HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 1-13-14
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, January 13, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Election of Officers
a. The Planning Commission is required to elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson
and Secretary for 2014.
3. Approve Agenda
4. Approve Minutes
a. December 9, 2013
5. Public Hearings
a. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – 9434 STILLWATER BLVD. N.
The Planning Commission is directed by the City Council to hold a public hearing
on amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan to change the land use guidance of a
property at 9434 Stillwater Blvd. N. from Rural Area Development – Alternate
Density (RAD-Alt) to Rural Area Development (RAD).
6. Business Items
a. 2014 WORK PLAN. The Planning Commission is asked to review the
Community Development Department’s proposed 2014 Work Plan.
b. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – CLEANUP AMENDMENT. The Planning
Commission is asked to review proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Code
intended to remove outdated zoning districts that are no longer utilized under the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and official Zoning Map.
7. Updates
a. City Council Updates – December 17, 2013 meeting:
i. Confirmed approval of Conditional Use Permit for Northeast Metro ISD
916 School Facility within the Eagle Point Business Park
ii. Formal Adoption of Village Land Use Plan Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
iii. Approved Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan
b. Staff Updates
2
i. Planning Commissioner Terms - Update
ii. Planning Commissioner’s Journal Articles
iii. Upcoming Meetings:
• January 27, 2014
• February 10, 2014
c. Commission Concerns
8. Adjourn
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of December 9, 2013
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Lundgren, Yocum, Dodson, Kreimer and Larson;
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard, Dorschner and Morreale; and
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt, City Planner Johnson, and City
Administrator Zuleger.
Approve Agenda:
Williams moved to add a discussion item after Item 5b to discuss financial
considerations related to land use and Planning Commission debate and decisions.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to accept the agenda as amended, Vote: 6-0, Motion
Carried Unanimously.
Approve Minutes: November 25, 2013
M/S/P: Kreimer/Larson, move to accept the minutes of November 13, 2013 as
presented, Vote: 6-0, Motion Carried Unanimously.
Public Hearing: PUD Concept Plan for Boulder Ponds
Johnson presented an overview of the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan submitted by Amaris Company, LLC. The planned development is to be
called Boulder Ponds of Lake Elmo. This is the first PUD since the recent amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance. The Concept Plan includes 93 single family homes and a 64-unit
multi-family dwelling. They are pursuing a PUD because they are requesting some
flexibility related to setbacks, lot width and lot sizes. This property is in Stage 1 of the I-
94 Corridor Planning Area and consists of approximately 58 acres. Staff is
recommending approval with 11 conditions of approval.
Kreimer asked if access is required or requested to 5th Street by the adjacent parcels
owned by Star River Holdings (Cranky Ape) and Lampert Lumber. Johnson stated that it
is smart planning for the City to provide access to adjacent sites when platting is
occurring. However, access to 5th Street may not be possible due to Municipal State Aid
(MSA) access spacing requirements. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
2
Kreimer also asked how changing the 5th Street alignment on the property to the
northwest impacts the City’s Land Use Plan. Johnson noted that moving the alignment
of the road further north increases the amount of land guided for Business Park or High
Density Residential. However, most of the development interest the City has received
thus far has been for single family homes.
Dodson asked if the north-south access road to Hudson Blvd. is going to see a major
amount of traffic. Johnson noted that 5th should carry a more significant amount of
traffic, dispersing it to County arterial roads.
Williams asked if there was no construction of 5th street within Phase 1 of the proposed
Phasing Plan. Johnson stated that is correct, that the collector road would be built in
later phases under the applicants proposed Phasing Plan. Williams also asked if there
was any information for grades on the site, especially for 5th street. Johnson stated the
applicant does have a survey of the property and will be able to present better
information concerning existing grades.
