HomeMy WebLinkAbout4b - PC Report -Village Area Text Amendment1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 9/9/2024
Item#: 4b
Public Hearing
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Old Village
REVIEWED BY: Ashley Monterusso, Planning Assistant; Nathan Fuerst, Bolton and Menk
Planning Consultant; Sophia Jensen, City Planner; Jack Griffin, City
Engineer – Focus Engineering; Marty Powers, Public Works Director
BACKGROUND:
Lake Elmo passed a moratorium in the Village Area in February 2023. This resulted in a study
managed by community development, conducted by Bolton and Menk (B&M), which included a
survey, community engagement, Council workshops, and input from the Planning Commission.
After reviewing the survey and report created by B&M, Lake Elmo staff are proposing a text
amendment to the ordinance. Staff are proposing a general cleanup of the ordinance along with
new standards for consideration prior to rescinding the moratorium. The ordinance to rescind the
moratorium is on the 9/17 Council agenda.
ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed text amendment to the City’s
Village Districts Code.
PROPOSAL DETAILS:
City Zoning Code Sections under review:
• 105.12.770-840 (Zoning Code – Article XIII Village Districts)
• Lake Elmo Design Guidelines (separate from the zoning code)
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
See attached. Proposed language is underlined. Deleted language is shown with a strikethrough.
The proposed text amendment promotes:
• Higher density, single-family detached housing
• Traditional Neighborhood Development. Defined by the APA as a development that
exhibits several of the following characteristics: alleys, streets laid out in a grid system,
buildings oriented to the street, front porches on houses, pedestrian-orientation,
compatible and mixed land uses, village squares and greens.
• Allowing more permitted uses as opposed to conditional uses.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A notice of public hearing was published in the City’s official newspaper on August 30, 2024.
2
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
• Recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
• Recommend changes to the proposed amendments.
• Recommend denial of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text
amendments as presented by Staff.
“Motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to the Village Districts code
as presented by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Text Amendment Language
• LE Design Guidelines with proposed changes
• Bolton & Menk Report of Findings
105.12.770 Purpose And District Description
The village districts encompass the Lake Elmo Village Planning Area. The village districts
provide for an area of compact development including a mix of uses made mutually
compatible through a combination of careful planning and urban design and coordinated
public and private investment. The mixture of uses and level of density and intensity is
intended to support the level of public infrastructure planned for the area.
a) V-LDR Village Low Density Residential. The purpose of the V-LDR zoning district is
to provide opportunity for lower density residential development within the Village
Planning Area and to create a transition and connectivity between the heart of the
Old Village and surrounding rural areas. Appropriate housing types in this area may
include single-family detached housing. Residential development within areas
zoned V-LDR will occur at a density of 1.5 to 3.00 units per acre.
b) V-MDR Village Medium Density Residential. The purpose of the V-MDR is to provide
an area for greater variety in housing stock and bring more people closer to living
within easy access of Old Village destinations and amenities. The district shall
consist primarily of higher density, single-family detached housing. Appropriate
housing types in this area may include single-family detached, Single-family
attached, duplexes, and townhomes/villa housing types shall not exceed 25% of the
development. Residential development within areas zoned V-MDR will occur at a
density of 3.01 to 8 units per acre.
c) V-HDR Village High Density Residential. The purpose of the V-HDR is to provide an
area for a variety of higher density housing types in the Village Planning Area and
to bring a higher concentration of people closer to Old Village destinations and
amenities. This area is intended to provide for opportunities for more housing at a
wider range of price points and to provide lifecycle housing in Lake Elmo.
Appropriate housing types in this area may include multi-family dwellings. First
floor non-residential uses may be appropriate. Residential development within
areas zoned V-HDR will occur at a density of 8.01 to 12 units per acre.
d) VMX Village Mixed-Use District. This district is intended to continue the traditional
mixed-use development that has occurred in the Old Village by allowing retail,
service, office, civic and public uses as well as residential units. The mixture of land
uses within the district is essential to establishing the level of vitality and intensity
needed to support retail and service uses. Development within areas zoned VMX will
occur at a density of 5 - 10 units per acre. Senior congregate care facilities may
exceed this density maximum with a range not to exceed a total of 16 units per acre,
provided the facility can satisfy all zoning and applicable conditional use permit
review criteria. The placement of building edges and treatment of building, parking,
landscaping, and pedestrian spaces is essential to creating the pedestrian friendly
environment envisioned for the VMX district.
105.12.780 Permitted And Conditional Uses
Table 11-1 lists all permitted and conditional uses allowed in the village districts. "P"
indicates a permitted use, "C" a conditional use. Uses not so indicated shall be considered
prohibited. Cross-references listed in the table under "Standards" indicate the location
within this section of specific development standards that apply to the listed use.
a) Combinations of uses. The following use types may be combined on a single parcel:
1. Principal and accessory uses may be combined on a single parcel.
2. Permitted or conditional uses allowed within the district may be combined
on a single parcel, provided that a unified and integrated site plan is
approved. If one or both of the uses is/are conditional, the entire development
must be approved as a conditional use.
b) STOPPED Combination of uses, VMX district.
1. A mixed-use building that combines permitted or conditionally permitted
uses may be developed meeting the form standards of this subchapter.
c) Non-Residential Uses.
1. On property zoned V-HDR, allowed non-residential uses shall be located
permitted on the street level (first floor) only. Such use shall have its primary
entrance from the front or side of the building.
Table 11-1: Permitted and Conditional Uses, Village Districts
V-LDR V-MDR V-HDR VMX Standard
Residential Uses
Household Living:
Single-family detached dwelling P P P C P LEC 105.12.8320(a)
Two-family dwelling3 - P* - P C* P
Single-family attached dwelling3 - C - C C LEC 105.12.8320(a)
Multifamily dwelling - C - C C LEC 105.12.8320(a)
Secondary dwelling C P C P P C P LEC 105.12.8320(a)
Live-work unit - C C C P LEC 105.12.8320(a)
Group Living:
Group home P C - P LEC 105.12.500
Group residential facility - C - C LEC 105.12.500
Congregate housing - C - C LEC 105.12.500
Semi-transient accommodations - - - C LEC 105.12.500
Public and Civic Uses:
Community services - - - P LEC 105.12.110
Day care center - C - P LEC 105.12.110
Public assembly - - - C LEC 105.12.110
Religious institutions - - - C LEC 105.12.110
Schools, public and private - - - C LEC 105.12.110
Services:
Business services - - C P LEC 105.12.110
Business center - - - P LEC 105.12.110
Offices - - C P LEC 105.12.110
Communications services - - - P LEC 105.12.110
Education services - - C P LEC 105.12.110
Financial institution - - C P
LEC 105.12.110, V-
HDR first floor
only and drive-
thru prohibited.
VMX drive-thru
by Conditional
Use Permit.
Funeral home - - - C LEC 105.12.110
Lodging - - C C 154.302(d)
Medical facility - - C C LEC 105.12.510
Membership organization - - - C
Nursing and personal care - - - C LEC 105.12.510
Personal services - - C P
Repair and maintenance shop - - - C2 LEC 105.12.8320
Trade shop - - - C
Veterinary services - - - C
Food Services:
Standard restaurant - - C P
Restaurant with drive-through - - C C
In VMX drive-
thru shall be
located in rear
yard.
Drinking and entertainment - - - P LEC 105.12.520
Sales of Merchandise:
Retail trade 1 - - - P
Farmer's market - - - C P
Garden center - - - C LEC 105.12.960(g)
950
Neighborhood convenience store - C P C P
Shopping center - - - C
Wayside stand P - - P LEC 105.12.750
740(d)
Automotive/Vehicular Uses:
Automobile maintenance service - - - C2 LEC 105.12.830 820
Automobile parts/supply - - - C LEC 105.12.830 820
Gasoline station - - - C2 LEC 105.12.530(b)
Parking facility - C C C LEC 105.12.830(b)
820
Sales and storage lots - - - C LEC 105.12.530(c)
Outdoor Recreation:
Outdoor recreation facility - C - C LEC 105.12.550(c)
540
Parks and open areas P P P P
On public property
or as an accessory
use to serve
residents of a
primary use
Indoor Recreation/Entertainment:
Indoor athletic facility - C C C LEC 105.12.560 550
Indoor recreation - - - C LEC 105.12.560 550
Transportation and Communications:
Broadcasting or
communications facility - - - C
Accessory Uses:
Home occupation P P P P LEC 105.12.110
Bed and breakfast P - - P LEC 105.04.220(a)
12.110
Family day care P P - P LEC 105.12.110
Group family day care - - - C LEC 105.12.110
Temporary sales P P - P LEC 105.12.870(g)
110
Parking facility - - - P LEC 105.12.830 110
Solar equipment P P P P Roof mounted
only
1 Retail Trade in the VMX District includes all uses and activities defined as Retail Trade in
LEC 105.12.110(b) (5) with the exception of building supplies sales and warehouse club sales.
