HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 08-12-13
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, August 12, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. July 29, 2013
4. Public Hearing
a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. The
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider an amendment to the
Lake Elmo Zoning Code pertaining to landscape regulations.
5. Updates
a. City Council Updates
i. Preliminary Plat – Lennar Homes/Savona passed at the 8/6/13 City
Council meeting.
ii. Lake Elmo Avenue infrastructure improvements I-94 to 30th Street, bid
awarded at the 8/6/13 City Council meeting.
iii. Olson Lake Trail Sanitary sewer extension Phase I bid awarded at the
8/6/13 City Council meeting.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• August 26, 2013
• September 9, 2013
c. Commission Concerns
6. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 29, 2013
Vice Chairman Reeves called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Reeves, Dorschner, Dodson, Kreimer, Morreale;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Larson, Haggard and Williams
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Johnson, Planning Director Klatt
Approve Agenda:
The Planning Commission accepted the agenda as presented.
Approve Minutes: July 22, 2013
M/S/P: Kreimer/Dodson, move to accept the minutes of July 22, 2013 as amended;
Vote: 3-0. Motion Carried, with Reeves and Dorschner not voting.
Kreimer noted two corrections to the minutes, one regarding who is responsible to
replace boulevard trees that die before lots are sold, and the other change pertaining to
the ratio of the amount of parkland per resident recommended in the park plan. Both
were amendments were accepted.
Business Item: Preliminary Plat – Lennar Homes
Klatt began his presentation by presenting a general outline of how the meeting is to
proceed. He explained that the Mayor has requested to address the Planning
Commission. In addition, per the request by the Planning Commission, the Chairman of
the Park Commission, Shane Weis, will present the recommendation of the body, as well
as answer any questions by the Planning Commission. Finally, Klatt noted that there will
be a small amount of time allocated for public comment, as the Public Hearing has
already been closed.
Klatt moved forward to present the important highlights of the Staff Report. Regarding
density, he noted that the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Klatt stated that the Comprehensive Plan utilizes an accepted practice of planning for
growth using density ranges. This method is used due to the great variation from parcel
to parcel due to roads, wetlands, slopes, soils and other reasons that make hitting an
exact density figure on every parcel difficult. Klatt also presented an overview about Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
2
how the Comprehensive Plan was developed in terms of land uses and buffering as
compared to the previous Comprehensive Plan.
Moving forward, Klatt discussed the aspect of the Staff Report that pertains to parkland
dedication. He noted that when staff makes a recommendation regarding parks, they
rely heavily on the input of the Park Commission, Parks staff and the City Administrator.
The feedback that Staff received is that it is not critical to install more parkland than is
currently being presented in the proposed development. It was stressed that it is
important that the City have the ability to maintain whatever parks are dedicated and
that they work for the needs of the development. He also presented a map that
highlighted all of the park facilities in the Western portion of the I-94 Corridor. Included
in these facilities are two existing City parks (Ridge and Stonegate), the Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve, existing trails and proposed trails. He noted how these facilities
relate to the City’s overall park plan.
Klatt wrapped up his presentation by highlighting other questions from the previous
Planning Commission meeting. He discussed the parking issue that was previously
raised, describing the amount of property in between the structure and the front
property line. He also described how the City arrived at the 28’ wide road standard,
noting that this standard represents a balance between the needs of emergency
vehicles, maintenance, parking and traffic calming and circulation. Related to streets,
he noted that the Lennar proposal meets all of the City standards. Klatt also spoke
about the 5th Street realignment request from the property owner to the West. He
noted that Staff is not recommending that any special conditions be imposed on the
Lennar application pertaining to the realignment of the road. Alternatively, Staff is
recommending that the property owners continue working on a realignment, and the
City will allow the realignment to happen without the applicant needing to come back
through the platting process.
To wrap up the Staff presentation, Klatt highlighted the revised list of conditions. He
also listed draft findings for the Planning Commission to utilize for a potential motion.
Kreimer asked about Condition #19, noting that access was discussed to the north as
well. Klatt noted that Kreimer is correct, and the condition should allow for access to
the north.
Morreale asked what the City requirements were pertaining to parkland. Klatt noted
that the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 10% land dedication or fee in lieu of land
dedication. He noted that fees are used to acquire additional parkland and install park
facilities. Morreale asked what the pure land dedication for the Lennar proposal would
be. Klatt noted that the land dedication without fees would be 11.8 acres. Morreale
noted that Stonegate Park is not large enough to accommodate all the new residents
that will eventually live in this area.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
3
Reeves asked if the 6.4 proposed acres of park include the other open space areas
included in the proposed plat. Klatt noted that the other areas are not counted towards
parkland. These areas also serve as storm water retention. As a follow up, Dodson
asked which outlots are owned by the City vs. the HOA. Klatt highlighted a list within the
plat that notes all of the ownership of the various outlots. Reeves asked if the HOA
would own the outlots shown in the townhome area. Klatt confirmed that the areas
around the townhomes are HOA owned.
