interstate 94 were neither the product of Lake Elmo nor
Metropolitan Council planning or strategies, nor were the locations of those arterials based on
assumptions regarding the future urbanization of Lake Elmo. As such, a finding of non -conformity
with the Region's transportation system based on Lake Elmo's decision to not urbanize to the degree
proposed by the 1996 Growth Strategy relies on historic locational coincidence, not on more recent
transportation system strategies. The City does not believe that the future character of the City should
be based on such a historical coincidence wrapped in present day Metropolitan Council Staff logic of
"linkages".
While a freight rail line does transit Lake Elmo; and, while the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan before
the Metropolitan Council does recognize that fact (and suggests that Old Village planning incorporate
a location for a transit hub), several other commuter rail corridors have been identified in earlier
studies as having substantially higher priorities for commuter rail service. What little bus transit
service Lake Elmo had in the past has been recently reduced.
Wastewater Services (Bryce Pickart, Assistant General Manager, MCES and Donald Bluhm, Manager,
Municipal Services, MCES, 651-602-1116)
History
In 1992, Lake Elmo submitted a request to the Council to add 440 acres in southwest Lake Elmo to the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The request was not permitted because there was not sufficient
capacity within the interceptor system to provide for the requested service. Another consideration was
embodied by comments from the city of Woodbury, which objected to Lake Elmo' s MUSA request because
no housing was included, only commercial land use.
The 1992 objections of Woodbury related as much (or more) to the WONE Interceptor sewer capacity
issue as to any true concerns with Lake Elmo's land use decisions. At that time, WONE capacity that
wouold have gone to Lake Elmo if the 440 MUSA application had been approved would have meant
50
that much less WONE capacity available to Woodbury. This was a classic example of the inter -
community competition for available regional sewer capacity that lead the Minnesota Legislature to
enact statutes empowering the Metropolitan Council to coordinate Regional Systems capacity
allocations.
In 1994, the city requested that 120 acres be added to their MUSA. The Council approved 120 acres for
inclusion in MUSA, based on projections of available capacity in the WONE Interceptor.
In 1994, the Council's Environmental Services Division completed a long-range wastewater system planning
study entitled the Centralization/Decentralization Study. This plan included the implementation of the
Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve Cottage Grove, Woodbury, and Lake Elmo. The
1996 Water Resources Management Policy Plan, based on the 2020 Regional Blueprint, programmed the
expansion of the Metropolitan Disposal System to provide wastewater services to the city of Lake Elmo. The
1997 systems statement that was sent to the city of Lake Elmo to initiate their comprehensive plan update
stated that regional sanitary sewer service would be provided for 1,500 housing units by 2020. The content
of the 1997 system statement was not disputed or challenged by the city.
The position of the City of Lake Elmo regarding the 1996 Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth
Strategy was clearly communicated by the adoption of Lake Elmo City Council Resolution #96-39 on
November 19, 1996. (Copy Attached) That Resolution was presented by Mayor Wyn John as Lake
Elmo's position at the November 20, 1996 Public Hearing on the 1996 Blueprint/Strategy that was
conducted by the Metropolitan Council at the Oakdale City Hall. There is no evidence that the
position of the City changed in any respect by 1997 — or even by 2002.
In 1996, the Council began the siting process for the Southeast Regional WWTP. In 1998, the Council
completed the siting process with the decision to re -use the existing Cottage Grove WWTP site, which
cannot accommodate a plant as large as originally envisioned for the Southeast Regional WWTP (renamed
the South Washington County WWTP). The plant siting decision resulted in a re-evaluation of the plant's
sewer service area and options to provide capacity at other locations as part of the interceptor system facility
planning, which was initiated in 1998.
In April 2000, the Council adopted the South Washington County Interceptor Facility Plan. The facility plan
provides sewer service to Lake Elmo through the proposed Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor, with capacity for
up to 3.7 mgd wastewater flow from Lake Elmo, and with construction scheduled for 2006 to coincide with a
planned MnDOT projecttowiden and -improve -I-94 east of St. Paul. The objective_ is to achieve efficient
construction of public infrastructure and consistency of regional transportation and wastewater system
capacities.