2 Uses shall only be located on lots fronting Stillwater Boulevard North/CSAH 14 or
Manning Avenue/CSAH 15.
3 In the V-MDR district, single-family attached, duplexes, and townhomes/villa housing
types may be permitted, as part of a PUD, but shall not exceed 25% of the development.
105.12.790 Lot Dimensions And Building Bulk Requirements
Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 11-2, Lot Dimension and
Setback Requirements.
Table 11-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Villages Districts
V-LDR V-MDR V-HDR VMX
Minimum Lot Area (square feet): a
Nonresidential use - - - None
Single-family detached
dwelling (front/rear
loaded driveway) b
9,000/7,000 7,000
6,000/4,000 6,000/4,000 9,000 6,000/4,000
Two-family dwelling
(per unit) b c - 4,000 2,500 2,500 4,000 2,500
Single-family attached
(per unit) c d - 2,500 2,500 3,000 2500
Multifamily dwelling
(per unit) - 3,000 1,800 2,800
Secondary dwelling See LEC
105.12.740(c)
See LEC
105.12.740(c)
See LEC
105.12.740(c) See LEC 105.12.740(c)
Congregate housing - LEC
105.12.500(c) - LEC 105.12.500(c)
Minimum Lot Width (feet):
Single-family detached
dwelling (front/rear
loaded driveway) b
70/50 50 60/40 60/40 70 60/40
Two-family dwelling
(twin/vertical) (per
unit) b c
- 30/25 30/25 30/25
Single-family attached
(per unit) c d - 25 25 25
Multifamily dwelling
(per building)
- 75 60 75
Live-work unit - 25 25 25
Maximum height
(feet/stories)j 35 35/3 d 50 45/3 35/3 d e
Maximum Impervious Coverage:
Residential lots 35 percent 50 percent 75 percent 75 percent
Other - - - No Limit
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet):
Front yard 25 25 25
Single-Family Detached and
Attached: - 25
Multifamily Dwellings: -25
Non-Residential Uses: -25
Commercial/Mixed Use: 10
Interior Side Yard:
Principal building 10 10 10 10 e f
Principal building –
Single-Family
Detached
10
5
5 5
Attached garage or
accessory structure 5 5 5 5
Corner side yard 15 15 10 15 10 0 f g
Rear yardi 20 20 20 10 g h
Notes to Village Districts Table:
a. No development may exceed the residential density range as specified in the comprehensive plan for
the corresponding land use category.
b. In all districts except V-LDR: For single-family attached dwellings, driveway access is encouraged to
be rear loaded to meet density requirements and Traditional Neighborhood Development design
principles. Front loaded access is allowed for flexibility within the development but shall not exceed
25% of the development. See 105.12.820-830 for parking requirements related to attached and detached
garages.
b c. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them (twin) or located on separate
floors (vertical) in a building on a single lot (duplex). The per-unit measurements in this table apply to
twin units, whether on a single lot or separate lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling
shall apply to a duplex containing two vertically-separated units on a single lot. If a driveway through
the front yard, along the side of building is proposed, the lot width shall increase by 10 feet or the width
of the proposed driveway, whichever is greater. See 105.12.820(b).
c d . In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on individual lots, minimum lot
size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of density; i.e., one unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard
is also used for multifamily dwellings. If a driveway through the front yard, along the side of the
building, is proposed, the lot width shall increase by 10 feet or the width of the proposed driveway,
whichever is greater. See 105.12.820-830. Since dwellings are attached, interior side yards are not
required. Buildings shall have a minimum separation of 20 feet.
d e . Buildings up to 45 feet in height may be permitted as part of a PUD in the VMX district and V-MDR
districts.
e f. Side yard setbacks in the VMX district apply only along lot lines abutting residentially zoned parcels
or those parcels with residential uses as the sole use.
f g. Corner properties. The side yard facade of a corner building adjoining a public street shall maintain
the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon the same public street, or the required front yard
setback, whichever is less. If no structure exists on the adjacent property, and provided required setbacks
are not otherwise stated herein, the setback shall be shown in the table.
g h. Properties zoned V-LDR abutting Stillwater Boulevard North (CSAH 14), Lake Elmo Avenue North
(CSAH 17) north of Stillwater Blvd (CSAH 14), and Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) shall have a
minimum structure setback of 50 feet.
i. Rear loaded detached garages, that open onto an alley, are not required to have a setback from the rear
property line.
j. Below grade/basement dwelling units shall be considered the first floor.
105.12.800 Dimensional Requirements And Preservation Of Open Space
a) Averaging of lot area. When lots are clustered within a development to provide
common open space, the open space may be used to calculate an average density per
lot to determine compliance with the individual lot area requirements.
b) Lot dimension reductions. Other reductions in dimensional standards may be
considered as part of a planned unit development if these reductions provide for
common open space within a development.
105.12.810 General Site Design Considerations; Village Districts
Development of land within the village districts shall follow established standards for
traffic circulation, landscape design, and other considerations as specified in the Lake Elmo
City Code (LEC). Traditional Neighborhood Development principles shall be followed.
a) The Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards shall govern site design and
building design.
b) Circulation.
1. New access points to County State Aid Highway 14 may be refused or
restricted to right-in, right-out movement if alternatives exist. Internal
connections shall be provided between parking areas on adjacent properties
wherever feasible.
2. The number and width of curb cuts shall be minimized. To promote
pedestrian circulation, existing continuous curb cuts shall be reduced to
widths necessary for vehicular traffic, and unnecessary or abandoned curb
cuts shall be removed as parcels are developed.
c) Screening of existing residential structures. When a new more intensive residential
or non-residential development is proposed adjacent to an existing single-family
residential structure, screening shall be provided in accordance with LEC 105.12.480
(f). The city may require buffering or screening above and beyond this section in
cases where the required screening will not provide an adequate separation between
the uses.
d) Sidewalks and/or trails. Where cul-de-sacs are permitted by the city, sidewalks or
trails are required to connect the bulb of the cul-de-sac with the nearest through-
road or trail.
e) Lake Elmo Theming Study. Elements of the Lake Elmo Theming Study not herein
described must be incorporated in to development within village districts where
applicable.
f) Alley design. Alleys shall be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners’
association but shall be accessible to the public. Snow removal and grass cutting
may be assigned to the abutting homeowner.
1. Alley dimensions. The easement width shall be a minimum of 32 feet. The
roadway width shall be a minimum of 16 feet. The area between the property
line and the edge of road shall be a minimum of 8 feet or half of the road
width, whichever is greater and shall be provided on both sides of the road.
Alley design shall be approved by the engineering department to ensure that
adequate area is provided.
105.12.820 Development Standards For Specific Uses
Development of land within the village districts shall follow established standards for
traffic circulation, landscape design, and other considerations as specified by the Lake
Elmo City Code (LEC). The following standards apply to specific uses.
a) Residential units
1. Single-family detached dwellings.
a. No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front
facade and the street except on a permitted driveway.
b. Primary entrances are required to be along the front facade.
c. Dwelling units shall be at least 24 feet in width, at least 960 square feet
in area, and be placed on a permanent foundation.
d. In districts outside of V-LDR: Parking for single-family detached
units is encouraged to be accessible from a rear yard alley.
1. If a driveway through the front yard, along the side of the
building, is proposed, required parking shall be located in the
rear yard or in an attached garage located behind the
habitable area.
2. Front loaded garages are not permitted.
e. Unless otherwise specified in this article, single-family detached
dwellings in the VMX and V-HDR shall adhere to the V-MDR district
setbacks.
2. Secondary dwellings. Restricted to lots occupied by single-family detached
dwellings, and must meet the standards for secondary dwellings in
residential districts, LEC 105.12.740(c) and, in the VMX, must be located
within the primary structure. LEC 105.12.740(c)(4) shall not apply. In all
districts except V-LDR, the minimum lot area shall meet the standard for
two-family dwellings.
3. Single-family attached and two-family dwellings.
a. The primary entrance to each unit shall be located on the facade
fronting a public street.
b. Common open space for use by all residents or private open space
adjacent to each unit shall be provided. Such open space shall
comprise of a minimum of 300 square feet in the V-HDR and VMX, and
500 square feet per unit in the V-MDR.
c. Unless otherwise specified in this article, single-family attached
dwellings in the VMX and V-MHDR shall adhere to the MDR district
setbacks.
d. No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front
façade.
e. Parking for single-family attached and two-family units is
encouraged to be accessible from a rear yard alley.
1. If a driveway through the front yard, along the side of the
building is proposed, only one driveway per building shall be
approved. Required parking shall be located in the rear yard.
f. Front loaded garages are not permitted.