Dorschner asked if trails are included as parkland dedication. Klatt confirmed that linear
parks will only be accepted if the developer builds the trails.
Reeves asked if the City is creating a challenge of meeting the MOU with the
Metropolitan Council if the City continues to accept development that is under the
minimum thresholds. Klatt noted that the City has to continue to monitor the numbers
guided by the MOU against platted lots. In addition, he noted that there are sometimes
unique circumstances on sites that aren’t always factored in such as buffers, parks,
storm water ponds, etc.
Mike Pearson, 2805 Lisbon Ave. N., Mayor of Lake Elmo, spoke about the history of the
I-94 Corridor planning effort. He noted that the plan balanced protection of the existing
neighborhoods, orderly growth of the community, reasonable use to develop the land,
and meeting the requirements of the Met Council. He commended the Planning
Commission’s efforts in the long range planning process, as well as the review of the
plat. He indicated that the planning for growth in the I-94 Corridor has been a long and
extensive process, and it is important to keep moving the process forward.
Shane Weis, 8483 27th St. N., the Chairman of the Park Commission, spoke to the
Planning Commission. He noted that the Park Commissions view on new development
would be to have one central open area, which Lennar does. This plan would be
acceptable to the Park Commission.
Dorschner asked the Chairman if there are any studies done to indicate the current level
of park use. Weis noted that Lake Elmo’s parkland to citizen ratio is very high, which also
means that maintenance is very high. The Park Commission needs to strike a balance
between maintenance and quality of life with parkland. Dorschner noted that the
maintenance of these parks must be considered. The City must ensure that we have the
ability to maintain the parks well. This plan factors in both the needs of the future
residents of the development and the cost of maintenance. The City needs to consider
the resources required for park maintenance.
Kreimer asked if any of the park funds would be used for a broader facility for the
community. Weis noted that the funds would go into the general parkland dedication
fund. The specific use for those funds would be determined at a future time. Johnson
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
4
stated that the Village land use plan does call for a community recreational facility which
will guide the use of some of these funds.
Morreale asked if the amount of parkland, particularly for the western portion of the
neighborhood, is acceptable to the Park Commission. Weis stated that the Park
Commission is comfortable with the current park as it is a central park and they factored
in the maintenance. Morreale stated he feels that the proposed park is not large
enough for this many people and they should be required to put in the full size. Johnson
stated that the City has the flexibility to accept in lieu of funds when it seems
appropriate and it has been common practice in this city in the OP developments and in
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Dodson asked how small children will access neighborhood parks. Klatt noted that the
City standard requires a sidewalk on one side of the street for the very purpose of
maintaining proper accessibility. In addition, he notes that the recent results from the
Park Survey reveal that more residents are concerned about the maintenance of the
existing parks on the system. Specifically, Klatt noted that the City has to be prepared to
maintain the trail system that is constructed in addition to maintaining existing and new
parks. Weis also noted that there is a central park planned for the Hammes Estates
development, which was recently reviewed at the Sketch Plan level by the Planning
Commission and Park Commission.
Reeves asked for more specific feedback from the Park survey. Weis stated that, at this
time, they have not analyzed the data, but will be doing so at their next meeting.
Dorschner asked if the parks that were dedicated were for use by the residents that
lived in the development, or if they are for use of any resident of the City. Weis stated
that any dedicated Park land is a City park and can be used by anyone.
Reeves asked Weis if he felt the City parks were underutilized, properly utilized, or over
utilized. Weis noted that the Park Commission currently believes that the City parks are
underutilized.
Weis asked Klatt about the tot lots. Klatt explained that there might be space available
in the multi-family area for a tot lot.
Joe Jablonski, Lennar Homes, noted that Lennar has built homes all over the Twin Cities
and across the country. He shared his experiences pertaining to park land in the context
of the neighborhoods Lennar has platted and built. He noted that small neighborhood
parks have been very successful in addressing the needs of families with young children.
He noted that more programmed parks with team sports require much greater amounts
of parkland. Moving forward, Jablonski presented two concepts of the central park of
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
5
the Savona plat. These concepts are intended to illustrate how the proposed park space
can be utilized.
Reeves opened the forum for brief public comment. He noted that there were written
comments submitted by Commissioners Williams and Larson that the Commissioners
reviewed.
Susan Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd St., asked the Planning Commission to consider the City’s
“Commitment to the Community”. She also noted that many people have worked hard
to preserve land in the City. Dunn noted that this is the first time that she has seen the
Savona Plat proposal, noting she felt overwhelmed by the intensity of the development.
She stated that there should be additional parkland to serve the young families that will
locate in the neighborhood. In addition, Dunn asked the Planning Commission to
consider the EAW and surface water management plan of the development.
