HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 12-9-13
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, December 9, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. November 25, 2013
4. Public Hearings
a. PUD CONCEPT PLAN – BOULDER PONDS. The Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing to consider an application from Amaris Company, LLC for
a PUD Concept Plan for a development that will include 93 single family lots, one
64-unit multi-family building, and a commercial area for property located north of
Hudson Boulevard and immediately east of the Eagle Point Business Park.
5. Business Items
a. PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT. The Planning Commission is
being asked to review a draft annual report concerning the Planning
Commission’s and Planning Department’s activities in 2013.
b. PLANNING COMMISSION 2014 WORK PLAN. The Planning Commission
will consider a draft plan of work for 2014.
c. 2014 MEETING SCHEDULE. The Planning Commission is asked to approve the
Planning Commission meeting schedule for 2014.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – December 3, 2013 meeting:
i. Approved – Conditional Use Permit and PUD Amendment for Northeast
Metro 916 Intermediate School District
ii. Denied – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment
for 10689 60TH Street.
iii. Approved – Driveway Ordinance amendments
iv. No Action – RAD-ALT Moratorium. The City Council has directed the
Planning Commission to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change an existing RAD-ALT parcel back to RAD.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• December 23, 2013 - CANCELED
• January 13, 2013
• January 27, 2013
ii. Planning Commission Terms. Staff will discuss the current status of
Commissioner terms.
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of November 25, 2013
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Lundgren, Dorschner, Yocum, Dodson, Kreimer,
Morreale and Larson;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard; and
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson.
Introductions:
Chairman Williams introduced and welcomed Sara Yocum as the newest member of the
Planning Commission. She will fill the position as 2nd Alternate.
Approve Agenda:
The Planning Commission accepted the agenda as presented.
Approve Minutes: November 13, 2013
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundgren, move to accept the minutes of November 13, 2013 as
amended, Vote: 5-0, Motion Carried, with Kreimer and Morreale not voting.
Public Hearings – Conditional Use Permit and PUD Amendment – 33.029.21.42.0013.
Before Klatt began his formal presentation, Chairman Williams asked about the Findings
of Fact Worksheet. Dorschner asked if this worksheet would be included in the Planning
Commission Agenda Packet. Klatt noted that it could be included in the future if the
Planning Commission found it useful. Williams suggested discussing the document at
the end of the meeting.
Klatt formally presented the CUP and PUD Amendment request to the Planning
Commission. He identified the applicant as Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School
District. They are proposing to build a school intended to serve children with behavior
and other developmental disorders, such as Autism. Regarding the background of the
request, he explained the general PUD process, noting that the Eagle Point Business
Park has Concept and Preliminary approvals in place. When an applicant wants to come
forward to develop a specific site, they must pursue Final development approval. The Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
2
916 School District will ultimately need to obtain final development approval for the
school plans to move forward. For the time being, they are only seeking land use
approval by bringing forward a Conditional Use Permit request, as schools are a
conditional use in the City’s Business Park zoning district. In addition, the applicants
propose to amend the Eagle Point PUD itself to include schools as a conditional use.
Moving forward, Klatt explained that the applicant will need to seek Final Plat and Final
Development Approval to move forward with the construction of the school. He also
noted that they will need to submit detailed plans including elevations, landscaping,
signage, lighting, storm water management, grading, utilities, etc. These plans would be
required in order to move the application forward.
As schools are exempt from property taxes, Klatt also noted that some communities
have required schools to submit a Service Agreement in order to pay for public services
provided to the school, such as police and fire protection.
Klatt then discussed the proposed site plan of the school. He noted that the site plan
may be modified when the applicants seek Final Plat and Development approval.
Finally, Klatt noted that Staff is recommending approval of the CUP and PUD
Amendment with 8 conditions that are outlined in the Staff Report.
Dodson asked if the action should be split into two separate motions. He noted that
there may be other uses the Planning Commission wanted to add. Klatt noted that if
the Planning commission wanted to add other uses, it would need to be brought back as
a public hearing is required.
Larson asked about Northeast Metro Intermediate School District 916 and how it is
different than ISD 834. Klatt noted that the applicants are in attendance and can provide
better explanation of District 916’s services.
Kreimer asked how the proposed building factors into the City’s tracking of REC units.
Klatt stated that the REC units are calculated at the time of the building permit. This
project would be similar or higher than a light industrial building.
Morreale asked about the number of students at the facility. Klatt stated that the
applicants could answer any specific questions about operations. Morreale also asked
about the parkland dedication. Klatt noted that the school would likely pay a
Commercial rate of parkland dedication as opposed to a land dedication.
Dodson asked why Oulot A was platted as an outlot vs. a buildable lot. Klatt noted that
when the Business Park was first platted, not all of it was going to be built on right away.
Those projects that were ready to be developed were platted, and the remaining land
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
3
was platted as outlots. Now that prospective users for the land are present, the
applicants must plat the site as part of final development approval.
Dorschner asked if the Staff has done any analysis about the loss of property taxes by
approving the school in this location. Klatt explained that using a rough estimate of the
value of the proposed building and the land, he noted that the annual revenue could
total up to $230,000.
Williams asked about other service agreements. Klatt noted that these agreements are
specific to services provided by the City, such as fire, police, snow plowing, road
maintenance, etc.
Dan Naidicz, Director of Special Education for Intermediate School District 916, spoke
about the educational services of 916. There are 11 member districts that contract with
District 916. They are one of 3 intermediate public school districts and they serve the
east side of the metro. He noted that special education services provided by 916 are for
students whose special needs are not well accounted for at normal public schools. He
stated that 916 developed a facilities plan, resulting in the need to expand space. He
noted that they are currently building a facility in Blaine and hope to build a future
facility in Lake Elmo. They anticipate serving 80-120 students at this facility.
Lundgren asked what level 4 disability entails. Mr. Naidicz noted that level 4 means that
the students are not integrated into the normal student population.
Dorschner asked why the applicants looked to Lake Elmo for a site. He also asked if any
coordination with the Stillwater School District was possible to collaborate on facilities
and services. Naidicz noted that the member school districts often refer students when
their special education programs are filled out. Regarding the location question, Kristine
Carr noted that it was important to select a site that was easily accessed for all the
member districts in the area. Looking at different sites, the site in the Eagle Point
Business Park was the best site in terms of transporting students from the surrounding
member districts.
Dodson asked if the storm water ponds presented an attractive nuisance. The engineer
stated that the ponds are natural infiltration basins. Naidicz noted that they take the
safety of their kids very serious and this would not be a problem. Dodson also asked
about the transportation. A large percent of the kids come from outside the community
by bus from their home school districts. They estimate 20 buses in the morning and 20
buses in the evening. City Planner Johnson stated that the Washington County
transportation planner reviewed the request and did not have any concerns.
Kreimer asked about the expansion areas on the site plan. Steve Erickson, BWBR, noted
that the expansion areas represent possible additional classroom space.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
4
Erickson noted that the applicants have met with South Washington Watershed District
and they are confident that they will be able to meet SWWD’s rules.
Williams asked about the Service Agreement. Kristine Carr noted that the service
agreement is meant to directly pay for the public services that the school requires.
Williams asked what happens after year 10 of the agreement. Ms. Carr stated that the
school district and City will renegotiate at year 10.
Public Hearing opened at 7:58pm.
Kathy Tucci, Bremer Bank, noted that she would like to ensure that the access points
allow for safe and efficient traffic flow on Eagle Point Blvd. She is concerned that the
proposed access point may conflict with the Bremer entrance. In addition, she asked if
the school would be opened up to K-12. She noted that serving older student may be
problematic.
Mr. Erickson noted that the access points were intended to not cause any circulations
issues.
Public Hearing closed at 8:05pm.
Williams noted that he is concerned about the tax issue. The Eagle Point Business Park is
the premier commercial site in Lake Elmo. He noted that the area is expected to be a
major generator of tax revenue. Dodson stated that he respects Williams’ concern, but
asked why this land has not yet been developed if it is the premier commercial site in
Lake Elmo. Dorschner stated that he agrees with Chairman Williams. He doesn’t know if
this site is appropriate for a public use.
Kreimer agrees with Williams and Dorschner. He thinks that we should know what the
REC requirements will be from the Met Council. Kreimer has a hard time giving up this
land to Public Facility when the facility will not serve our own students.
Larson asked what our requirements are for regional planning. Johnson stated that
there are no regional mandates for public facilities. Johnson also stated that REC units
for schools are high. Erickson stated that the REC count is even higher for this facility
than a regular school, as the fixture requirements for their students are higher.
Morreale thinks there are better sites to the east that might be better for traffic
management and growth.
Lundgren asked about the Blaine facility. Kristine Carr described the area surrounding
the Blaine facility. It is also located near a business park in Blaine, in addition to
agricultural and residential areas.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
5
M/S/P: Larson/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit at
36.029.21.42.0013 and PUD Amendment for the Eagle Point Business Park with the
conditions outlined in the Staff Report, Vote: 2-5, Motion Fails, with Williams, Lundgren,
Kreimer, Dorschner and Morreale voting no.
Dodson supports the motion.
Williams stated he does not support the motion due to the lost tax revenue. Dorschner
agrees with Williams and feels that it serves the greater community and not Lake Elmo.