Interim wastewater service for the previously mentioned 440-acre area of Lake Elmo would be provided by
the WONE Interceptor, which will have capacity available upon Woodbury's diversion of wastewater flow to
the new South Washington County interceptor and wastewater treatment plant in 2003. In addition, the
facility plan allocates 1.4 mgd of reserve capacity for the 1-94 corridor east of Woodbury and the four St.
Croix communities in the South Washington County Interceptor.
The 3.7-mgd of wastewater flow planned for Lake Elmo equates to 13,500 residential equivalent connections
and to an urban service area of approximately 5,000 to 8,000 acres. This area encompasses the entire area
between I-94 and loth Street that is available for development, plus some of the developable area north of
loth Street, plus the larger existing developments (Cimarron, Old Village); an area consistent in size with the
entire area shown as "urban reserve" in the Regional Growth Strategy minus the 1,995 acre Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve, which is undifferentiated within the area shown as urban reserve. The 2002-2007
MCES Capital Improvement Program includes the $10 million Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor with
construction scheduled for 2006-2007.
51
Public Comments
Public participation played an important role in shaping the plans for the South Washington County
Interceptor. Early in the process of preparing the facility plan, an interceptor community advisory committee
(ICAC) was formed consisting of representatives of Lake Elmo, Afton, Cottage Grove, Woodbury,
Washington County, South Washington Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources and the
Council. Committee members included citizens, elected officials, and local government staff. Five meetings
were held between January 1998 and January 1999.
Mayor Wyn John, Todd Williams, and City Engineer Tom Prew officially represented Lake Elmo. Other
participants included Lake Elmo city council member Susan Dunn, property owner Dorothy Lyons and
Bruce Miller of MFC Properties Corporation.
Throughout the one-year span of the ICAC meetings, MCES consultants and staff presented information on
the various alignment alternatives for the interceptor as they were gradually narrowed to the final
recommended plan. Lake Elmo's representatives preferred alignments oriented towards the western side of
the city. This conformed better to the city's plan to stage development in the area adjacent to I-94 from west
to east. City of Afton representatives vigorously opposed the eastern -most interceptor alignment along their
shared border with Woodbury. They were concerned that this would bring undesirable pressure to urbanize
their northwestern sector. At the fourth ICAC meeting, the Council proposed a new interceptor alternative for
future service to Lake Elmo, the Lake Elmo Metro Interceptor, which responded to both cities' concerns.
The Council district representative and staff met with the Lake Elmo city council on July 7, 1998, and again
on September 1, 1998, to discuss the means of providing interceptor service to the city. At the request of the
ICAC members, a narrative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the remaining interceptor
alternatives was provided in January 1999. The Facility Plan was published in March 2000, and an official
public hearing on the South Washington County Facility Plan was held on April 6, 2000. The Council
officially adopted the facility plan on April 26, 2000, and Lake Elmo officials were informed and consulted
during the planning for the interceptor, but their comments influenced changes in that plan.
The Lake Elmo representatives on the Southeast Regional WWTP task force strongly objected to the
proposed interceptor to Lake Elmo from Cottage Grove, through Woodbury. Not only did they object
to the location at which the interceptor would enter Lake Elmo, but also to the proposed volume and
service scale of the interceptor. On July 7, 1998 Bryce Pickart, Councilmember Charles Arnson, Guy
Peterson, and Wayne Rikala (all representing the Metropolitan Council) attended a workshop of the
Lake Elmo City Council to discuss the interceptor alternatives being considered by the Southeast
Regional WWTP task force. At that Workshop it was stated that the Lake Elmo Council's only
acceptable option for regional sewer was resubmission of the 440 acre MUSA option for sewer service
via the WONE interceptor. It was represented by the Metropolitan Council representatives that
sufficient capacity could be made available to accommodate the 440 acre Lake Elmo MUSA option by
redirecting some of Woodbury's flow to the Cottage Grove/Woodbury interceptor; and, paralleling
some existing under -capacity pipes on the WONE route to Pigs Eye. The City was left with the
impression that this would require an investment by the Metropolitan Council of something less than
$200,000 — and that the Metropolitan Council representatives were clear in their understanding that
this alternative (440 through the WONE) was the only regional sewer that Lake Elmo would ever have
interest in supporting — and then only if the resulting development was high quality office, such as that
now being constructed in the majority of the existing 120 acres of MUSA.