Williams asked if the County should have some input on design of 5th in terms of final
alignment. Johnson said that the County has identified where the possible touch down
points are located. In addition, the property owners to the northwest, Azure Properties,
have met with the County to discuss possible connection points. The reason that the
Boulder Ponds application is showing a possible alignment of the road on the northwest
property is that the City wanted to ensure that the alignment met MSA standards,
particularly through the Bremer-Stonegate Park pinch point.
Dodson asked how the road impacts Stonegate Park. Will there be another access point
to the park, and will it impact the ballpark. Johnson stated that there still is some work
to do regarding the future use and design of Stonegate Park. Staff must work with the
Park Commission on the future design of the park.
Mr. Ray Pruban, Amaris Company, LLC, introduced himself to the Planning Commission.
He noted that he contracted Rick Harrison to design the proposed development. He
introduced Rick Harrison to the Planning Commission.
Rick Harrison explained the defining principles behind his designs. He noted that
maintaining travel flow is an important consideration related to neighborhood design.
He then discussed the importance of meandering walks. He stated that they do not
increase the expense of the sidewalks by more than 1 or 2%. He noted that meandering
walks add value to the neighborhood and City. He noted that meandering walks requires
public use easements that extend at least 2’ on both sides of the sidewalks. Next, Mr.
Harrison discussed the principal of coving. Coving maximizes setbacks by constricting lot
width, creating less overall pavement. The proposed plan calls for oversized cul-de-sacs
with landscape islands, while at the same time reducing the overall amount of paving
for streets through building placement and design. The proposed design promotes open
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
3
space in addition to the perception of open space through coving. The plan was
adjusted to account for a 60 foot street right-of-way width, and the applicant is seeking
a front yard setback reduction to 20 feet in certain circumstances. Harrison reviewed
the general lot configurations and setbacks throughout the development. Harrison
presented an overview of the street and sidewalk system, which is intended to increase
safety by keeping pedestrian crossings on one-way streets and by moving crossings
further away from street intersections. He presented a three dimensional computer
model of the development that depicts the overall layout and topography of the site.
Williams asked if the applicant has a contour map of the pre-development conditions.
Ray Pruban presented a survey of the site. Pruban explained that the site topography
presents unique challenges, based partially on the fact that there is existing
development on three sides, requiring the Boulder Ponds development to meet existing
grades. There is also a further restriction due to the location of a gas pipeline that runs
through the eastern portion of the site. Pruban explained that the requirements to
build 5th Street to MSA standards places further restrictions on the site.
Pruban reviewed the process and thinking that was used to identify the proposed
alignment of 5th Street through the site. This proposed alignment is intended to
minimize impacts to all surrounding property and minimize the amount of grading that
will be necessary.
Finally, Ray Pruban asked to comment on the conditions of approval. He made the
following comments:
• The Boulder Ponds team is working to resolve the road alignment issues to the
east. However, he is concerned about requiring the alignment to be resolved
before the next phase of development application.
• There are two possible alignments of the collector road by the Bremer site.
Similar to the eastern alignment, Boulder Pons is concerned that requiring
Bremer’s consent for an alignment may present roadblocks to his development
moving forward.
• Regarding the requirement to provide access to the adjacent parcels, Star River
Holdings and Lampert Lumber, Pruban noted that it is not possible to provide
access to the Lampert site due to the spacing requirements associated with the
5th Street minor collector road.
• In terms of the condition related to the proposed Phasing Plan, Pruban wanted it
noted that they are proposing to mass grading the site, meaning that 50% of the
cost for building the collector road would be completed in the 1st phase of the
development.
• Mr. Pruban asked that the Planning Commission allow meandering walks and
trails through the use of maintenance easement that would allow the City to
maintain these improvements.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
4
Dodson asked why the City would require access to an adjacent property when the
adjacent property has not requested access. Johnson noted that it is good planning
practice to provide access in order to avoid land locked parcels.
Kreimer asked if the property be properly developed without 5th Street. Pruban stated
that they do not need 5th street to develop the first phase of the property.