Charlie Devine represents the owners of the Louis Damiani Trust and Tim Montgomery
parcel. Devine was complimentary of Lennar, stating that they have been good to work
with in the development process. He noted that the property owners he represents, as
well as the development group he is part of, wish to realign the 5th Street minor
collector road further to the south. He noted that the City has taken a hands off
approach thus far. He is asking that the City facilitate bringing parties to the table to
bring resolution to the alignment of the minor collector road. He is asking on behalf of
the property owners that the resolution of the 5th street alignment be an additional
condition of plat approval. He stated that he supports the Lennar neighborhood, but
needs to see realignment of the collector road.
Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave N., noted that if the development is 112 acres, than the
City should require the full parkland dedication. He also cited a Pioneer Press article
that states that the Lake Elmo Park Reserve is overwhelmed with visitors. He stated
that there is not enough parkland in the Savona plat. He also noted that the density of
the plat is above the expected amount. He asked that the Planning Commission look
out for the quality of life in Lake Elmo.
Reeves opened up discussion to the Planning Commission.
Morreale stated that he feels that the Savona plat will set the bar for future sewered
development. He stated that if the Planning Commission allows this development to
move forward, than all of the future developments will follow the precedent. Reeves
asked Morreale if he thought any future developments are impacted by the parks
around it. Morreale stated that he feels that parks are a key thing that should not be
eliminated.
Kreimer noted that it was stated that Lake Elmo already has an overabundance of parks.
However, he stated that Lake Elmo has never had high density before. For this reason,
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
6
Kreimer noted that now is not the time to pull back on parkland. He stated that there
should be more parks for the amount of residents.
Dorschner noted that in an ideal world, everyone’s property would back up to a park.
He shared that he visited Stonegate Park last week. He noted that the park is not in
great use. He notes that he would prefer to use the park system for trails that connect
people to parkland and allow for alternative transportation. He stated that he respects
other perspectives on parkland, but prefers additional trails.
Dodson asked Staff about the comments by Mr. Devine pertaining to the alignment of
5th Street. In addition, he asked if there is any planned improvement or bridge for
crossing Keats Ave or 10th Street. Klatt noted that a grade separated trail would be
problematic on Keats Ave. He noted that a grade separated trail would be ideal but
costly. Related to 5th Street, Klatt explained the Staff position that the City does not
want to take a position between a matter of negotiation between three active land
owners. Reeves asked if it would be practical for the City to impose some type of time
frame to move negotiations pertaining to the alignment of the collector road forward.
Klatt noted that the 5th Street realignment will be considered if it is brought forward,
but we are dealing with a lot of uncertainties.
Dorschner stated that he feels it is the City’s responsibility to encourage resolution of
the alignment of 5th Street. He stated that Lennar should have to work to resolve the
issue so it is not a winner take all result.
Dodson stated that he is on the fence regarding the parks issue. In addition, he does not
share Dorschner’s feeling that imposing a condition on the alignment of 5th Street is the
fair way to approach it.
Morreale stated that he is concerned about the amount of park space. He feels that the
City has set the land requirement at 10%. In addition, if we accept less for this plat, it
will happen for the plats moving forward.
Reeves noted that he shares the concern about allowing for enough places for families
of kids to play. Nevertheless, he is sensitive to the recommendation and thoughts of the
Park Commission. Johnson stated that the City needs to think in broader terms of the
parks system vs. individual plans. Johnson stated the City has the statutory authority to
take 10% park dedication in any combination of land and fee, depending on the
circumstances and would not be setting any precedent from one plan to another.
Morreale stated that he disagrees with the interpretation of Planner Johnson in terms of
a bar being set for parkland for every park coming forward.
Klatt noted that the park plan does not provide substantive guidance in how to program
neighborhood parks. Also, there is not a significant push from the Parks Commission to
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
7
recommend additional parkland for this plat. He encourages the Planning Commission
to dialogue with the Park Commission on future plats.
Dorschner stated that the Park Commission was represented, and it is not the place of
the Planning Commission to questions their recommendation.
M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Savona Preliminary
Plat with the revised Condition #19, Vote: 3-2. Motion Carried, with Kreimer and
Morreale voting no.
Updates and Concerns
Council update – None
Staff update –
Planning Commission meetings upcoming on August 12 and 26.
