HomeMy WebLinkAbout#25 - 8265 Hidden Bay Tr VarianceSTAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/6/2022
REGULAR
MOTION
TO: City Council FROM: Ben Hetzel, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Sophia Jensen, Code Enforcement Official AGENDA ITEM: 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N Variance
INTRODUCTION: David Kranz (Applicant) on behalf of Vonda Brown (Owner) recently submitted a variance application to install a replacement sewage treatment system within 75 feet of a delineated wetland boundary located at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, parcel 09.029.21.31.0025 (Subject
Property). The replacement sewage treatment system is required to complete a sale of the
property.
The proposal is to construct a mound septic system to replace the existing failing septic system that was installed in 1963. To do this, the applicant is proposing to install a 10 foot by 45 foot
rock bed mound system, corresponding absorption area, and three tanks. The three tanks would
be located outside of the required 75 foot wetland setback. A wetland delineation was completed on September 10, 2022 to identify the appropriate wetland boundary. These components would be installed within 75 feet of the wetland:
•Rock Bed: 60 feet
•Absorption Area: 48.3 feet
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the requested variance to install a sewage treatment system
within 75 feet of a wetland?
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Address: 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N
PID: 09.029.21.31.0025
Lot Area: 1.1 acres
Existing Zoning: Rural Single Family, Valley Branch Watershed District, Shoreland Management Overlay District
Surrounding Zoning: Rural Single Family
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 10/6/2022 60 Day Deadline – 12/6/2022
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
2
Applicable Regulations: Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Article XI- Wetland Protection and Preservation Overlay District Article XIX Shoreland Management Overlay District Reason for Request
The applicant and septic system designer have indicated that the proposed component locations are the only viable options for this property. The land further north, closer to the home consists of steep slopes, which cannot accommodate a mound system. The area along the east property line is also not suitable because of an existing drainage way. Staff have visited the site and
verified these conditions. Suitable system area is limited to the proposed location.
Section 105.04.520(5)b. states that no part of any septic tank system or of another sewage disposal requiring on-land or in-the-ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than 75 feet from the edge of a wetland.
Shoreland The subject property is located within a Shoreland Management Overlay District because it is within 1,000 feet of Lake Olson. The City code also requires a 75 foot setback from public waters governed by the Shoreland code. The proposed septic location is approximately 320 feet
from the closest point of Lake Olson. The proposed system is located within 48 feet of the
wetland of Deer Pond. Deer Pond is not a water body governed by the City’s Shoreland regulations according to Table 17-1 of Section 105.12.1260. CITY AGENCY REVIEW: This request was distributed to several city departments for review on October 17, 2022. The
following departments provided comments on the variance request.
Valley Branch Watershed District (Email) The proposed system location is above the 100-year flood level of Deer Pond. No Valley Branch
Watershed permit is required.
City Engineer (Email) The system must be at least 10 feet from the nearest property line.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS/DRAFT FINDINGS:
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 105.12.320 set forth by the MN Stat. 462.357 subd.6 before the City may grant an exception or modification to city code requirements. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff about the applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s
request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated
that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a
3
variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by an official control.
FINDINGS: Strict enforcement of the code would create an inability to properly dispose of domestic
wastewater. The existing topography and well location leave a limited amount of area for a
replacement sewage treatment system. The proposed system area is the only practical
location. Granting a variance would allow the applicant to use the property in a reasonable manner as there is no public sewer service available at this location.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: The property owners are not responsible for the challenging topography and existing well
location. The system cannot be shifted further north due to 30 percent slopes or further east
due to an existing drainage way. Areas north of the home have limited space and are within
the required 50 foot setback from the existing private well. The system designer has indicated there are no other viable locations.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
FINDINGS: The proposed sewage treatment system would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The proposed mound system would be located in the rear yard in an area
with mature trees providing screening. Upon installation, the applicant will be required to
establish vegetative cover prevent erosion and make the mound system more inconspicuous. Surrounding residential properties also have private sewage treatment systems due to public sewer service not being available to the area.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
The proposed request will have no effect on the supply of light and air to adjacent properties or increase congestion in the public streets. Property values should not be diminished from the request. Adjacent residential properties in the area are to be served by similar private or
community wastewater treatment systems. It is in the best interest of the adjacent properties
for the subject property to have a replacement sewage treatment system installed to avoid
sewage smells in the event of a full failure of the existing sewage treatment system. PUBLIC COMMENT: A hearing notice was sent to surrounding properties on November 2, 2022. A hearing notice was
published in the local newspaper on November 4, 2022. Staff have received one public comment in opposition of the request.
4
FISCAL IMPACT: None OPTIONS: The City Council may:
• Approve the request.
• Approve the request with conditions.
• Deny the request, citing recommended findings of fact for denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the variance request at the November 14th 2022 meeting. Commissioners felt that the proposed location is the only viable
location for a sewage treatment system.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request for a variance to install a sewage treatment system within 75 feet of a delineated wetland boundary.
“Move to approve Resolution No. 2022-111, approving a variance to install a sewage treatment system within 75 feet of a delineated wetland boundary at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N.”