Public hearing opened at 8:42 pm.
Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Avenue, wants to make sure that we are adequately looking at
places for new residents to use for parks and recreation. There was no mention of parks
or playgrounds concerning use of open space and outlot areas. He state that he sees
green space, but no parks on the Boulder Ponds plan. He also reiterated that the Staff
Report noted that open space must serve active recreation purpose to be accepted as
park land. Monteith asked if Xcel Energy will allow trails under a power line easement.
Monteith then presented an overview of the surrounding area, including the location of
Stonegate Park. He showed a map depicting existing and proposed parks and trails in
the area. He expressed concern that there is not an adequate amount of parkland
within the newly developing areas to serve the expected population. If this park is going
to serve a regional population, then there needs to be improvements and upgrades
within the park.
David Anderson, representing Bremer Financial Services, noted that they own the land
immediately west of the applicant’s site. They have plans for an expansion of the
Bremer facility in the future, and the collector road may have an impact on these plans.
It is a necessity to preserve land to allow for future expansion, storm water
management, and to deal with other site issues. He stated that there is some critical
infrastructure that is needed to serve the Bremer facility along the eastern portion of
the property. He would like to coordinate elements of Bremer’s future facilities plans as
the Boulder Ponds subdivision moves forward.
John Jarros, 429 Julep Ave, has concerns about park, as well as the amount of
development in one small area in Lake Elmo. He does not think that the amount of
proposed park space will be adequate. He added that the location of the buffer trail is
at the extreme northern portion of the property and immediately next to Stonegate. He
requested that this trail be moved further to the south. Pruban stated that the location
of the trail could be adjusted.
Public hearing closed at 9:10 pm.
Williams commented that he thinks this is a nice plan. He accepts the explanation for
why the 5th street alignment is moved to the south. He notes that the PUD Concept Plan
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but minor issues need to be worked out.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
5
Dodson agreed it is a nice plan, but is concerned about the lack of parks in this area of
the City. Administrator Zuleger and Klatt made some comments concerning the City
park system. Klatt stated that they are required to dedicate land or pay a fee to meet
the parkland dedication requirements. Zuleger stated that they have been listening to
Planning Commission’s concern about the lack of parkland. The City will be looking at a
park within the Hammes Estates development. In addition, the City has also been in
discussions with Azure properties about expanding Stonegate Park to the west and
north. Zuleger added that the City is looking at a more regional recreation facility next to
Oakland Junior High School that will be a joint project between the school district and
the City. Finally, the Parks Commission has agreed to put $220,000 into refurbishing
existing parks. Some of this money could be used for improvements at Stonegate Park.
Larson would like to encourage a tot lot or smaller park area for residents within the
development.
Kreimer asked if trails can be built within the power line easement. Johnson stated that
it can be allowed. Larson asked if the power lines can be buried. Zuleger said it is not
feasible due to enormous costs.
Williams asked about the engineer’s report, which requires a minimum 120-foot right-
of-way (R.O.W.) for the collector road. Johnson explained that roadway can be
accommodated in smaller right-of-way, but road as proposed will serve a regional need
and has been planned for landscaping, trail, and other transitional elements that
support the 120’ R.O.W. He noted that if there is one area that would warrant a
reduced right-of-way, the pinch point between Stonegate Park and the Bremer site
would be a good candidate due to the limited space and site challenges.
Williams asked if anyone has any concerns regarding the findings. Williams has a
concern that a finding is listed related to only one variation from engineering standards.
He notes that other variations and exceptions are requested than simply the road sub-
grade. Williams would like to see finding #5 removed. The Planning Commission
generally consented to this request.
Williams thinks that condition #8 needs to be re-worded. He suggested rewording the
condition to “the developer shall come to an agreement acceptable to City Staff to
accommodate meandering walkways within acceptable easements or public right-of-
way.