4. Multifamily dwelling units.
a. Dwelling units within a mixed-use building are restricted to the upper
floors or rear or side ground floors.
b. Setback standards for multifamily dwellings not within a mixed-use
development shall be determined through the conditional use process.
c. Common open space for use by all residents or private open space
adjacent to each unit shall be provided. Such open space shall
comprise of a minimum of 300 square feet per unit in the V-MDR and
200 square feet per unit in the V-HDR.
d. No parking shall be located in the front yard or between the front
façade. Parking for multi-family dwelling units is encouraged to be
accessible from a rear yard alley. Parking shall be located below
grade or in the rear or interior side yard.
5. All other residential uses, VMX district. Setbacks for all other residential uses
within the village districts not specifically outlined in this section shall be
determined by either LEC 105.12.830 or through the conditional use process.
b) Nonresidential uses.
1. Setbacks, generally. The front yard setback of a new nonresidential building
within the VMX district shall maintain the prevailing front yard setback of
that block, or a maximum setback of 20 feet, whichever is less.
2. Repair and maintenance shop. No outdoor storage is permitted unless fully
screened from public view.
3. Trade shop. Exterior materials storage must be totally screened from view
from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential properties by a wall of
the principal structure or a screen wall constructed of the same materials as
the principal structure.
4. Veterinary services.
a. All activities must be conducted within an enclosed building.
b. Specific veterinary practices shall be limited to veterinary medicine,
surgery, dentistry, and related service for small domestic household
pets.
5. Garden center.
a. The storage or display of any materials or products shall meet all
setback requirements of a structure, and shall be maintained in an
orderly manner. Screening along the boundaries of adjacent
residential properties may be required, meeting the standards of LEC
105.12.470(f).
b. The storage of any soil, fertilizer or other loose, unpackaged materials
shall be contained so as to prevent any effects on adjacent uses.
6. Automobile maintenance service and automobile parts/supply.
a. All vehicle repairs shall be conducted in a completely enclosed
building.
b. The storage or display of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles or other
equipment shall meet all setback requirements of a structure, and
shall be totally screened from view from adjacent public streets and
adjacent residential properties.
7. Live-work unit. The purpose of a live-work unit is to provide a transitional
use type between a home occupation and a larger commercial enterprise
while maintaining a generally residential character in which the work space
is subordinate to the residential use and the effects of the work space are
compatible with a residential use.
a. The work space component shall be located on the first floor or
basement of the building.
b. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance.
c. The work space component of the unit shall not exceed 50 percent of
the total gross floor area of the unit.
d. A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-
work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or underground/enclosed.
e. The size and nature of the work space shall be limited so that the
building type may be governed by residential building codes.
f. The business component of the building may include offices, small
service establishments, crafts considered accessory to a dwelling unit,
limited retailing (by appointment only), or personal services. It may
not include a large scale wholesale business, a commercial food
service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service or
repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the
property.
g. The business of the live-work unit must be conducted by a person who
resides on the same lot. The business shall not employ more than two
workers on-site at any one time who live outside of the live-work unit.
8. Parking facility. Structured parking is permitted as a ground floor use within
a mixed-use building, provided that the entrance is located on side or rear
facades, not facing the primary abutting street. The primary street-facing
facade shall be designed for retail, office or residential use.
9. Outdoor dining accessory to food services. Outdoor dining is allowed as an
accessory use provided that tables do not block the required sidewalk.
105.12.830 Accessory Uses And Structures
Accessory uses are listed in Table 11-1 as permitted or conditional accessory uses.
Accessory uses and structures in the village districts shall comply with the following
standards and all other applicable regulations of this article:
a) Phasing. No accessory use or structure shall be constructed or established on any lot
prior to the time of construction of the principal use to which it is accessory.
b) Incidental to principal use. The accessory use or structure shall be incidental to and
customarily associated with the principal use or structure served.
c) Subordinate to principal use. The accessory use or structure shall be subordinate in
the area, extent, and purpose to the principal use or structure served.
d) Function. The accessory use or structure shall contribute to the comfort,
convenience, or necessity of the occupants of the principal use or structure served.
e) Location. The accessory use or structure shall be located on the same zoning lot as
the principal use or structure.
f) Residential accessory structures.
1. Design compatibility. On parcels used for residential structures within the
village districts, the design and construction of any garage, carport, or storage
building shall be similar to or compatible with the design and construction
of the main building. The exterior building materials, roof style, and colors
shall be similar to or compatible with the main building or shall be commonly
associated with residential construction.
2. Attached structures. An accessory structure shall be considered attached,
and an integral part of, the principal structure when it is connected by an
enclosed passageway. All attached accessory structures shall be subject to
the following requirements:
a. The structure shall meet the required yard setbacks for a principal
structure, as established for the zoning district in which it is located.
b. The structure shall not exceed the height of the principal building to
which it is attached.
3. Attached garages.
a. In the V-LDR district, Aattached garages on single-family detached
structures are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. In all other
districts, attached garages on single-family detached structures are
required to be rear loaded. Attached garages on single-family
attached, two-family, and multifamily structures shall be rear loaded.
If facing the primary street, garages shall be designed using one of the
following techniques, unless specific physical conditions on the lot in
question require a different approach:
1. The front facade of the garage shall be offset from the principal
structure by a minimum of two feet from the plane of the public
right-of-way.
2. The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 40 percent of
the width of the entire principal building facade (including
garage) fronting the primary street. within the V-LDR district.
where it shall not exceed 60 percent of the width of entire
principal building facade (including garage) fronting the
primary street.
b. Attached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area at the
ground floor level except by conditional use permit.
c. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 eight feet in height.
4. Detached structures. Detached accessory structures for permitted residential
structures in the village districts must be in accordance with the following
requirements:
a. Detached accessory structures shall be located to the side or rear of the
principal building, and are not permitted within the required front
yard or within a side yard abutting a street.
b. Detached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet at ground floor
level and shall not exceed a height of 22 feet or the height of the
principal structure, whichever is higher. The maximum size and
height may be increased upon approval of a conditional use permit,
provided that lot coverage requirements are satisfied.
c. Detached garages shall be located in the rear yard and are encouraged
to be rear loaded.
d. Pole barns shall be prohibited.
e. No more than 30 percent of the rear yard area may be covered by
accessory structures.
f. Garage doors or openings shall not exceed 14 eight feet in height for
residential uses.
g) Exterior storage on residential parcels. All materials and equipment shall be stored
within a building or be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining
properties, except for the following:
1. Laundry drying.
2. Construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently being used
on the premises. Materials kept on the premises for a period exceeding six
months shall be screened or stored out of view of the primary street on which
the house fronts.
3. Agricultural equipment and materials, if these are used or intended for use
on the premises.
4. Off-street parking and storage of vehicles and accessory equipment, as
regulated in LEC 105.12.410.
5. Storage of firewood shall be kept at least ten feet from any habitable structure
and screened from view of adjacent properties.
6. Outdoor parking.
h) Temporary sales. Temporary sales, also known as yard or garage sales, are
permitted in all residential districts, limited to two per calendar year per residence,
not to exceed four days in length for each event.
105.12.840 Village Districts Design Review
a) Review of design. For certain development activity, as specified in the Lake Elmo
Design Standards Manual, design review is required as part of the approval process.
All projects subject to design review shall be reviewed for conformance with the
Lake Elmo Design Standards Manual. The Lake Elmo Design Standards Manual
shall apply to all properties in the Village Area. A separate process for design
review is not established.
1. Review authority and process. Design review shall be facilitated and
reviewed by the planning community development department. The
community development department shall approve or deny the application.
The applicant may appeal the department’s decision to the City Council
within 30 days. and the review shall be conducted by the City Council or
individual authorized to approve the development activity. Design review
shall be incorporated in the established review of the development activity.
For those applications under this section that require review by the planning
commission (i.e., conditional use permits), the planning commission shall
consider the standards in the Lake Elmo Design Standards Manual in its
recommendation to the city council.
2. Review by professional. The City Council or applicant may request review by
a design professional of the proposed design or demolition. The City shall
designate a design professional to conduct the review and the applicant shall
be responsible for the costs incurred.
3. Development activity defined.
a. Development activity consists of new construction and
redevelopment activities, including remodeling that expands the
footprint of a structure, altering, or repairing a structure in a manner
that will change the exterior appearance of said structure.
