HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 11-13-13
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
Wednesday, November 13, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. October 28, 2013
4. Public Hearings - None
5. Business Items
a. RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED DISCUSSION. The Planning
Commission is asked to continue it discussion concerning rural development areas
and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning future growth and
development in these areas.
b. DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE UPDATE. The Planning Commission will receive
an update from staff regarding an effort to update the city’s ordinance related to
driveways. This amendment is a continuous improvement effort in collaboration
with the Building and Engineering Departments.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates:
i. Diedrich-Reider Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved contingent
upon Met Council approval.
ii. Village Mixed Use Zoning District – Approved with modifications
November 6, 2013.
iii. Design Standards Manual and design guidelines ordinance amendments –
Postponed until workshop review on November 12, 2013.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• November 25, 2013
• December 9, 2013
• December 23, 2013 – CANCEL?
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of October 28, 2013
Vice Chairman Larson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Haggard, Lundgren, Dorschner, Dodson, Larson, Kreimer
and Morreale;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams; and
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt, City Planner Johnson, City Clerk Bell and
Deputy Clerk Gumatz.
Approve Agenda:
The Planning Commission accepted the agenda as presented.
Approve Minutes: October 14, 2013
M/S/P: Kreimer/Morreale, move to accept the minutes of October 14, 2013 as
presented, Vote: 5-0, Motion Carried, with Haggard and Lundgren not voting.
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Diedrich Property
Johnson explained that there is a request by the property owners to amend the Lake
Elmo Comprehensive Plan by changing the future land use designation of the property
located within the I-94 Corridor planning area from HDR to MDR. The applicants have a
contract with Pratt homes and have submitted a preliminary sketch plan. This property
is 14.3 acres and is a critical pinch point for the minor collector road (5th Street) that is
to serve East-West traffic in the I-94 Corridor. The property to the South, the Landucci
Property, was recently granted a similar amendment contingent on approval of the Met
Council.
The small size of this parcel will not have a large impact on the City to achieve the
population forecast. The current lack of interest in high density housing makes it
important to be responsive to market driven development to provide a reasonable
return on major infrastructure improvements. The City is continuing to work towards
reduction of growth targets in the MOU.
There was some concern that there was no park land included in this development and
none in the Landucci development. Dodson asked if the 2 properties could partner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
2
together to at least put a tot lot in place. Johnson stated that the City is working to
partner with ISD #834 to put a park at Oakland Junior High. Johnson stated that he will
pass along the concerns to the Parks Commission, but he thinks that Parks Commission
is looking more at adding trails and having area parks and not a park for every
development.
Morreale stated that he is concerned about making this decision before we have a
formal reduction by the Met Council. He is concerned that a reduction in one area could
ultimately force a higher density in another area. Johnson stated that the future
reduction of RECs will likely occur in the commercial and high density areas.
Dorschner stated that his understanding is that it is likely that the number will go down
and that there is low risk that we will have to add density to another area. Johnson
confirmed that it is his opinion that based on the model, those numbers will go down.
We have an opportunity for a development and it does help us utilize the infrastructure
that is being planned for this area.
Public Hearing opened at 7:30pm
Len Pratt, homebuilder, and Tammy Diedrich, the property owner, spoke about the
reasons for the amendment request. Mr. Pratt explained why the amendment is
necessary, as the market is not responsive to the amount of density that the property is
currently programmed for. He noted that they are planning a townhome development
that is consistent with the City’s MDR category. The homes that are being planned for
the site are empty nester type homes.
Steve Delapp, 8468 Lake Jane Trail, spoke about the purpose of the Planning
Commission. He stated that they are there to support the Lake Elmo residents. He also
noted his support for the Comp Plan Amendment, as the City should take every
opportunity to reduce density.
Public Hearing closed at 7:44pm.
Haggard supports the staff’s effort to work with the Met Council and she stated that she
trusts the staff in that this action won’t lead to more density in another location in the
future.