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The wetland must be fully protected by dual silt fence prior to the installation of the sewage treatment system. 2. The mound system and all disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched immediately
following sewage treatment system installation. 3. The existing sewage treatment system and tanks must be properly abandoned. 4. The applicant must obtain all other necessary City, State, County, and other governing body permits and approvals before the commencement of any construction activity
onsite. These include, but not limited to, a Washington County Subsurface Sewage
Treatment System permit. 5. This variance approval is for a reduced wetland setback in the proposed component locations as per the revised site survey dated October 18, 2022. Any deviation in system component locations would require approval from the City of Lake Elmo.
6. This variance approval shall become void if the sewage treatment system and tanks have
not been installed within 12 months of the City’s approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Land Use Application
2) Written Statements 3) Location Map 4) Certified Survey 5) Site Photos 6) Wetland Delineation Report
7) Alex Pepin Emails 8) Valley Branch Watershed District email 9) Planning Commission Minutes
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS TO INSTALL A
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITHIN 75 FEET OF A DELINEATED WETLAND
BOUNDARY AT 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRAIL N.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, David Kranz(the “Applicant”) on behalf of Vonda Brown, owner of the property located at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N – PID 09.029.21.31.0025, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (the “Property”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for a
variance request to install a sewage treatment system within 75 feet of a wetland; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Code, Section 105.12.320; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on November 14, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 6, 2022;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 6, 2022 meeting and directed City staff to draft a resolution approving the variance with conditions for its consideration; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining a variance are found in Section 105.12.320 of the Lake
Elmo Zoning Code.
2) That all submission requirements of Section 105.12.320 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code
have been met by the Applicant.
3) That the proposed variance includes the following components:
2
a) The applicant proposes to install a 10 foot by 45 foot rock bed mound system and
corresponding soil absorption at a distance of 60 feet and 48.3 feet from a delineated
wetland boundary.
b) Section 105.04.520(5)b. states that no part of any septic tank system or of another
sewage disposal requiring on land on in-the-ground disposal of waste shall be located
closer than 75 feet from the edge of a wetland.
4) Practical Difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an
official control:
Strict enforcement of the code would create an inability to properly dispose of domestic
wastewater. The existing topography and well location leave a limited amount of area for
a replacement sewage treatment system. The proposed system area is the only practical
location. Granting a variance would allow the applicant to use the property in a
reasonable manner as there is no public sewer service available at this location.
5) Unique Circumstances the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances not created by
the landowner:
The property owners are not responsible for the challenging topography and existing well
location. The system cannot be shifted further north due to 30 percent slopes or further
east due to an existing drainage way. Areas north of the home have limited space and are
within the required 50 foot setback from the existing private well. The system designer has
indicated there are no other viable locations.
6) Character of Locality the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located:
The proposed sewage treatment system would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The proposed mound system would be located in the rear yard in an area
with mature trees providing screening. Upon installation, the applicant will be required
to establish vegetative cover prevent erosion and make the mound system more
inconspicuous. Surrounding residential properties also have private sewage treatment
systems due to public sewer service not being available to the area.
7) Adjacent Properties and Traffic the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood:
3
The proposed request will have no effect on the supply of light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion in the public streets. Property values should not be
diminished from the request. Adjacent residential properties in the area are to be served
by similar private or community wastewater treatment systems. It is in the best interest of
the adjacent properties for the subject property to have a replacement sewage treatment
system installed to avoid sewage smells in the event of a full failure of the existing sewage
treatment system.
DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, and based upon the information received and the above Findings, that the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby approves the variance request with conditions to install a sewage treatment system within 75 feet of a delineated wetland boundary. Approval of the request is subject to the following
conditions. 1. The wetland must be fully protected by the installation of a dual silt fence prior to the installation of the sewage treatment system. 2. The mound system and all disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched immediately
following system installation. 3. The existing sewage treatment system and tanks must be properly abandoned. 4. The applicant must obtain all other necessary City, State, County, and other governing body permits and approvals before the commencement of any construction activity onsite. These include, but not limited to, Valley Branch Watershed District approval and
a Washington County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System permit. 5. This variance approval is only for a reduced setback in the proposed locations according to the revised site survey dated October 18, 2022. Any deviation in system component locations would require approval from the City of Lake Elmo. 6. This variance approval shall become void if the sewage treatment system and tanks have
not been installed within 12 months of the City’s approval.
Passed and duly adopted this 6th day of December, 2022 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
____________________________________
Mayor Charles Cadenhead
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Page 1 of 2
Variance Application Written Statement for 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Lake Elmo
Prepared by: David Kranz
Updated: 10/17/2022
2 Written Statement
a. Current property owners
Thomas G & Vonda L Brown
192 Jade Trail N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Carmela S Kranz, Daughter has Power of Attorney
2401 34th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55406
b. Site data
Property Address: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N LAKE ELMO MN 55042
Property Description: OACE ACRES 3RD ADD Lot 24
Property ID: 09.029.21.31.0025
Parcel Size: 1.1 acre
Zoning: Rural Single Family
c. Lake Elmo City Code
Wetland Code, 75 foot setback
d. Proposal
New septic system with mound corner located ~50’ from start of wetland. See Septic Design and Property
Survey
e. Narrative
A new septic system is required to sell the home owned by Tom and Vonda Brown. Present septic system
is original, dating from 1963 home build.
