HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 01-14-13
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, December 14, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Election of Officers
a. The Planning Commission is required to elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson
and Secretary for 2013.
3. Approve Agenda
4. Approve Minutes
a. December 10, 2012
b. December 17, 2012
5. Public Hearing
a. VARIANCE - 3549 LAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH. The Planning
Commission will consider an application for a Variance by Christ Lutheran
Church to allow for a minor subdivision of the parcel located at 3549 Lake Elmo
Avenue North in order to sell the commercial building but retain parking facilities
at that location for use by the church. The minor subdivision requires a variance
to allow for the creation of a parcel that would not meet minimum district
standards for lot size and width in the General Business Zoning District.
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED
DISTRICT. The Planning Commission will consider an application by the Valley
Branch Watershed District to remove a culvert and road section located on the
former 28th Street and Raleigh Creek in Lake Elmo, MN. The work requires a
Conditional Use Permit due to proposed excavation within a floodplain.
6. Business Items
a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
ORDINANCE. The Planning Commission will consider a new proposed PUD
Ordinance to incorporate current best practices related to the implementation of
PUDs, as well as integrating the ordinance into the new structure of the Zoning
Code. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed
amendment on 12/10/12.
b. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2012 ANNUAL REPORT.
Staff will submit the 2012 annual report at the meeting. Planning Commission is
asked to review the content of the report and provide any comments or
suggestions before the report is submitted to the City Council. The report will be
distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting.
7. Updates
a. City Council Updates
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
1. Planning Commission Meeting, 1/28/13
c. Commission Concerns
8. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of December 10, 2012
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:05 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fliflet, Obermueller, Larson, Kreimer, Reeves, Morreale,
Haggard and Williams;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Battah and Hall;
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson
Chairman Williams welcomed the newly appointed members of the Planning
Commission.
Approve Agenda:
The Commission accepted the agenda as presented.
Approve Minutes:
M/S/P: Williams/Fliflet motion to accept the minutes from the November 14, 2012
meeting as amended; motion carried: Vote: 3‐0 (Haggard, Larson, Reeves and Kreimer
abstained).
Public Hearing: City Code Amendment – Subdivision Ordinance
Klatt noted that the updates to the Subdivision Ordinance are intended to clarify a
reference to Planned Unit Developments. The ordinance states that planned
development can be pursued to allow variance to the City Code. The correct
terminology is exception.
Moving forward, Klatt explained the aspect of the Subdivision Ordinance related to
parkland dedication. In order to prepare the City for future growth, the Subdivision
Ordinance must be updated to reflect the new sewered zoning districts. For the
sewered zoning districts, Staff is proposing a standard of 10% of land must be set aside
for parkland dedication within the subdivision process. In addition, the standard for
future commercial areas will be set at 7%.
Other additions to the Subdivison Ordinance include the following procedural elements:
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
• Previous subdivisions
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
• Financial dedication in lieu of land dedication
Klatt noted that one land owner did call Staff to share his concern related to the level of
dedication for commercial properties.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance.
Fliflet asked about parkland dedication in cases of OP and OP‐ALT properties.
Klatt noted that the parkland dedication in the case of OP (7%) is above and beyond the
open space requirements.
Fliflet noted the land used for parkland dedication must be available and accessed by
the public, whereas open space areas in OP‐developments is typically privately owned.
Haggard noted that financial dedication in lieu of land dedication one section should
read “required” as opposed to “maximum”
Klatt noted that this change is correct, and the ordinance should simply read “required
payment”.
Haggard also noted that the ordinance should read that rehabilitation of facilities should
specify “park facilities”.
Klatt explained that this change seems appropriate.
Related to wording, Williams suggested using the term “minimum” in regard to
dedications. In addition, he noted that in paragraph G, the language stipulates that the
applicant notify the appropriate governmental unit. Williams asked why it would not
simply read “the City”.
Klatt noted that other governmental units are notified in instances of subdivision, such
as the Washington County or local school district.
Fliflet noted that the ordinance uses the terms “public” and “park” interchangeably.
She recommends that this be clarified. In addition, related to the trails in OP
developments, Fliflet noted that these facilities are viewed as public. She asked
whether these trails were part of the parkland dedication.
Klatt noted that the construction of trails in certain developments have been counted
towards the park dedication requirement, which are then public. If the construction of
the trail does not encompass the entirety of the parkland dedication, then a developer
can dedicate additional land or money in lieu of land for dedication.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Fliflet asked who maintains the trails in the St. Croix’s Sanctuary development.
Klatt noted that the City maintains whatever trails were included as parkland dedication.
This includes City parks vs. private neighborhood parks.
Fliflet noted that she feels that private neighborhood parks should be counted for
parkland dedication.
Larson noted that the parkland dedication states that the land can be used for public
facilities. Could there be a situation where these lands or funds could be used for some
other purpose than parks and recreation?
Klatt noted that intent of the dedication is land or money to be used for community
recreation. Klatt also stated that the use of the dedication can be better clarified in the
ordinance.
Public Hearing opened at 7:34pm.
Klatt reiterated that he had a conversation with a land owner who felt that dedication in
instances of commercial development should follow a set dedication requirement based
on fair market value of the land.
Public Hearing closed at 7:35pm.
Fliflet wished to reiterate that she does not agree that private neighborhood parks are
not included as parkland dedication.
M/S/P: Williams/Reeves, move to approve the Subdivision Ordinance with the
previously proposed corrections, motion carried: Vote 4‐3 (Fliflet, Larson and
Obermueller voted no due to their wish to count private neighborhood parks towards
parkland dedication in the subdivision process).
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – PUD Ordinance
Johnson presented information concerning proposed amendments to the City’s Planned
Unit Development Ordinance. Johnson noted that Staff has proposed a major revision
to the existing ordinance in order to bring the code up to date with recent revisions to
the Zoning Ordinance and to better specify the circumstances under which the City may
consider flexibility from the requirements set by the base zoning districts.
Johnson stated that the proposed amendments include a more thorough description of
the objectives of a PUD, and specifically, the objectives for considering flexibility.