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, did include the
geographic area paralleling I-94 to Keats Avenue as 2020 MUSA — in keeping with the foregoing
understandings regarding the City Council's position on regional sewer. Upon adoption of the 2020
Comprehensive Plan (subject Metropolitan Council review) the City Council deleted any MUSA
enlargement beyond the existing 120 acres, but advised City Staff that they (the City Council) would
52
be open to reconsidering that deletion at such time as the City adopted architectural performance
standards that would insure the quality of development desired within the 440.
City records do not, at any time, reflect discussion of — much less City concurrence in — the "Lake
Elmo Interceptor" in 1998, or at any point since 1998. The inclusion of the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" as
a planned Capital Improvement by the Metropolitan Council is a Metropolitan Council initiative, and
not "community -based" planning. The City of Lake Elmo has presented a Comprehensive Plan to the
Metropolitan Council that reflects the City's position regarding regional sewer. The only conflict
appears to be with what the Metronolitan Council Staff believes to be in the best interests of the City.
The Metropolitan Council, on the recommendation of its Staff, appears to have created a conflict with
a regional system by ignoring the community's decision regarding Regional sewer service by adopting
a Capital Improvements Program that conflicts with the Legislative Goals regarding community -
based planning. The City can only conclude that the unilateral decision by the Metropolitan Council to
include the "Lake Elmo Interceptor" in the Environmental Services CIP (thereby becoming a part of
the Water Resources System Plan) is to create a circumstance of system plan non -conformity should
Lake Elmo resist urbanization by its comprehensive plan — as the City historically has.
System Impacts
The Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan provides interceptor service capacity for 13,500
residential equivalent connections in Lake Elmo in the long-term, which would require approximately 5,000
to 8,000 acres of developable land. The system statement provided for 1,500 housing units to be served by
2020. The Regional Growth Strategy anticipated approximately 8,200 acres of MUSA and Urban Reserve.
The city's comprehensive plan projects a need for 482 residential equivalent connections by 2020. The city's
comprehensive plan projects no need to expand its current 120-acre MUSA. The city's comprehensive plan
provides for development of most of its land at the rural density of one unit per 2.5 acres (16 units per 40
acres). This development pattern would make it impossible to achieve urban densities appropriate for
MUSA in the future. These city proposals are a substantial systems departure from the Wastewater System
Plan and Policy 12a of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, which states:
...The timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the growth management strategy
adopted as part of the -Regional Blueprint and which would affect the cost of providing metropolitan
sewer service will be viewed as a departure from or having a substantial impact on the metropolitan
wastewater system, requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan.
Lake Elmo is the closest community to the Metropolitan WWTP in St. Paul that has significant developable
land that is not already within the MUSA or Urban Reserve. The least costly and most efficient means to
accommodate the region's growth is to provide urban services for urban density development to areas such
as Lake Elmo, as described in the 1996 Regional Blueprint.
The City's Comprehensive Plan accommodates growth is households within 4% of the Council's
forecasts for 2020 without the need for the Metropolitan Council to expend $10 million (or more) on
the Lake Elmo Interceptor Sewer. This surely is the least costly and most efficient means to
accommodate the Lake Elmo component of the Region's growth, without sacrificing the environment
or the public health.
53
OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE CHAPTERS
Housing (Guy Peterson, Livable Communities Department, 651-602-1418)
Based on the 2020 Blueprint and its Regional Growth Strategy, the Lake Elmo plan, as submitted, is
inconsistent with regional housing policy and the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies areas of urbanization in the city through 2020. The
framework established for implementing the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act calls for Lake Elmo to adopt affordable housing goals through 2010 consistent with the
regional goal -setting framework. This goal -setting structure with benchmarks and goals identifies some
range parameters within which the city is asked to plan for its share of affordable and life -cycle housing
through 2010.