A new septic was designed and located by engineer Alex Pepin, Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions (TTES
on 7/21/22) at the best location on the property after evaluating alternatives for topographical gradient,
setback from property boundaries, the home and water well. The design location is considered the only
viable location.
Washington County rejected the Septic application (on 9/1/22) noting the designed mound measured 52’
from the start of the wetland identified in the National Wetland Inventory. Washington County proposed
we (1) identify the wetland using a trained professional and (2) get a variance from the City of Lake Elmo.
Andy Kranz performed a wetland delineation (on 9/10/22), identifying the actual wetland boundary which
substantially agrees with the National Wetland Inventory. See attached Wetland Delineation report.
Page 2 of 2
Valley Branch Watershed District engineer, John P Hanson, reviewed the design on 9/12/22 and
determined the septic mound is located at above the 100 year flood plain. No VBWD permit is required.
See copy of John P Hanson’s email
A property land survey was completed on 9/28/22 by EG Rud surveyor. Survey locates the home, wetland
markers, septic mount markers, and the property boundary.
f. Why the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property
Design engineer Alex Pepin states (see Reason for Variance Alex Pipin email 2022-09-06.pdf )
Reviewing the design, Alex Pepin, stated in the email “this is the only location on the property that can
accept the soil treatment area, which then also forces the tanks to be in their location to achieve
drainback to the pump tank. The reason the soil treatment area needs to be where it is is that there is a
slope with over 30% slope just upslope from the area and a drainageway to the east. Both of these
constraints will impact the functionality of the septic system. The septic tanks are then placed as far away
from the wetland while also being able to get drainback to the pump tank to prevent freezing; which
again is a functionality of the system constraint. The setback variance is preferred as the septic is
designed to properly treat the wastewater prior to contact with a restriction, in this case the periodically
saturated zone in the soil profile. Putting the mound further east would put it in the stormwater flow
path and while berming can be constructed to divert the stormwater around the mound their is significant
infiltration of the stormwater into the soil which will continue along the path shown in the design causing
hydraulic loading issues into the soil (overloading the soil with water during rain events). The slope
similarly will cause hydraulic concerns with the functionality of the system. On slopes over 20% there is
concern the wastewater will flow horizontally along the native grade rather than infiltrating into the soil
causing a hydraulic failure along the toe of the mound where the not fully treated wastewater would
pool. For these reasons a variance to the wetland setback is proposed. All other areas on the property
were explored with inadequate area for a septic system and/or disturbed soils being encountered”
g. Unique circumstances not created by the landowner
Modern septic systems in Washington County have strict requirements. As described in statement 2f,
there is no other practical location that satisfies the slope and hydrological requirements.
h. Why this would not alter essential character of the neighborhood
While the mound location is less than the required setback, at 50’ from the wetland it will not be overly
prominent. The new mound will be located where the majority of the vegetation removed is buckthorn.
An effort will be made to preserve all adjacent mature oak and maple trees.
Re: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N, CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Alex Pepin <alex.pepin@tenthirtyenvironmental.com>
Tue 9/6/2022 8:19 AM
To: David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com>
Cc: Michael Capra <Mike@capras.com>
Good morning Dave,
That is great Andy can do that for you. You will need to apply for a variance with the City here
(https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Document%20center/Applications/Variance.pdf) with zoning
contacts here (https://www.lakeelmo.org/departments/planning___zoning/index.php). I know we had
originally discussed the need for a variance and with the design I was hoping the County would be ok with
the 75' to cattails, but as the County indicated in reality the wetland probably starts 20 or so feet prior to the
cattails.
You will want to fill out the variance once the wetland delineation is completed. When the wetland
delineation is completed if you could get Andy or even do it yourself you will need to measure the distances
to the stakes I have onsite for B5, B4, B1 and pump tank outlet those will then be the required setback
distances to the soil treatment area (B1, B4 and B5) and the setback distance to the tanks (Pump tank
outlet).
The reason for the variance is this is the only location on the property that can accept the soil treatment area,
which then also forces the tanks to be in their location to achieve drainback to the pump tank. The reason
the soil treatment area needs to be where it is is that there is a slope with over 30% slope just upslope from
the area and a drainageway to the east. Both of these constraints will impact the functionality of the septic
system. The septic tanks are then placed as far away from the wetland while also being able to get drainback
to the pump tank to prevent freezing; which again is a functionality of the system constraint. The setback
variance is preferred as the septic is designed to properly treat the wastewater prior to contact with a
restriction, in this case the periodically saturated zone in the soil profile. Putting the mound further east
would put it in the stormwater flow path and while berming can be constructed to divert the stormwater
around the mound their is significant infiltration of the stormwater into the soil which will continue along the
path shown in the design causing hydraulic loading issues into the soil (overloading the soil with water
during rain events). The slope similarly will cause hydraulic concerns with the functionality of the system. On
slopes over 20% there is concern the wastewater will flow horizontally along the native grade rather than
infiltrating into the soil causing a hydraulic failure along the toe of the mound where the not fully treated
wastewater would pool. For these reasons a variance to the wetland setback is proposed. All other areas on
the property were explored with inadequate area for a septic system and/or disturbed soils being
encountered.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Alex Pepin
612-248-4281
Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions
www.tenthirtyenvironmental.com
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 10:47 AM David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com> wrote:
Mike and Alex,
I have made an appointment with Andy Kranz (he is my son who does this for a living) and he will do a
detailed wetland delinea�on survey later this week. Knowing that every foot ma�ers, he will take the
necessary soil samples.