Klatt provided further background regarding the Staff Recommendation and that the
financial component should be negotiated at a later date with the city Council. He stated
that reviewing the proposed land use should be the heart of the analysis.
Dorschner stated the proposed CUP fails to meet finding #9 of the required findings for
CUPs. Lundgren added she feels that the CUP fails to meet the character of the area,
finding #3.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundgren, move to recommend denial of the request to amend the
Eagle Point Business Park to allow schools as a conditional use in the business park, Vote
5-2. Motion Carried, with Dodson and Larson voting no.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to amend the motion to state that Condition #8 as
presented in the Staff Report is too vague to ensure that the City will be adequately
compensated, Vote: 6-1, Motion Carried.
Klatt recommended passing an advisory motion to state which areas of the application
the Commission thought do not meet the CUP standards. Dorschner stated that he feels
that this is not necessary as they already highlighted items #3 and #9 in the discussion.
Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment – 10689
60th Street North.
Johnson presented information regarding an application for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and Zoning Map amendment for property at 10689 60th street to rezone
the property from Rural Residential to Commercial. The request is intended to bring
zoning of the property into compliance with the existing use of the property, which is a
trade shop (landscaping business). More specifically, the subject property is the home
base for 3 landscaping businesses. A trade shop is not a permitted use in the Rural
Residential zone. The property is just less than 10 acres and has direct driveway access
to Trunk Highway 36. The property is part of the Rural Planning Area according to the
Comprehensive Plan, and the surrounding uses are agriculture, an open space
development and 2 churches. Staff is recommending denial based on a number of
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
6
factors. First, staff does not feel that the request is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan. Second, rezoning this site would be consistent with a Spot Zoning
action because it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible
with the zoning of the surrounding properties. Finally, the site does not have adequate
public facilities to be rezoned to Commercial. More specifically, the direct access to TH-
36 represents a hazard to public safety and poor access management.
Brian Meyers, owner of Oak Meadows Landscaping spoke regarding access and
characteristics of the property. He also spoke about surrounding properties.
Lundgren asked how many employees work on the site. Myers responded that he has
10 employees.
Dodson asked how long they have been on the site. Myers responded that they have
operated there approximately 3 years.
Kreimer asked about what is happening with the house. Myers responded that they
have a renter living in the house and there is a fully functioning septic. The employees
use portable facilities.
Public Hearing opened at 9:24pm
Keith Bergman, 5833 Lake Elmo Ave. N., noted that the Bergmann family supports more
Commercial zoning in the community, as well as more Commercial zoning along TH-36.
However, he notes that he does not support this request due to concerns related to
spot zoning. He also notes that the land owner has not taken good care of the property.
They purchased the property as residential property and have paid taxes as such. They
chose to covertly operate a business and turned the property into a mess. Over the
years, the Bergmann’s have had to deal with the dumping of asphalt and concrete
debris on their adjoining property. If they are rezoned, anyone along 36 could illegally
start a business and then when discovered, just ask to be rezoned to commercial.
Public Hearing closed at 9:28pm.
Dorschner stated he supports businesses such as these in rural areas. However, he
notes that he is concerned about how this business has operated covertly, as well as the
Spot Zoning issue.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundgren, move to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment request based upon the findings outlined in the Staff Report,
as amended by the Planning Commission, Vote: 7-0, Motion Carried.
Updates and Concerns
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
7
Council Updates
1. Design Guidelines and Standards Manual – Approved on 11/19/13.
2. Design Review Ordinance – Approved on 11/19/13.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. December 9, 2013
b. December 23, 2013 – Cancelled
c. January 13, 2014 (tentative)
Commission Concerns
Williams noted that he is not pleased with Staff presenting the “Findings of Fact”
worksheet at the last minute. He would have liked staff to include it in the packet so
that they could review it. Klatt noted that it was intended as a tool to support the
drafting of findings.
Larson felt that the worksheet was very helpful and it came in handy as a summary tool.
Dorschner feels that it is useful, but shares the concern about it being handed out on
the fly. He would like to see the worksheet in the packet so that they can use it as they
are reviewing the materials.
Dodson would like to see the formality at the end of the worksheet removed.
Kreimer thinks it is a good tool and would like to see it used more as a tool and not
signed and submitted.
Klatt stated that Council only gets draft minutes so this is another tool to better
communicate the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Council.
Meeting adjourned at 9:46pm
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Johnson
City Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-25-13
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 12/09/13
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2013-29
ITEM: Boulder Ponds Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Concept Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Rick Chase, Building Official
Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing for a request from Amaris
Company LLC for a residential Planned Unit Development Concept Plan with 93 single family
residential homes and a 64-unit multifamily dwelling to be located on approximately 58 acres
immediately east of the Eagle Point Business Park and within the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 11 conditions of approval as listed in
the Staff Report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Amaris Company, LLC, P.O. Box 10811, White Bear Lake, MN 55110
Property Owners: Louis Damiani Trust, c/o Security Bank & Trust Co., William C. Kuhlmann,
2202 11th Street East, Glencoe, MN 55336
Tim Montgomery, 6211 Upper 51st Street North, Oakdale, MN 55128
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, north of I-94 and Hudson Boulevard, south of
Stonegate residential subdivision, and east of Eagle Point Business Park. PINs:
34.029.21.33.0001; 34.029.21.32.0001; 34.029.21.33.0002.
Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
containing 93 single family homes and a 64-unit senior housing multi-family
residential building to be named Boulder Ponds of Lake Elmo.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural land with one single family home (9120 Hudson
Blvd. N.). Current Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning
District; Proposed Zoning: LDR and MDR PUD
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential Estates subdivision (Stonegate) – RE zoning
and Park (Stonegate Park) – PF zoning;
West: Offices (Eagle Point Town Office Park) – BP zoning;
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
2
South: Retail Trade (Lampert Lumber) – C zoning and Sales
and Storage Lots (Cranky Ape) – C zoning; and
East: future proposed Lennar urban low density residential
subdivision (Savona) – current zoning: RT, future zoning: LDR.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre), Urban
Medium Density Residential (4.5 – 7 units per acre), and
Commercial.
History: Applicants are participating in the Section 34 Utility Project under a Statute 429 area-
wide assessment. The utility project is expected to be completed in December of
2013.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 11/7/13
60 Day Deadline – 1/6/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 3/7/13
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450)
Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800)
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Amaris Company, LLC for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan on approximately 58 acres of land located within the I-94
Corridor Planning Area. The Concept Plan includes 93 single family homes on the northern and
central portion of the site, as well as a proposed 64-unit senior housing multi-family residential
building. In addition, the Concept Plan includes vacant land along the Hudson Blvd that is planned
for future Commercial land uses per the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is the applicant’s intention to
plat the Commercial areas as outlots until Commercial users are identified. The proposed PUD, to be
called Boulder Ponds of Lake Elmo, would be located on property currently owned by the Louis
Damiani Trust, currently managed by Security Bank & Trust Co., and Mr. Tim Montgomery.
The Concept Plan has been developed in response to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the
I-94 Corridor, which guide the applicant’s land as a mix of Urban Low Density Residential – LDR,
Urban Medium Density Residential – MDR and Commercial. The plan incorporates 93 single family
lots, most of which are designed with a width of approximately 65 feet. The majority (76) of the
single family lots are located north of the future minor collector road, 5th Street, whereas 17 single
family lots are located south of the minor collector. In addition, the 64-unit senior housing multi-
family building is also located south of the minor collector road adjacent to the areas that are guided
for future Commercial land uses.
As opposed to following the City’s normal subdivision procedures, the applicants have determined
that a planned development approach offers the best method to achieve their development vision for
their property. The purpose of the City’s PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility in development and
zoning standards for large parcels under unified control with the goal of achieving higher quality
development. More specifically, the General Concept Plan phase of the PUD procedure allows the
applicant to submit a general plan to the City demonstrating his or her basic intent of the
development, including general density ranges, location of residential and nonresidential land uses,
and location of streets, paths and open space. The purpose of approving the Concept Plan is to
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
3
provide the applicant with conceptual approval related to the requested flexibilities or variations from
the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, or other City standards, before incurring substantial
costs related to submitting a full Preliminary Plat application. In terms of procedure, the planned
development path is similar to the normal subdivision process in that Preliminary and Final PUD
Plan approvals must follow parallel track to Preliminary and Final Plat. However, one critical
difference between the planned development process and standard subdivision process is that the
PUD Concept Plan phase requires a public hearing and the approval of the City Council.
Alternatively, the Sketch Plan review phase, the first step in the standard subdivision process, does
not require a public hearing and City approval. The reason that the PUD Concept Plan requires a
public hearing and City approval is due to the requested flexibility and variation from the City’s
standard zoning and subdivision procedures. Regarding variation from the City’s Zoning Ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan, the applicants have requested minor flexibility in a couple of areas, hence
justifying the planned development approach. The requested variances or flexibilities will be further
discussed and analyzed in the Planning and Zoning section of the Staff Report.