Kreimer agrees and supports the request, especially with the reduction of the Landucci
property.
Morreale supports the request, especially if it is what the market will support.
Larson made a comment that it would be nice to have more open space and trails that
connect so there would be a general flow.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
3
M/S/P: Dorschner/Morreale, move to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment request with the findings outlines in the Staff Repot, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Design Review
Johnson started his presentation regarding the design review procedures for
development activity in urban residential and commercial districts. The design standard
manual is a comprehensive approach to design standards. This action would replace the
existing language and would move the review process to the zoning administration
section.
Public Hearing opened at 7:55 pm
Greg McGrath, 1509 15th St. Ct. N., asked who is in charge of reviewing the design
standards. Johnson stated that whoever is authorized to issue the permit is the review
body.
Public hearing closed at 8:01pm
Rolf asked who at the City would respond to concerns or problems regarding the design
standards. Johnson noted that staff would work with the applicants. Dorschner stated
that there is always a process for a resident to voice their concerns.
M/S/P: Dodson/Haggard, move to recommend approval of the Design Review
Ordinance, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item: Design Standards Manual
There were a number of changes requested by the Planning Commission at the last
meeting that have been incorporated.
Dodson asked about the Damon Farber document. He would have liked to see more of
that in the document. Johnson mentioned that it was incorporated by a couple of
images and the streetscape subsection included references. Johnson stated that the
theming document is widely distributed to developers. The two documents are closely
related, but do serve two different purposes.
Haggard would like to see more of the 2007 images or ones that are really amazing or
our ideal. In addition, she recommended excluding vinyl siding as a primary building
material in the commercial district. There was consensus regarding this change.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
4
Haggard also inquired if the property guided for commercial at TH-55 and Manning
would fall under commercial standards or mixed use as it is the entrance to the Village
area. Johnson stated that the underlying zoning determined the design review. Also, he
noted that Planning Commission does have the authority to work with the applicant
regarding architectural and site design at the time of final development approval.
M/S/P: Larson/Lundgren, move to recommend approval of the Lake Elmo Design
Standards Manual with discussed amendments, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item: Rural Growth Discussion
Klatt began his presentation by providing history about Lake Elmo comprehensive
planning efforts related to the current rural land use categories. The adoption of the
1979 Comp Plan initiated the adoption of the A and RR zones, requiring 10 acre
minimum lots. This zoning did not apply to the existing lots of record that were platted
in the earlier history of the community. Klatt moved forward by describing the changes
to the regulations for rural areas: These changes include:
• Residential Estates Zoning (1990)
• Open Space Preservation Development Zoning (1996)
• The urban growth plan, creation of the RAD land use category (2005)
At the time of the 2005 Comp Plan Update, the RAD-2 category was also incorporated
into the Land Use Plan.
Klatt moved on to explain how the various rural land use categories were utilized to
account for future growth in the Rural Planning Area. The City studied three scenarios of
growth: conservative, moderate and aggressive. These scenarios differed by how the
zoning rules would apply for future Open Space Preservation (OP) developments. He
noted that the conservative approach did not meet the required growth targets for the
rural area (1,259 households needed).
Klatt also highlighted the ongoing discussion being led by the Council to reduce the
population forecast to 18,000 for the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Klatt moved on
to describe the land use categories of RAD and RAD-2 as described by the current
Comprehensive Plan.
To wrap up his presentation, Klatt asked 6 questions of the Planning Commission as they
relate to future growth in the Rural Planning Area. The questions are the following:
1. Should the minimum lot sizes in the A and RR zones be reduced?
2. Does the City need to retain the RAD-Alt land use category?
3. Would an increase in the types of allowed uses with rural areas (senior housing,
community services, townhomes, etc.) be consistent with the City’s stated goal
of preserving open space character?
4. Are the current uses allowed within rural areas appropriate?
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
5
5. Is the density allowed within OP developments acceptable or is it too high or
low?