Alex - We would like to get this underway immediately, so I would really like your help with understanding
the process of comple�ng the variance. Please respond to this email and feel free to call me on my mobile.
Thanks,
Dave Kranz
mobile: 612-239-3712
From: Michael Capra <Mike@capras.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2022 12:51 PM
To: David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com>
Cc: Alex Pepin <alex.pepin@tenthirtyenvironmental.com>
Subject: Fwd: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N, CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Hello David-
I wanted to let you know that the County is going to require you to get a wetland delineation and variance
to install the new system as designed. You may want to reach out to Alex Pepin and the City of Lake Elmo
to figure out what is needed to complete the variance request. Unfortunately, the property owner is the
one responsible for getting the necessary delineation and variance. Alex Pepin may be able to refer you to
someone for the wetland delineation.
Thank you,
Mike Capra
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Tyler Dale <Tyler.Dale@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 10:30 AM
To: Michael Capra <Mike@capras.com>
Subject: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N, CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Hi Mike,
I am contac�ng you as you are listed as the applica�on contact. I conducted a site and soil review for the
system at the address above, report a�ached. On the site map the designer states that B1 and B5 are 75 feet
from Wetland/Start of ca�ails. I believe that the wetland begins before the start of ca�ails. There is a change
in vegeta�on from broad leaf plants to grasses approximately 54’ from borings B5 and B1. This corresponded
to the loca�on of the start of the Freshwater Emergent Wetland as iden�fied by the Na�on Wetland
Inventory. The map below shows the designers boring loca�ons, yellow dots, and the wetland boundary,
solid pink.
To address this discrepancy I would propose that the wetland boundary is iden�fied and located on the
ground by a trained professional. This would allow for an accurate place to measure the setback from. If the
proposed system is closer than 75’ a variance from the City will be required
Please let me know if you have any ques�ons.
Tyler Dale | Senior Environmental Specialist
Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment
14949 62nd Street North, S�llwater, MN 55082
651-430-6741
A great place to live, work and play…today and tomorrow
Windbreak Trail N Hidden Bay Trail NProperty Boundary
Wetland_Delineation
Deep Marsh and Shallow Open Water
Fresh (Wet) Meadow
Wetland Data Points
Wetland Delineation Map
8265 Hidden Bay Trail N
Washington County, MNN
Andy Kranz
Wetland Delineation Memo
Date: September 22, 2022
To: Thomas and Vonda Brown c/o David Kranz
From: Andy Kranz
Subject: Wetland Delineation: Septic Update for 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Washington
County, MN
On September 10, 2022, I performed a delineation of wetlands and waterbodies on the
property located at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 in Washington
County. This memo describes the findings of the wetland delineation and will be used to
support a project to update the septic system that is currently located on the Property.
Wetland delineation was conducted on the 1.11-acre Property on September 10, 2022. The
northern 0.76 acre is upland. It includes a house with driveways to the west and northeast and
a septic system to the south. A woodland separates the residence from wetland in the
southern 0.35 acre of the Property. The woodland is situated on a south-facing slope and is
dominated by white oak (Quercus alba) with abundant common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica)
Upland-wetland boundary spatial data were collected and vertices (w1-w9) were flagged on
the ground. USACE determination data (dp1, dp2) were collected at representative upland
and wetland positions (enclosed map). Spatial data was captured with a GNSS receiver
capable of submeter accuracy. Representative photographs of the Property are enclosed.
Data point dp1 was collected in a fresh, wet meadow dominated by reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea). Soil indicators observed include Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1).
Hydrologic indicators observed include Geomorphic Position (D2) and Fac-Neutral Test (D5).
Conditions were drier than normal (sum = 9) at the time of survey according to a WETS
analysis of a 30-year dataset (1992–2022) from a nearby weather station (St. Paul Downtown
Airport, MN).
Hybrid cat-tail (Typha × glauca) becomes dominant to the south of the wet meadow, and the
wetland transitions to deep marsh and shallow open water communities. A boundary
between the wet meadow and adjacent communities was delineated using desktop
resources including multi-year aerial photograph interpretation. See the enclosed Wetland
Delineation Map and Determination Data Sheets.
At the time of delineation numbered/labeled stakes were present that demarcated the limits
of the proposed septic project. Distances between these and the nearest wetland vertices
were measured on the ground:
w4 to pump tank outlet: 82.5 ft
w4 to B4: 69.5 ft
w5 to B4: 62.0 ft
w6 to B1: 52.0 ft
w7 to B5: 49 ft
Please contact me with any questions regarding the wetland delineation at the Property.
Respectfully submitted,
Andy Kranz
Botanist and Wetland Delineator
2220 30th Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55406
andrew.r.kranz@gmail.com
507-459-3150
Enclosed: Wetland Delineation Map
USACE Wetland Determination Data Sheets
Site Photographs
Wetland Delineation Photographs
View north from the upland-wetland boundary.
View east from the upland-wetland boundary.
View south from the upland-wetland boundary.
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Slope (%): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X
Yes X Yes X
Yes X
)
1.
2. (A)
3.
4. (B)
5.