Commission Concerns –
Dorschner asked if the future residents will be notified pertaining to potential nuisances
in the area, including the mining operation and gun range within close proximity. Klatt
noted that he will do some research to see how this will be addressed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:53pm
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Johnson
Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-29-13
Planning Commission
Date: 8/12/13
Item: 4a
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Landscape Requirements Ordinance
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
______________________________________
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a Public Hearing on a draft Landscaping
Ordinance prepared by Staff. The purpose of the Zoning Text Amendment is to streamline
the City’s landscaping provisions related to development activity into one set of requirements
as opposed to multiple sets of standards. In addition, the text amendment also organizes the
landscaping provisions into Article 6 – Environmental Performance Standards of the new
organizational structure of the Zoning Code.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Staff is proposing to update and relocate the landscaping provisions in the City Code to
Article 6 – Environmental Performance Standards of the new organizational system of the
Zoning Code. The existing landscaping provisions for development activity are currently
located in three locations in the City Code, each including different requirements depending
on the type of development. Existing landscaping provisions in the City Code are located in
the following three areas:
1. Subdivision Ordinance – Preliminary Plat (§153.07)
2. Open Space Preservation Ordinance – Development Standards (§150.180)
3. Site and Building Plan Review (§151.070)
In conjunction with other “house-keeping” amendments to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance,
Staff is proposing to remove these existing landscaping provisions in September. The
Planning Commission can review the proposed changes in Attachment #2. However, the
City is unable to execute these amendments at this time, as amendments to these ordinances
would require a separate Public Hearing.
Regarding the draft Ordinance (Attachment #1), the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed ordinance at the meeting on July 22nd. The Planning Commission some questions
and provided general feedback pertaining to the proposed landscaping ordinance. Staff has
updated the ordinance to reflect some of the Planning Commission feedback. The Planning
Commission inquiries and Staff responses are organized in the following chart:
Planning Commission Question/Comment Staff Response
The Planning Commission asked if the Staff researched the Shoreland Ordinance to
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – ACTION ITEM
2
provisions to provide trees along lakes or
streams (§154.258.C.b) should address the
location of the plantings.
determine if the provisions related to
vegetative buffers provided any guidance in
terms of ideal location of plantings. As the
Shoreland Ordinance does not provide any
guidance, Staff recommends leaving the
provisions as is.
The Planning Commission noted that the
screening provisions required for parking
areas adjacent to residential zones
(§154.258.E.2) may conflict with the City’s
Fence Ordinance
As always in the case of City ordinances, the
more restrictive provision always applies.
There certainly could be instances where
these different provisions may interact. If
that is the case, the more restrictive
ordinance (fence or screening) will apply.
Staff recommends leaving the language as
drafted.
The Planning Commission wanted to ensure
that plant materials are guaranteed for two
years (§154.258.G.4).
Staff updated the ordinance to reflect this
requirement.
The Planning Commission suggested that the
boulevard planting provisions (§154.258.C.1)
include consideration for salt tolerance and
root structure in the selection of species.
Staff updated the ordinance to reflect this
consideration.
The Planning Commission asked about
responsibility of maintaining boulevard trees
after the two-year developer guarantee has
expired, but no one has yet purchased the lot.
This relates to provision §154.258.G.5.
Staff is comfortable with the proposed
language. Beyond the two-year guarantee, it
is the property owner’s responsibility to
maintain trees within the boulevard. This is
consistent with other cities in the Metro
Area. If there was a replacement
requirement for boulevard trees, that would
have to be applied City-wide. Such an
ordinance would be difficult to enforce, as
well as likely to be unpopular.
The proposed landscaping ordinance includes streamlined requirements for all types of
development activity. In addition, new landscaping requirements, such as landscaping for
parking lots, that are currently not in the City’s existing Code have been added to provide
more clear direction regarding the City’s expectations for landscaping. These new provisions
represent best practices as gathered from multiple other landscaping ordinances in the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area. Finally, the proposed ordinance is organized under Article 6 –
Environmental Performance Standards, continuing the ongoing effort of reorganizing the
Zoning Code to make it more structured and user friendly.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
landscaping ordinance through the following motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Landscape Requirements Ordinance.”
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – ACTION ITEM
3
ATTACHMENTS:
1. DRAFT Landscape Requirements Ordinance (§154.258)
2. Existing Landscaping Provisions (to be removed)
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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – ACTION ITEM
ARTICLE 6. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMACE STANDARDS
§154.258 Landscape Requirements
§ 154.258 Landscape Requirements
All development sites shall be landscaped as provided in this section in order to control erosion and
runoff, moderate extremes of temperature and provide shade, aid in energy conservation, preserve
habitat, and generally enhance the quality of the physical environment within the city.
A. Landscape Plan Required. A landscaping plan is required for all new commercial, industrial,
institutional and multi-family development, all planned unit developments, and all
subdivisions, with the exception of minor subdivisions, as defined in Chapter 154. The
landscape plan shall be prepared by a certified landscape architect and include the following:
1. The location, size, quantity and species of all existing and proposed plant materials.
2. Methods for protecting existing trees and other landscape material, consistent with
§154.257.
3. Structural and ground cover materials.
4. Provisions for irrigation or other water supplies.
5. Details and cross sections of all required screening.
6. Special planting instructions.
B. Design Considerations. The following design concepts and requirements shall be considered
when developing a landscape plan.
1. To the maximum extent possible, the landscape plan shall incorporate existing trees and
other vegetation on the site.