Development activity also includes the construction of a new parking
lot and installation of signage.
b. Exempt activities. The following activities shall be exempt from
review under this section:
1. Ordinary repairs and maintenance that will not change the
exterior appearance of a structure;
2. Removal of existing signage without replacement unless said
signs are an integral part of the building;
3. Emergency repairs ordered by the City in order to protect public
health and safety;
4. Exterior alteration, addition, or repair of a structure used as a
single-family residence, duplex, or two-family residence;
5. Temporary signage, installed in accordance with the sign
regulations of the city code, or during which time an
application for permanent signage is pending under this
section;
6. Maintenance of existing signage advertising an on-site
business;
7. Alterations only to the interior of a structure.
111 Washington Avenue South
Suite 650
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 416-0220
Bolton-Menk.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: 8/14/2024
To: City Council, City of Lake Elmo
From: Nathan Fuerst, Consulting Planner
Subject: Village Area Vision – Workshop Discussion
Overview
In recognition of the significance of the Old Village area to Lake Elmo’s economic vitality and overall
identity, the City of Lake Elmo initiated a visioning study to ensure future development aligns with the
City’s objectives.
This discussion with the Council is a final step to the visioning process. Bolton and Menk staff will walk
the Lake Elmo City Council through the following:
• Overview of the Project
• Summary of Public Engagement Efforts and Findings
• Summary of Policy Recommendations
Public Engagement to Date:
Public engagement creates an opportunity to understand viewpoints of community members and
eventually serves as an important data point when making policy decisions. In June, project staff
conducted public engagement efforts including a survey and two public open house events at City Hall.
The draft Final Report appended to this memo includes an assessment of the quantitative and
qualitative findings from the public engagement effort.
Policy Review to Date:
Staff reviewed applicable plans and policies guiding land use and development in Lake Elmo’s Village
Area. The previous Policy Review Memo is incorporated into the Final Report report. Recommendations
in the last section of the report consider public feedback and the policy review.
Next Steps:
We will finalize the draft document for the city. It will be up to the Council and city staff to initiate any
of the recommended policy changes an action item prior to, or after, rescinding the Moratorium.
Submitted by:
City of Lake Elmo
Lake Elmo Village Vision Study
Report of Findings
August 2024
2
Table of Contents
Village Vision Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3
Public Engagement Review summary ....................................................................................................... 3
Policy Review summary ............................................................................................................................ 3
Policy Recommendation summary ........................................................................................................... 4
Public Engagement Review .......................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Engagement Findings ........................................................................................................... 5
Policy Review ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Overview, Policies, and the Village Area ................................................................................................... 7
Zoning Ordinance ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................................................. 11
Lake Elmo Design Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 15
2007 Lake Elmo Village Area Master Plan ............................................................................................... 16
2021 Village Area AUAR .......................................................................................................................... 18
2013 Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study ........................................................................................ 19
Heritage Preservation Commission ......................................................................................................... 20
Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A – Open House and Survey Findings
Appendix B – Open House Engagement Materials
Appendix C – Full Survey Response Report
Acknowledgements
The following Lake Elmo City Staff are thanked for their contributions to the Lake Elmo Village Vision
Study, and to this report:
Ashley Monterusso, City Planner
Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
Sophia Jensen, City Planner
3
VILLAGE VISION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Early in 2024, The City of Lake Elmo identified the need to enact a moratorium for development of the
central corridors of the Old Village area. The intent of the moratorium was to pause new development
while the city reviewed the plans and requirements for area development and redevelopment in the
area.
In recognition of the significance of the Old Village area to Lake Elmo’s economic and community
identity, the City initiated a visioning study to ensure that future development aligns with the City’s
objectives. The moratorium period was used to solicit community feedback and to study the land use
policies and guidance in the Village area. Through engagement with community members and local
decision makers, the City intends to affirm existing policies that align with development expectations,
and highlight policies that are not aligned. The intent of this Vision Study is therefore to identify
recommendations for studies or policy changes needed to support the City in achieving its shared vision
for the Old Village area.
Public Engagement Summary
Community Engagement provides a critical data point from which to make informed decisions about
changes to the City’s existing policies. The project team, consisting of City and Bolton & Menk staff,
facilitated three engagement opportunities for residents, businesses owners, and area stakeholders to
learn about and contribute to the Village Vision Study. A survey with over 20 questions was advertised
widely in the community and made available to residents online and in paper formats. Sentiments from
community members are broken down at length in the next section of this report, but are generalized as
follows:
• Concern about connectivity and safety for those who walk and bike to and through the Village
Area.
• Appreciation of the Village area’s historic charm and small-town feel, and a desire for
preservation of what makes the area special.
• Desire to support businesses and residents with new commercial and residential development
that is complementary to the existing Village area.
Policy Review Summary
To understand what policy changes may be needed, a review of the existing policies guiding Village Area
development was necessary. A review of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, along with
other planning documents or policies has provided an overview of how Lake Elmo regulates land use
and development. Any approach to recommendations must consider the interconnected nature of these
4
plans and policies. A policy review along with considerations for future improvements were provided for
the following:
• Zoning Code
• Comprehensive Plan
• Lake Elmo Design Guidelines
• 2007 Village Area Master Plan
• 2021 Village Area AUAR
• 2013 Lake Elmo Branding and Theming
Study
• Lake Elmo Heritage Preservation
Commission
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendations for further action are suggested by this report. They are broken down into short term
and long-term categories in order to identify what can reasonably be accomplished before (short term)
and after (long term) the City’s moratorium is rescinded or expires:
OLD VILLAGE AREA POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
TERM DESCRIPTION PRIORITY
Short Term (0-1 year)
Review Land Uses
already permitted in
the V-MX
Review permitted and conditional land uses in Section
105.12.780, Table 11-1, particularly for the Village Mixed
Use zoning district.
High
Review Lot Dimensions
and Building Bulk
Requirements
Assess whether bulk standards required under the zoning
ordinance are in alignment with the City’s Design Standard
Manual.
Medium
Define the Village Area Create one definition of the Village Area and create
subdistricts for smaller areas within.
Low
Long Term (1+ years)
Re-evaluate Future
Land Use Areas
Review the Future Land Use Categories used in the Village
area against the mix of land uses desired by the
community.
High
Re-evaluate Zoning
Guidance in the Old
Village
Review the zoning guidance in the Old Village area to
create a more uniform and understandable approach to
zoning.
High
Infrastructure Review
and Corridor Planning
Identify the areas of concern for the City relating to long
term improvements and infrastructure connections in the
Village Area.
Medium
Evaluate Plan Review
Guidelines
Determine the effectiveness of existing guidelines for
development and redevelopment within the Village Area. Low
Visioning for the MUSA
& Village Area
Citywide level visioning exercises should take place to
better understand how future Sewer extensions could
impact the capacity of the Village Area for future growth.
Low
5
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REVIEW
The City of Lake Elmo's Village Vision Study was designed to hear, organize, and elevate the voices and
needs of community members and stakeholders. Community engagement ensures that land use policies
and development will better align with the shared values and goals of Lake Elmo's residents and
business community. When coalesced around a vision, the community can create a vibrant and cohesive
Village Area. The City hosted several community engagement events and set up digital platforms to in a
collaborative effort to inform the study. These include the following:
• Business Owner and Developer Open House
• Table at the Lake Elmo Dog Park Grand Opening
• Public Open House
• Comprehensive Digital and Paper Survey
In an effort to communicate to the community about the online survey and engagement events, the
project team created a one page flyer and post card. The flyer was distributed to homeowners’
associations (HOAs) serving residents in the Village Area. Post cards were mailed directly to residents
and property owners in the village area not served by an HOA. The City used its website to provide
information on the project and used its social media platforms and newsletters to inform the
community about engagement opportunities.
This inclusive approach has resulted in a multifaceted understanding of the community's aspirations and
concerns. The findings from these efforts, which will be detailed below, are instrumental in crafting
recommendations for future policy changes and development guidelines within the Village area.
Summary of Engagement Findings
The comprehensive online survey and the three in-person engagement events were essential in
identifying the values and preferences of residents to inform recommendations for the Village area. Key
findings include the following:
CONNECTIVITY
• About 50% of respondents visit the Village daily. About 50% of all respondents use cars to travel
to the Village when they do visit, because driving is the easiest way to get there.
• Improving walkability of the Village can improve revenues for existing businesses and attract
new ones.
• The Old Village’s central location is one of its key strengths; however, road safety concerns are a
key weakness.
• Traffic speeds on Stillwater Boulevard and Lake Elmo Avenue are a concern.
• New bike/ped crossings are desired at:
o Lake Elmo Ave N and 41st St N
o Lake Elmo Ave N and 39th St N
o Lake Elmo Ave N and Stillwater Blvd
o Laverne Ave N and Stillwater Blvd
• Safer bicycle facilities are desired on Stillwater Blvd
• Future bike/ped facility connection recommendations:
6
o Facilities at Upper 33rd St N to 34th St (Easton Village) over the railroad private road.
o Facilities at 33rd St N to Stillwater Blvd
DEVELOPMENT
• Development should align with capital improvement plans (new road/parkway construction).