Johnson reviewed a proposed point system for determining when flexibility could be
considered by the City.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
There was a general discussion concerning the potential density increases that would be
allowed with the proposed bonus system. Reeves asked if the Planning Commission
would have an opportunity to review the different site amenities and associated
amenity points in a more detailed way. Johnson noted that the Planning Commission
should have the opportunity to address specific recommendations and discussion at
their next meeting.
Kreimer noted that the current code allows for a 5% increase in density and that the
change to 20% represented a significant increase. Johnson noted that perceptions
about the amount of density can vary from person to person. In addition, what may
seem like a significant density increase in some cases may not translate to a significant
increase in the amount of units of a project. Finally, with the amenity point system, the
built environment is being improved in ways that the community value, which should be
viewed as a tradeoff for some levels of additional density.
Williams opened the Public Hearing at 8:16 p.m.
No one spoke.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m.
Williams suggested postponing action on the ordinance amendment until the Planning
Commission had more time to review the proposed ordinance.
Fliflet recommended that the review process include a concept plan review outside of a
formal hearing process in order to provide additional time for review prior of the
formulation of detailed plans.
The Commission agreed to include an additional step related to a conceptual level
review that could be conducted prior to submission of more detailed plans.
The Commission discussed minor modifications and typographic revisions to the
document.
Fliflet expressed concern regarding the balance between the preservation of open space
verses additional density.
Williams asked for clarification regarding the intent of certain sections of the proposed
ordinance and suggested revisions to unclear potions of the document.
M/S/P: Reeves/Haggard, move to table the discussion on the proposed PUD Ordinance
amendments until the 12/18/12 workshop or the next regular meeting in January as
time allows, motion carried unanimously: Vote 7‐0.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Business Item: Dale‐Frandsen Sketch Plan Review (Lennar Homes)
Klatt began the sketch plan review by outlining the basic parameters of the proposal. In
addition, Klatt explained the Planning Commission’s role in this phase of the subdivision
process. The sketch plan phase does not require any formal action. It is simply an
opportunity for the applicant to present their proposal to the Planning Commission for
the purposes of obtaining feedback.
Klatt outlined the key points of the proposal: These include the following:
• 186 single family lot
• 131 townhome residential units
• 317 total residential units
• Gross density of the proposal is 2.9 units/acre
Moving forward, Klatt outlined the overall subdivision process. The process is three
stages:
1. Sketch Plan Review – introduction of the proposal
2. Preliminary Plat – detailed submission required, public hearing required
3. Final Plat – most detailed submission, developers agreement
Klatt explained how the Staff conducted its review of the Sketch Plan. Review from
technical staff included Planning, Engineering, Public Works and the Fire Department.
Regarding utility infrastructure, Klatt described the location of exiting utilities in the
area, as well how these utilities may be extended to the site.
Finally, Klatt outlined the next steps. They include the following:
• Review by the Planning Commission
• Discussion of parks and trails with the Park Commission
• Discussion with developer concerning public improvements
• Initiate EAW (environmental review) process
• Preliminary Plat in the Spring
Haggard asked about how this proposal relates to the requirements of the
Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Council.
Klatt explained that the Land Use Plan was written to meet the minimum numbers of
the MOU.
Williams asked how these figures vary with gross densities vs. net densities.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Klatt explained that gross densities is used for high level land use planning because it is
difficult to calculate net densities due to the fact that it is difficult to estimate the
amount of land removed due to roads and stormwater facilities. Ultimately, the net
density may be higher than the gross density because there is less land in the density
calculation. In the end, some sites may be near the bottom part of the density range,
whereas other sites may be near the higher end. It all depends on the site conditions
from project to project.
Fliflet asked how the construction of the 5th Street collector road system will be
addressed. In addition, Fliflet asked about the staging of constructing the road.
Klatt explained that the purpose of having the collector road system in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that the land owners and developers are fully aware of
the expected public improvements. Related to staging, Klatt explained that the City
anticipates that the road will be built as development proceeds throughout the I‐94
Corridor.
Williams explained how the road system was developed conceptually with the I‐94
Corridor Work Group.
Haggard asked how the access spacing guidelines apply to the 5th St. collector road.
Klatt explained that access spacing guidelines is determined by the road speed and road
classification as determined by the Transportation Plan. In this case, the spacing must
meet 1/8th of a mile.
Joe Jablonski, Lennar Homes discussed the history of Lennar homes and general
information about his company. Moving on to the proposal, Mr. Jablonski highlighted
several portions of the submittal, including details of the Comprehensive Plan, existing
conditions of the site, the Sketch Plan, the buffer cross sections abutting the Stonegate
neighborhood, the multi‐family portion of the plan, and a proposed cross section of the
future 5th St. collector road system.
Mr. Jablonski continued his presentation by describing how the home types will fit into
the neighborhoods, specifically detailing the 65’ and 75’ wide lots. He also showed
several examples of home types that Lennar builds on these home types.
Obermueller noted that the homes that Lennar proposes to include are not consistent
with the character that she had hoped to see.
Johnson explained the draft Design Standards Manual does not include single family
homes, or the LDR Zoning District. Staff anticipates that the design standards will be
ready for adoption in April 2013 in order to incorporate the work of the Theming
Project, led by Damon Farber and Associates.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Haggard commented that she hopes that there are sidewalks in front of every home. In
addition, she is concerned about the safety of children playing in the street with the
amount of traffic generated in the townhome portion.
Jablonski highlighted where public parking facilities are located within the townhome
development. These are intended to eliminate the need for on‐street parking.
Reeves commented that he is supportive of the curvilinear streets included in the
proposal.
Kreimer inquired about the different home styles for the 75’ and 65’ wide lot varieties.
In addition, he asked if Lennar has a general idea of what the cost of housing would be.
Jablonski noted that it is too early in the process to estimate expected costs.
Obermueller noted that she likes the design of the concept, including the lots and
streets. However, she would like that home design to be more traditional and reflective
of Lake Elmo.
Fliflet noted that she supports the design of the multi‐family area. In addition, she
commented that she thinks there are more access points to 5th St. than necessary.
Larson asked that all the trails be 10’ because it is the standard of the City.
Haggard noted that she would like to see rambler concepts as part of the multi‐family
portion specifically for seniors. In addition, she would like to ensure that there are safe
pedestrian crossings of 5th St.