The Boulder Ponds Concept Plan also includes a significant portion of the proposed 5th Street minor
collector road as planned in the City’s Transportation Plan. Once completed, the minor collector
road will serve as the primary access for the Boulder Ponds planned development. The segment of
the minor collector road included in the Concept Plan is part of the 1st phase of the 5th Street collector
road, from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19). Eventually, the 5th Street minor
collector road is planned to serve the entire I-94 Corridor from west to east (Inwood Ave. to Manning
Ave.). As shown in the Concept Plan, the design of the minor collector road as part of the Boulder
Ponds development is consistent with the City’s specifications for this roadway segment. The
applicant has provided for a 120-foot wide right-of-way, which will provide sufficient room for the
construction of a parkway with turning lanes, 10-foot bituminous trail, sidewalk, trees, lighting, and
other design elements as planned by the City. It should also be noted that the applicants and other
interested landowners in the area have recently met with City staff to discuss the possibility of
petitioning the City for a 429 area-wide assessment project to complete the 5th Street minor collector
road from Keats Ave. (CSAH 19) to the western boundary of the Boulder Pond project next year.
Finally, to achieve the desired vision of development for their project, as well as address difficult
grade issues on the site, the applicants are proposing to move the alignment of the minor collector
road to the south. The applicants are currently working with the adjacent property owners to the east,
US Homes Corp. (Lennar Homes) and DPS-Lake Elmo LLC (Dale Properties), to come to terms on
an agreed alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road. The proposed alignment of the minor
collector road will be further discussed in the Review and Analysis section of the Staff Report.
In terms of utilities, the applicants are currently participating in the Section 34 Utility Project, which
is extending sewer and water throughout Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. With the
improvements associated with the Section 34 project, the applicants will have access to both sewer
and water from the south (Hudson Blvd.) and west (Eagle Point Business Park). Currently, sewer and
water service are being provided by the City of Oakdale via a Joint Services Agreement. There is
currently enough capacity in the Oakdale system to provide sewer and water service to the Boulder
Ponds development. As the build-out of the Stage 1 Area of the I-94 Corridor progresses, the City
will need to transition water services to the Lake Elmo municipal water system via the Inwood Ave
Trunk Watermain Extension Project, as well as transition sewer flows to the Met Council W.O.N.E
interceptor station along Hudson Blvd. The City will work with the applicants to plan for adequate
utility infrastructure with the submission of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat.
Other major features of the proposed planned development include outlot areas that will provide for
open space, trails, and storm water management throughout the development area. The development
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
4
also incorporates a buffer/greenway area along the northern boundary of the plat adjacent to an
existing RE – Residential Estates subdivision as required in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. All
outlots that are planned for park land or storm water use will be deeded to the City, while the future
home owner’s association will retain ownership of the remaining outlots.
Regarding next steps, the applicant is proposing to bring forward a Preliminary Plan and Preliminary
Plat application upon approval of the Concept Plan. Per the PUD Ordinance, the final approval of the
proposed planned unit development will result in a zoning change to a specific PUD zoning district,
with specific requirements and standards that are specific to the development. If the application
moves forward, the change in the base zoning (LDR, MDR, C) of the property would occur at the
time of Preliminary Plan approval, and the final PUD zoning with approved flexibility that is specific
to the development would be established at Final Plan approval.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Boulder Ponds site is guided for Urban Low Density Residential, Urban Medium Density
Residential and Commercial land uses in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Density Analysis
sheet within the Boulder Ponds Concept Plan delineates the low density, medium density and
commercial areas respectively within the proposed planned development. The realignment of the 5th
Street minor collector road to the south allows the applicant to maximize the single family residential
area to the north, creating a larger distinct single family neighborhood as opposed to having the
parcels bisected in half by the collector road.
Regarding the design of the planned development, the single family residential area to the north of
the minor collector street is defined by one curvilinear residential through street that allows for ease
of travel through the neighborhood. The remaining portions of the single family neighborhood are
served by three cul-de-sacs, none exceeding 500 feet in length. Also, the applicants are proposing to
include several landscaped medians and islands within the proposed City streets, the highlights of
which are three medians in the middle of the single family neighborhood. In relation to the lots and
blocks, the arrangement follow a curvilinear pattern, which allows the vast majority of the lots to
back up to common open space of some form. The northern portion of the single family area north of
the minor collector street also contains the 100’ greenbelt buffer between the new growth areas and
the Stonegate residential estates subdivision as guided by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
greenbelt buffer contains a trail that connects to the trail provided by the Lennar urban low density
subdivision to the east and connects with the trail within the 5th Street corridor to the west. This area
is also the location of a power line easement owned by Xcel Energy. On the southern half of the
minor collector road, a local street connects the medium density residential commercial areas from
5th Street to Hudson Boulevard. South of the collector road, the plan include one small area of 17
single family lots, as well as a 64-unit multi-family building intended for senior housing. Regarding
the commercial areas (approximately 9 acres) to the south of the medium density residential area, it is
the applicant’s intention to plat these areas as outlots until prospective users are identified.
For pedestrian circulation and recreation, sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the Boulder
Ponds planned development. Consistent with City Design Standards, the applicants have included
sidewalks to be installed on at least one side of all streets. Also, the greenbelt buffer trail included on
the northern portion of the site is consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition to the internal trails and sidewalks that are proposed by the developer, the 5th Street Corridor
include a 10-foot bituminous trail on the north side of the road and a six-foot sidewalk on the south
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
5
side. The internal trails and sidewalks provide good circulation to the 5th Street trail, which is
intended to provide a regional transportation and recreation purpose.
Regarding the single family lots within the Boulder Ponds Concept Plan, the vast majority of the lots
meet the minimum size requirements for the City’s Urban Low Density Residential – LDR zoning
district. The minimum lot size per the City’s LDR zoning district is 8,000 square feet, and the
minimum lot width at building setback line is 60’. Of the 93 single family lots, all but five lots (Lot
59, 69, 72, 73 and 75) meet or exceed the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet as required under
LDR zoning. Overall, the average single family lot size in the planned development is approximately
10,495 square feet. In addition, the vast majority of the single family lots meet or exceed the
minimum 60’ lot width. The applicants have noted that allowing for minor flexibility in lot area and
width is one of the key reasons for proceeding with a planned development. Also pertaining to the
single family residential lots, the applicants are requesting that the City consider reduced side yard
and front yard setbacks to accommodate the unique design of the single family residential portion of
the planned development. Reduced setbacks allow for greater clustering, which promotes high levels
of open space. According to §154.802.E-F, planned developments may allow for reduced setbacks
and reductions in area and width of individual lots. It is Staff’s understanding that the applicants are
seeking to allow 5’ side yard setbacks on both sides of the principal structure. In addition, the
applicants may be seeking reduced front yard setbacks. Any reductions in front yard setback must be
approved with the understanding that adequate separation is provided between parking areas
(driveways) and sidewalks, so that any potential obstacles, such as parked vehicles or trailers, do not
encroach on residential sidewalks. Overall, reductions in all residential lot sizes and setbacks must be
clearly identified, reviewed and approved at time of PUD Preliminary Plan phase.
Also related to single family lots, the applicants have included five residential lots that are partially
or almost entirely on a small triangular piece of property owned by Dale Properties. The applicants
are proposing to acquire this land from Dale Properties in order to facilitate the platting of these five
additional lots and realign the minor collector road to the south. Dale Properties has submitted a
letter (Attachment #5) indicating that general agreement has been reached on the land acquisition.
For the purposes of the Concept Plan, the applicants have “ghost platted” the five lots, Lots 14-18 on
the PUD Lot Areas sheet, with the intention of acquiring the land prior to Preliminary Plat
submission. If these lots are to be included in the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat, the
applicants must submit evidence demonstrating control or consent of this area being included in the
plat. If this is not possible, plans must be revised accordingly.
Regarding the proposed multi-family residential building, the applicant has noted that it is likely
intended for a senior living facility. Given that the application is currently at Concept Plan phase, it
is not required that significant detail be provided. However, it should be noted that within the Urban
Medium Density Residential – MDR zoning district, multi-family dwellings are considered a
conditional use. At the time of Final Plat and PUD Final Plan approval for the phase that includes
the 64-unit multi-family dwelling, the applicant will be required to apply for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). Further review of the multi-family dwelling should occur at the time of review for the
required CUP.