2. Landscaped areas should be of adequate size to allow proper plant growth, protect
plantings from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and provide adequate areas for plant
maintenance.
3. A variety of trees and shrubs should be used to provide visual interest year round. No more
than fifty percent (50%) of the required number of trees and shrubs may consist of any one
species. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the required number of trees shall be
deciduous shade trees, and a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) shall be coniferous
trees.
4. Final slopes greater than 3:1 will not be permitted without special treatment such as
terracing, retaining walls, or special ground covers.
5. All plant materials shall meet the following minimum size standards in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Minimum Size Standards for Landscape Materials
Plant Type Minimum size at planting
Trees:
Evergreen 6 feet in height
Deciduous – shade 2.5 inches caliper, measured 6 inches from base
Deciduous - ornamental 2 inches caliper, measured 6 inches from base
Shrubs:
Evergreen # 5 container*
Deciduous # 5 container*
DRAFT 8/12/13 6-1 Environmental Performance Standards
Shrubs used for screening (evergreen or deciduous) # 5 container*
* Approximately 5 gallons. See American Standards for Nursery Stock, ANSI 260.1-2004 for exact
specifications.
6. As an alternative to the minimum standards for landscape materials, a landscape plan
prepared by a qualified professional certifying that said plan will meet the intent of this
Section may be submitted.
C. Landscaping of Setback Areas. All required setbacks not occupied by buildings, parking, paths
or plazas shall be landscaped with turf grass, native grasses, trees, shrubs, vines, perennial
flowering plants, and surrounding pervious ground cover.
1. A minimum of one (1) tree shall be planted for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage, lake
shore or stream frontage, or fraction thereof.
a. Trees adjacent to streets shall be planted within the front yard and may be arranged in
a cluster or placed at regular intervals to best complement existing landscape design
patterns in the area.
b. Salt tolerance and root structure should be considered when selecting tree species
adjacent to streets, sidewalks and parking areas.
c. Where property abuts a lake or stream, trees shall be planted at intervals of no more
than fifty (50) feet along the shoreline, except where natural vegetation is sufficient to
meet this requirement.
2. In addition to the requirements of C.1 above, a minimum of five (5) trees shall be planted
for every one (1) acre of land that is developed or disturbed by development activity. Such
trees may be used for parking lot landscaping or screening as specified in subsections D and
E below.
D. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. The purpose of interior parking lot landscaping is to
minimize the expansive appearance of parking lots and provide shaded parking areas.
Landscaping shall consist of planting islands and medians, comprising the required planting
area specified under item (1) below.
1. At least five (5) percent of the interior area of parking lots with more than thirty (30)
spaces shall be devoted to landscape planting areas. Areas may consist of islands or corner
planting beds.
2. Shade trees shall be provided within the interior of parking lots (in islands or corner
planting beds) in accordance with the following table:
Table 6-2. Minimum Required Tree Planting for Parking Lots
Number of Parking Spaces Minimum Required Tree Planting
0 – 30 None required
31 - 100 1 tree per 10 spaces or fraction thereof
101+ 1 tree per 15 spaces or fraction thereof
E. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets and
sidewalks, public open space, and adjacent residential properties. The perimeter of parking
areas shall be screened as follows:
1. A landscaped frontage strip at least five (5) feet wide shall be provided between parking
areas and public streets, sidewalks or paths. If a parking area contains over one hundred
(100) spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight (8) feet in width.
DRAFT 8/12/13 6-2 Environmental Performance Standards
a. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a masonry wall, fence, berm
or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of three and one-half (3.5) and
a maximum of four (4) feet in height, and not less than fifty percent (50%) opaque on a
year-round basis.
b. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree per fifty (50) linear feet
within the frontage strip.
2. Along side and rear property lines abutting residential properties or districts, screening
shall be provided, consisting of either a masonry wall, fence or berm in combination with
landscape material that forms a screen a minimum of four (4) feet in height, a maximum of
six (6) feet in height, and not less than ninety percent (90%) opaque on a year-round basis.
Landscape material shall include trees, planted at a minimum of one deciduous or
coniferous tree per forty (40) linear feet along the property line.
F. Screening. Screening shall be used to provide visual and noise separation of intensive uses
from less intensive uses. Where screening is required in this Ordinance between uses or
districts, it shall consist of either a masonry wall or fence in combination with landscape
material that forms a screen at least six (6) feet in height, and not less than ninety percent
(90%) opaque on a year-round basis. Landscape material shall include trees, planted at a
minimum of one deciduous or coniferous tree per forty (40) linear feet along the property line.
Additional landscape material such as shade trees or trellises may be required to partially
screen views from above.
G. Maintenance and Installation of Materials. Installation and maintenance of all landscape
materials shall comply with the following standards:
1. All landscape materials shall be installed to current industry standards.
2. Irrigation or other water supply adequate to support the specified plant materials shall be
provided.