(A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3. x 1 =
4. x 2 =
5. x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
1.Column Totals:(A) (B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. X
7. X
8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
9.
10.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Hidden Bay Trail North Septic Update
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
No
No
No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Acer negundo
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Toe slope
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
No
15
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
1.95Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACW
OBL
OBL
10
Multiply by:
170
(Plot size:
10
10
85
=Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
195
0
100
5
Wetland Hydrology Present?
)
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
=Total Cover
Yes
5
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU species
(Plot size:
Typha X glauca
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
80
Herb Stratum 5'
(Plot size:
City/County:Lake Elmo / Washington County
90
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
100.0%
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Sampling Date:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
FAC
Total % Cover of:
)
Phalaris arundinacea
No
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
3
9/10/2022
David Kranz MN dp1Sampling Point:
Fresh (wet) meadow in a residential neighborhood; separates a pond to the south from a wooded upland slope to the north. The wetland is partially
shaded by trees rooted near or beyond the upland boundary. Site conditions were drier than normal at the time of delineation according to WETS
analysis.
-92.938476 UTM 15
concave
Andy Kranz S9 T29N R21WSection, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
0-3 Long:45.013133 Datum:
Remarks:
Poskin silt loam PEM1ANWI classification:
Yes No
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
UPL species
Yes
FACW
(Plot size:
5
Tree Stratum
Yes
30'
5
Absolute
% Cover
)
=Total Cover
No
5
Persicaria amphibia
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
% %Type1 Loc2
100
90 10 D M
85 15 C M
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Dark Surface (S7)
15-24 10YR 2/1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 2/2
10YR 2/2
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Matrix
Texture Remarks
5-15
Color (moist)
7.5YR 2.5/3
Histosol (A1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
3:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
unless disturbed or problematic.
wetland hydrology must be present,
10YR 4/1
Distinct redox concentrations
0-5 Mucky Loam/Clay
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
HYDROLOGY
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Remarks:
dp1SOIL
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
(includes capillary fringe)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Slope (%): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X
Yes X Yes X
Yes X
)
1.
2. (A)
3.
4. (B)
5.
(A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3. x 1 =
4. x 2 =
5. x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
1.Column Totals:(A) (B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
9.
10.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Hidden Bay Trail North Septic Update
Acer negundo
Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
5
No
No
No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Quercus alba
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Back slope
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Yes
75
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
320
3.68Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACU
FACU
FAC
0
Multiply by:
10
(Plot size:
40
0
5
=Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
405
0
110
10
Wetland Hydrology Present?
)
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
=Total Cover
Yes
25
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU species
(Plot size:
Ageratina altissima
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
30
Herb Stratum 5'
(Plot size:
City/County:Lake Elmo / Washington County
70
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
25.0%
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Sampling Date:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
FACU
Total % Cover of:
)
Glechoma hederacea
No
80
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
4
9/10/2022
David Kranz MN dp2Sampling Point:
Upland hardwood forest on a slope that separates a residence and septic drainage from a wet meadow. Site condition drier than normal at time of
delineation according to WETS analysis.
-92.938425 UTM 15
none
Andy Kranz S9 T29N R21WSection, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
5-10 Long:45.013233 Datum:
Remarks:
Poskin silt loam PEM1ANWI classification:
Yes No
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
UPL species
Yes
FAC
(Plot size:
No
20
Tree Stratum
Yes
30'
15
Absolute
% Cover
)
=Total Cover
No
30
Rhamnus cathartica
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
% %Type1 Loc2
100
95 5 D M
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Dark Surface (S7)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Loamy/Clayey
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Matrix
Texture Remarks
18-24
Color (moist)
Histosol (A1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
3:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
unless disturbed or problematic.
wetland hydrology must be present,
10YR 3/1
0-18 Loamy/Clayey
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
HYDROLOGY
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Remarks:
dp2SOIL
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
(includes capillary fringe)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
RE: 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Lake Elmo Septic Design
John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com>
Mon 9/12/2022 1:06 PM
To: 'David Kranz' <davekranz@msn.com>
Hi David,
The proposed loca�on appears to be approximately 932 and higher, which is above the 100-year flood level of Deer
Pond. No Valley Branch Watershed District permit is required.
Thanks,
John
John P. Hanson, PE
Valley Branch Watershed District Engineer
Barr Engineering Co. | 4300 MarketPointe Drive | Bloomington, MN 55435
office: 952.832.2622 | cell: 612.590.1785
JHanson@barr.com | www.barr.com | www.vbwd.org
From: David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:59 PM
To: John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com>
Subject: 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Lake Elmo Sep�c Design
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of your organization.
Hi John,
Per our conversa�on, a�ached is the Sep�c Design at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, in Lake Elmo. Please let me
know if you see that the design is in the 100 year flood level.
Thanks,
David Kranz
612-239-3712
From:Jack Griffin
To:Ben Hetzel
Cc:Molly Just; Chad Isakson
Subject:Septic System Variance 8265 Hidden Bay Trail
Date:Friday, October 21, 2022 10:46:51 AM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Ben,The proposed septic system must be installed a minimum of 10 feet from the property lines.This setback requirement should be shown on the site plan. Engineering has no othercomments.
Thanks ~Jack John (Jack) W. Griffin, P.E.Principal / Sr. Municipal Engineer FOCUS ENGINEERING, INC.