Jablonski noted that Lennar encourages open areas within the townhome development
that have been utilized by families for play areas. They are typically maintained by the
association. Jablonski noted that Lennar will look at incorporating additional recreation
space in the townhome portion.
Reeves noted that he feels that perspective regarding architecture of single family
homes is subjective in nature.
Johnson noted that the City did conduct a visual preference survey in 2011. He also
noted that the Staff can share the results of the survey with the development
community.
Kreimer noted that the neighborhood will have a significant amount of children. He
would hope that an additional tot lot or small park would be included. In addition, he
made additional comments about the areas buffering the Stonegate neighborhood.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Williams noted that the proposal meets the intended goals of the Comp Plan. He also
noted that he is concerned about the location of the intersection of Keats Ave. N. and
5th St. In addition, he is concerned about the dead end streets in the multi‐family
development for safety concerns. In addition, he recommends that the Park
Commission look at all the proposed park and trail.
Jablonski noted that the purpose of presenting the concept was to receive feedback and
input. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present the concept
and discuss different elements of the plan.
City Council Updates
The City Council approved the Massage Licensing Ordinance at the Council meeting on
12/4/12, as well as the text amendment to change therapeutic massage to a permitted
use in the GB Zoning District.
Staff Updates
The Planning Commission will hold a workshop on Tuesday, December 18 at 6:30pm to
discuss Village Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Staff also gave an update regarding the status of terms for the members of the Planning
Commission.
The City Council appointed 5 new Planning Commission Members. They include Michael
Reeves, Tom Kreimer, Jay Morreale (alt.), Rolf Larson (alt.) and Abdalla Battah (alt.).
Commission Concerns ‐ None
Adjournment at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Johnson
City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes of December 18, 2012
Chairman Williams called to order the workshop of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
at 6:40p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fliflet, Hall, Obermueller, Larson, Kreimer, Reeves,
Morreale, Haggard and Williams;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Battah;
STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Zuleger, Planning Director Klatt and City Planner
Johnson
Approve Agenda:
The Commission accepted the agenda as presented.
Approve Minutes ‐ None
Business Item: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Village Land Use Plan
The meeting began with City Administrator Zuleger addressing the Planning Commission
about where the Comp Plan Amendment fits in the timeline of infrastructure planning
and review. He highlighted three key numbers:
• 180 Days: Amount of time it takes for a major Comp Plan Amendment to
proceed through adjacent jurisdiction and Met Council review.
• $1,000,000: The City was awarded a grant for extending the sewer to the Village,
but this expires in 2014.
• 515 Homes: The number of homes expected to be built by the end of 2015 as
programmed by the MOU.
Susie Dunn asked Staff to clarify the cost of the Wastewater Inefficiency Fees (WIFs).
Klatt explained the amount of costs associated with the WIFs.
Zuleger moved forward explaining how Staff interacts with the development
community. Staff does not recruit developers. Staff only responds to developers who
express interest in the community. Once these contacts have been made, Staff has
relayed information about serious development inquiries to the City Council and
Planning Commission. Finally, Staff is disciplined and cautious in its approach. Staff
conducts research and background checks on all interested developers.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Administrator Zuleger finished up by asking the Planning Commission to be mindful of
Staff’s approach, as well as the three numbers he discussed as the Commission reviews
these plans moving forward.
Planning Director Klatt began his presentation by outlining the draft proposal of a
Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment, highlighting the topics that are addressed in
the plan. Klatt the presented the Planned Land Use map contained with the proposed
amendment.
After describing the land uses of the community as a whole, Klatt presented a blown up
version of the Village Planned Land Use map. He took the group through all of the land
use categories within the land use plan, as well as the proposed densities. Related to
these land use categories, Klatt explained how the categories drive the proposed unit
counts. The proposed unit counts contained within this plan is 997 units outside of the
mixed use area.
Moving forward, Klatt presented the Village Open Space Plan, noting that previous plans
did not differentiate the different types of open space. The presented plan shows three
types of open space: Rural Preservation Areas, Natural Resource Preservation Areas,
and Greenbelt Corridors.
Moving ahead, Klatt further outlined the text of the document itself. It includes the
guiding principles of the plan, as well as the history of previous planning efforts in the
Village.
Regarding the MUSA boundary, Klatt presented a map showing a proposed change to
the Municipal Urban Service Boundary (MUSA).
Steve Delapp noted that the map should more precisely define the areas that will be
served by sanitary sewer, as opposed to simply by parcel line.
Klatt explained the next steps in terms of process. He also outlined a list of additional
work that will be important for implementation of next steps.
Steve Delapp noted that the plan should note that stormwater features should be
incorporated as amenities such as natural water courses and other features.
Klatt finished the presentation and opened the discussion up to questions.
Obermueller asked what efforts the City is making to work with the railroad on noise
mitigation and the crossing of the collector road system.
Williams noted that he is concerned with the approach of not reaching out to the
railroad companies as of yet.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Johnson noted that the collector road system in the Village is in the current
transportation plan. The railroad has been sent these plans when the City updated the
transportation plan in 2010.
Fliflet noted that due to the significance of the regional recreation facility, she noted
that she would prefer to show it on the Land Use Plan. She also noted that she thought
there would be more flexibility in unit counts as opposed to hard targets.
Haggard noted that due to the unit counts, there would only be 200 units available for
the mixed use areas if the City capped the units at the 1100. The group engaged in a
discussion about residential unit counts.
Haggard asked about ensuring that the intent of the Comp Plan is followed when
development proposals come forward.
Johnson explained how implementation through preliminary plat and zoning code
Give the Planning Commission additional avenues for review for whatever projects
come forward.
Mr. David Deebach made a comment that there must be enough density to warrant
urban services for the development community to commit.
Steve Delapp commented on the HWY‐5 transportation corridor. He also noted that the
growth in the Village will drive the traffic levels up.
Williams asked about the potential uses within the open space. In addition, are these
spaces public?
Klatt noted that more than likely these open areas would be private. However, the City
could negotiate for trail easements through park dedication.
Williams asked about the pursuit of conservation easements in the natural resource
preservation areas and rural preservation areas.
Johnson noted that some grant funding may be available. In addition, the City should
consider prioritizing areas for conservation easement in order to systematically
incorporate these easements.