6. The City’s Land Use Plan does not allow for the expansion of RS – Rural Single
Family or RE – Residential Estates areas. Should new developments be allowed
that are zoned in this manner?
Klatt recommended that the 2040 forecast be finalized before any major changes are
initiated.
Haggard asked what land use designation the parcels would revert to if changed from
RAD-2. Klatt noted that these parcels would revert back to simple RAD.
Lundgren asked about the location of the parcels guided as RAD-2. Klatt described
where the 3 parcels totaling 156 acres are located.
Kreimer asked if the RAD-2 areas are intended to be sewered. Klatt noted that they are
not intended to be sewered.
Dodson asked if the City intends to serve any areas outside the urban service boundary
with municipal sanitary sewer. Klatt stated that for the 2030 planning projections there
is no intention of expanding outside the areas planned for sewer other than for the
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake development that has a non-compliant system. Klatt further
stated that the Comprehensive Plan gives the City the ability to expand outside the
MUSA lines if it so chooses.
Dodson asked about septic systems that serve OP developments. Klatt explained that
properties in OP neighborhoods are allowed to be served by on-site individual sewage
septic system. The Pollution Control Agency only gets involved if a system reaches a
certain size.
Larson asked if the areas guided for rural area development are considered by the
Memorandum of Understanding. Klatt noted that they are not part of the sewered
growth as guided by the MOU.
Haggard asked how the population forecasts were developed. She noted concern about
the figure related to the Village. Klatt explained that it is a little misleading as it includes
existing units as well. Klatt stated that they want to try to get back to a more typical
model of land use planning and get away from a rec unit count to drive planning.
Dodson asked how often the City receives inquiries or requests related to development
in the rural areas. More specifically, he asked how prevalent the requests are for the
RAD-2 areas. Klatt explained there has not been any surveying, but do hear occasionally
from developers. There is not much activity going on right now.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
6
Haggard stated that if people wanted to use their land differently and we want to
consider that, we need to notify people.
Public comments were accepted by the Planning Commission:
Larry Weiss, 9302 Stillwater Blvd, would like to see the Friedrich property go back to
RAD.
Ed Nielson, 9498 Stillwater Blvd, feels that RAD-2 is not an appropriate zone and does
not fit the surrounding area.
Susan Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd St, stated that she felt that RAD-2 should go away. She
noted she supports the OP Ordinance, RS and RE developments.
Steve Delapp, 8468 Lake Jane Trail, corrected the legislative history of the RAD-2 land
use category and stated that nothing north or 10th street other than the Old Village
should have this type of density.
Klatt asked the Planning Commission how they wanted to address the questions related
to the rural planning area. The Planning Commission would like to just continue to
discuss the rural areas as a whole rather than to discuss individual properties. The
Commission wanted this to come back to their next meeting.
Haggard and Kreimer both feel that there is more to discuss than just RAD and RAD-2.
They would like to see RE & RS discussed as well as other things.
Business Item: Animal Ordinance Update
Bell presented the updates to the animal ordinance. The cats and dogs section was
recently updated. Bell stated that there have been a lot of inquiries in regards to
livestock, especially chickens and bees. The trend in the metro is that people are
interested in making their own food. Currently the livestock section is in the zoning
code, but staff would like to see that moved to the animal section. Currently the code
limits the keeping of livestock to 10 acres. That is one of the questions that should be
addressed. Staff is proposing that chicken and bees would be allowed on ½ acre with a
permitting process. This seems consistent with the metro trend.
Johnson stated that a lot of communities are going the direction of allowing bees and
chickens on smaller acreage, but the staff has also gotten a lot of inquiries about the
keeping of chickens on smaller acreage.
Morreale would like to see a scale for chickens that is more in line for personal
consumption. It seems that if you can have 32 chickens on 2.5 acres that is more
commercial in nature and would create problems with waste, etc. He feels that the
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
7
scale is too high. Bell stated that homeowners associations might also limit some of
these things. Bell said that these were preliminary numbers and they are looking for
input.