• Residents want a variety and diversification of new businesses and commercial use types
allowed in new projects.
• Old Village Area residents desire development that is consistent with the area but are reluctant
to support design standards for single family residential properties.
PREFERRED HOUSING TYPES
• For Single-Family Houses, residents prefer houses where the garages were side- or rear-loaded .
• For Townhouses, residents prefer classic, walk-in townhouses with garages that are rear-loaded.
• For Small-/Mid-sized Apartments, residents prefer three-story apartment buildings with more
vibrant exterior materials with architectural interest.
• For Mid-/Large-sized Apartments, residents prefer modern four-story apartment with a smaller
ground floor area than larger alternatives.
PREFERRED LAND USES
• Respondents prefer Single-Family attached (Townhouses) and Single-Family Detached houses
for residential uses in the Village area.
• Outdoor recreation, parks, and open space are widely preferred. Communications facilities and
religious institutions were least preferred by respondents in this category.
• A clear majority of respondents want sit-down “standard restaurants” and other places for
“drinking and entertainment” in the village, but not locations with drive-throughs.
• Respondents would like to see most types of mercantile uses in the Village, except for shopping
centers (malls or strip malls).
• More than half of respondents said they would like to see automobile maintenance services
(auto repair garages) and gas stations.
• Overwhelmingly, however, nearly all respondents reported a preference not to see auto sales
and storage lots in the Village area.
PLACEMAKING
• Small town character and quaint, charming aesthetics are key strengths of downtown.
• For the former Fire Hall and Parks Building site, residents would like to see some adaptive reuse
that might include any or a combination of the following:
o Eating & Drinking establishments
o Community center
o Family friendly establishments
o Housing, including mixed use
o Green spaces and parks
o Recreational uses
o Retail
7
POLICY REVIEW
Overview
This review is intended to summarize existing policies or plans that guide development and
redevelopment in the Village Area. Considerations are provided that address the stated goals of the City
and how these policies can better work together towards that vision.
Village Area Policies
This section of the report summarizes the following:
1. Zoning Code
2. Comprehensive Plan
3. Lake Elmo Design Guidelines
4. 2007 Village Area Master Plan
5. 2021 Village Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR)
6. 2013 Lake Elmo Branding/Theming
Study
7. Heritage Preservation Commission
The Village Area
The “Village Area” is delineated by different boundaries depending on which City policy document one
might be reviewing. For the purpose of this policy review, the area in the image to the right generally
defines the Village Area.
8
The Zoning Code
Purpose: To provide zoning regulations and be a tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan and
other guiding documents.
Regulatory Impact: Zoning ordinances are laws created and passed by the City to regulate land uses and
development within the City’s boundaries. Minnesota Cities are granted authority by State Statute and
federal case law to control land use through zoning. The Zoning Ordinance regulates the specific land
uses as well as lot provisions such as lot area, setbacks, and lot coverage. The ordinance also addresses
site elements such as building design and materials, landscaping and screening, parking, and signage.
Zoning and the Village Area: The Zoning Code calls for 4 different Village land uses:
• V-LDR is low density residential 1.5 – 3.0 u/acre, meant for perimeter and buffer to adjacent low
density uses
• V-MDR is medium density residential 3.01-8.0 u/acre, meant to bring people closer to Old
Village amenities
• V-HDR is high density residential 8.01 u/acre -12 u/acre, meant to bring higher density and life
cycle housing choose to Old Village Area. Non-residential uses on 1st floor.
• VMX is mixed use with commercial and public uses combined with higher density residential, 5-
10 u/a, senior up to 16 u/acre, meant to establish vitality and intensity to support retail and
service uses in the Old Village. Placement of buildings and pedestrian amenities are essential.
In addition, there is a significant amount of other zoning districts in the Village area:
• RS- Rural Single Family, are only for lots patted prior to 2005. No new lots can be created. The
district allows for single family residential, parks and a variety of accessory uses.
• PF- Public Facilities are for parcels with parks, schools, or public facilities (city Hall and Fire
Station sites).
• LDR- Low Density Residential is considered typical single family zoning district with city sewer
and water. A large portion of the village area contains this land use.
• Commercial and Convenience Commercial and Medium Density Residential are in the NE corner
of the area, just north of Stillwater Blvd which is currently the Holiday gas station and future
Bridgewater Village commercial and medium density residential development.
The uses for the residential districts are straightforward, however the allowed or conditionally allowed
uses of the Mixed-Use Village district may permit for undesirable uses. The district allows the following
type of uses:
• Residential
• Public and Civic
• Commercial and Personal Service
• Food Service
• Retail Sales
• Auto type uses
• Recreation Uses
9
Most uses are conditional, including residential, while personal and business service type uses are
permitted. Most accessory uses are also permitted. Several of the uses could have an outdoor
component such as outdoor recreation, drive-up, or outdoor sales and storage lots.
The Zoning Ordinance does reference the Village Districts and has the following emphasis:
• Refence to the Design Guidelines
• Circulation and limited access on CSAH 14
• Screening of existing residential structures
• Sidewalk and trail connections, esp. from cul-de-sacs to nearest through streets
• Theming Study (2013) to be incorporated.
Other Zoning Considerations:
• The Shoreland Overlay covers approximately the westerly 1,000 feet of the area and is all zoned
residential. Limits on development and impervious surface are a consideration.
• The Airport Overlay covers a the eastern part of the area. The airport is on the east side of
Manning, outside the city limits. The overlay zoning and impacts are on the west side of
Manning Avenue within the city limits. There are noise considerations and height limits in this
area.
Considerations:
• Consolidating districts in the village area may streamline the zoning review process and could
reduce confusion about land uses or performance standards in the Village Area.
• ADU’s and mixed uses could be permitted where Rural Single Family is now the zoning district.
Existing housing and uses could continue to be preserved.
• Consider defining the Village Area within the City Code or adopting a zoning map with that area
delineated.
• The City would benefit from more review or discussion in the following areas:
o Land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the Village Area
o Review and consideration of whether additional uses should be permitted
o Understand existing performance standards in the districts affecting the Village area,
and how they relate to the City’s vision, comprehensive plan goals, or adopted Design
Standards Manual
o Determine if the Theming Study remains relevant or should be removed from the code
10
Lake Elmo Zoning Map – Village Area
11
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan
Purpose: This document provides long-term guidance on land uses to ensure the efficient provision of
public infrastructure in the City. In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, municipalities are required to
adopt comprehensive use plans every decade which guide development of land and public
infrastructure. Metro area comprehensive plans must contain specific elements including land use,
housing, transportation, water management, parks, etc. The planning horizon for Lake Elmo’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan (hereafter the “2040 Plan”) is from 2020 to 2040. The 2040 Plan was approved and
adopted in November of 2019 after a considerable planning and community engagement process.
Regulatory Impact: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a legal document which, as required by state
statute, is the guiding document for all development in Lake Elmo. Any development or redevelopment
must comply with the Comp Plan. The City’s zoning requirements must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Chapter.
Comp Plan and the Village Area: This review is broken down by certain elements of the City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan:
Future Land Uses (Chapter 3) - Future Land Uses (see map on page 7) allowed in the Village Area
include:
• Rural Single Family Sewered (0.1-2.0 du/acre ) – previously unsewered but currently single-
family land uses located within the Village Planning Area.
• Village Low Density Residential (1.5 – 3 du/acre) – single-family detached housing
development
• Village Medium Density Residential (3.01 – 8 du/acre) – single-family detached, duplexes,
and townhomes/villa housing types.
• Village High Density Residential (8.01 – 12 du/acre) – apartment buildings and multi-family
dwellings.
• Village Mixed Use (5 – 10 du/acre) – Integrated commercial/business and residential uses
provide development types that benefit from proximity to each other.
• Commercial – retail and service businesses primarily located in the MUSA. This excludes
residential and industrial uses.
• Institutional - Schools, religious institutions, City hall, municipal buildings, libraries, and
other institutional uses
• Public/Semi-Public - generally owned by the City or other agency, whose primary purpose is
to support adjacent developments with stormwater management and other utilities.
MUSA Staging (Chapter 3) – The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary provides an
indication of where sewered development can occur. This is broken down into phases by decade. Only
two areas of the Village are in MUSA staging areas beyond the current decade. One area is the
remaining Schiltgen farmstead parcel south of North Star, the other is just north of Easton Village. Those
areas would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to develop sooner than 2035. (See Map on page
8)
Subdistricts (Chapters 2 & 3) – Chapter 3 of the 2040 Plan created the following subdistricts for the
Village area:
• Civic District – area north of Stillwater Boulevard N.
12
• Old Village District – core of old village area centered around Lake Elmo Ave N.