The group engaged in a discussion regarding pedestrian safety around HWY‐5.
Following that discussion, the group discussed the need and practicality of design
standards for single family homes in the Village and Lake Elmo in general.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Williams wanted additional text to be included regarding the existing conditions of
stormwater management for different areas in the Village.
Sue Dunn asked if there is a direct correlation between the number of RECs distributed
to the I‐94 Corridor and Village.
Klatt noted that the two plans together meet the total required amount of residential
RECs as spelled out in the MOU.
Sue Dunn made the point that she hopes to see the mature trees north of the Brookman
site preserved or included as part of an open space area. Klatt noted that Staff is
looking at a tree preservation ordinance. Ms. Dunn also noted that she supports design
standards. Finally, she wanted the new planning commissioners who are not as familiar
with the Village to be cognizant of the surface water issues that exist in the area.
Tom Kreimer asked if design standards could be handled collaboratively with HOAs.
There was a general discussion about design standards.
Steve Delapp made the point that 50% of the sites in the Village should be left open for
open space. He asked if this seemed reasonable.
The Planning Commission engaged in a general discussion about the implications of a
larger Greenbelt Corridor.
Jay Morreale asked about what kind of land protection would be offered to protect
open space.
Staff explained that the City has developed a good relationship with the MN Land Trust
over many years of conservation efforts. This relationship should be utilized to
strategically pursue conservation easements in areas of high cultural or environmental
quality. In addition, Staff is exploring other funding mechanisms, such as the Metro
Greenways Program.
The group engaged in a discussion about unit allocation and densities in relation to
clustering.
Planning Commission gave Staff direction to increase the greenbelt on the East side, as
well try to make the plan more walkable by increasing densities north of the railroad
tracks.
Williams commented about the Village Green. The group discussed different aspects of
the gathering space.
Williams thanked Staff and the members of the Village Work Group for their hard work.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12‐10‐12
Obermueller noted that she thinks the collector road system is critically important to
the Village Land Use Plan. She felt that the City should work collaboratively with the
railroad to ensure that a crossing is provided for.
Haggard‐ Theming
Meeting Adjourned 9:50p.m.
Respectfully,
Nick Johnson
Planning Commission
Date: 1/14/13
Item: 5b
Public Hearing
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit – Valley Branch Watershed District:
Raleigh Creek Culvert Removal
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
______________________________________
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is asked to consider an application by the Valley Branch
Watershed District (VBWD) for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to remove a
culvert located at Raleigh Creek and the former 28th Street. As part of the culvert
removal, the VBWD must obtain and CUP in order to commence grading work within a
floodplain per the requirements of §152.04, Floodway District. The project is being
completed at the request of the City in response to requests by nearby residents to
mitigate instances of flooding in the area due to blockages in the culvert during freezing
temperatures.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The area surrounding the culvert located at Raleigh Creek and the former 28th Street has
experienced flooding due to blockages caused by ice. The VBWD has previously
attempted to remedy this situation by deicing the culvert through various methods. These
efforts have proved ineffective and costly. In order to remedy this situation, the VBWD
has determined to remove the culvert to respond to the complaints of nearby property-
owners.
The grading that is to occur is intended to return the creek to its original pre-culvert
cross-section or natural vegetative state. As part of the VBWD’s application, they have
submitted a grading plan to detail the parameters of the grading work. Additional details
can be found in the VBWD application materials, as well as the City Engineer Report
(1/11/13). Per the Engineer’s comments, Staff will work with VBWD if any difficulties
arise as part of the grading project. In addition, the applicant should be cognizant of the
other comments found in the Engineer’s report, including notification of adjacent
property owners, required erosion control efforts, and notification of any significant tree
removal.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5b – ACTION ITEM
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5b – ACTION ITEM
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional
Use Permit to allow for grading within a floodplain to facilitate the removal of the culvert
located at Raleigh Creek and the former 28th St. with the following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit required to remove the
culvert at Raleigh Creek by the Valley Branch Watershed District.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
2. VBWD Application Materials
3. City Engineer Report – 1/11/13
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing ............................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing ............................................................................ Chair
- Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Conditional Use Permit Request
To: Planning Commission
From: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Meeting Date: January 14, 2013
Applicant: Valley Branch Watershed District
Owner: City of Lake Elmo and Valley Branch Watershed District
Location: Raleigh Creek and Former 28th Street
Introductory Information
Application
Summary:
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit from
the Valley Branch Watershed District to conduct grading work within a floodplain.
The proposed grading is part of a project to remove a culvert and road section located
at Raleigh Creek and the former 28th Street. The project is being completed at the
request of the City to mitigate problems with flooding in the area caused by
inadequate flowage by the culvert. The end goal of the project is to return the creek to
its original vegetative state or cross-section.
Property
Information:
The project site is located to the northwest of Eagle Point Lake on 4 properties,
including property owned by the Valley Branch Watershed District, City of Lake
Elmo, and Jon and Carol Duerscherl, on which the VBWD has a surface water
drainage easement. The project will be completed to the west of the intersection of
Jamley Ave. N. and 28th St. N. The area to the northwest of the culvert has
experienced significant flooding due to the flowage being clocked by ice during
periods of below freezing temperatures.
Applicable
Codes:
Section 152.04 Floodway District.
States that “Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials” in a
floodway is a Conditional Use.
Findings & General Site Overview
Site Data: Existing Use: Public Right-of-Way (ROW)
Property Identification Numbers (PID): 21.029.21.14.0005
Application Review:
CUP/Grading As part of the project to remove the culvert at Raleigh Creek, the VBWD will conduct
CUP Request; Valley Branch Watershed District
Planning Commission Report; 1/14/13
Page 2
Review: grading work intended to return Raleigh Creek back to its original cross section or
vegetative state. This will allow for the flooding that was cause by blockages in the
culvert to be mitigated. As part of the application, the VBWD has noted that there
will be no increase in the 100-year flood elevation on either side of the culvert. As the
project has been requested by the City, Staff will work with the VBWD to ensure that
no negative impacts will result to adjacent property owners. The comments outlined
in the City Engineer’s Report (1/11/13) should be followed to ensure that no negative
impacts occur. Please refer to the Engineer’s report for additional information
surrounding the Raleigh Creek culvert removal.