Using the Council's forecasted sewered residential growth in the city through 2010, and the goals accepted
by Lake Elmo when it was a participant in the Livable Communities Local Housing Incentives Program
(numbers which are actually lower than the benchmark range accepted by other suburbs east of St. Paul), the
city would be expected to permit development of some new affordable ownership units — townhomes and
rental housing — before 2011. Using the goal Lake Elmo adopted, it would be expected to add 20 rental units
(high density) and 79 affordable ownership units (medium density townhomes). If the more ambitious
benchmark range numbers were used for goals, the low end of the actual goal ranges for eastern suburbs
would yield numbers that would represent the addition of 46 rental units and 106 affordable ownership units.
These goals when viewed as units then require the city to fulfill the second major affordable housing
requirement of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act — guiding sufficient land to permit this development to
occur should the market choose to build it. These modest goals would mean the need for two to five acres
available for high density rental housing (10 or more units per acre), and 13 to 18 acres available for medium
density residential development (at least six units per acre) through 2010.
With the systems statement indicating the expectation to sewer 1,500 homes in the city by 2020, perhaps as
many as 120 acres of additional land in the city would need to be "reserved" at one unit per 10 acres through
2010, to permit additional affordable and life -cycle housing to be developed after 2010.
The city's plan to grow without any sewered residential development creates a rationale for not having new
affordable housing goals and not permitting the development of medium- and high -density residential
development.
There _is -no relationship between the City's plan to grow utilizing alternatives to regional sewer, and
affordable housing goals. It has been the City's affirmative decision to not enroll in the voluntary
Livable Communities initiative. That decision was not based on whether the City agrees or disagrees
with the need for affordable and life cycle housing choices within the City. That decision was instead
based both on the seemingly arbitrary assignment of "fair share" new housing goals by the
Metropolitan Council; and, the fact that Lake Elmo has provided a sizable affordable housing
resource to the Region (as a percentage of Lake Elmo's total housing resource) for decades. The full
cost range of housing opportunities has, for decades, been available to the residents of Lake Elmo and
the region — as demonstrated by the Housing Element of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The
percentage of the existing Lake Ehno housing resources affordable to families and individuals appears
exceed that available or planned by any of Lake Elmo's neighboring communities, except Oakdale,
based on current Washington County Assessor market values. To the extent that support of affordable
housing resources results municipal diseconomies compared to more expensive housing resources,
Lake Elmo has continuously contributed to maintaining the East Metro's affordable housing resources
for decades.
State Statutes addressing affordable and life cycle housing reference both "existing" and "new'
housing resources. Lake Elmo maintains that preserving the "existing" affordable housing resources is
of equal importance to producing "new"; and, to that extent Lake Elmo continues to contribute its
"fair share" in keeping with Legislative intent.
54
The comprehensive plan is inconsistent with regional housing policy and the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act housing planning requirements if the Council requires the comprehensive plan to be consistent with the
Regional Growth Strategy, with sewered residential growth to begin in the city before 2010. A failure to
provide or protect more land to facilitate life cycle and affordable housing development between 2010 and
2020 exacerbates the plan's deficiencies.
Housing is not a Region System, by Iinkage, or otherwise.
Water Resources Management (James Larsen, Planning & Growth Management Dept. 651-602-1159)
Sanitary Sewer Element — Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS)
The city's ISTS management program is consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and
Council requirements.
Sanitary Sewer Element — Private Wastewater Treatment Systems
Nine clustered housing neighborhoods in the city are currently being served by seven engineered -wetland
wastewater treatment systems. The systems are permitted by the MPCA.
Engineered/Constructed Wetland Treatment System with 10,000 gallons per day flow or more are
"permitted" by the MPCA. Four existing Lake Elmo systems are of that scale.