3. All required landscaping and screening features shall be kept free of refuse and debris.
4. All landscape materials shall be guaranteed for two (2) years. Any landscape material that
dies or becomes diseased within the second (2nd)first year after installation shall be
replaced by the developer.
5. Continuing maintenance and replacement of landscape materials shall be the responsibility
of the property owner.
H. Financial Security. The City will require that a financial security, in a form acceptable to the
City, be provided as part of a development agreement or applicable permit to ensure
compliance and performance of the Landscape Plan. The financial security will be released to
the applicant upon verification by the City that the Landscape Plan was followed, and that all
landscape materials are planted and in a reasonable state of health. The financial security may
be used to replace any landscape materials that have become damaged or diseased after
planting.
DRAFT 8/12/13 6-3 Environmental Performance Standards
Attachment #2: Existing Landscaping Provisions in the City Code
Zoning Text Amendment – Landscape Requirements
Planning Commission – Public Hearing Item 4a (8-12-13)
Proposed Future Amendments (Highlighted in Red)
§ 153.07 PRELIMINARY PLAT.
(A) Filing. Twenty copies of the preliminary plat and certified list of property owners
located within 350 feet of the subject property obtained from and certified by a licensed
abstractor, shall be filed with the Administrator. The required filing fee as established by
Council resolution shall be paid and any necessary applications for variances from the provisions
of this chapter shall be submitted with the required fee. The proposed plat shall be placed on the
agenda of the Planning Commission meeting no later than the second regularly scheduled
meeting following the date of filing. No application shall be accepted by the Administrator for
filing unless all application information required by this chapter is submitted with the
application.
(B) Submission requirements. The applicant shall prepare and submit a preliminary plat,
together with any necessary supplementary information. The preliminary plat shall contain the
following information.
(C) General provision (preliminary plat).
(1) Proposed name of subdivision; names shall not duplicate or too closely resemble
names of existing subdivisions; in any case, the name must be approved by the County Recorder;
(2) Location of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter section, or quarter
quarter section lines comprising a legal description of the property;
(3) Names and addresses of all persons having any interest in the property, the
developer, designer, and surveyor together with the interested person's registration number;
(4) Graphic scale of plat, not less than 1 inch to 100 feet;
(5) Data and north point; and
(6) Date of preparation.
(D) Existing conditions.
(1) Boundary line of proposed subdivision, clearly indicated;
(2) Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision;
(3) A general statement on the approximate acreage and dimensions of the lots;
(4) Location, widths, and names of all existing or previously platted streets or other
public ways, showing type, width, and condition of improvements if any, railroad and utility
rights-of-way, parks and other public open spaces, permanent buildings and structures,
easements and section and corporate lines within the tract and to a distance of 350 feet beyond
the tract;
(5) Location and size of existing sewers, water mains, culverts, or other underground
facilities within the tract and to a distance of 350 feet beyond the tract; the data as grades, invert
elevations, and locations of catch basins, manholes, shall also be shown;
(6) Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within 350 feet,
identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the
subdivider;
(7) Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more than 2 feet;
water courses, marshes, rock outcrops, power transmission poles and lines, and other significant
feature shall also be shown; N.G.V.D. shall be used for all topographic mapping; and
(8) In plats where public water and sewer are not available, the City Engineer may
require the subdivider to file a report prepared by a soil scientist or a registered civil engineer on
the feasibility of individual on-site sewer and water systems on each lot. The report shall include
a soil boring analysis and percolation tests to verify conclusions.
(E) Proposed design features.
(1) Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths, center line gradients,
typical cross sections, and proposed names of streets in conformance with all applicable city
ordinances and policies. The name of any street used in the city or its environs shall not be used
unless the proposed street is a logical extension of an already named street, in which event the
same name shall be used. The street names and numbering system shall comply with the County
Uniform Street Numbering System;
(2) Locations and widths of proposed alleys and pedestrian ways;
(3) Locations and size of proposed sewer lines and water mains;
(4) Layout, numbers, lot areas, and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks;
(5) Minimum front and side street building setback lines;
(6) When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building setback line
shall be shown;
(7) Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, and utility easements intended to
be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of the area or areas in acres;
(8) Water mains shall be provided to serve the subdivision by extension of any existing
community system wherever feasible. Service connections shall be stubbed into the property
line and all necessary fire hydrants shall also be provided. Extensions of the public water supply
system shall be designed so as to provide public water in accordance with the standards of the
city. In areas where public water supply is not available, well plans must comply with applicable
state regulations and shall be submitted for the approval of the City Building Official;
(9) Sanitary sewer mains and service connections shall be installed in accordance with
the standards established by the city;
(10) All private sewage treatment systems shall be installed in accordance with
standards established by the city;
(11) Surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control shall be provided within the
boundaries of the proposed property division consistent with §150.273 of this code, storm water
management and erosion and sediment control.