Conditional
Use Permit
Conclusions:
Based on the above analysis and Staff review, Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the CUP based on the following:
1. The proposed project is being completed at the request of the City.
2. The applicant has submitted a grading plan that meets with the requirements of
the City Code.
Resident
Concerns:
A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the
applicant’s property. Staff has not received any feedback from any surrounding
property owners.
Additional
Information:
None
Conclusion:
The applicant is seeking approval to conduct grading within a floodplain in order to
remove a culvert and road section located at Raleigh Creek and the former 28th Street.
Staff Rec:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
request for a Conditional Use Permit in order to complete the City requested project of
culvert removal at Raleigh Creek.
cc: John Hanson, Barr Engineering
Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering
David Bucheck, Valley Branch Watershed District
MEMORANDUM FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson 651.300.4283
Date: January 7, 2013
To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: City of Lake Elmo
Cc: Ryan Stempski, P.E., Assistant City Engineer VBWD 28th Street Culvert Removal
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
We have received updated materials for the Conditional Use Permit and Excavating & Grading Permit application
for the VBWD 28th Street Culvert Removal. The following items were received in addition to the items identified
in the December 26, 2012 Memo prepared by Jack Griffin, City Engineer:
• 28th Street Culvert Grading Plan received via email on December 27, 2012.
• Project Narrative received via email on January 4, 2013.
We have reviewed the application materials and have the following comments:
1. The applicant has provided the limits of construction and has indicated that all work will be contained
within public rights‐of‐way or VBWD easements. Property Owner notifications regarding the construction
activity is the responsibility of the VBWD.
2. The applicant has provided a proposed grading plan and project narrative describing the nature of the
work to be completed. Accordingly the applicant is indicating that there are no utilities, structures or
trees that will be disturbed as a result of the project with the exception of the 28th Street 73‐inch arch
culvert, flared end sections and the overlying bituminous road.
3. No significant trees are to be damaged or removed. Should any significant trees need to be removed
during construction, they must be clearly identified and reviewed by the City of Lake Elmo prior to
removal.
4. The applicant has submitted hydraulic calculations indicating that there will be no negative floodplain
impacts to adjacent properties, both upstream and downstream from the project.
5. Implementation and enforcement of erosion and sediment control meeting city standards will be the
responsibility of VBWD throughout the project. The VBWD is required to re‐establish vegetation for
disturbed areas.
PAGE 1 of 1
Planning Commission
Date: 1/14/13
Item: 6a
Business Item
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Planned Unit Development Ordinance
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
______________________________________
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is asked to review a zoning text amendment that would allow
for the addition of a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing on 12/10/12 on the proposed amendment, at which
time the item was tabled. The purpose of the new ordinance is to implement best
practices related to procedure, the incorporation of public amenities, and a structured
approach to density bonuses. In addition, the PUD Ordinance is part of an ongoing
effort to make significant improvements to the structure and organization of the Zoning
Code.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the meeting on December 12, 2012, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing
and reviewed the proposed PUD Ordinance. Given the complexity of the proposed
ordinance, the item was tabled to give the Commission additional time to review the
material. From the perspective of Staff, three discussion points remain in regard to
potential amendments to the draft ordinance. These discussion points are the following:
1. Identified Objectives – The Planning Commission should review the objectives to
ensure that they are consistent with the community’s goals for planned
developments.
2. Density – The draft ordinance suggests a density increase of residential units up to
a maximum of twenty (20) percent. The value of the density increase should be
discussed in the context of the possible site amenities that will be included in
planned developments as a tradeoff.
3. Site Amenities – The draft ordinance provides a list of site amenities and
associated amenity points that will be required to achieve density bonuses. The
Planning Commission asked to further review the site amenities, as well as their
associated amenity points.
BUSINESS ITEM 6a – ACTION ITEM
2
BUSINESS ITEM 6a – ACTION ITEM
From reviewing the draft ordinance at the previous meeting, these three discussion points
should comprise the key issues of review within the ordinance.
In addition to summarizing the key point of discussion, it should be noted that Greg
Malmquist, the Lake Elmo Fire Chief, submitted a letter requesting that the Planning
Commission consider life safety enhancements within construction as a site amenity that
is worthy of some level of density bonus. More specifically, the Fire Chief requests that
structures that install sprinkler systems that are not currently required to by code be
worthy of a density bonus. In addition to overall safety improvement, the Fire Chief has
noted in the attached letter that having sprinkled structures allows for minimized property
loss in case of fire, increased spacing between fire hydrants and reduced road widths,
among other benefits. It should be noted that Rick Chase, the City’s Building Official,
also signed the letter, demonstrating his support of this proposal.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
proposed PUD Ordinance through the following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance
in order to incorporate best practices related to the execution of PUDs”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. DRAFT PUD Ordinance (§154.800)
2. Letter from Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief of Lake Elmo Fire Department
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-1 Planned Unit Development
ARTICLE 17. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REGULATIONS
§154.800 Intent
§154.801 Identified Objectives
§154.802 Allowed Development
§154.803 Minimum Requirements
§154.804 Density
§154.805 Coordination with Other Regulations
§154.806 Phasing and Guarantee of Performance
§154.807 Control of Planned Unit Development
§154.808 Procedures for Processing a Planned Unit Development
§154.809 Application Requirements for General Concept Plan and Final Plan
§154.810 City Cost
§154.800 Intent
This article establishes the procedures and standards for the development of areas as unified, planned
developments in accordance with the intent and purpose of this zoning ordinance and the applicable
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Because of the larger size of PUDs and to help achieve the
identified objectives for planned unit development sites, this article provides for flexibility in the use
of land and the placement and size of buildings in order to better utilize site features and obtain a
higher quality of development. Approval of a planned unit development shall result in a zoning change
to a specific PUD district, with specific requirements and standards that are unique to that
development.
§154.801 Identified Objectives
When reviewing requests for approval of a planned unit development, the City shall consider whether
one or more of the objectives listed below will be served or achieved. 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 along corridors and in transitional areas;
C. Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities
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 opportunities for senior and more
affordable housing options;
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 through adaptive reuse of
public or private preservation of land;
G. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility with
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 techniques; and
§154.802 Allowed Development
Uses within the PUD may include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land
use category shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses
and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan.