Haggard stated that there are a lot of properties that do not have HOA’s and it could be
a problem. She also asked that with the 2 year licensing, will the staff be sending a
notice out when that license is to expire. Bell confirmed that the permitting period is
correct.
Johnson stated that this activity is already taking place and if we put in good regulations
that are followed respectfully, there should be less problems.
Lundgren stated that she likes that the education component is required for the
beekeeping.
Dodson feels that the chart is confusing and should be cleaned up. The animal units are
confusing. Bell stated that it has to do with grazeable acreage. You need a minimum of
5 acres for any livestock other than bees or chickens. Staff will work to clean up the
table. Dodson was wondering why there was a distinction between chickens and other
fowl. Bell stated that it is how other Cities have their code. The requests have been for
chickens. Also the different birds have different needs with chickens being the easiest
to care for.
Dodson asked who was able to have roosters. Bell stated that anyone over 5 acres
would be allowed to have roosters.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates
1. Variance – 09.029.21.22.0025 (Hill Trail North) was approved at the October 15,
2013 meeting with the 2 conditions discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting.
2. Met Council 2040 Growth Forecast Discussion.
Staff Updates
1. Planning Commission has meetings upcoming on November 13th and 25th. The
meeting on 11/13/13 is on a Wednesday due to the Veterans Day holiday.
2. Discussed having finding of facts worksheets that sets out what the criteria is and
helps to formulate how to come up with your decision. Worksheets were
handed out by Planner Johnson.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
8
Commission Concerns – None
Meeting adjourned at 10:45pm
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Johnson
City Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 10-28-13
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/13/13
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2013-036
ITEM: Rural Area Development Analysis and Discussion – Further Review
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to continue its discussion from its October 28, 2013
meeting concerning the City’s rural development areas. The Commission is specifically asked to
further review the RAD-ALT land use category and to conduct an analysis of the potential to expand
the use of Residential Estates zoning in the future. Staff is therefore seeking a recommendation from
the Commission on the following:
1. Whether or not to continue guiding areas in the RAD-ALT land use category as part of the
City’s Future Land Use Map; and
2. Whether or not the City should pursue Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments that
would either expand the use of the Residential Estates land use category or revise the rural
development standards in some other manner in order to allow additional development
opportunities on parcels less than 40 acres.
The first inquiry may be acted upon with an amendment to the City’s Future Land Use Map in the
Comprehensive Plan while the latter issue will require further review and discussion by the Planning
Commission should the Commission want to pursue such changes.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City-initiated action for discussion
Request: Continue previous review and discussion of land use plans and policies
concerning Rural Development Areas
History: The City revised its Comprehensive Plan for rural areas in the early-mid 1990’s
to allow for open space developments. The amendments from this time period
limited the use of the Residential Estates as a future land use and instead
encouraged any future development of land to be consistent with the City’s open
space regulations. The RAD-2 category was added to the Plan in 2005 in
response to Met Council growth directives.
Deadline for Action: None
Applicable Regulations: Comprehensive Plan – Chapter III: Land Use Plan
Zoning Ordinance – Article 9: Rural District Standards
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
2
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
After considering the history of the City’s rural development areas and reviewing recent population
projections with Staff, the Planning Commission is being asked to further discuss two aspects of this
discussion from its October 28, 2013 meeting as described above. Rather than repeating the
information presented at the last meeting, Staff has attached the previous Staff report for further
review and discussion by the Commission. The two questions that are now being carried forward for
further discussion include the future application of the RAD-ALT land use category and the potential
for additional development opportunities within smaller parcels in the City’s rural areas.