(12) Landscaping Plan as required by §154.258.
(F) Supplementary information. The following supplementary information shall be
submitted when deemed necessary by the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City
Council:
(1) Proposed protective covenants;
(2) An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified person. In areas
of questionable soil conditions, percolation tests may be required on a lot-by-lot basis to
determine the suitability of any particular site for building;
(3) A statement prepared by a qualified person identifying tree coverage in the proposed
subdivision in terms of type, weakness, maturity, potential hazard, infestation, vigor, density, and
spacing;
(4) Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential buildings with
number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of
the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population;
(5) If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plat for the areas,
including dimensions, shall be shown;
(6) Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the
subdivision, the Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of
the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed
subdivision and the future subdivision. All subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with
existing or potential adjacent subdivisions;
(7) Where structures are to be placed on large or excessively deep lots which are subject
to potential replat, the subdivider shall provide in the preliminary plat, a sketch plan which
indicates minimum building setback lines and future roadway alignments which would not
interfere with structural placement at the time of future subdivision; and
(8) Tree Preservation Plan as required by §154.257.A vegetation preservation and
protection plat that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and
locations of trees and other vegetation that are to be planted;
(a) Developer shall provide a landscape plan which shows how a subdivision will
assume a rural character through the placement of ponding, berms, trees, and tree seedlings,
shrubs, and shrub seedlings and native grasses;
(b) Developer shall plant a minimum of 6 trees, 1 inch caliper deciduous, or
coniferous trees; 3 feet in height per acre unless a lot within the subdivision is determined by the
Zoning Administrator to be naturally wooded which would, at a minimum, consist of the caliper
and height of trees required by this chapter; and
(c) Developer shall provide spaced or clustered plantings of 1 and 1/2 inch caliper
deciduous trees at a rate of 2 per 100 lineal feet on both sides of the street, between 0 feet and 5
feet to the inside of the right-of-way for rural sections and between 5 feet and 10 feet to the
inside of right-of-way for urban sections. Four foot conifers may be substituted.
§ 150.180 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
(A) OP developments shall comply with the following minimum standards unless modified
by 4/5 affirmative votes of the City Council.
(B) (1) Land area. Applications for a residential development in the OP District shall
meet all the following criteria.
(a) The minimum land area for an OP conditional use permit is a nominal contiguous
40 acres. The ratio of parcel length to width shall not exceed 3 to 1. The total number of
dwelling units permitted shall be according to the development density criteria contained in the
Comprehensive Plan. The total number of dwelling units within an OP development shall not
exceed the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan for OP Districts.
(b) The total preserved open space area within the OP development shall be at least
50% of the total buildable land area, as defined by § 11.01. Areas not meeting the definition of
buildable land area shall not be not be considered to be preserved open space in determining the
amount of preserved open space proposed.
(c) Dwelling units shall be grouped so that at least 50% of the buildable land area of
the proposed development remains preserved open space. The preserved open space shall
consist of agricultural lands, natural habitat, pedestrian corridors, or neighborhood or community
recreational areas.
(2) Open space easement required.
(a) Preserved open space standards.
1. All preserved open space shall be subject to a conservation easement and used
for the purposes as defined by §§ 150.175 et seq. The land shall be controlled in 1 or more
following manners as determined in the city's sole discretion:
a. Owned by an individual or legal entity who will use the land for preserved
open space purposes as provided by permanent conservation restrictions (in accordance with
M.S. Ch. 84C.01-.05, as it may be amended from time to time), to an acceptable land trust as
approved by the city; and/or
b. Conveyed by conservation easement to the city.
2. Not less than 60% of the preserved open space shall be in contiguous parcels of
not less than 10 acres.
3. Parks and recreational facilities shall be provided in addition to preserved open
space as specified in the Lake Elmo Parks Plan; and, consistent with the park dedication and
fees-in-lieu standards as specified by Chapter 153.
4. The preserved open space land shall be maintained for the purposes for which it
was set aside. If preserved open space was set aside for agricultural purposes or for natural
habitat, a plan shall be submitted which will indicate how the land will be maintained or returned
to a natural state and who will be responsible for plan implementation. Developers shall provide
copies of deed covenants to prospective purchasers, and conservation easements to the city,
describing land management practices to be followed by the party or parties responsible for
maintaining the preserved open space.
5. Where applicable, a homeowner's association shall be established to
permanently maintain all residual open space and recreational facilities. The homeowner's
association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and giving lien right to the city if
there is lack of the maintenance shall be submitted to the city as part of the documentation
requirements of §§ 150.175 et seq. for a final plan.
6. Preserved open space parcels uses shall be contiguous with preserved open
space or public park, on adjacent parcels.