The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become
permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in the list of uses approved
in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD, and will follow the procedures
specified in Article 3, Administration, for zoning amendments.
A. Permitted uses. The PUD application shall identify all proposed land uses and those uses shall
become permitted uses upon the approval of the planned unit development.
B. Placement of structures. More than one principal building may be placed on a platted lot
within a planned unit development. The appearance and compatibility of buildings in relation
to one another, other site elements, and surrounding development shall be considered in the
review process.
C. Development intensity. The PUD may provide for an increase in the maximum gross floor area
or floor area ratio by up to twenty percent (20%) of that allowed in the base zoning district, for
the purpose of promoting project integration and additional site amenities.
D. Density. The PUD may provide for an increase in density of residential development by up to
twenty percent (20%) of that allowed in the base zoning district, for the purpose of promoting
diversity of housing types and additional site amenities. Additional residential densities of
varying levels will be awarded based upon the provision of a combination of various site
amenities outlined in Section 154.804.
E. Building setbacks. The PUD may provide for a reduction in or elimination of required setbacks
in the base zoning district, provided that a landscaped setback area of the minimum width
established for the base zoning district is maintained along the periphery of the adjacent
zoning district(s).
F. Lot requirements. The Council may authorize reductions in the area and width of individual
lots within a PUD from that required for the base zoning district, provided that such reductions
are compensated for by an equivalent amount of open space or other public amenities
elsewhere in the planned unit development. Any open space shall not include areas designated
as public or private streets. The plan may increase the maximum density beyond that
permitted in the base zoning district for the purpose of promoting an integrated project with a
variety of housing types and additional site amenities.
G. Other exceptions. As part of PUD approval, the Council is authorized to approve other
exceptions to the zoning controls applicable to the base zoning district, such as the maximum
height of structures or the minimum off-street parking requirements. Such exceptions shall
only be granted when they are clearly warranted to achieve the objectives identified in Section
154.801.
§154.803 Minimum Requirements
A. Lot area. A PUD must include a minimum of five (5) acres for undeveloped land or two (2)
acres for developed land within the approved development. Tracts of less than two (2) acres
may be approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that a project of superior design can be
achieved to meet one or more of the identified objectives listed in Section 154.801, or that
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies can be attained through the use of
the PUD process. The Planning Commission shall authorize submittal of a PUD for a tract of
less than two acres prior to submittal of a general concept plan application.
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-2 Planned Unit Development
B. Open space. For all PUDs, at least twenty percent (20%) of the project area not within street
rights-of-way shall be preserved as protected open space. Other public amenities may be
approved as an alternative to this requirement. Any required open space must be available to
the residents, tenants, or customers of the PUD for recreational purposes or similar benefit.
Land reserved for stormwater detention facilities and other required site improvements may be
applied to this requirement. Open space shall be designed to meet the needs of residents of
the PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods, to the extent practicable, for parks, playgrounds,
playing fields and other recreational facilities.
C. Street layout. In existing developed areas, the PUD should maintain the existing street grid,
where present, and restore the street grid where it has been disrupted. In newly developing
areas, streets shall be designed to maximize connectivity in each cardinal direction, except
where environmental or physical constraints make this infeasible. All streets shall terminate at
other streets, at public land, or at a park or other community facility, except that local streets
may terminate in stub streets when those will be connected to other streets in future phases of
the development or adjacent developments.
§154.804 Density
The PUD may provide for an increase in density of residential development by up to twenty percent
(20%) of that allowed in the base zoning district. Applicants seeking increased residential density
through a Planned Unit Development are required to provide at least one (1) or a combination of site
amenities that equal the required amount of amenity points to achieve the desired density bonus.
A. Amenity Points and Equivalent Density Increases. Increases in density will be awarded through
a 1:1 ratio with amenity points. For every increase in amenity points for a Planned Unit
Development, the applicant will be allowed an equivalent amount of density increase, up to a
maximum increase of twenty percent (20%). Table 15-1 outlines the required amount of
amenity points to achieve various density increases.
Table 15-1: Amenity Points and Equivalent Density Increases
Amenity Points Density Increase
5 5%
10 10%
15 15%
20 20%
B. Site Amenities. Site amenities that are eligible for amenity points are listed in Table 15-2,
including the associated standards of implementation. Where the amenity does not meet all of
the standards required in Table 15-2, no points shall be awarded. Partial points for site
amenities shall not be awarded, except as otherwise allowed in Table 15-2.
Table 15-2: Site Amenities
Points Amenity Standards
10 Underground/Contained
Parking
Proposed underground or contained parking must fit into the
building footprint. The purpose of this amenity is to better
integrate parking into the site, as well as reduce impervious
surface. Surface parking outside of the footprint of the
structure must be reduced by seventy-five percent (75%) to
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-3 Planned Unit Development
qualify. The facade of any parking areas above the finished
floor of the first level must match the architectural design of
the structure.
10 Historic Preservation
Preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of designated historic
landmarks in a manner that is consistent with the standards for
rehabilitation of the Secretary of the Interior as part of the
development.
10 Additional Open Space
A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the site not occupied by
buildings shall be landscaped outdoor open space. A minimum
of fifty percent (50%) of the provided open space shall be
contiguous. Open space classifications that qualify may include
natural habitat, neighborhood recreation, trail corridors or
open space buffers.
10 Public Right-of-Way
Dedication
Dedication of land and construction of a public road, trail,
pathway, or greenway that is part of an approved City plan, but
outside the scope of the immediate project area. Right-of-way
improvements should be designed per the specification of the
City Engineer.
5
Leadership in Energy
and Environmental
Design
The proposed development shall meet the minimum standards
for LEED Silver certification. The project does not have to
achieve actual LEED certification; however, the developer must
submit the LEED checklist and documentation to the City,
approved by a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED-AP), which
shows that the project will comply with LEED Silver
requirements.
5 Pedestrian
Improvements
A site and building design that allows for exceptional and
accessible pedestrian and/or bicycle access through and/or
around a site. The improvements shall use a combination of
trails, landscaping, decorative materials, access control and
lighting to create safe, clear and aesthetically pleasing
pedestrian facilities through and /or around the site that
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility
requirements.