On the topic of housing density, the applicants have submitted a density analysis worksheet to
present the gross densities associated with the low density and medium density areas. Due to the fact
that the minor collector road has been moved to the south, the proposed Boulder Ponds planned
development would include more single family residential development than is currently planned for
in the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is important to note that per the Comp Plan, the 5th Street
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
6
minor collector road serves as the boundary between low density and medium density areas in the
Stage 1 Area (Inwood Ave. to Keats Ave.) of the I-94 Corridor. The gross density of the single
family area to the north of the collector road, which is approximately 28.5 acres, is calculated to be
2.66 units per acre. The medium density area, which is approximately 10.1 acres, contains 81
residential units (17 single family, 64 multi-family), resulting in a gross density of 7.98 units per
acre. It should be noted that this density figure is slightly higher than what is guided by the
Comprehensive Plan. However, given that the proposed development is a PUD, and that the amount
of land guided for medium density residential development on these parcels by the Comprehensive
Plan is much greater, Staff has determined that the proposed Concept Plan meets the spirit and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. To explain Staff’s reasoning for this determination in another way, the
proposed Concept Plan decreases the amount of total land guided for medium density development
by over 20 acres by moving the collector road south. The slight increase in density above the allowed
range per the Comp Plan is balanced by the significant reduction in the amount of land guided
medium density. To put it in simple terms, by using the low end of gross density ranges in the Comp
Plan, these parcels were guided to have 195 total residential units (not accounting for road right-of-
way), whereas the proposed PUD Concept Plan includes 157 total units. Overall, the proposed PUD
Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the land use and density requirements as guided by the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of parkland dedication requirements, the Subdivision Ordinance requires that 10% of the
land in urban residential districts to be dedicated for park purposes. Alternatively, fees may be
submitted to the City in lieu of land dedication at a rate equal to the market value of the land. It is at
the discretion of the City Council how parkland/fees are accepted to meet this requirement. The
Boulder Ponds site is approximately 58 acres in size. Therefore, under the approach of a pure land
dedication, the applicants would be required to dedicate approximately 5.8 acres of land for parkland
purposes. In the application narrative, the applicants note that within the proposed Plan Concept
Plan, 11.8 acres are devoted as park space. However, it must be noted that to be accepted as parkland
for dedication purposes, the land must be able to serve an active recreation purpose. In addition, if
linear land dedications are accepted, a trail that provides effective connectivity in the community
must be provided and constructed. Also, it should be noted that the City cannot accept land that is
subject to private easement for public parkland dedication. This consideration relates to the location
of the Xcel Energy power line easement in the greenbelt buffer area in the northern portion of the
site. It is the recommendation of Staff that further discussions be had with the applicants regarding
which areas are eligible for parkland dedication. Greater clarity regarding parkland dedication
requirements and eligibility should be reached in advance of Preliminary Plat.
Regarding available or future park facilities, the applicants are proposing to continue the
greenbelt/buffer trail along the northern portion of the property. This trail provides connections to
the 5th Street regional trail and Stonegate Park from the east. Given it proximity, it makes logical
sense that Stonegate Park, in addition to other City parks, will serve the future residents of the
Boulder Ponds planned development. It is recommended by Staff that the City works with the
applicants and property owners to the west of Stonegate Park, Azure Properties, to investigate
possible expansions or improvements to Stonegate Park. In addition Staff will work with the Park
Commission to evaluate if any additional facilities or programs should be offered at Stonegate Park.
Evaluating the facilities and programing of Stonegate Park should inform future planning or
expansion efforts.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7
City Staff has reviewed the proposed Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan, which has gone through
multiple iterations in advance of the formal application being accepted as complete by the City.
During the course of these reviews, several of the issues and concerns that were previously raised by
Staff have been addressed by the applicant with updated submission documents. However, it is
important to note that there are other elements of the plan that still require additional attention in
advance of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submittal. In general, the proposed plan
will meet all applicable City requirements for PUD Concept Plan approval, and any deficiencies or
additional work that is needed is noted for the purpose of inclusion in the review record. In addition
there are several things happening in and around the Boulder Ponds planned development that will
have an impact on the project, including the possible petition for a 429 area-wide assessment project
to construct the 5th Street minor collector road, as well as the final alignment of said road. Given that
some of these efforts are still underway, Staff recognizes that some minor modifications may be
necessary from PUD Concept Plan phase to PUD Preliminary Plan phase.
The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, in addition to general
comments by the South Washington Watershed District, all of which are attached for consideration
by the Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the
following discussion areas as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan for this area and with the densities that were approved as part of this
plan. The gross densities for the development generally are consistent with the ranges
allowed for the urban low density and urban medium density land use categories. Other
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan as
follows:
o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor
collector road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the I-94 Corridor.
Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation infrastructure that is
needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. The applicant has
incorporated the right-of-way at the width necessary to construct the minor collector
as part of its PUD Concept Plan.
o Parks. The greenbelt trail provided on the northern portion of the site is consistent
with the City’s Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City’s
Park Plan in the Comprehensive Plan does not identify this area as a future location
of a neighborhood park due to its proximity to Stonegate Park.
o Water. Water will eventually be provided to this area via a future extension of the
municipal system along Inwood Avenue. The Boulder Ponds planned development
will be able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale
until the Inwood watermain extension is completed.
o Sanitary Sewer. The Boulder Ponds planned development will be required to
connect to the sewer main being constructed as part of the Section 34 area wide
assessment project. In this case, all of the property owners that are planned to be
served by sanitary sewer have petitioned the City to construct the required sewer and
water mains to serve the area.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
8
o Phasing. The Boulder Ponds planned development is located within the Stage 1
phasing area for the I-94 Corridor and therefore the proposed development is
consistent with the City’s anticipated phasing of growth.
• Zoning. The proposed base zoning for the Boulder Ponds site will be split between the
Urban Low Density Residential – LDR, the Urban Medium Density Residential – MDR, and
Commercial – C zoning districts. However, approval of PUD Final Plan will result in a
zoning change to a specific PUD Zoning District, recording all of the permitted variations,
such as minimum lot size and setbacks, from the Zoning requirements of the base zoning
district.
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. The City will work with the
applicant to ensure that all standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance are met, or that
the appropriate variation is requested through the PUD Preliminary Plan.
• Concept Phasing. The applicants have also submitted a Concept Phasing Plan, indicating
how they intend to proceed with construction and build-out of the proposed planned
development. As proposed by the applicants, the Phasing Plan indicates that Phase I includes
construction of the access road to Hudson Blvd. and the southern portion of the northern
single family residential area. Phase II includes construction of the medium density
residential area. Finally, Phase III includes the construction of the remaining single family
area in the northern portion of the site, as well the 5th Street minor collector road. Staff is
recommending that the Phasing Plan be revised so that all public infrastructure is constructed
adjacent to any areas being platted. More specifically, the minor collector road should be
constructed adjacent to any areas of residential homes that are being platted. It is critical that
the city ensures that all public improvements needed to serve development in the I-94
Corridor are installed as growth occurs.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Storm water
facilities should be platted as outlots and deeded to the city for maintenance purposes.
Adequate access to storm water facilities must be provided.
• Tree Preservation and Protection. Based upon the existing tree cover of the site, it is
possible that the applicant may not be required to complete a Tree Preservation Plan. If the
applicant can demonstrate that significant trees on the site will not be negatively impacted by
development activity, they would be allowed to submit a Woodland Evaluation Report in lieu
of a Tree Preservation Plan.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north of the Boulder Ponds
planned development and south of the Stonegate subdivision as a green belt/buffer space with
a minimum width of 100 feet. In the case of the subject property, this area is also the location
for a significant power line easement held by Xcel Energy. As proposed in the PUD Concept
Plan, the applicant is utilizing this space for the continuation of trail corridor from the east.
Design of the greenbelt trail is consistent with City planning efforts to date. Staff believes
that that green belt/buffer requirements of the Comprehensive Plan have been met by the
applicant.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9
• Streets and Transportation. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with
all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards, with the exception of
the requested variance as noted in the City Engineer’s report. Staff does have some concerns
related to the landscape medians and island in term of acceptable turning radii, emergency
vehicle access, snow removal, general maintenance, and safe turning movements. More
specifically, the central intersection of the northern single family area contains three large
medians/island that present difficult turning movements and safety concerns related to
limited turning radii, potential limited visibility due to plantings, and, in multiple instances,
direct driveway access that intersects with this unique central intersection. The applicant will
be directed to provide significant geometric detail of these areas and work with staff to
ensure that all islands and medians allows for safe travel movements and efficient
maintenance. Finally, further clarification must be provided regarding proposed plantings in
these medians/islands, as well as the responsible party for the maintenance of these plantings.
• 5th Street Alignment and Design. Staff has the following comments regarding the proposed
alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road and design:
o The applicants have proposed to relocate the alignment of the 5th Street minor
collector road to the south in order to maximize the potential for a single family
neighborhood to the north, as well as mitigate difficult grade issues that exist on the
site. From meeting with the applicants on multiple occasions regarding the proposed
alignment of the minor collector road, staff has found the existing grade challenges to
be accurate, and the alignment proposed in the Concept Plan to work in the context of
meeting Municipal State Aid (MSA) road design requirements. To make the
proposed alignment feasible, the applicants are working with the property owners to
the east, Lennar and Dale Properties, to negotiate realigning the road to the south. All
indications that the City has received indicate that general agreement has been
reached, and the realignment will move forward. Evidence of these negotiations is
documented in Attachment #5, a letter from Mr. Alan Dale of Dale Properties.
o In addition to the eastern alignment, the applicants have also been working with
Bremer Bank regarding the alignment of the minor collector road in the northwestern
portion of the site. As proposed, the 5th Street right-of-way would encroach on the
Bremer Bank property, and the road would encroach ever so slightly on the very
northeast corner of the Bremer property. It is the City’s understanding that
discussion regarding the alignment of the collector in the northwest corner are
moving forward in a positive direction. As a condition of seeking PUD Preliminary
Plan and Preliminary Plat approval, Staff is recommending that both alignment areas,
the northwestern and eastern alignments, are resolved or agreed upon by all interested
parties in advance of future application submittals.