Surface Water Management
The majority of the city is located within the Valley Branch Watershed, but portions also lie within the
Browns Creek and South Washington Watersheds. Council staff encourages the city to work closely with all
three of these watershed management Districts having jurisdiction over surface water management issues in
portions of the city.
The city's plan includes policy language requiring utilization of MPCA's best management practices and
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program wet detention basin design criteria, consistent with the Council's Interim
Strategy to Reduce Non -point Source Pollution -to all Metropolitan Water Bodies. The -plan also
acknowledges the need to incorporate these standards and requirements into the city's land use controls to
implement these policies. The city should amend its land use controls to incorporate these standards and
requirements within nine months of final Council action on the plan.
Water Supply
The city submitted as a part of the plan, an update of its original 1996 water supply plan element. The update
has been reviewed and comments have been provided to the city under separate cover. The city's water
supply plan element is consistent with Council guidelines. At such time as the city expands its present public
water system to serve urbanizing part of the community, it will need to revise its Water Supply plan and
resubmit it to the Council for review.
COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions, Washington County, and watershed districts for review
and comment. The cities of Oakdale and Woodbury, the South Washington Watershed District, and the
Valley Branch Watershed District all have commented on the Lake Elmo 2000 —2020 Plan. The comment
letters are attached in Appendix B.
55
Intergovernmental and Public Comments
Intergovernmental comments have been received from the city of Oakdale, the city of Woodbury, the South
Washington County Watershed District, and the Valley Branch Watershed District, (Appendix B). The city
of Oakdale writes in part, the following.
We respect the acknowledgement in the plan of the City's continued strategy of preserving natural
amenities and agricultural heritage. At the same time, we caution the City not to overlook proper
planning for the inevitable development based on projected growth for Washington County. This will
require making investments in the necessary infrastructure. The plan seems to recognize that Lake
Elmo, "faces the march of urbanization," but it could go further with discussion on strategies for how
increasing growth pressures will be managed.
The city of Woodbury letter expresses concerns about the extent of the proposed unsewered housing and its
potential impact on the ground water system that flows towards Woodbury, the traffic impacts of the rural
clustered housing development, and the impacts of surface water flowing from Lake Elmo into Woodbury.
The city also made the following land use comments.
The proposed land use element does not address issues in the Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint
as it relates to providing an expanded MUSA in a logical outward eastern expansion from the City of
Oakdale. The Regional Blueprint shows the MUSA being expanded into Lake Elmo generally
extending to Washington County Road #13. The Lake Elmo plan proposes no MUSA for housing in
the entire city.
The Council also received letters from four property owners or their representatives, (Appendix C).
Bruce Miller of MFC properties sent a copy of a 1998 petition from property owners requesting sewer
service from the city of Lake Elmo. Mr. Miller indicates that the property owners represent
approximately 1,500 acres along I —94.
Attorney Christopher Dietzen, wrote concerning the 34-acre Reco Real Estate property near I —94 and
County Road 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). They would like their land to continue to be designated
commercial.
Attorney John Lang wrote to the Council concerning the Dale Properties 90 acre parcel north east of
County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue) and 10th street, indicating an intent to develop sewered housing. He
points out their proximity to employment centers, sewer service and sewered housing development in
Oakdale.
Thomas Schutte, of the North Suburban Company wrote concerning their 150 acre parcel at the
southeast corner of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue) and 10th street. They object to the plan' s Rural
Agricultural Density designation of their property, and ask the Council to, "take measures necessary to
accommodate a more appropriate use of our property."
At the May 6, 2002, Livable Communities Committee meeting two property -owner representatives spoke.
Joe Fogerty, Edina Realty, addressed the committee on behalf of Dale Properties, owners of land on the
northeast corner of County Road 13 (Inwood Avenue) and 10th Street. He urged committee members to visit
the site to understand the location and level of infrastructure that is in place. Mr. Fogerty, noted that as a
Cottage Grove City Council Member, active in the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, he had
participated in the debate leading up to the adoption of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. He said, it was
clearly contemplated at the time of adoption that "substantial impact on or substantial departure form a
metropolitan system plan," could result from the underutilization of public infrastructure investments.