5 Adaptive Reuse Significant renovation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of an
existing building(s), rather than demolition.
5 Plaza
Plazas shall have a minimum area equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the site not occupied by buildings, but not less than
two thousand (2,000) square feet. Plazas for commercial or
mixed-use development shall be open to the public during
daylight hours.
3 Enhanced Stormwater
Management
Provide capacity for infiltrating stormwater generated onsite
with artful rain garden design that serves as a visible amenity.
Rain garden designs shall be visually compatible with the form
and function of the space and shall include long-term
maintenance of the design. The design shall conform to the
requirements per the Minnesota Stormwater Manual and shall
meet the approval of the City Engineer.
3 Theming
Significant utilization of various elements of Theming consistent
with the 2013 Lake Elmo Theming Project, including but not
limited to signage, fencing, landscaping and site furnishings.
3 Natural Features Site planning that preserves significant natural features or
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-4 Planned Unit Development
restores ecological functions of a previously damaged natural
environment.
1 Enhanced Landscaping
A Landscaping Plan of exceptional design that has a variety of
native tree, shrub and plan types that provide seasonal interest
and that exceeds the requirements of the Lake Elmo Design
Standards Manual. The landscaped areas should have a
resource efficient irrigation system. The Landscaping Plan shall
be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
§154.805 Coordination With Other Regulations
A. Coordination with subdivision review. Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations
shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this
Article shall be submitted in a form that will satisfy the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance for the preliminary and final plat.
B. Coordination with other zoning requirements. All of the provisions of this Chapter applicable
to the original district within which the Planned Unit Development District is established shall
apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the Final Plan.
§154.806 Phasing and Guarantee of Performance
A. Planning Commission role. The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development
accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule.
B. Schedule extension. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause
shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule.
C. Phasing of amenities. The construction and provision of all of the common open space, site
amenities and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan
must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development
Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the
construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of
dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces, site amenities and public
and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this
information to the Council for action.
D. Guarantees. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be required to guarantee
performance by the developer. The amount of this bond or letter of credit, and the specific
elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the
development agreement.
E. Changes during development period.
1. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by
the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not
foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Planning Director.
2. Changes in uses, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development
plan may be made only under the procedures for zoning amendments, Article 3. Any
changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development
plan.
F. Rezoning to original district. If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable
time after approval of the PUD Zoning District, the City Council may instruct the Planning
Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the
City Council to find that the rezoning was in error.
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-5 Planned Unit Development
§154.807 Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion
A. Final development plan controls subsequent use. After the certificate of occupancy has been
issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or
structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan.
B. Allowed changes. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be
made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below:
1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may
be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are consistent with the
purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase
the cubic volume of any building or structure by more than ten percent.
2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed
only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final
development plan is approved under this chapter.
C. Amendment required for major changes. Any other changes in the final development plan,
including any changes in the use of common open space, must be authorized by an amendment
of the final development plan under the procedures for Zoning Amendments, Article 3.
§154.808 Procedures for Processing a Planned Unit Development.
There are four stages to the PUD process: application conference, general concept plan, preliminary
plan and final plan, as described below.
A. Application Conference. Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed
PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Planning Director. The primary purpose
of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information
and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his or her proposal for the area for which it
is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Article before incurring substantial
expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data.
B. General Concept Plan. The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to
submit a plan to the city showing his or her basic intent and the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. The plan should include the following: overall
density ranges, general location of residential and nonresidential land uses, their types and
intensities, general location of streets, paths and open space, and approximate phasing of the
development.
C. Preliminary Plan. Following approval of the General Concept Plan, the applicant shall submit a
Preliminary Plan application and preliminary plat, in accordance with the requirements
described in Section 153.07. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance
with the procedures in this ordinance for zoning changes.
D. Final Plan. Following approval of the Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall submit a Final Plan
application and final plat, in accordance with the requirements described in Section 153.08.
The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with the procedures in this
ordinance for zoning changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the
preliminary plan and final plan may proceed simultaneously.
E. Schedule for Plan Approval.
1. Developer presents the General Concept Plan to the Planning Commission for their review
and comment.
2. Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Planning Director that the required plan
and supporting data are adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing,
with public notice.
3. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the City Council.
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-6 Planned Unit Development
4. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational
factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational
factors.
5. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations
from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within 60
days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the
report. The Council may approve the General Concept Plan and attach such conditions as it
deems reasonable.
6. Following approval of the General Concept Plan, the application may proceed to the
Preliminary Plan phase.
7. Developer presents the Preliminary Plan to the Planning Commission for their review and
comment.
8. Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Planning Director that the required plan
and supporting data are adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing,
with public notice.
9. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the City Council.
10. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational
factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational
factors.
11. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations
from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within 60
days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the
report. The Council may approve the Preliminary Plan and attach such conditions as it
deems reasonable.
12. Following approval of the Preliminary Plan, the application may proceed to the Final Plan
phase.
13. Developer presents the Final Plan to the Planning Commission for their review and
comment.
14. Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Planning Director that the required plan
and supporting data are adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing,
with public notice.
15. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the City Council.
16. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational
factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational
factors.
17. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations
from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within 60
days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the
report. The Council may approve the Final Plan and attach such conditions as it deems
reasonable.
§154.809 Application Requirements for General Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan and Final
Plan.
Ten copies of the following plans, exhibits and documents shall be submitted at both the General
Concept Plan stage, Preliminary Plan stage and the Final Plan stage.
A. General Concept Plan Stage
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-7 Planned Unit Development
1. General information
a. The landowner’s name and address and his/her interest in the subject property.
b. The applicant’s name and address if different from the landowner.
c. The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the
development of the PUD plan being submitted, including but not limited to attorney,
land planner, engineer and surveyor.