• Elmo Station District – area East of Layton Ave N. and containing primarily undeveloped
land.
There is no narrative in the 2040 Plan to provide a description of the subdistricts, but goals are
articulated in Chapter 2, which envision the creation of specific zoning overlays to support or require
certain types of development in each area. Land Use Goals 4 – 6 discuss the subdistricts.
Parks and Trails (Chapter 6) – The 2040 Plan contains guidance for the development of park and
recreation facilities in the City.
• Park Search Areas (Map 6-7) – contains a search area for a Community Park over the Village
Planning Area. A community park in this area is defined as a park an area of 10-15 acres that
would serve as a community gathering place and landmark.
• Trail Search Areas (Map 6-8) – contains existing facilities and search areas for new ones. A
regional search corridor runs along Lake Elmo Ave. N. and Stillwater Blvd. N. for creation of a
county facility. The map also contains search areas for local connections to/through the Village
area and surrounding residential development. Village Parkway would contain a road and trail
connection through undeveloped parcels to Easton Village.
Transportation (Chapter 7) – The 2040 Plan contains guidance on planned functional classifications for
roadways serving or running through the Village planning area. Designations for Stillwater Boulevard
North, Lake Elmo Avenue North, 39th Street North, and the future Village Parkway all impact the way
those roadways function. The classification may impact ROW width needs, access spacing, alignment
and traffic speeds, etc.
Considerations:
• Consider removing Public/Semi Public Designation until development is complete north of Union
Pacific Railroad tracks.
• Reconsider split guidance of land north of Easton Village
• MUSA staging should be consistent across Village East to allow master planning.
• Reconsider Subdistricts and associated goals to realign with potential future development or
redevelopment.
• Small Area Plan is needed to effectively plan land use guidance.
13
Lake Elmo Future Land Use Map – Village Area
14
Lake Elmo Future Land Use Map – Village Area
15
Lake Elmo Design Guidelines
Purpose: To ensure development of the Village area is high
quality and meets the goals and principles of the City.
Specifically, high quality site design and building materials,
promote open space to support the existing character of the
city, accommodate vehicles that respect pedestrian
environment, utilize natural ecosystems (stormwater) in
development, cohesion of development into the neighborhood
and community, and to foster connections through theming to
create unique community identity. The Design Guidelines and
Standards were last revised in February 2022.
Regulatory Impact: The Design Guidelines are intended to influence how sites are developed. They
cover the Village Area as well as the I-94 Corridor Area and is for parcels within the MUSA public utility
service area. Sites are reviewed for compliance at the final stage of development review or building
permit review. The guidelines terminology are primarily recommendations and not requirements. They
are written with lots of “recommendations”, “may”, “should” verbiage opposed to “must” and “shall”.
There are some required elements such as sidewalks, lighting, and signage. However, some of this
language is subjective rather than prescriptive.
Design Guidelines and the Village Area: Only applies to high density residential, commercial, business
park and mixed uses. The Zoning Ordinance references the design guidelines in the Village Districts in
general, Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public/Quasi-Public districts (commercial uses). The guidelines
address suggestions for:
• building placement
• streetscaping
• landscaping
• parking & delivery areas
• building design, mass/scale, roof, entries
• building materials
• lighting
• signage
Considerations:
• Identify the purpose of the design guidelines to ensure they still align with city goals.
• Certain sections or requirements may be seen as higher or lower priority. Issues directly tied to
City goals could be codified in the zoning ordinance.
• Not all projects will reasonably meet all requirements in the design guidelines. Discussion is
needed on the process for “good” projects to receive flexibility.
• Projects receiving PUD’s could be required to comply with some or all design requirements.
16
2007 Lake Elmo Village Area Master Plan
Purpose: This plan was created in 2007. The intent of the City’s Village Area Master Plan (hereafter
“2007 Master Plan”) is to guide development of private land, and public infrastructure, along with
revisions to applicable City Land Use guidance to allow the vision to materialize. The 2007 Master Plan
created 13 principals to guide development and a conceptual vision for future development in the areas
surrounding the “heart” of the Village.
Regulatory Impact: For Small Area or Master Plans to have regulatory impacts, they must be
incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. While the 2007 Master Plan may
have influenced land use policies in both the City’s adopted 2040 Plan and Zoning Ordinance, there are
no references to this planning document. Therefore, it does not have a legally binding impact on
development. The City’s 2040 Plan has created subdistricts and associated Land Use goals which don’t
appear to either conflict with, or support, the 2007 Master Plan’s vision.
The 2007 Village Area Master Plan Elements: The plan is generally broken down into the following
elements:
1. Background – which discusses guiding principles and a framework
2. The Master Plan – a layout of the vision, with focus on the different aspects such as parks and
trails, public and green space, streets, blocks & parcels, land uses, housing types, and densities.
3. Master Plan Components – discusses higher level components of the plan such as the Stillwater
Blvd. corridor, Lake Elmo Avenue corridor, Public Facilities, Greenbelt, Existing Development,
and planned housing.
4. Village Character – discusses case studies from, Detroit Lakes, Litchfield, Cannon Falls, and
Redwood Falls, MN, Cedarburg, WI, and Zeeland, MI. Nearly all examples are of rural town
centers as opposed to town centers in metropolitan areas.
5. Utilities and other Infrastructure – discusses Sewer and water utilities, stormwater systems, and
a street network with example road typologies.
6. Planning Process and Planning Tools – this section is incomplete in the version reviewed by staff.
Considerations:
• The location of roadway connections and alignment of key corridors such as Lake Elmo Avenue
and the Village Parkway have changed since the 2007 Master Plan was created.
• County Access spacing requirements and planning along Stillwater Boulevard likely mean that
the roadway connections envisioned by this plan are infeasible.
• Nearly all the single-family residential developments envisioned in the Village Area have now
occurred. This means local roads, sidewalks, and trail connections are set in a variety of areas.
• Future Land Use guidance in the City’s 2040 Plan is inconsistent with the development, primarily
east of the existing Village Area’s core.
• Park needs across the community have been evaluated and may have changed since 2007.
17
18
2021 Village Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
Purpose: The purpose of an AUAR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts within a large
planning area and to ensure mitigation plans are effectively managed and implemented as development
occurs. The Village Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (2009 Village Area AUAR) comprises
approximately 1,275 acres surrounding the City of Lake Elmo’s historic downtown. This 2021 Update is
prepared as an update and progress report to the 2009 Village Area AUAR and the subsequent 2016
Update. The analysis and information contained in this report provides an inventory of development to-
date within the AUAR area and an update to relevant items or sections as needed and/or affected since
the 2016 Update
Regulatory Impact: Per Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subpart 7, the City is required to update the 2009
Village AUAR every 5 years. The most recent update was in December 2021. Until the Village Area is fully
developed, the City will need to update the AUAR to ensure that the review and mitigation plans are
consistent with the known and planned development within the AUAR area. If the AUAR becomes
expired prior to the complete buildout of the Village area, individual projects may be required to receive
a formal environmental review under statutory thresholds. This would cause delays and expense for
development to occur, and reviews would be completed on a piecemeal basis.
The 2021 Village Area AUAR: The update provided an opportunity to revisit the original 2009 document
and subsequent 2016 update. Many areas of the review had no change from the 2009 AUAR and 2016
update. Areas of additional review included the following:
• Review of development scenarios
• Development timeline update
• Land use guidance updates
• Land cover type updates
• Water use
• Water quality – surface water runoff
• Water quality – wastewater
• Traffic
• Compatibility with plans
Considerations:
• The City should plan to update the AUAR by December 2026 in order to allow the AUAR to
remain in effect until the complete buildout of the Village area. Several large parcel
developments may otherwise trigger the need to complete environmental review.
19
2013 Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study
Purpose: The Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study seeks to establish a kit of parts that will create a
strong visual identity for the gateways, streets, sidewalks and open spaces of Lake Elmo that reinforces
the unique agricultural and open space heritage of the community.
Design Principles:
• Elements and furnishings will reflect a connection to the land through material and form.
• Elements and furnishings will be detailed and placed with a simplicity of purpose and function
that pays tribute to the Lake Elmo agrarian heritage.
• Landscapes will reflect the native prairie, lakes and big woods that help define Lake Elmo as a
special community within a metropolitan area.
• Elements and furnishings will be comfortable and functional.
• The Kit of Parts must have an authenticity that creates a memorable and lasting impression for
visitors, residents and business owners.
Regulatory Impact: The City’s Zoning Ordinance currently contains a reference that requires elements of
the Lake Elmo Theming Study must be incorporated in to developments within the village districts
where applicable. The City has design standards for the Village Parkway which will connect existing areas
of the Village and with the current terminus in Easton Village. Buildout will be required with future
development.