651.300.4264jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com
1
Ben Hetzel
From:Gordy Grundeen <gordyg@blueskysciences.com>
Sent:Friday, November 4, 2022 7:54 PM
To:Ben Hetzel
Subject:11-04-22 Variance for Brown's sewage system
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
November 4, 2022
To:
Ben Hetzel, City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
Subject: Variance request for Brown’s property = 8265 Hidden Bay Trail
Good morning:
We live across the street from Brown’s property - we have known them as neighbors for 52 years!
I am opposed to allowing any variance for the 75 foot setback from a wetland. There has been complete opposition to these
kind of variances on Hidden Bay Trail going back to the 1960s. My neighbor 3 houses down on the Lake Olson side a few years
ago installed a mound system that was acceptable to the City - it was less than 20 feet from Lake Olson. That was/is acceptable.
There is no need to allow any new sewage treatment system to be sub-standard.
Tom & Vonda had 1-2 years ago assumed they needed a mound system. I am guessing here, but ~2 weeks ago, a contractor
cleared and leveled the spot where the system was intended to be installed. The problem the contractor overlooked was: There is
no way to get fill/dirt down a wooded & steep grade to the spot with a truck. I am guessing the sub-contractor backed out of the
deal.
Here is my suggestion - it solves two issues at once: Remove the asphalt-surfaced driveway and put the drain field under the
driveway; replace the driveway surface with those “environmentally green” bricks with “holes” in them. Grass grows in those
holes. No runoff to pollute our lakes.
I believe the well on the North side of the house is about 50 feet from the driveway (which is on the West side of the house).
I think the driveway solution would be a cost reduction - no need to haul in fill. The current septic tank is next to the driveway
now, so putting the drain field under the driveway would be less than 5 feet away.
Hope this helps!
Sincerely,
Gordy Grundeen
8270 Hidden Bay Trail
Lake Elmo MN 55042
651-770-1056
text only = 651-347-4779
email = gordy.grundeen@gmail.com
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
1
City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission
Meeting
City Council Chambers – 3800 Laverne
Avenue North
Minutes of Regular Meeting of
November 14, 2022
CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Risner called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Risner, Steil, Rehkamp, Vrieze
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mueller
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Molly Just, City Planner Ben Hetzel
Pledge of Allegiance at 7:00 PM
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Vrieze / Steil: made a motion to approve the agenda. Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. (Mueller
absent)
Approve Minutes:
M/S/P: Vrieze / Steil made a motion to approve the 9-26-2022 and 10-24-22 meeting minutes. Vote: 4-0, motion
carried unanimously. (Mueller absent)
Public Hearing:
a.)8265 Hidden Bay Trail N Variance Request. David Kranz (Applicant) on behalf of Vonda Brown (Owner) recently submitted a variance application to install a replacement sewage treatment system within 75 feet of a delineated wetland boundary located at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, parcel 09.029.21.31.0025 (Subject Property). The replacement sewage treatment system is required to complete a sale of the property. City Planner Hetzel gave presentation and answered questions. Applicant David Kranz (2401 34th Ave S Minneapolis) spoke regarding the need for the updated septic system.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS/DRAFT FINDINGS:
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code
Section 105.12.320 set forth by the MN Stat. 462.357 subd.6 before the City may grant an exception or modification
to city code requirements. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff about the applicability of
these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
2
FINDINGS:
Strict enforcement of the code would create an inability to properly dispose of domestic wastewater. The
existing topography and well location leave a limited amount of area for a replacement sewage treatment
system. The proposed system area is the only practical location. Granting a variance would allow the applicant
to use the property in a reasonable manner as there is no public sewer service available at this location.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner. FINDINGS:
The property owners are not responsible for the challenging topography and existing well location. The system
cannot be shifted further north due to 30 percent slopes or further east due to an existing drainage way. Areas
north of the home have limited space and are within the required setback from the existing private well. The
system designer has indicated there are no other viable locations.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located.
FINDINGS: The proposed sewage treatment system would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The
proposed mound system would be located in the rear yard in an area with mature trees providing screening.
Upon installation, the applicant will be required to establish vegetative cover prevent erosion and make the
mound system more inconspicuous. Surrounding residential properties also have private sewage treatment
systems due to public sewer service not being available to the area.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. FINDINGS:
The proposed request will have no effect on the supply of light and air to adjacent properties or increase
congestion in the public streets. Property values should not be diminished from the request. Adjacent residential
properties in the area are to be served by similar private or community wastewater treatment systems. It is in
the best interest of the adjacent properties for the subject property to have a replacement sewage treatment
system installed to avoid sewage smells in the event of a full failure of the existing sewage treatment system.
Public hearing opened at 7:12 PM. Email from Hilary & Justin Fox (8311 Windbreak Trail N) stating they have no objection to this variance. John Brenengen (8260 Deer Pond Trail, N) questioned the location of the mound, and who does the review of the mound system. His questions were answered by the applicant. Public hearing closed at 7:15 PM M/S/P: Steil / Rehkamp moved to recommend approval of a variance to install a sewage treatment system within 75
feet of a delineated wetland boundary at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N. Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. (Steil
stated that this is the only viable place for the septic system and the due diligence has been done regarding design
and protection of the lake, Rehkamp, Vrieze, Risner agree.)