o Regarding the proposed alignment of the collector road, as well as the alignment of
the local access road connecting Hudson Blvd., the properties to the south and east
(Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber) of the subject property do not currently have
access provided. It is Staff’s recommendation that right-of-way be platted to these
adjacent parcels in a location that is acceptable to the City Engineer.
o Finally, as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application
submission, Staff is requesting that the plans for 5th Street include all design elements
as requested by the City, including the street trees, landscaping, lighting, median
plantings, and other elements as proposed by the Damon Farber design work.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
10
• Sidewalks and Trails. As noted in the City Engineer’s report, there are several instances
where sidewalks and trails are located within either private outlots or on individual
residential single family lots. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all front property lines
include 10’ drainage and utility easements. The placement of sidewalks within these
easements would impact the City’s ability to use these easements for utility or maintenance
purposes. In addition, having the sidewalks located on private property hinders the City’s
ability to maintain these public improvements. Also, it is important to maintain appropriate
clear zones for all sidewalks and trails. Staff is recommending that all sidewalks and trails be
located in City right-of-way.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a
detailed comment letter dated November 20, 2013 as a summary of his PUD Concept Plan
review. Staff has incorporated the more significant issues identified by the Engineer as part
of the recommended conditions of approval, and has also included a general condition that all
issues identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of
a the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat. The Engineer does note that the proposed
Concept Plan complies with the City’s standards, with one exception related to base material
of City streets.
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District.
Comments have been provided (Attachment #4) by the SWWD Engineer, Matt Moore.
• Environmental Review. Based upon the proposed scope of the Concept Plan, the City does
not believe that the planned development will individually trigger further environmental
review.
Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the Boulder Ponds
PUD Concept Plan with multiple conditions intended to address future considerations related to the
submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner,
Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road
in the northwest corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the
submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
2) The applicant must resolve the alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road in the
southeast portion of the site with adjoining property owners, specifically Lennar and Dale
Properties. The final alignment must be determined prior to the submittal of PUD Preliminary
Plan and Preliminary Plat applications.
3) Access must be provided to the adjacent parcels owned by Star River Holdings LLC (Cranky
Ape) and Lampert Yards Inc (Lampert Lumber) via either the 5th Street minor collector road
or the access road to Hudson Boulevard. The access location must meet the approval of the
City Engineer.
4) The applicant must acquire additional land in the eastern portion of the site to plat single
family residential Lots 14-18 as part of the Preliminary Plat application, or revise their plan
accordingly.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
11
5) Request for flexibilities related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the
City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of
the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission.
6) The applicant must revise the Phasing Plan to accommodate the construction of all public
infrastructure adjacent to any proposed areas to be platted within said phase per the City
Engineer’s report dated November 20, 2013.
7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and
maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped
landscape medians and cul-de-sacs.
8) All sidewalks must be located in dedicated public right-of-way. All trails must be located
within dedicated right-of-way, City parkland, or a 30-foot wide dedicated easement at a
minimum.
9) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed
district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
10) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and
the land is located outside of any restrictive easements.
11) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer
documented on the Engineer’s report dated November 20, 2013.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Boulder Ponds Concept Plan:
1) That the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
2) That the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s
Urban Low Density Residential and Urban Medium Density Residential zoning districts.
3) That the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.
4) That the Boulder Ponds PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance.
5) That the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering
standards with one exception as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the
City dated November 20, 2013.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds PUD
Concept Plan with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact
and conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.”
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
12
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan & Attached Materials
2. Location Map
3. City Engineer’ Report
4. South Washington Watershed District Review Letter
5. 5th Street Alignment Letter, Dale Properties
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 4A – ACTION ITEM
PUD Planned Unit Development Stage
1 General Information
a
1/3rd Owner Tim Montgomery
6211 Upper 51st St N
Oakdale, MN 55128
Cell (612) 701-5616
ccnmont@yahoo.com
2/3rd Owner Louis Camani Trust
c/o Security Bank & Trust Co
Willam C Kuhlmann
Cell (952) 239-2297
bill@securitybanks-trust.com
2202 11th Street East
Glencoe, MN 55336
b The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner
Amaris Company, LLC
P O Box 10811
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
2593 Lake ave
White Bear Township, MN 55110
Raymond Pruban
rpruban@amariscompany.com
Office 651-426-0584
Office Fax 651-426-0585
Cell 651-248-3631
c
Rick Harrison
Site Planner
Rick Harrison Site Design
Office 763-595-0055
rharrison@performanceplanningsystem.com
Dean Robbins
Civil Engineer
Evolution Engineering
Cell 651-303-7208
sonnyrobbins101@yahoo.com
The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the
development of the PUD plan being submitted, including but not limited to attorney,
land planner, engineering and surveyor
The landowner's name and address and his/her interest in the subject property.
PUD Development Submission Requirements
Paul Brandt
Soils Scientist & Wetlands Specialist
Soils Company
(651) 260-3783
pjbrandt1@yahoo.com
Jason Rud
land Surveyor
E.G. Rud and Sons Land Surveying
Work (651) 361-8200
jrud@egrud.com
Mitchel Cookas/John Hink
Hydrology & Storm Water Anatysis/Engineering
Solution Blue INc
Office (651)294-0038
jhink@solutionblue.com
mcookas@solutionblue.com
Charlie Devine
Real Estate Professional Advisor
Remax Specialsits
Cell 612-220-0140
devinec@icloud.com
2 Present Status
a The address and legal description of the property.
b
1) The existing zoning classification of the subject property is low density residential, medium density
residential and commerical. 2) The existing zoning classificaiton of the property to the northern boundary is
"Residential Estate". 3) The existing zoning classification of the property to the western boundary is
'Business Park". 4) The existing zoning classification of the property to the southern boundary is "N/A"
(Hudson Road with Intersate Hwy 94). 5) The existing zoning classification of the property to the east
boundary is low density, medium and commerical.
The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands
within 350' of the subject property.
c
d
i Contours (min 5' intervals)
ii Location, type and extent of tree cover.
iii Slope analysis
iv
e
f
g
h
See PUD Plan
See Sketches
A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and showing its
relationship to the City Comprehensive Plan.
Statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and
a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres
and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following:
Proposed design features related to proposed streets, showing right-of-way widths,
typical cross-sections, and areas other than streets including but not limited to
pedestrian ways, utility easements and storm water facilities.
Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept, including but not limited
to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open
space, residential and other land uses.
The Cities Comprehensive plan shows a mixture of Low density residential, medium
density residential and commercial. The initial comp plan shows a majority of the
property as being medium density housing demarcated by the 5th Street collector
road. Due to the grades of the site, the pipleine and the requirements of the MSA
collector road (5t Street), it became obvious from an engineering standpoint that 5th
Street needed to be moved to the south and west edges of the property. The PUD
Plan then integrates the low density single family lots (65' wide) into one
neighborhood north and east of 5th Street. The medium density area south of 5th
Street then integrates the (65' wide) lots with a senior housing development. The
PUD Plan is one that meets the intent of the ordiance for overall density, yet offers an
upscale feeling .
Discuss
See Survey
Site conditions: Where deemed necessary by the City, graphic reproductions of the
existing site conditions at a scale of (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet shall be
submitted and contain the following:
A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all land within
350' of the subject property and showing the location of existing streets, property
lines, easements, water mains, and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations
on and within 100' of the subject property.
See Survey
See Survey
The site is primarily cleared. There are some trees on property lines that
have not yet been located by the survyor.
In our understanding of steeps slopes, there are no steep slopes on the
site that would require a slope analysis.
Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands, streams and flood plains
within 300' of the subject property.
Discuss
See Survey
i Area devoted to residential use by building type.
Lot Type SQ FT Acres %
65' Single Family (N of 5th)1,241,454 28.500 48.90%
65' Single Family (S of 5th)311,048 7.141 12.25%
Senior Housing 130,960 3.006 5.16%
Commercial Propety 390,141 8.956 15.37%
ii Area devoted to common open space.
Description SQ FT Acres
Park Space 514,367 11.808 20.26%
Ponds Outside Commercial 66,993 1.538 2.64%
Wetlands 16,912 0.388 0.67%
5th Street ROW 178,873 4.106 7.05%
Internal ROW 187,844 4.312 7.40%
ROW South of Collector 124,453 2.857 4.90%
iii Area devoted to public open space and public amenities.
Description SQ FT Acres
Regional Ope/Park Space 402,737 9.246 15.86%
6' Wide Trails 22,292 0.512 Counted In Parks
5' Wide Meandering Walks 26,729 0.614 Counted In Parks
iv
Lot Type Driveway Units Per Unit
Single Family Driveways 57,603 93 619.39
Senior Parking 26,329 64 411.39
Each dwelling unit offers a minimum of two car garges (and some three)
and a minimum of two cars to park outside in the driveways. The
residential streets are all 28' curb to curb allowing for on street parking
along the interior local roads. The commercial parking will provided as
part of the site plan submited when purchased and built by a commercial
developer. At tis time, the PUD Plan does not antcipate any variances with
regards to commercial parking requirements.
Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and
loading spaces and related access.
v Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses.
vi
None
i
j
k
The commerical area is being platted as outlots at this time. The total of
the outlots is 8.988 acres. When the outlots are eventually sold the
commercial developer will provide a site plan at that time for
consideration and appoval.
??The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation
which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD.
The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or
document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration
of the specific proposal.
??
When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending
beyond a single construction season, a preliminary schedule for the development of
such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and
completion date for each such stage and overall chronology of development to be
followed from stage to stage.
Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use.
See Phasing Plan
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN
12-4-2013
Location Map: Boulder Ponds PUD
K
STONEGATEPARK
STONEGATE
EAGLE POINT BUSINESS PARK
BREMERBANK
EAGLE POINT BLVD.
H
U
D
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
.
0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Boulder Ponds Site
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 20, 2013
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Bolder Ponds
Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Concept Plat Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced Concept Plan submittal that we received on November 18, 2013
consisting of the following documentation prepared by Evolution Engineering:
Concept PUD Plans dated November 7, 2013.
5th Street Alignment Bremer Parking Impacts dated November 7, 2013.
STATUS/FINDINGS: No specific approvals are intended from this review. The comments below have been
provided for the purpose to facilitate direction and guidance for both City staff and the applicant; as well as
highlight potential issues and concerns as the applicant prepares for preliminary plat submittal.
VARIANCE REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the city street pavement section to ONLY require a 12‐inch
select granular subbase in areas with unsuitable in‐situ materials. It is strongly recommended that all new
city streets be constructed in strict accordance with the minimum engineering design standards manual to
ensure that the city streets provide the intended useful service life of the asset. The purpose of the
standard section requirements is to keep the asset from premature failure and avoid the cost burden that
would fall upon the general tax payer of Lake Elmo.
Side yard setback of 5 feet. Any allowance to deviate from the side yard setback should be conditioned
upon proof of an acceptable drainage plan, with drainage NOT passing along that side of the structure.
Front yard setback of 20 feet. Any allowance to deviate from the front yard setback should be conditioned
upon ensuring a minimum distance of 25 feet between the garage door and any sidewalk or trail along the
street to keep vehicles parked in the driveway from obstructing the pedestrian throughway.
STREET SECTIONS:
The applicant is proposing a roadway configuration that is generally acceptable and in accordance with
city standard requirements.
Primary and secondary access appears adequate for the site. The proposed access along Hudson
Boulevard will require further review to determine access spacing and sight lines.
Detailed grades and sight lines will require further review to ensure the intersection design and
configuration of 5th Street North and the new “STREET A” meet acceptable MSA standards.
Typical sections for each road will be reviewed in further detail as part of the preliminary plat. Issues for
staff to consider in greater detail include:
Sidewalk and trail placement and requirements. Sidewalks and trails must remain within the R/W.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 4
Street geometrics varying from the city standard will require significant geometric detail from the
applicant, as part of the preliminary plat, to verify acceptable use for maintenance and emergency
services. This includes intersection and cul‐de‐sac details.
CONCEPT PHASING:
The concept phasing must be revised to accommodate the construction of all public infrastructures
adjacent to any proposed areas to be platted within said phase. For example, the northeast segment of 5th
Street connecting to the Lennar development must be constructed together with the lots platted adjacent
and to the north of this street. The segment of 5th Street along the southeast side of the Bremer bank
property should also be constructed at the same time that the lots adjacent to the segment are platted
(also Phase 1 according to this plan).
5TH STREET ALIGNMENT: 5th Street seeks to become the backbone of future development along the I94
corridor, essentially becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. The street is
required for the sole purpose to support the growth and development within the corridor. The quality of the
street and its connections are critically important. The purpose of the proposed street standards are to 1)
improve the function and appearance of the street, 2) encourage pedestrian and bicycle use, and 3) reduce the
potential for speeding.
The plan indicates a minimum 120 foot R/W as required.
The proposed 2‐lane collector parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and
must be consistent with the detailed parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor
segments.
The proposed alignment appears to be consistent with this design intent. However, the proposed plan
indicates impacts to adjacent properties. Permission to impose these impacts will be required as needed.
Access spacing to 5th Street is allowed at 1/8 mile intervals for non‐continuous local streets, at ¼ mile
intervals for continuous local streets and collector streets, and at ½ mile intervals for streets with higher
classification.
Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments and the preliminary design that was provided to the city by Damon Farber. 5th Street Amenities
include:
North side off‐road bituminous trail, minimum 10 foot width with 5 foot clear zone.
South side concrete sidewalk, minimum 6 foot width with 2 foot clear zone.
Landscaping elements including: Center landscape median [combination perennial/shrub beds + sod
+ median trees]. Center median lined with 2 ft. wide concrete ribbon curb. Boulevard trees
[boulevard trees, deciduous trees at 2.5" caliper in. minimum + ornamental trees at 1.5" caliper in.
minimum. Tree spacing at 75 feet on both sides. Special concrete in median [pavers or color concrete
at end caps of median]. Landscape Berms, 3 to 5 feet in height, between residential property and
street R/W. Site Irrigation.
Theming Elements including: Street Lights ‐25 ft. poles at 250 ft. spacing [Xcel Energy ‐ 'Evans' Lamp].
Ornamental Street Lights – 15 ft. poles at intersections [Xcel Energy ‐ 'Acorn' Lamp]. Banner Poles at
primary gateway intersections. White post & rail fencing along important arterial streets.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
The plan indicates all residential streets being constructed to a 28 foot width from back of curb to back of
curb. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in single family residential areas and B618
curb in commercial and multi‐family areas.
The plan indicates a minimum 60 foot R/W as required.
Ten (10) utility easements are required on either side of the right‐of‐way.
Five (5) foot sidewalks must be provided along all continuous residential streets and along other streets as
may be required for connectivity.
PAGE 3 of 4
All street intersections must be at 90 degrees and maintain 100 feet of tangent with maximum slopes of
2% for first 100 feet.
Residential maximum longitudinal grade is 8% with no sidewalks, 6% where there are sidewalks.
The plan indicates minimum diameter cul‐de‐sac’s at 90 feet with minimum 120 foot right‐of‐ways.
Landscape median geometrics must accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicle access.
Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all unique shaped center landscape medians at
cul‐de‐sacs.
MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal water and sanitary sewer service into the
development site at developers cost. The city’s practice has been to reimburse the developer for oversize
costs for pipe sizes over 8‐inch diameter. Both municipal water supply and sanitary sewer service will be
available along Hudson Blvd.
The subject property is a participant in the SECTION 34 Water and Sewer Utility Improvement project.
Water and sewer are being extended to the property through a city led project with the costs to be
assessed against the property. Water and sewer service will be available to the site in December 2013.
A connecting trunk watermain is identified in the city comp plan along the northern part of the property,
extending from the Lennar development to the east, across the subject property and connecting to the
Eagle Point Business Park or Azur property. Details may be determined as part of the preliminary plat
submittal.
WATERMAIN DETAILS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
Watermain distribution lines will need to be looped wherever reasonably possible. Maximum
length of for a watermain dead end is 600 feet.
Hydrant and valve placement will be made per city standards and as laid out by city staff.
Curb stops to be placed to edge of right‐of‐way.
Location of watermain in street [North or West side].
SANITARY SEWER DETAILS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
Manhole and appurtenances shall be installed per city standards.
Location of sewer main in street [Centerline].
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed development resides within the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD). City staff
recommends early planning/coordination meetings with the watershed district to clearly understand
development requirements, including rate and volume control.
The design of the storm water management systems must be compliant with the requirements of the
applicable watershed district and the City of Lake Elmo. The City of Lake Elmo maintains engineering
design standards intended to ensure an efficient and cost effective stormwater management system for
both operation and maintenance purposes.
The storm water facilities must be platted as Outlots and deeded to the city for maintenance purposes.
Maintenance access roads must be provided for the storm water facilities including easements.
Location of storm sewer main in street [South or East side].
EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA:
Existing conditions of the proposed site was not fully provided as part of the submittal. Some information
is apparent from the aerial drawings and contour mapping, however, the applicant should be required to
identify all exiting utilities, utility owners, pipe material and sizes, pipe invert data, easements and right‐
of‐ways clearly identified, and identifying the normal and high water levels for existing low areas including
wetland and floodplain boundaries.
The plans do not show the existence of a Lot within the proposed plat boundaries [PID 3402921330002].
Removal and remediation of this site will need to be addressed as a condition of preliminary plat.
PAGE 4 of 4
GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFICATION PREPARATION COMMENTS:
• When preparing preliminary plat, final plat and construction plans, the applicant should reference the
engineering design standards manual and strictly follow the plan preparation and design requirements.
Plan sheets, plan scales, line types and legends, sections, details, profiles, existing conditions and
proposed improvements shall all be prepared consistent with these requirements. Line types cannot be
repeated.
• Plan details shall be inserted on the details page as provided by the city with no edits, unless specifically
allowed by the city engineer.
• Plan notes shall be placed on the appropriate plan sheet as provided by the city with no edits, unless
specifically allowed by the city engineer.
• City standard specifications shall be inserted within the specification manual unedited. Specification edits
shall be called out on separate specification sections as special provisions.