The 2013 Theming Study: The 2013 Theming study primarily focuses on the public right of way, and
streetscape improvements that the City can implement, or require to be implemented, in existing or
newly platted areas of the Village. The Theming Study generally touches on the following areas:
• Placement and Pattern in the Streetscape
o Placement of lighting and trees in the streetscape
o Creating a pattern in the streetscape
o Maintenance and community commitment
• Streetscape requirements
o Sidewalks
o Parking
o Corners and intersections
• Streetscape Components
• Street Furniture
• Implementation
Considerations:
• This document is not available online, it is recommended that it be added to the list of design
standards on the City’s website.
• The City should conduct plan reviews, particularly for newly proposed developments on the
undeveloped east side of the current Village Area with this theming study in mind.
• A discussion by the City as to the relevancy and priority of theming may be helpful. Is this
document still valid?
20
Heritage Preservation Commission
The City Code establishes a Heritage Preservation Commission to “engage in a comprehensive program
of historic preservation and to preserve and promote the city's historic resources”. This commission is
tasked with several things. Specifically related to land use and interest in the Village Area, their causes is
as follows:
1. To survey and recommend to the council the designation of districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects that are of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural
significance;
2. To recommend to the council rules governing construction, alteration, demolition, and use,
including the review of building permits, and the adoption of other measures appropriate for the
preservation, protection, and perpetuation of designated properties and areas;
3. To recommend to the council the acquisition by purchase, gift, or bequest of a fee or lesser
interest, including preservation restrictions, in designated properties and adjacent or associated
lands which are important for the preservations and use of the designated properties;
4. To recommend to the council the use of its powers of eminent domain to maintain or preserve
designated properties and adjacent or associated lands;
5. To recommend to the council the granting of use variances to the zoning ordinance for the
purpose of promoting historical preservation or continuity;
6. To participate in the conduct of land use planning processes by the review and comment on
documents or actions relating to designated areas and on comprehensive plans; and
7. To recommend to the council the removal of blighting influences in designated areas, including
signs, unsightly structures, and debris incompatible with the physical well-being of the areas.
There is currently no established commission. The commission stopped meeting with the onset of
COVID restrictions in 2020 and has not been re-established.
Considerations:
• This commission could provide insights and recommendations on the Village Area. Is the
Heritage Preservation Commission something that should be re-established to support the
Village Area goals?
• Could this commission provide value in supporting the village area and uses and the experience
while engaging residents serving on the commission? Or would this commission add a layer of
bureaucracy, whose objectives could be addressed administratively or through other processes?
21
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
This is an important time in the history of Lake Elmo’s Village Area. Preceding this Study, significant work
has been done throughout the last two decades to ensure that the Village Area develops in a manner
consistent with the Community’s vision. Community planning is a continuous process that reacts to
changes and anticipates new issues.
The City’s Interim Ordinance has allowed for a brief pause and review of the community’s sentiment on
the village area, along with the land use controls already in place to guide development. The following
policy recommendations are broken into short and long term based on whether they can reasonably be
done prior to (short term), or after (long term), the City rescinds its moratorium on new land uses. These
recommendations are intended to guide ongoing review and discussion in a manner that will allow the
City to further refine its plans and policies to achieve the community’s vision for the Village Area.
OLD VILLAGE AREA POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
DESCRIPTION PRIORITY
Short Term (0-1 yrs)
Review Land Uses already permitted in the V-MX
Review permitted and conditional land uses in Section 105.12.780, Table 11-1, particularly
for the Village Mixed Use zoning district.
High
1. Consider removing uses which are not complementary to the built form of the Old Village Area such as
restaurants with drive throughs, or funeral homes and storage and sales lots due to public feedback
and large unused surface parking areas.
2. Consider allowing retail/shopping centers under certain square footages ‘by right’.
3. Consider limiting the use of Conditional Use Permits to accelerate establishment of acceptable uses
and to prevent establishment of uses not fully in line with the community’s vision.
4. Consider how the City would review a proposed brewery, distillery, or other such specialized
businesses which are desired by the community having specific licensing requirements.
Review Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements
Assess whether bulk standards required under the zoning ordinance are in alignment with
the City’s Design Standard Manual.
Medium
1. Re-evaluate minimum lot or unit areas to ensure that new development is consistent with the massing
of pre-existing development in the old village area.
2. Re-evaluate setbacks for buildings in V-MDR, V-HDR, and V-MX districts to ensure that developments
are designed according to best practices identified in the City’s design standard manual.
Define the Village Area
Create one definition of the Village Area and create subdistricts for smaller areas withing
the Overall Village Area.
Low
1. Consider keeping the Old Village Area as is or extending to the west to include the undeveloped
Schiltgen Farm property. Alternatively, a subdistrict called “West Village” could be created.
2. Consider revising the Civic District or its goals anticipating future uses of the old City and School
building sites.
22
3. Consider revising the Elmo Station District to be an “East Village” subdistrict extending east to Manning
Avenue.
Long Term (1+ years)
Evaluate Future Land Use Areas
Review the Future Land Use Categories used in the Village area against the mix of land uses
desired by the community
High
1. Consider reguiding parcels comprising the existing Civic District subdistrict to V-MU, with the exception
of the City held properties.
2. Consider reguiding the old Schiltgen Farmstead parcel south of Stillwater Boulevard to V-MDR
3. Consider reguiding areas east of the Old Village as V-MU, and move V-HDR guidance further east.
4. Commission a Village Master Plan to align future land uses with planned infrastructure connections
Evaluate Zoning Guidance in the Old Village
Review the zoning guidance in the Old Village area to create a more uniform and
understandable approach to zoning.
High
1. Identify existing land uses and lot areas in a parcel level review of the Old Village.
2. Consider uniform V-Mx zoning north of Upper 33rd Street along the Lake Elmo Avenue corridor, and
parcels east of that corridor within the Old Village subdistrict. An exception would be parcels with
institutional land uses (recreation, religious institutions).
3. Consider V-MDR zoning for other areas of the Old Village subdistrict where preservation of housing is a
priority.
Infrastructure Review and Corridor Planning
Identify the areas of concern for the City relating to long term improvements and
infrastructure connections in the Village Area.
Medium
1. Review planned roadway connections in undeveloped areas of the Village and plan for how necessary
connections will be made, and by whom.
2. Identify sidewalk and trail gaps in the Old Village area and determine whether such gaps will be
addressed by future City projects or private development.
3. Coordinate with Washington County to identify future county right of way needs and plans for corridor
improvements along Stillwater Boulevard and Lake Elmo Avenue North.
4. Commission a Village Master Plan to communicate City priorities on trails, intersection controls, and
other improvements needed for desired mobility outcomes in the Village Area.
Evaluate Plan Review Guidelines
Determine the effectiveness of existing guidelines for development and redevelopment
within the Village Area.
Low
1. Review Lake Elmo’s Design Guidelines ensure they still align with city goals for development in the
Village Area. Consideration could be given to location within the Village Area.
2. Confirm that the 2013 Branding and Theming study guidelines are still relevant and in alignment with
City expectations for the Village Area.
3. Identify the City’s need for the Heritage Preservation Commission, and consider removing
requirements for one from City Code, modifying review requirements for projects, or attempt to re-
initiate the Commission.
23
Visioning for the MUSA & Village Area
Citywide level visioning exercises should take place to better understand how future Sewer
extensions could impact the capacity of the Village Area for future growth.
Low
1. Identification of future growth areas to the West or North around the City’s Village Core could create
an additional need for area-wide planning.
2. Planned expansion of any part of the City’s MUSA Boundary should be reviewed for capacity impacts
on existing areas that are planned for sewer, such as the Village Area.
24
APPENDIX
25
Appendix A – Open House and Survey Findings
26
Open Houses
Business Owner and Developer Open House
An open house for the business community and area developers
was held on Thursday, June 13 at Lake Elmo City Hall. These
groups were invited to the informal roundtable discussion that
featured maps, preference-identifying activities, and overviews
of the Village Vision study purpose.
Conversations gravitated toward issues of connectivity to and
within the Village area, how future development feasibility, and
placemaking improvements.
• Connectivity
o Improving walkability of the Village to improve
revenues for existing businesses and to attract
new ones.
o Bike/ped crossings at:
▪ Lake Elmo Ave N and 41st St N
▪ Lake Elmo Ave N and 39th St N
▪ Lake Elmo Ave N and Stillwater Blvd
▪ Laverne Ave N and Stillwater Blvd
o Safer bicycle facilities on Stillwater Blvd
o Future bike/ped trail recommendations
▪ Facilities at Upper 33rd St N to 34th St (Easton Village) over the railroad private
road.
▪ Facilities at 33rd St N to Stillwater Blvd
• Development Feasibility
o Appropriateness/feasibility of individual parcels for different housing types.