RAD-ALT LAND USE CATEGORY
The City of Lake Elmo currently guides 157 acres in the RAD-ALT land use category, which
corresponds to roughly 314 units of housing. The three areas that have been assigned this
designation include the following parcels:
PIN Owner Area (acres)
16.029.21.24.0002 3M Company 96
15.029.21.31.0001 Irvin Friedrich 24
25.029.21.44.0001 Terry Emerson 37
The 3M and Emerson properties were changed to the RAD-ALT category as part of the 2005
Comprehensive Plan amendment, while the Friedrich parcel was changed to this category as part of a
stand-alone amendment approved by the City in 2010. There were no corresponding reductions or
revisions elsewhere in the code with the 2010 amendment, and at that time, the City found that the
affected area was small enough that it would not significantly alter any of City’s household
projections. The Council has previously discussed the idea of implementing a development rights
transfer program in order to allow transfers of density between RAD and RAD-ALT development
sites, but has not taken any action since 2010 to create such a program.
As the Planning Commission considers the future status of the RAD-ALT land use category, Staff
would like to point out the following:
• To date, there have been no developments approved in the City’s RAD-ALT areas, and only
one proposal for RAD-ALT development has been brought forward at a conceptual level.
• The concept plan noted above was for a 52-unit senior living and farm-based preschool
proposal that is no longer a valid development application. The time limit for the submission
of a preliminary plan for the site has expired. No new development plans for this property
have come forward, although the former applicant has approached Staff recently to discuss an
alterative concept plan.
• The Friedrich family does not support any changes to the future land use for their property
that would lower the current density of the site.
• As part of its discussions with the Met Council concerning the recently released preliminary
population and household forecasts for Lake Elmo, the City will be seeking reductions in
these numbers when the forecast is finalized. As presented in Staff’s previous report to the
City Council, the proposed reductions would allow the City to lower the number of
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
3
households that are expected in rural development areas. Should the Met Council accept
these numbers, the RAD-ALT category would not be needed to meet the old forecasts. The
City may decide to keep this land use classification for other reasons (i.e. to encourage a
wider mix of uses in rural development areas).
During previous discussions concerning the RAD-ALT district and based on the City’s review of
previous open space projects, the following questions and concerns have been raised
• The RAD-ALT category allows for 2 units of housing per acre, which is a density that is
much closer to an urban or suburban form of development than a rural type of development.
For comparison purposes, the single family areas within the future Lennar development are
slightly under 3 units per acre on a net density basis, while the Carriage Station subdivision
was platted to meet a density of 2 units per acre.
• The use of well and septic systems in RAD-ALT areas presents challenges for developers
because there is so little area to work with once the homes, roads, and other infrastructure is
taken into consideration. While more homes mean a more reasonable allocation of costs for
shared systems, more users also require a much larger and more costly system as well.
• The Planning Commission has previously discussed the potential to serve RAD-ALT areas
with public sanitary sewer. Given the relatively small differences in density between RAD-
ALT and the low density urban areas, it might be better to simply guide these sites for
sewered residential densities if the City wants to support more development outside of the
existing sewer service area boundaries.
• Some of the areas that are guided for RAD-ALT development are located adjacent to general
RAD areas or other existing lower density residential neighborhoods. The compatibility
between these areas has been a concern for the neighbors surrounding the Friedrich property.
• There is also the question of whether or not it is truly feasible to develop a project under the
RAD-ALT ordinance given the current requirement to preserve half of a site as open space.
Acknowledging the downturn in the economy that has affected the housing market since the
late 2000’s, there have been no RAD-ALT projects approved by the City (and only one that
even made it to a concept stage) in the last eight years.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission further review and discuss the City’s RAD-
ALT land use classification at its next meeting and provide direction to Staff should any the
Comprehensive Plan changes be deemed necessary by the Commission. The options that should be
considered by the City include the following:
1) Eliminate the RAD-ALT land use category from the Comprehensive Plan and change all
areas presently guided in this manner to RAD.
2) Eliminate some of the RAD-ALT areas and leave only those areas as RAD-ALT that the
Planning Commission believes should be guided in this manner.