2. Present Status
a. The address and legal description of the property.
b. The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands
within 350 feet of the subject property.
c. A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all land within
350 feet of the subject property and showing the location of existing streets, property
lines, easements, water mains, and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations
on and within 100 feet of the subject property.
d. Site conditions: Where deemed necessary by the City, graphic reproductions of the
existing site conditions at a scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet shall be
submitted and contain the following:
i. Contours; minimum five foot (5’) intervals.
ii. Location, type and extent of tree cover.
iii. Slope analysis.
iv. Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands, streams, and flood plains
within 300 feet of the subject property.
e. A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and showing its relationship
to the City Comprehensive Plan.
f. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept, including but not limited to
the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space,
residential and other land uses.
g. Proposed design features related to proposed streets, showing right-of-way widths,
typical cross-sections, and areas other than streets including but not limited to
pedestrian ways, utility easements and stormwater facilities.
h. Statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a
tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and
as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following:
i. Area devoted to residential use by building type.
ii. Area devoted to common open space.
iii. Area devoted to public open space and public amenities.
iv. Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading
spaces and related access.
v. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses.
vi. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use.
i. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond
a single construction season, a preliminary schedule for the development of such stages
or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-8 Planned Unit Development
each such stage and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to
stage.
j. The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or
document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration
of the specific proposal.
k. The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation
which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD.
B. Preliminary Plan Stage
1. Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision title.
2. General information:
a. The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property.
b. The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner.
c. The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the
development of the PUD plan being submitted, including but not limited to attorney,
land planner, engineer and surveyor.
d. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to
effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy
and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-
to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other
evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the
subject property.
3. Present Status:
a. The address and legal description of the property.
b. The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands
within 350 feet of the property.
c. A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within 350 feet
thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements,
water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one
hundred feet of the property.
d. A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is
intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive
Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to
permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the
applicable regulations of the City.
e. A statement of the proposed financing of the PUD.
f. Site conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one
(1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet. All of the graphics should be at the same scale
as the final plan to allow easy cross-reference. The use of overlays is recommended
for ease of analysis.
i. Contours; minimum two foot (2’) intervals.
ii. Location, type and extent of tree cover.
iii. Slope analysis.
iv. Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains
within 300 feet of the property.
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-9 Planned Unit Development
v. Significant rock outcroppings.
vi. Existing drainage patterns.
vii. Vistas and significant views.
viii. Soil conditions as they affect development.
g. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept, including but not limited to
the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space,
residential and other land uses.
h. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and
a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres
and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following:
i. Area devoted to residential use by building type.
ii. Area devoted to common open space.
iii. Area devoted to public open space and public amenities.
iv. Approximate area devoted to streets.
v. Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading
spaces and related access.
vi. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses.
vii. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use.
i. When the proposed PUD includes increases in density of residential development above
the base zoning district, a statement describing the site amenities to be included
within the PUD, and demonstrating that the proposed site amenities sufficiently
achieve the desired density bonus. Applicant is required to demonstrate that all site
amenity standards have been met in order to be awarded increased density for
residential development.
j. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond
a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units
shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each
such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space
and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall
chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage.
k. When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service
facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and
maintenance of such open space or service facilities.
l. Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in
the proposed PUD.
m. Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers.
n. The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or
document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration
of the specific proposal.
o. The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation
which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD.
C. Final Plan Stage. Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed
implementations of the Preliminary Plan stage for the PUD. Information from the General
Concept and Preliminary Plan stages may be included for background and to provide a basis for
the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to:
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-10 Planned Unit Development
1. A final plat and information required by the City’s subdivision ordinance.
2. Final plans drawn to a scale of not less than 1 inch = 100 feet (or a scale requested by the
Zoning Administrator) containing at least the following information:
a. Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in
pronunciation to the name of any plat heretofore recorded in the county where the
subject property is situated).
b. Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant
topographical or physical features of the property.
c. The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total
square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, including
manufactured homes, and existing buildings which will remain, if any.
d. Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading
spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and
pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements.
e. Location, designation and total area of all common open space.
f. Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public
open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities.
g. The location of applicable site amenities, if any.
h. Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system.
i. The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties.
j. Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping.
k. General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD.
l. Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or
Council in conjunction with the approval of the Preliminary Plan.
3. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final
development plan approval is sought.
4. A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population.
5. Density calculations, including proposed density bonuses above the base zoning district. To
be granted increased density of residential development, the applicant must submit a
schedule of site amenities with proposed designs and standards. The applicant must
demonstrate that site amenity standards in Table 15-2 have been met to be rewarded
additional density.
6. A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor
space by type of activity (e.g. retail or office).
7. Preliminary architectural “typical” plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior
wall finishes of proposed building, including manufactured homes.
8. A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and
purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block,
public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile
homes, and uses.
9. Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and
natural site vegetation. The Plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its
conformance with the approved concept plan.
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-11 Planned Unit Development
DRAFT 12/18/12 17-12 Planned Unit Development
10. A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, Department of Natural
Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or any other agency with review
authority, clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and
as permanent measures.
§154.810 City Costs
The applicant shall make a deposit of a fee escrow with the City for the purpose of reimbursing any
costs directly related to a given development. Such costs include but are not limited to professional
fees and expenses incurred by the City for consultants (including but not limited to planners,
engineers, architects and attorneys) who the City determines in its sole judgment are necessary to
assist in reviewing, implementing or enforcing the provisions of this article. The amount of the
deposit, and any addition to it that the City may later require, shall be established by the Planning
Director. The City and the applicant may agree to share the costs of consultants based upon a specific
written agreement. Any funds not used by the City shall be returned to the applicant at the conclusion
of the project.
Planning Commission
Date: 1/14/13
Item: 6b
Business
ITEM: 2012 Community Development Department Annual Report
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Rick Chase, Building Official
Dean Zuleger, City Administrator
______________________________________
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is asked to review and provide input on the Community
Development Department’s annual report for 2012. The Planning Commission is asked
to provide input and accept the report so that it may be forwarded onto the City Council.
Staff will present the key highlights of the report and distribute it at the meeting on
1/14/13.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The annual report is intended to summarize activities within the Community
Development Department. These activities include all building and planning activities in
2012.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the 2012 annual report with the
following motion:
“Move to accept the 2012 Community Development Department Annual Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2012 Community Development Department Annual Report – will be distr
at the meeting.
ibuted
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff
BUSINESS ITEM 6b – ACTION ITEM
2
BUSINESS ITEM 6b – ACTION ITEM
- Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members