The City disagrees with the characterization of the comments of Mr. Fogarty. Based on attendance at
the referenced Livable Communities Committee meeting by a Lake Elmo Staff Member, the City's
recollection of Mr. Fogarty's comments regarding the Legislature's mid-1970's discussions of the
Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act went to protection of Regional Systems from inter -community
competition for the systems' capacities and overtaxing of the systems (primarily wastewater, at that
56
time). Mr. Fogarty then continued that current Metropolitan Council Staff interpretations of the Act
to include issues of underutilization of infrastructure appear valid as well — a position that supports
the landowner investor/speculators he was representing, and speaking on behalf of, at the subject
meeting. What actually was the context of the Legislature's basis for 1970's legislation regarding
regional systems; and, the speaker's 2002 agenda in addressing the issue must be distinguished from
one another.
Attorney Neal Blanchett, spoke on behalf of two clients, including the RECO Real Estate property discussed
above. He also addressed the committee concerning the Nass/Bubery/Bidon property in the northeast corner
of the city on state highway 36 and Manning. He said the property was essentially on freeway frontage and it
was not appropriate for the Rural Agricultural Density land use designation.
Mr. Blanchett clearly advised the Committee that he represented real estate investment clients holding
land in Lake Elmo. Those clients are positioned to potentially realize substantial "windfall" profits
should more intense development of their Lake Elmo holdings result from decisions regarding the
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Blanchett's comments to the
Committee must be considered only in that context.
57
REGISTER EARLY AND SAVE!
AUDIO CONFERENCE TRAINING SLRILS
Fax:
AUDIO CONFERENCE TRAINING SERIES
Early registration deadline is September 13, 2002.
Mail: American Planning Association
Lock Box 94343
Chicago, IL 60678-4343
312-431-9985 (credit card & purchase orders only), attention RRegalado
Questions regarding registration?: E-mail confregistration@planning.org, or phone 312-786-6703
Do not mail your registration after September 6; fax only!
Registration information:
ID NUMBER
FIRST NAME
HOME ADDRESS
CITY STATE
HOME PHONE NUMBER
PREFERRED E-MAIL ADDRESS
Send APA materials to me at: 0 Home 0 Employer
LAST NAME
ZIP
EMPLOYER NAME, SCI TOOL, OR AGENCY
TITLE
EMPLOYER/SCHOOL ADDRESS
CITY STATE
OFFICE PHONE NUMBER
FAX
Send invoices to me at: 0 Home 0 Employer
SUITE NO.
ZIP
Registration fees:
Option A: Audio Conference Only Before After
(live audio conference with PowerPoint, course book, and web access) September 13, 2002 September 13, 2002
O Paying for Growth, October 2, 2002 $95 each $130 each
O Getting to Density, November 6, 2002
O Mastering Meeting Management, December 4, 2002
O Update on Planning and Environmental Law, February 5, 2003
O Planning the Physically Active Community, May 21, 2003
O All five programs (special $50 savings) $425
Option B: Audio Conference and CD-ROM Packages Before
(live audio conference with PowerPoint, course book, web access, and CD-ROM of program) September 13, 2002
O Paying for Growth, October 2, 2002 $130 each
O Getting to Density, November 6, 2002
O Mastering Meeting Management, December 4, 2002
O Update on Planning and Environmental Law, February 5, 2003
O Planning the Physically Active Community, May 21, 2003
O All five programs (special $50 savings) $600 $750
Total
$600
After
September 13, 2002
$160 each
Any registration that is canceled is assessed a $20 fee. Cancellations and changes must be received in writing.
Method of payment:
O Visa 0 American Express
O Check enclosed (payable to APA) 0 Purchase order (copy must be attached) #
CARD NUMBER
NAME OF CARD HOLDER
EXPIRATION DATE
SIGNATURE OF CARD HOLDER
0 MasterCard
Expanded — now there are five programs
Find out what over 13,000 planning officials know —
the key to informed community decision making
.naeiocn91,,ae
Ds It
vo unoseor.