3) Wait to make any changes to the RAD and RAD-ALT land use classifications until after the
Met Council has finalized the City’s 2014 forecast. This action is expected to occur
sometime in the spring of 2014.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
4
4) Do not take any action at this time to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
5) Expand the areas that are guided for RAD-ALT in the Comprehensive Plan or move the
current areas guided for such density to other parcels.
6) Consider revisions to the RAD-ALT land use in order to address concerns regarding
compatibility between uses.
7) Consider other revisions to the RAD-ALT land use to either expand the uses allowed within
these areas or to further revise the regulations to promote certain types of activities (i.e. to
allow certain types of housing or only low traffic-generating activities).
Of these options, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission follow number (3) and take
this issue up as part of a broader Comprehensive Plan discussion once the 2014 forecast is finalized.
In the meantime, the Commission should be aware that taking this course of action would allow
developments to come forward under the present guidelines, but any such projects would be subject
to new public hearings and would require review by the Planning Commission. Staff does not
recommend a moratorium on RAD-ALT development because the MOU between the City and Met
Council is still in effect. The City should continue to work towards implementation of the current
plan as long as the MOU remains in effect.
GENERAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
One of the Commission’s discussion items from the last meeting also included the City’s rural
development areas in general, and in particular, how to best plan for the future use of parcels that are
under 40 acres in size. The City’s current open space ordinance allows for OP developments on
parcels that are 40 acres or more in size, but would only allow such development on smaller parcels
through an exception process. In practice there have only been a few OP developments that have
been created on properties with less than 40 acres. Under current zoning regulations, parcels that are
less than 40 acres and zoned RR – Rural Residential could be split into lots no smaller than 10 acres,
while parcels zoned A – Agriculture could not be further subdivided.
The Commission may also want to further discuss the RED (Residential Estates) land use category to
assess whether or not this land use could be expanded into new areas in order to provide alternative
development options on smaller parcels. At present, the City’s Comprehensive Plan does not
identify any new areas for RED development outside of existing developments or areas that were
planned for such land use prior to the 2005 land use plan. The Staff comments below concerning
residential development on smaller rural parcels take into account an expansion of the RED
classification.
In order to provide the Planning Commission with a better perspective on the remaining undeveloped
land in the City’s rural development areas, Staff will be bringing a report with a summary of the lot
sizes in these areas for discussion at the meeting.
Some facts that should be considered by the Commission as it discusses this item include the
following:
• There have been around 20 OP developments approved and constructed over the past 20
years in Lake Elmo. Some of these developments have been recognized nationally for best
practices in conservation-based subdivisions.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
5
• There have been no new OP developments approved by the City within since 2007. This is
due partly to the downturn in the economy.
• At present, there are roughly 40-50 vacant lots available within OP developments. This
number continues to drop by 20-30 lots each year, meaning the current supply of OP lots will
last no more than 2 years without additional subdivisions coming forward.
• The City has seen several large lot subdivision created in the last several years (10 acre lots)
that have removed land from potential development under OP regulations.
• Staff has observed a fairly healthy market for lots within RS – Rural Single Family areas, and
periodically older, existing homes are razed to make way for new, larger structures within
these areas. The significant number of lake-frontage lots in the Tri-Lakes area will continue
to be a factor in the demand for redevelopment of existing lots.
• The City has made recent agreements to extend public sewer service into a small rural single
family area on the west side of Lake Olson and has agreed to extend sewer into at least one
open space development outside of the Village. Staff expects pressure to provide sewer
service to the Tri-Lakes area and to open space developments that are located close to the
urban service areas will be one of the more important land use decisions that should be
addressed in the next major Comprehensive Plan update.
• The City has rejected proposals in the past to split land in RAD areas into parcels less than 10
acres. Staff has found that it is very difficult for potential applicants to meet all of the City’s
variance criterion for these types of and use applications.