From:Moore, Matt
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Loomis, John
Subject:RE: December Land Use Review
Date:Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:17:51 PM
Nick:
A quick comment, they will have to apply for a watershed district permit for stromwater design and they have
submitted a Wetland Conservation Act delineation, however the application was deemed incomplete and will need
to be re-submitted in the spring.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Matt Moore
Administrator
South Washington Watershed District
2302 Tower Drive
Woodbury, MN 55125
Phone: 651-714-3729
Fax: 651-714-3721
Cell: 651-249-7096
mmoore@ci.woodbury.mn.us <BLOCKED::mailto:mmoore@ci.woodbury.mn.us>
www.swwdmn.org <BLOCKED::http://www.swwdmn.org>
From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Moore, Matt; 'Jack Griffin'; Mike Bouthilet; Greg Malmquist
Cc: Kyle Klatt; 'Ann Pung-Terwedo'; Dean Zuleger
Subject: December Land Use Review
Please find attached a Land Use Review for the December 9th Lake Elmo Planning Commission. Hard copies will
be mailed today. Let me know if you have any questions.
Take care,
Planning Commission
Date: 12/9/13
Annual Report
Item: 5a
ITEM: Planning Commission 2013 Annual Report
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Rick Chase, Building Official
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review an annual report that has been prepared by
Staff to summarize the activities of the Planning Commission and Planning Department in 2013.
This report focuses on the larger activities and projects undertaken during the year, and will
include some statistical information pertaining to the City’s planning activities. The Planning
Commission is asked to review the plan, provide any comments or suggestions, and to submit the
document to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the annual report and adopt a motion to
recommend submission of the report to the City Council.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................................Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
- Report by staff ................................................................Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
- Questions/Comments from the Planning Commission ................ Planning Commission
ATTACHMENTS:
• 2013 Annual Report
2013 Community Development Department Annual Report
I. Annual Summary
The Lake Elmo Community Development Department is submitting its annual report for
consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission. 2013 marked a year of
transition for the City as much of the workload for the Planning Commission and
Planning Department focused on preparing for future growth and development. As a
result of these planning efforts, the City saw its first major preliminary plat in seven
years in the Savona Subdivision, which also represents the City’s first sewered
residential development. These planning efforts have also led to the project currently
underway to extend sanitary sewer service into the Village, a project that has been in
the works for over a decade.
The most important accomplishment for the Planning Commission in 2013 has been the
completion of two major updates to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,
the City Council was able implement the I-94 Corridor Land Use Plan and Housing
Chapter updates upon approval of these plan amendments by the Metropolitan Council.
Early in the year, the Planning Commission also recommended an amendment
concerning the Village Planning Area that was also adopted by the City Council. The
Village Plan is expected to be approved by the Metropolitan Council on December,
which will signify the end of a very long process to create a unified vision for the Village.
While working on these major updates to the Comprehensive Plan, the City also
approved an amendments to the waste water chapter of the plan that brought this
section into conformance with the land use chapter revisions. In addition, the City
undertook a joint project with the City of Oakdale to bring sanitary sewer service a small
number of lots on the western shore of Lake Olson. The waste water plan was further
revised to identify a future sewer service area in this portion of the community.
In order to implement the newly updated Comprehensive Plan, the Planning
Commission has been working on significant amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Rather than tackling this work as one large project, the Commission has been reviewing
and recommending code amendments on a section by section basis. This has allowed
the Commission to focus on smaller segments of the Code while keeping existing
regulations in place. In 2013, the City Council adopted 14 such amendments ranging in
size and scope from a driveway ordinance to a new Village mixed use district. The
Zoning Map was also updated in 2013 to incorporate the transitional zoning that will
facilitate the rezoning of parcels guided for future sewered development. The 2014
work plan will include the additional amendments that must be drafted to complete the
Zoning Ordinance update project.
2
In preparing for future growth and development, one of the critical projects that was
undertaken during the year was the creation of a design standards and guidelines
manual. The approved manual replaces the City’s outdated zoning design standards.
With assistance from the City’s Communications Coordinator, the Planning Department
has produced a document that should provide potential developers with a clear and
concise description of the City’s vision for new commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family
housing projects. Additionally, the City partnered with Damon Farber Associates to
prepare a community Theming report that will help guide the appearance of public
right-of-way and other public lands. This document is being shared will all future
developers in the City to further clarify the City’s expectations concerning the expected
character of new developments.
Throughout the year, the Planning Department has spent a large amount of time
preparing for new development, both in terms of meeting with potential developers to
discuss the City’s review and application process and working on various applications.
The City received three subdivision sketch plans in 2013, and based on recent
discussions with potential developers, Staff expects that there will be a minimum of five
more such reviews over the course of the next several months. Furthermore, based on
the reviews conducted in 2013, there will be at least five major residential projects
under construction in 2014 with the potential for new commercial development on the
horizon as well.
Towards the end of 2013, the Planning Commission was able to direct some of its
attention to the City’s rural planning areas, which have not been subject to any
significant discussion since before the 2005 Comprehensive Plan update. These areas
area seen as critical to helping maintain the open space character of the City well into
the future, especially with the changes that will be occurring with the new sewered
development areas.
Consistent with the theme of change in 2013, the City successfully negotiated an
amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the
Metropolitan Council. With the release of the preliminary 2040 forecast numbers from
the Met Council (with numbers much lower than the 2030 forecast amounts), the City
also expects to continue working with the Met Council at a quantitative easing of the
City’s REC unit mandates. Based on conversations and meetings with the Met Council
that were conducted in 2013, it appears that the elimination of the MOU in its entirety
is not out of the realm of possibility for 2014.
On a staffing level, the Community Development Department added a Planning Program
Assistant in 2013 who has provided much needed clerical and administrative support to
the entire department. The Building Official continues to make substantial progress at
improving the City’s Building Inspection department by implementing a consistent
application and review process for builders and by developing a series of work books for
specific permits. The City’s code enforcement activities saw a significant increase in the
number of cases that were not only investigated, but also resolved by the Building
Official.
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
3
II. Annual Review: Major Projects
Major accomplishments for the Community Development Department in 2013 include
the following projects:
Comprehensive Plan Updates. The City completed work on several significant updates
to the Comprehensive Plan in 2013, including:
• I-94 Land Use Plan and Housing Chapter. These elements of the plan were
adopted in late 2012 by the City Council, but authorized for implementation
by the Met Council in early 2013. The final adoption for these land use plan
amendments have allowed several projects within the I-94 Corridor planning
area to begin moving forward.
• Village Planning Area. The Village Area amendment to the Land Use Chapter
was approved by the City Council in the first half of 2013, but due to airport
zoning issues and updates needed to other portions of the Comprehensive
Plan, the final review has only recently been completed by the Met Council.
This plan is expected to be approved on December 11, 2013 and can then be
implemented by the City Council.
• Waste Water Chapter. The City was required to update the Water Water
section of the Comprehensive Plan before the Met Council was able to
complete its review of the Village Land Use Plan. An updated plan was
approved by the City and forwarded to the Met Council to consider during its
review of the Village Plan.
• Olson Lake Trail Sewer Area Amendment. The City created a new sewer
service area comprised of approximately 15 properties along the western
shoreline of Lake Olson that will be served via a joint project with the City of
Oakdale. The project is being viewed as a pilot project for potential future
cooperation between Oakdale and Lake Elmo to address sewer issues in the
Tri-Lakes area.
Metropolitan Council – MOU. The City successfully negotiated an amendment to the
2005 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lake Elmo and Met Council
that implemented the previous flexibility that was granted to account for the housing
downturn that began around 2007. The update MOU now reflects the City’s population
and household growth forecasts that were adopted as part of the I-94 Land Use Plan
update. The City received preliminary 2040 forecast numbers from the Met Council,
and has drafted a response to the forecast that will guide future conversations on this
subject.
Design Standards and Guidelines Manual. The City Council adopted a Design
Guidelines and Standards Manual that will be used to guide new commercial, mixed-
use, and multi-family housing developments throughout the community. This manual
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
4
was completed after a lengthy public review process and involved the coordination and
cooperation of several City departments.
Land Use Applications. Through the support of the Planning Commission, the
Community Development Department worked on 40 land use applications/projects in
2013, including but not limited to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, conditional
use permits, zoning text amendments, and variances. The most common application
processed were zoning text amendments, most of which were directly related to the
larger Zoning Ordinance Update project. The City reviewed the first major subdivision
to be submitted in seven years.
Building Permits. The City of Lake Elmo processed 306 building permits, not including
plumbing and mechanical permits, in 2013. The number of permits issued in the past
year is very consistent with amount of building activity over the past 5 years. In terms
of new single family homes, the City has issued permits for 32 new homes in 2013 to
date, which represents the highest number in almost 10 years . With the addition of 32
single family homes and demolition of four homes, the City experienced a net increase
of 28 dwelling units.
Staffing. Over the course of the year, the City of Lake Elmo added one new position to
the Community Development Department. The new employee is Joan Ziertman, filling
the role of Planning Program Assistant. With this full-time addition to Staff, the City is
better positioned to handle the expected growth in the coming years.