Public Hearing:
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
3
b.)8243 Demontreville Trail N Conditional Use Permit Request. The Jesuit Retreat House recently submitted a conditional use permit application to amend an existing conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 10 person guest house at 8243 Demontreville Trail N (PID 0402921340004) with a building footprint of 5,555 square feet. Each guest room will have a full bathroom and the guest house is proposed directly northeast of the existing main building. The existing main building houses a dining room, kitchen, chapel, offices and meeting space. The applicant has indicated that the long term goal is to complete the proposed guest house and renovate existing guest
homes to decrease the number of guest rooms and increase the number of toilets. As per the applicant, the additional guest house will not increase the capacity of the site long term. Some rooms in existing guest houses will be eliminated, then accounted for in the new guest house.
City Planner Hetzel gave presentation and answered questions.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS
Conditional use means a land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be appropriate generally
but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions as provided by official controls only upon a finding that all of the
following provisions are met. Staff recommends the following findings:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use will not endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. The existing use has been onsite for over 70 years. An additional guest house is consistent with the continued use. 2. The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The site is already zoned in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
3. The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Surrounding parcels are owned by the Jesuit Retreat House or used for similar religious purposes.
4. The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in the Zoning Code. The use
meets all the specific development standards for a religious institution set forth in LEC 105.12.970(b)(2).
5. If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use meets all the specific standards for such use listed in Article XIX (Shoreland Management) and Title 100 (Flood Plain Management).
The proposed use is within a Shoreland Management District and meets all the specific standards in Article XIX. 6. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The design of the proposed structure is intended to match the appearance and character of the existing nearby main building. 7. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures. The use is not hazardous and will not create a nuisance. 8. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools or will be served
adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, and refuse disposal. The proposed structure will be served by a private well and sewer system.
9. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
4
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed use will not
create excessive additional requirements at a public cost. 10. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The proposed structure is for an existing established use that will
not produce excessive traffic, noise, fumes, glare, or odors.
11. Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on
surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed structure will not create traffic congestion or interfere with
traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The main access point onto Demontreville Trail N is approximately 0.3 miles away along a private driveway. The long driveway reduces the chances for traffic congestion on public thoroughfares. 12. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. The use will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major
importance. Public hearing opened at 7:28 PM. No comments from the public. Public hearing closed at 7:29 PM M/S/P: Steil / Vrieze moved to recommend to approval of the request from the Jesuit Retreat House to amend a
conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 10 person guest house at 8243 Demontreville Trail N with
recommended conditions of approval Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. (Steil has concerns regarding water
usage, but states that this is a good thing for the community. Vrieze stated that this does sound like a good addition
for their facility, Rehkamp, Risner agree.)
Public Hearing:
c.) Zoning Text Amendment - PUD Amenities. A zoning text amendment to amend the site amenities and
standards for density increases in Article XVII Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations. City Planner Hetzel gave presentation and answered questions.
Director Just answered questions posed by Planning Commissioners.
PROPOSED CHANGES
Staff has removed certain amenities from Table 16-2 that were not viewed as worthy of bonus density and have
added amenities that are considered a benefit. Added amenities include the implementation of stormwater reuse
systems for irrigation for individual residential lots and the incorporation of renewable energy sources. In addition,
modifications were made to some existing amenities to provide more appropriate and concise expectations.
The proposed amendments of Section 105.12.1160 are depicted using strike-thru (deletion) and underline (addition).
Public hearing opened at 7:51 PM.
No comments from the public.
Public hearing closed at 7:52 PM M/S/P: Vrieze / Risner moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to Table 16-2: Site Amenities of
Section 105.12.1160 Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. (Vrieze stated that the clarity of this change will help
the city staff receive more concrete information for future projects. Risner would like to see a range given for higher
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
5
usage of electric energy, stated that this make better sense. Steil agrees. Rehkamp wondered if some of the past
required amenities would possible be added at the time of any new projects.)
Public Hearing:
d.) Final Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD) – 9450 Hudson Boulevard. A mixed use project which includes an
apartment building and daycare facility.
Director Just gave presentation and answered questions.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for 9450 Hudson
Boulevard based on the following findings.
1) That the Final PUD Plans are generally consistent with the Preliminary PUD Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on August 16, 2022 by resolution 2022-079.
2) That the Final PUD Plans are generally consistent with the intent of the 2040 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Land Use Map for this area. 3) That the Final PUD Plans are consistent with the general intent of the Mixed Use Commercial zoning district
with PUD modifications. 4) That the Final PUD Plans are generally consistent with the City’s Zoning Code except for parking placement for the daycare center and the maximum allowed density.