Should the Planning Commission and City Council decide to pursue changes to the minimum lot
sizes allowed in rural development areas or to expand the use of the Residential Estates land use to
new developments, Staff would like to offer the following as general comments:
• Maintaining an adequate amount of road frontage for every platted lot will be very
problematic for most parcels that are less than 40 acres in size. The City does allow one
parcel to be split without road frontage in rural development areas, but this often leads to
situations in which a driveway is either shared by two parties or a driveway easement crosses
someone else’s land. This type of situation may be acceptable when there are over 20 acres
to work with, but could become problematic on smaller lots.
• The cost of servicing developments with lots that are larger than ¼ to ½ of an acre in size is
much higher than in developments with smaller and/or clustered lots. Even in situations in
which sewer and water are installed on an each individual lot, the City must still provide
roads, storm water improvements, fire protection, and other services that are now spread
across a greater area.
• As lots become smaller, it is more difficult to find suitable area for adequate on-site septic
systems. Smaller lots also provide less land that could be used to address failing systems.
• The platting of lots less than 10 acres in size would eliminate large areas of open space that
are protected by the current minimum lot area requirements. One of the foremost goals in the
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
6
City Comprehensive Plan is the preservation and open space and rural character. The
platting of lots of less than ten acres in size may not help the City achieve these objectives.
• Further subdivision of lots in rural areas into parcels of 2 to 5 acres in size would create an
environment in these areas that is much more suburban than rural in character. With
additional homes the City can expect to see additional traffic, more buildings, fewer
agricultural parcels, and less vegetation than presently exists in these areas.
Because the Planning Commission has only recently completed its work on major Comprehensive
Plan amendments for the City’s future sewer service areas, the Commission may want to consider
looking at options for updating the Comprehensive Plan and ordinances concerning rural
development areas. Staff would recommend that any such work, if the Planning Commission finds
that the City should study this issue further, be considered as part of the work plan for 2014.
To help the Planning Commission with its discussion on this topic, Staff has developed the following
options that could be considered for further study:
1) Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow OP developments on parcels of less than 40 acres in
size. At one time the minimum lot size for an OP project was 20 acres; however, this
provision was changed in order to encourage the preservation of larger open space areas
throughout the City. The previous Staff analysis that was shared with the Planning
Commission noted that this course of action would be needed in order to meet the City’s
2030 growth forecasts. A revised 2040 forecast would greatly reduce the need to change the
current OP ordinance minimum lot area requirement.
2) Change the minimum lot areas requirements in the City’s A and RR zoning districts to allow
smaller parcels to be created in these areas. For example, the City could reduce the minimum
lot area in RR zones to 5 acres and A zones to 20 acres. A change in the minimum lot area
may require the City to reconsider how it manages road frontage and lot ratio requirements in
these zoning districts.
3) Expand the use of the Residential Estates classification to areas that are not currently guided
for this type of density. Consistent with the Staff comments above, the City’s RED
developments have a much different look and feel than the City’s OP developments, even
though the OP developments allow for more homes. The Planning Commission should take
this into consideration if it would like to pursue this type of land use change.
4) Create a new land use category that would allow for limited development of parcels less than
40 acres in size while still adhering to the basic principles for an open space development. A
new land use category could potentially allow for clustering of development on smaller lots
provided the undeveloped portions of a site are either protected or retained under common
ownership. Staff suggests that a new category should only be created if it can meet certain
expectations, for instance, allowing for efficient delivery of public services, preserving open
spaces, maintaining the City’s rural character, providing environmental protection, reducing
storm water impacts, etc. Staff is planning on doing some additional research into how a new
land use category could be created prior to the Planning Commission meeting and will share
some additional information with the Commission on this concept at the meeting.
5) Other options or alternatives as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
7
Because any of the options noted above will require a fair amount of time and effort to implement,
Staff is recommending that the Commission conduct a general review of these options at the meeting
and give Staff some general direction as to one or more specific options that are chosen for further
study and analysis. At this time, Staff does not have a specific recommendation for action on any of
these alternatives.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the RAD-ALT options as listed in the
above report, but that the Commission not take any action to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan
for the rural development areas (including RAD and RAD-ALT land use classifications) until after
the Met Council 2014 regional forecast is finalizes.