• Placemaking
o Preservation of historical local businesses
o Maintaining downtown charm but allowing for compatible modern building types
o Leveraging the old creamery as a dominant/interest-site for an adaptive reuse project
o Beautification of Lake Elmo Ave
An estimated 25 individuals attended this event. See the Appendix A for records of the maps and
information/activity boards shown to attendees.
Lake Elmo Dog Park Grand Opening
City staff facilitated a pop-up outreach display at the Grand Opening of the Lake Elmo Dog Park. This was
in order to reach a wider audience regarding the village vision study. An estimated 40 or more residents,
not including their furry companions, attended the event.
27
Staff explained the need for the Village Vision study, and engaged with residents to identify their
preferences for the future of the area. Staff also advertised the upcoming Public Open house and the
ongoing online survey.
Public comments were similar to those heard at both open houses. Residents indicated a desire to make
shorter, more local, trips to shop for daily necessities. Several attendees expressed a desire to have
improved trail connectivity to and from areas of the City not immediately near the Village Area, such as
the Tri Lakes area.
Public Open House
Staff held the final open house at City Hall on
Thursday, June 20 from 5 to 7pm. Like the
previous engagement for businesses and
developers, residents at the Public Open house
were provided an overview of the study and
preference-identifying activities via boards, and
tabletop mapping exercises. Residents had a
number of questions about the Village area and
the current development moratorium within the
Village boundary.
Like business owners, residents expressed
concerns about connectivity and road safety
issues traveling to the Village area. Key discussion
points included, generally, connectivity, placemaking, and land uses.
• Connectivity
o Residents value the walkability of the old village core but desire improvement to
connectivity of sidewalks and trails in the village area.
▪ Safer, marked crossings are desired at Stillwater Boulevard and Lake Elmo
Avenue.
o Concern about traffic speeds along Lake Elmo Avenue North and Stillwater Boulevard.
• Placemaking
o Maintaining historic, small town, charm.
o Strong desire to preserve the existing City ballfields and the Post Office.
o Adding new areas of open space and opportunities for natural landscaping in boulevards
or new developments.
o Working to address underutilized commercial properties as strategic opportunities for
new development.
• Land Uses and Development
o Desire for housing, rental or owner occupied, that is attainable for members of the
community who want to stay in the area.
o Limiting the establishment of chain businesses or big box stores to continue the small
town village feel.
28
o Bringing in new amenities such as restaurants, personal services, or other businesses
that would serve local residents.
o Apprehension to create design or other performance standards that would negatively
impact existing residents.
Approximately 35 individuals attended the Public Open House. See the Appendix B for records of the
maps and information/activity boards shown to attendees.
Survey Input
Community engagement for the Village Vision Study was initiated with the launch of a comprehensive
online survey. This survey was designed to capture the voices of our residents and to incite deepened
interest in the project. The survey included more than 20 questions focused on identifying residents’
current relationship to the Village area and their preference and priorities for future growth. The
findings, summarized here, reveal a community deeply invested in the preservation of Lake Elmo's
unique character while embracing thoughtful growth and development.
The survey launched on Saturday, June 1, 2024 and closed Monday, July 1, 2024. 556 complete
responses were submitted, and 603 partial responses during during this period
Excerpts from the survey are provided here. A full copy of the survey response report is available in
Appendix C.
[remainder of page intentionally blank]
29
Nearly half of
respondents visit the
Village area every day.
Over half of all respondents drive to the Village area.
About 40% of respondents already live in the area.
Frequency of visits to the village area
Mode of travel to/from the village area
30
Ease of reaching the Village area by walking (1=Very Difficult, 5=Very Easy)
Ease of reaching the Village area by biking (1=Very Difficult, 5=Very Easy)
There’s little
consensus about
ease of walking to
the Village area.
About 30% of
respondents
indicated that it’s
“Difficult or Very
Difficult” to walk
to the Village
There’s little
consensus about
ease of biking to
the Village area.
31
Ease of reaching the Village area by driving (1=Very Difficult, 5=Very Easy)
Prevailing strengths of the Village area
• Aesthetics. Many responses included words like “charm”, “quaint”, and “cute” which highlight
an appreciation for the visual appeal of the downtown village area.
• Small Town Character. Almost 200 residents indicated the importance of maintaining the “small
town feel”, referring to both the size of the downtown, the amenities, and sense of place it
offers.
• Business and Development. Over 100 responses pointed to businesses as a strength of the area,
with several mentions of Lake Elmo Inn, Sunshine Coffee and various other small businesses
contributing to the vitality of the village.
• Walkability and Location. Residents also appreciate the town’s convenient location and the
ability to walk easily, emphasizing the importances of maintaining and potentially enhancing
walkable spaces.
Prevailing weaknesses of the Village area
Weaknesses discussed for the village area were varied. Two clear themes were transportation issues
(including parking and safety) and development. speeding and pedestrian safety. Several respondents
highlighted dangerous conditions for crossing streets without crosswalks or sidewalks.
• Transportation Issues. Many respondents were concerned with traffic generally and the speed
of traffic. Participants expressed concerns with a lack of crosswalks sidewalks as a significant
safety concern. Several residents expressed that there was a need for parking in the village area.
• Development. Residents noted the desire for a variety and diversification of new businesses in
the village area. Many responses were about “use”. Over 50 responses included “restaurant”
indicating the desire for more businesses centered around eat, drink and play. “Pizza”, “ice-
cream”, and “grocery” were all pointed to as wish-list items for the downtown.
Respondents agree
that it’s Very Easy to
get to the Village by
driving.
32
Future vision for the Village Area
What residents don’t want to see in the
village area
• A variety of housing types
• Big box retail
• Car dealerships
• Industrial uses
• Storage businesses
• Increase in traffic
Responses are generally consistent with
perceived strengths and weaknesses in the
village area.
What residents do want to see in the Village
area
• Community amenities
o Gathering spaces for events
and play
o Community center
▪ Pools, splash pads
o Live music
• Increase of local & small scale retail
and service businesses
• Recreational spaces
• Green space
• Eating & Drinking establishments
o Brewery
o Ice cream
o Pizza
• Pedestrian safety
o More safe routes for walking
and biking
o Sidewalks and trails
• Beautification
Responses are generally consistent with
perceived strengths and weaknesses in the
village area.
33
Preferred Single-Family House types (respondents could select more than one option)
Preferred Townhouse types (respondents could select more than one option)
Single-Family
Houses where the
garages were side-
or rear-loaded were
most popular
Respondents preferred classic,
walk-in Townhouses with garages
that are rear-loaded.
34
Preferred Small-/Mid-Sized Apartment Building types (respondents could select more than
one option)
Preferred Mid-/Large-Sized Apartment Building types (respondents could select more than
one option)
Respondents preferred three-story apartment
buildings with architectural interest and
higher quality building materials.
Respondents preferred the modern four-story
apartment with a smaller ground floor area
than larger alternatives.
35
Preferred residential uses in the Village area
Preferred public, civic, and recreation uses in the Village area
Respondents prefer Single-
Family attached (Townhouses)
and Single-Family Detached
houses for residential uses in
the Village area.
Outdoor recreation, parks, and
open space are widely
preferred. Communications
facilities and religious
institutions were least
preferred by respondents in
this category.
36
Preferred service uses in the Village area
Preferred food service uses in the Village area
Preferences for service uses
were scattered. The most
preferred services were
business services and personal
services (it should be noted
that these are the broadest
classes of service types).
Respondents want sit-down
(standard) restaurants and
other places for drinking and
entertainment in the village.
Only 20% of respondents want
to see drive-through
restaurants in the Village.
37
Preferred mercantile uses in the Village area
Preferred automobile or vehicular uses in the Village area
Respondents would like to see
most types of mercantile uses
in the Village, except for
shopping centers (malls or strip
malls).
More than half of respondents
said they would like to see
automobile maintenance
services (auto repair garages)
and gas stations.
Overwhelmingly, however, 96%
of respondents do not prefer to
see auto sales and storage lots
in the Village area.
38
Preferences for the future of the former fire hall and parks building
Respondents gave a variety of answers for what they would like to
see in the old fire hall and parks building. Responses included new
uses such as:
• Eating & Drinking establishments
• Community center
• Family friendly establishments
• Housing, including mixed use
• Green spaces and parks
• Recreational uses
• Retail
Additional thoughts on the Village Area
A wide variety of feedback was received. Sentiment was mostly positive with many comments pointing
to the types of development, if any, they would like to see in the area. Many responses indicated that
residents wanted to maintain the “charm” and “feel” of the area and limit big box retail. This was
consistent with previous qualitative responses in the survey.
39
Appendix B – Open House Engagement Materials
40
Appendix C – Full Survey Response Report