5) That the Final PUD Plans are generally consistent with the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. 6) That the Final PUD Plans must be revised to be consistent with the City’s engineering standards and as noted in the City Engineer’s memorandum. 7) That the Final PUD Plans must be revised to be consistent with the City’s landscape plan and tree replacement standards pursuant to the Landscape Architects memo. 8) That the Final PUD Plans are generally consistent with the City’s fire department standards. 9) That the Final PUD Plans meet the minimum requirements for a PUD including minimum lot area, open space and street layout. 10) That the Final PUD Plans meet one or more of the required PUD objectives identified in Article 18 including providing: Planned unit developments should not be allowed simply for the purpose of increasing overall
density or allowing development that otherwise could not be approved. a. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches.
b. Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities. c. Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities, natural
resource protection and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques. d. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing. e. Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities. f. Preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape features. g. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses. h. Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on
transportation, and the promotion of energy resource conservation. i. Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved.
j. Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
6
11) That the Final PUD Plans include amenities that are worthy of amenity points to increase the overall housing density in the development from a max of 15 units per acre to 15.57 units per acre. The qualifying amenity is the provision of interior and exterior plaza amenities and that the indoor amenities exceed the 1,000 sqf. requirement. This amenity qualifies for 5 points (5%) of bonus density or 8 units. See Article 18, Table 16-
Recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council
approval of the Final PUD for 9450 Hudson Boulevard with the following conditions:
1. That publication of the PUD ordinance shall be required before filing of the approved final plat. 2. That the Final PUD plans would be for the parcel with the PID 34.029.21.34.0012. 3. No construction may begin until the applicant has received City Engineer approval for the Final
Construction Plans; the applicant has obtained from the City all applicable permits, easements and permissions needed for the project; and a preconstruction meeting has been held by the City’s engineering department. 4. That prior to the City releasing the Final Plat for recording the plans shall be revised to address the comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated October 20, 2022 and any carryover comments from the preliminary plans. 5. That prior to the City releasing the Final Plat for recording the plans shall be revised to address the comments in the Landscape Architect’s memo dated October 24, 2022. 6. That the applicant’s Storm Water Management Plan shall meet both City and South Washington Watershed District requirements. 10. All storm water facilities internal to the site shall be privately owned and maintained. A storm water
maintenance and easement agreement in a form acceptable to the City shall be executed and recorded with the final plat. 11. That the PUD overlay zoning allow for the following:
A. Parking located between the daycare building and the street (Julia Avenue); B. Residential density at 15.57 units per acre. 12. That the development shall incorporate stormwater reuse for irrigation as approved by the City Engineer.
13. If necessary, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of written permission for any off-site grading work and storm sewer discharges to adjacent properties before starting any site work.
14. Before the installation or construction of any subdivision identification signs or neighborhood markers within the development, the developer shall submit sign plans to the City for review and obtain a sign permit from the City.
15. Before the execution and recording of a final plat for the development, the developers shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the City. Such an Agreement must be approved by the City Attorney and by the City Council. The Agreement shall delineate who is responsible for the design, construction and payment for the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore.
Public hearing opened at 8:01 PM.
No comments from the public.
Public hearing closed at 8:02 PM M/S/P: Rehkamp / Steil moved to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for 9450 Hudson Boulevard based on
the findings of fact and conditions outlined in the staff report. Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Regular Business a.) Ratify Recommendations. Ratify recommendations made by less than four Planning Commission members. Director Just gave explanation and answered questions.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 11-14-2022
7
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Appointed commissions rely on volunteer participation and so it is not advisable to require a specific minimum number of seated members to equal a quorum. A quorum is a majority of seated members. Planning Staff has drafted code amendments that remove this minimum number for a quorum. The amendments are on the November 15th City Council agenda as a consent item.
There have been six votes taken at Planning Commission meetings with less than four members present. Planning Staff have drafted resolutions for each of these items for the Planning Commission to act on. Approval of the motions
will ratify the votes taken while less than four members were present. If there are not four seated members present at this meeting this agenda item will carry over to the next meeting with four seated members.
M/S/P: Steil / Rehkamp moved to approve Resolution 2022-1 ratifying the Planning Commission recommendation to approve with conditions a Conditional Use Permit to allow the commercial vehicle repair use in Suites 215-220 at 11160 Hudson Boulevard Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Risner / Rehkamp moved to approve Resolution 2022-2 ratifying the Planning Commission recommendation to approve with conditions a Conditional Use Permit to allow the automotive maintenance and repair use in Suites 140-145 at 11160 Hudson Boulevard Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Rehkamp / Risner moved to approve Resolution 2022-3 ratifying the Planning Commission
recommendation to deny a Conditional Use Permit to allow the motor freight and warehouse use in Suite 345 at
11160 Hudson Boulevard Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously
M/S/P: Vrieze / Rehkamp moved to Motion to approve Resolution 2022-4 ratifying the Planning Commission
recommendation to approve Zoning Text Amendments to incorporate a 40 foot setback south of 10th Street Vote:
3-1, motion carried (Risner, Rehkamp, Steil – Aye, Vrieze – Nay).
M/S/P: Steil / Risner moved to approve Resolution 2022-5 ratifying the Planning Commission recommendation to
approve with conditions a Preliminary Plat & PUD, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map
Amendment for United Properties on PID 33.029.21.44.0009 Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Risner / Steil moved to approve Resolution 2022-6 ratifying the Planning Commission recommendation to
approve the 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously.
Communications/Updates - City Council Updates a) United Properties – Amira Lake Elmo - Approved Preliminary Plat & PUD, Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Amendment b) 9450 Hudson Boulevard – Approved Final Plat
c) Northpoint Development – Not proceeding with Cyphers Logistics Park on Former 3M Property
(south side of 34th St.) Upcoming Meetings
a. November 28th, 2022
b. December 12th, 2022
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Wendt
Permit Technician