Staff further recommends that the Commission provide Staff with direction on which, if any, of the
general rural development options should be pursued in the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report – 10/28/13 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Rural Zoning District Standards
3. OP Zoning Regulations
4. OP-2 Zoning Regulations
5. Lake Elmo Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3)
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Public Comments ............................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – BUSINESS ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 11/13/13
AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2013-039
ITEM: Driveway Ordinance Discussion
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Rick Chase, Building Official
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review a proposed ordinance amendment to the section
of the City Code that pertains to driveways. In collaboration with the engineering and building
departments, staff is proposing to amend the driveway ordinance to incorporate best practices and
improve operational efficiency in processing driveway permits. As the driveway standards are not in
the City’s Zoning Code, no public hearing is required. However, considering that the ordinance is
related to land use, staff is asking for feedback from the Planning Commission. No formal action by
the Planning Commission is required.
BACKGROUND
In advance of future residential growth and development, staff has been working to identify various
ordinances that should be updated to reflect best practices. One of the ordinances identified was the
City’s Driveway Ordinance (§93.20). Staff is working to update the ordinance to incorporate the
following improvements:
• Driveway width: The current ordinance does not specify a minimum width for driveways.
Requiring a minimum driveway width is important for the purpose of emergency vehicle
access.
• Clearance height: The current ordinance does not reference or require a specified clearance
height. Once again, keeping the appropriate clearance is important for emergency vehicle
access.
• Number of curb cuts: The current ordinance does not limit the number of driveways that
residential properties are allowed to have. In order to maintain safe access management to
city and county streets, it is important to specify rules regarding the allowed number of
driveways.
• Driveway grade: The current ordinance does not specify a maximum grade for driveways.
• Driveway materials: The current ordinance does not specify required materials for
driveways. Requiring certain materials for driveways is especially important in urban
districts with roads that have curb and gutter.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5b – BUSINESS ITEM
2
Staff has redlined the City’s current ordinance related to driveways with proposed changes. The
draft is currently being review by all the appropriate departments in the City. Once the feedback
from other staff is received, staff will incorporate the changes. Staff will bring a draft ordinance to
the meeting and present the proposed changes on Wednesday evening. In addition, staff has
provided a chart (attachment #1) showing research of driveway standards from other communities.
This research helped inform the proposed changes that will be presented at the meeting.
RECCOMENDATION:
No formal action is necessary. The item is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to share any
feedback or questions regarding the proposed ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Residential Driveway Analysis
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Public Comments (if appropriate) .................................................................... Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5b – BUSINESS ITEM
City Min Max R.O.W.
Curb
Opening
Setback to
Property
Line
Setback to
Intersection
(local road)Max Slope Angle # of Access Materials
Eagan -22'22'---
10% or
approved by
Engineer ---
Woodbury 10'30'-5'----
concrete,
pavers or
blacktop
Shoreview --24'-20'-90 degrees
1 per street
frontage³-
Inver Grove Heights 9'¹30'32'5'----
bitumin,
concrete or
paving blocks²
Minnetonka -35'20'30'---
90 degrees or
approved by
engineer --
Cottage Grove 12'28'---20'-60-90 degrees 1⁵-
Eden Prairie ----3'----
concrete,
pavers or
blacktop
Apple Valley -36'-30'--
10% or
approved by
Engineer -
1 per street
frontage³
concrete,
pavers or
blacktop
Notes:1. Minimum driveway width for access drives longer than 150' in length is 12'.
2. Properties in rural distrcits are allowed crushed rock (ROW of improved street must be paved).
3. Allowed additional curb cuts if lot exceeds 120' in width or corner lot (frontage on two public streets).
4. Allowed additional curb cuts if lot exceeds 110' in width or corner lot (frontage on two public streets).
5. Only 1 access is allowed for all residential lots with curb and gutter.
Width
Residential Driveway Analysis