(b) Lot design. Lots shall be designed to achieve the following objectives (listed in
order of priority):
1. On the most suitable soils for sub-surface septic disposal;
2. On the least fertile soils for agricultural uses, and in a manner which maximizes
the usable area remaining for the agricultural use;
3. Within any woodland contained in the parcel, or along the far edges of the open
fields, adjacent to any woodland (to reduce impact upon agriculture, to provide summer shade
and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural
landscape features);
4. In locations least likely to block or interrupt scenic vistas, as viewed from
Highway 36 and Highway 5 corridors, and other local roads as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan; and
5. Away from woodlands in open fields.
(c) Structures. Homes shall be oriented on the site that meets the criteria of rural
hamlet. It is desired that the structures within neighborhoods convey a particular architectural
style with similar building components, materials, roof pitches.
(d) Buffer zones. Where a proposed OP development abuts an existing residential
development or a parcel of land not eligible for future development under the OP ordinance due
to insufficient parcel area, a 200 foot setback shall be provided between the property line of the
abutting parcel and any structure or driving surface within the OP development. Driving
surfaces that cross the setback area at a 90 degree angle shall be the only exception. Where a
proposed OP development abuts an existing OP development, or a land parcel eligible for future
development under the OP ordinance, a 100 foot setback from any structure within the proposed
OP development and the property line of the abutting parcel may be substituted. The setback
substitution shall only be approved when there is existing mature vegetation and/or changes in
topography occurring on the site proposed for development; and/or where the OP site developer
introduces the physical features that provide an effective year round buffer of the structures
proposed for the OP site from existing residences or development. The determination of the
buffering effectiveness of existing or introduced physical features that qualify a site for a 100
foot buffer shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council.
(e) Boulevard landscaping. Boulevard landscaping is required along all streets to
consist of at least 1 tree per every 30 feet or placed in dusters at the same ratio. A landscape plan
for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per building site; and trees shall
not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches above grade level.
§ 151.070 SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW.
(A) Information required. Except has hereinafter provided, every person, before
commending construction or alteration of a structure, shall submit to the Zoning Administrator
the following documents and information:
(1) A survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent
existing conditions, accurately dimensioned;
(2) A complete set of preliminary drawings prepared by an architect, landscape
architect, engineer, or planner showing:
(a) An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating parking layout
including access provisions, designation of locations of principal and accessory
buildings, landscaping , in conformance with the zoning code and division (A)(3) below;
(b) Fences or walls or other screening, including height and type of material in
conformance with Chapter 1500 and the zoning district regulations;
(c) Lighting provisions, type, and location;
(d) Curbs;
(e) Building elevations, sections, and outline specifications, including material
proposed;
(f) Existing and proposed land elevations in 2 foot contours, drainage provisions, and
utility provisions as may be required, including water, sewer, drainfield, lake shore, flood plain,
airport or environmental overlay districts; and
(g) Existing limitations imposed by zoning.
(3) Landscaping and screening plan as required in §154.258.
(a) Complete landscaping , screening, and erosion control plans shall be prepared
and signed by a professional landscape architect or professional site planner with educational
training or work experience in land analysis and site plan preparation. These plans shall
include:
1. Detailed natural land analysis, including vegetation, soil types, and slopes;
2. Man-made features (berms, fences, and the like);
3. Details of all proposed vegetative landscaping materials including:
placement, Latin name/common name, caliper/height, and quantity;
4. Details of proposed non-vegetative landscaping materials; and
5. Planning and construction schedule for completion of landscaping and
screening plans.
(b) The final landscaping and screening plan must be approved by the
Council/engineer at the time of the site plan review.
(c) The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees,
sculpture, fountains, decorative walks, or other similar site design features or materials in a
quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table:
Project Value (Including building construction,
site preparation, and site improvements)
Percentage of Total Project Value to Be Allocated
to Landscaping
Below $1,000,000 2%
$1,000,001 to $2,000,000 1 and 3/4%
$2,000,001 to $3,000,000 1 and 1/2%
$3,000,001 to $4,000,000 1 and 1/4%
Over $4,000,000 1%
(d) All landscaping must be guaranteed for 2 growing seasons, with a bond or
security .
(4) A Storm Water Management Plan and/or and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as
required in § 150.273.
(B) Review of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review the site and
building plans for the purpose of determining their compliance with this section and other
applicable city ordinances. The Zoning Administrator shall have 60 days in which to complete
the review of the site and building plans. During the same 60-day period, the Council and
Planning Commission shall also review the site and building plan and refer the plan to other city
staff for review for the same purpose.
(Am. Ord. 9764, passed - -)
(C) Exceptions. The following types of construction or alteration are exempt from the site
and building plan review provisions of this section:
(1) The construction or alteration of a single or double family detached dwelling and
buildings accessory thereto; and
(2) The construction or alteration of any building where the Building Inspector estimates
that the total cost of the construction or alteration will not exceed $2,500, provided that in no
event shall buildings be constructed or altered in violation of the Uniform Building Code or city
ordinances.
(1997 Code, § 520.01) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99