Airport Zoning. Planning Staff conducted a series of meeting with the Metropolitan
Airport Commission, MnDOT Aeronautics Division, Metropolitan Council, Washington
County, and impacted land owners to begin the process of drafting an airport zoning
ordinance. This process led to some minor modifications to the Village Comprehensive
Plan amendment in order to account for the existing runway safety zones. The Planning
Department has established a goal to have an airport zoning ordinance adopted in 2014.
Railroad Crossing Study. The Planning Department conducted a meeting with the
Union Pacific Railroad to begin the process of created a new railroad crossing for the
Village Parkway roadway.
Comprehensive Planning Workgroups. With the completion of major updated to the
Comprehensive Plan in 2013, the I-94 and Village Planning Work Groups stopped
meeting in 2013.
Lake Elmo Theming Manual. Upon completion of a public input process led by Damon
Farber Associates (and attended by members of the Village Planning Work Group and
Planning Commission), the City Council adopted a Theming Manual for Lake Elmo.
Whereas design guidelines are intended for the private realm, the Theming project is
geared towards the public spaces of the community, such as roads and public gathering
spaces. The final document is comprised of a ‘Kit of Parts’ that includes various color
palettes, site amenities, and other designs that are reflective of the Lake Elmo theme.
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
5
Form Based Codes. The Planning Commission discussed the benefits and drawbacks of
adopting a form-based code and directed Staff to begin work on such a code
amendment. Staff met with two planning firms to consider the process and steps
necessary to implement a form-based code.
Permit Works Implementation. The City installed and began using a new software
program called Permit Works to track building permits. The new system allows permit
to be issued through the electronic system and can be accessed by all employees within
the department. This software has helped created a substantial improvement in Staff
efficiency by improving access to and reporting of building permit information.
Savona EAW. The Lennar residential subdivision (Savona) was large enough that it
required a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Although the document
was prepared by the developer’s consultants, City Staff was involved in the processing
and review of the document.
Village Sewer Policy. Through the efforts of the City Administrator, the City Council
adopted a sewer policy for existing septic systems within the Village Planning area. This
policy, which was reviewed and accepted by Washington County, provides flexibility for
property owners whose treatment systems are unable to meet current county septic
requirements. This relief will be important for ensuring a smooth transition to public
sanitary sewer when it is made available to Village property owners.
Rural Area Discussion. The Planning Commission began discussing the future of the
City’s rural development areas. The adoption of the 2040 regional development
forecast by the Met Council is seen as a crucial next step in determining the appropriate
level of development within these area. The rural area discussion will be a major
component of the Commission’s 2014 plan of work.
Park Planning Review. Planning Staff reviewed several subdivision sketch plans with the
Park Commission in order to solicit their feedback concerning new parks and trails in the
community.
Trail Planning. The Planning Department assisted the Park Commission Trail
Subcommittee in its work to identify a preferred trail alignment that will connect
portions of Lake Elmo to the Stillwater Area High School and to the trail system in
adjacent communities.
Buberl/Nass Detachment. Staff continued to provide support in the City’s efforts to
appeal the decision to detach property in the northeast portion of the City to Stillwater
Township. Do date, the City has been unsuccessful in overturning this decision.
Subdivision Files and Records. With the recent acquisition of a large format plotter and
scanner, Staff has been able to create electronic scans of all subdivisions within the City.
This work has resulted in a substantial time savings for all City Staff that can now access
every plat in the City from their desks. The scanning of older address and project files is
expected to continue into 2014.
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
6
Policy Success Loops. The Community Development Department has created a policy
document has been used to improve (and measure the success of) the City’s application
completeness reviews. Staff will be looking to make similar improvements to other
aspects of the land use review and approval process.
Creation of Escrow Fee System. The City Council adopted a new fee schedule in 2013
that requires the submission of an escrow deposit for larger land use applications. Staff
has started tracking its time against certain projects in 2013, and this time is now being
reimbursed by developers.
Gateway Corridor Technical Committee. Staff continues to participate as part of the
Gateway Corridor Technical Advisory Committee. The committee has begun working on
the required environmental analysis and review of alternatives for this process.
Annual State Planning Conference. The Community Development Director and City
Planner attended the State Planning Conference in Rochester, MN in September of this
year. The theme for the conference was Operation Plan: Prioritizing Community Vitals.
City Code Amendments. In 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed 14 major City Code
Amendments, including the following (and all of which were adopted by the City
Council):
• LDR District Standards Amendment
• Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance
• Rural Development Districts
• I-94 and Rural Transitional Zoning Map Amendments
• Parking Standards
• Village Mixed Use District
• Specific Development Standards
• Sign Ordinance Update
• Administrative and Enforcement
• Fence Ordinance
• Landscape Requirements
• Design Review Ordinance Amendments
• Driveway Ordinance
• Subdivision Ordinance Amendments (Public Land Dedication)
Land Use Applications. In 2013, Staff processed nine (9) land use applications, including
the following:
• Valley Branch Watershed District CUP – Raleigh Creek Culvert Removal
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
7
• Country Sun Farms Interim Use Permit Renewal and Amendment
• Sketch Plan Review:
o Hammes Estates Subdivision
o Ryland Homes (Landucci Property) Subdivison
• Savona Preliminary Plat
• Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan
• Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
o Olson Lake Trail Sewer Service Area
o Landucci Property (Ryland Homes)
o Dietrich/Reider Property (Pratt Homes)
o 10689 60th Street North
• Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustments:
o Christ Lutheran Church Minor Subdivision
o Lennar Lot Line Adjustment
o Boyle (32nd Street) Lot Line Adjustment
• Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School District PUD Amendment and CUP
Board of Adjustment Actions . Planning Staff processed four (4) variances in 2012:
• Lot Area Variance – Christ Lutheran Church
• Building Setback Variance: Brink – Olson Lake Trail
• Holding Tank Variance: Brink – Olson Lake Trail
• Lot Size Variance: Dworak – Hill Trail North
• Sign Size Variance: Lake Elmo Event Center
III. Statistical Information
A. Planning Commission Meetings
1. Regular Meetings: 22
2. Workshop Meetings: 1
3. Public Hearings: 33
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
8
B. Planning and Zoning Permits
2013 Planning and Zoning Applications
Planning Applications Approved Denied Pending Amended Total
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments 5 1 6
Zoning Map Amendments 1 1 2
Zoning Text Amendments 14 14
City Code Amendments 1 1
Conditional Use Permits 2 2
Interim Use Permits 1 1
Sketch Plans 2* 2
Concept Plans 1 1
Preliminary Plats 1 1
Final Plats 0
Minor Subdivisions 2 2
Lot Line Adjustments 2 2
Variances 5 5
Vacations 0
Sign Permits 8 8
Appeals 0
Other 1 1
*Sketch Plan reviews do not require formal action by the City.
C. Building Permits: 5-Year Summary
Building Permits Issued (by type): 5-Year Summary
Year
SF Dwellings -
Remodel/Repair Demo
Manufactured
Homes
Mult-
Family
Commercial/Ind
Remodel/Repair
New
Commercial
Single
Family Total
2009 338 4 12 0 32 0 29 415
2010 265 10 6 0 20 0 26 327
2011 320 2 0 0 24 0 24 370
2012 250 3 8 0 19 0 31 311
2013 254 4 0 0 16 0 32 306
Total
Units 1427 23 26 0 111 0 142 1729
Average 285.4 4.6 5.2 0 22.2 0 28.4 345.8
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
9
D. Housing Starts: 5-Year Summary
Respectfully Submitted,
Kyle Klatt
Planning Director
Housing Starts in Lake Elmo: 5-Year Summary
Year Single Family Multi-Family
Manufactured
Homes
Dwellings
Demolished
Net Increase
in Dwelling
Units
2009 29 0 9 4 34
2010 26 0 1 8 19
2011 24 0 0 0 24
2012 29 0 8 3 34
2013 32 0 0 4 28
Total Units 140 0 18 19 139
Average 28 0 3.6 3.8 27.8
Community Development Department – 2013 Annual Report
Planning Commission
Date: 12/9/13
Item: 5c
ITEM: Proposed 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
SUMM ARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider the attached proposed schedule of
meetings for 2014. The schedule follows the established pattern of meeting on the 2nd and 4th
Monday of each month with one exception due to the observance of a holiday.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and accept the proposed 2014
Meeting Schedule with the following action:
“Move to accept the 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule”
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ............................................. Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
- Report by staff ......................................... Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
- Questions/Comments from the Planning Commission ................ Planning Commission
ATTACHMENTS:
• 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
Date Day
1/13/2014 Monday
1/27/2014 Monday
2/10/2014 Monday
2/24/2014 Monday
3/10/2014 Monday
3/24/2014 Monday
4/14/2014 Monday
4/28/2014 Monday
5/12/2014 Monday
5/28/2014*Wednesday
6/9/2014 Monday
6/23/2014 Monday
7/14/2014 Monday
7/28/2014 Monday
8/11/2014 Monday
8/25/2014 Monday
9/8/2014 Monday
9/22/2014 Monday
10/13/2014 Monday
10/27/2014 Monday
11/10/2014 Monday
11/24/2014 Monday
12/8/2014 Monday
*Meeting moved from 5/26 to 5/28 due to the City's observance of Memorial Day
City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission
2014 Meeting Schedule