,riota icne fltdd
:r.}eodeDltyal
clt dnced ceylY
yoout
Paying for Growth
October 2 2002
Getting to Density
November 6, 2002
Mastering Meeting Management
December 4, 2002
Update on Planning and Environmental- Law
February 5, 2003
Planning the Physically Active Commwiify
May 21, 2003
Register by September 13, 2002, and save.
American Planning Association Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Making Great Communities Happen
dtbadt
ji ieodtbhatm
.6aiiotn9ioSadl
amoadioeitoaslt
aoseotoh
The American Planning Association and the
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy have the
perfect solution to your need for up-to-the-
minute training that's both economical and
convenient. Learn to malice your community a
great community through training.
Budget tight?
Train the entire staff, board, council, or commission for as little as $95. Register early and take advan-
tage of substantial savings
How does it work?
The audio conference is delivered to you live over a speaker telephone and the Internet. You'll listen to
a discussion and view a Power Point presentation. Access is provided through a toll -free number or
access code provided to you in your registration materials. Supplemental information is available for
registrants on the APA website.
How many people can attend?
As many can attend as you want. You register for the phone line, not by the person.
I'm really busy, how long does this take?
All live programs are one hour in length. All are held on Wednesdays at
4:00 p.m. E.T. Each program is scripted for an audio format and engages
the listener in a lively discussion.
Can I ask questions of the speakers?
Yes. Fax them in ahead of time or during the program. You can continue
the discussion by asking questions via the APA website.
What if I can't make that date?
Simple. You can purchase the CD-ROM of the program (see Option B on
the registration form). You'll get the audio conference and printable tran-
script on CD-ROM, so you can listen or read at your convenience. The
package can be used for future training as well.
Do I get anything else?
Yes. With your registration you receive by mail the reading materials, an agenda,
and instructions on joining the program. Information on the program, including the updated agenda
and special graphics, will be available on the APA website.
Additional questions?
Call the education assistant at 312-431-9100.
For more information and copies of agendas of the programs visit on
APA's website at www.planning.org or www.planning.org/
audioconference/index.htm.
New and unproved!
This year's audio conferences
will have synchronized PowerPoint
and audio programs. Access to these
audio/visual training programs is
easy.
,dints itnetbd.
famrlai.AatbhA
dnaiiotn9io6
elamcediaeit
gyooauae..
Paying for Growth October 2, 2002
Explore the tools and techniques that help communities pay for growth. Find out what mix of publicly sup-
ported and privately financed efforts are possible, defensible, and fair. Speakers discuss impact fees, tax
increment financing, and other forms of revenue generation from tax -based sharing to exactions.
Getting to Density November 6, 2002
A principal tenet of smart growth is to plan for and encourage more compact development. But what does
greater density really mean for residential and commercial use? What approaches to regulation and design
can be invoked to make higher densities work and be accepted? Panelists discuss approaches, the lessons
learned, and provide guidance to communities on when, where, and how to consider density.
Mastering Meeting Management December 4, 2002
Veterans of public meetings share their techniques and insights on how to run productive, effective meetings.
Learn how to make legally defensible decisions, evaluate evidence, and keep public anger from disrupting
your meetings. Panelists also explore how to encourage more diverse participation.
Update on Planning and Environmental Law February 5, 2003
The legal landscape of planning and environmental law is constantly shifting. Learn from four of the
nation's leading planning and environmental law attorneys. Find out what to watch for in 2003 and how to
write defensible decisions in light of recent legislation and case law.
.otn9inSudl:
-,codiaesu. nni t.,,
yooumoscotohne9no
o.,4Leentix3tonxmie
i' st:ra,uherc ,�
Planning the Physically Active Community
May 21, 2003
Americans are facing a major health crisis —obesity and the chronic diseases
related to it. Are the design and function of our communities adding to the
problem? Explore the dimensions of the problem and the innovative steps
communities are taking to encourage walking, bicycling, and other physical
activity. Learn how your community can benefit.
Presenters include researchers,
officials, planners, and attorneys.