Williams thinks Condition 1 should state there should be relief from 120-foot right-of-
way along the Bremer Bank property line. More specifically, he suggested allowing a
100-foot right-of-way.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
6
Williams also asked about the access to Cranky Ape and Lampert Lumber property. Staff
proposed an amendment related to this condition that addressed this concern. The
Planning Commission was comfortable with the condition as amended by Staff.
Williams noted that he is concerned with that way that Condition #5 is worded in that is
indicates that flexibility from zoning requirements is being granted with this approval.
Johnson explained that intent is to make sure that any requests for flexibility are
documented before preliminary plat is submitted. It is intended to document and
record requests for flexibility from zoning requirements in the future. Klatt suggested
adding a sentence, “that all requests for flexibility must be approved by City at the time
of PUD Preliminary Plan approval”.
M/S/P: Dodson/Larson, move to recommend approval of the Boulder Ponds PUD
Concept Plan with findings of fact and conditions of approval as discussed and
amended, Vote: 6-0, Motion Carried Unanimously.
Business Item: 2013 Community Development Department Annual Report
Klatt provided a high level summary of the activities in 2013. The high level includes 2
major Comp Plan amendments, adoption of the Design Standards Manual and Theming
Study, Zoning Ordinance Update project, and others.
Williams noted that Community Development Department and Planning Department is
used interchangeably. Klatt noted that it is now the Community Development
Department.
Lundgren asked about the location of the Hammes West proposed development. Klatt
identified the parcel.
Dodson asked about the MOU Amendment. Klatt indicated that the action was the
adoption of a revised MOU by Met Council that was incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan.
Williams asked about core success looping. Johnson explained that creating success
loops is an internal effort to focus on continuous improvement of City processes. He
noted that the purpose of a success loop is to focus on the necessary steps to achieve a
process effectively.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, move to accept the 2013 Community Development
Department Annual Report, Vote: 6-0, Motion Carried Unanimously.
Business Item: 2013 and 2014 Work Plan
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
7
Klatt presented the 2013 Work Plan and identified the progress or completeness of the
various goals and tasks.
Regarding the 2014 Work Plan, Klatt presented the draft City Council 2014 Plan of Work,
specifically the Land Use Planning portion. They include: 1) adoption of the City Zoning
Code, 2) Adopt form based code for the Old Village, 3) Develop policy and procedures
for routine land use matters, 4) reduce population forecasts & eliminate MOU, 5)
efficiently process and approve pending or anticipated final plats, 6) resolve airport
zoning conflicts with MAC and MnDOT Aeronautics, 7) add the planning module for
Permit Works software for project tracking, and 8) Implement escrow and developers
agreement processes.
Other high priority projects internal to the Community Development Department and
Planning Commission include: 1) Village Area AUAR 5-year update, 2) Rural
Development Areas Study, 3) Zoning Updates, including specific development standards
and others.
Klatt noted that the Final 2014 Plan of Work will be presented in January. Staff is
seeking specific feedback for 2014 Work Plan at the first meeting in January.
Dodson asked about the Rural Area Development analysis. Klatt noted that Planning
Commission has asked about allowing further development in rural areas in the future.
Williams noted that the Planning Commission did a large amount of work in 2013.
Administrator Zuleger concurred.
Williams suggested the Commission Members review the 2014 Plan of Work when it is
available and let Klatt know if they have any suggestions.
Business Item: Discussion of Financial Considerations Pertaining to Planning Commission
Review of Land Use Policy and Applications.
Mayor Mike Pearson discussed a recent council action, as well as the reasons for the
action. He noted that the City Council is the fiduciary agent for the City, and the
Planning Commission should not solely focus on financial items when reviewing a land
use application.
Williams respectfully disagreed with the Mayor. He stated it is appropriate to consider
financial implications of development projects. He feels that all bodies should consider
financial implications in all decisions.
Mayor Pearson would like to see Planning Commission specifically focus on the land use
aspects of projects rather than the financial aspects.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
8
Dodson also feels that it is appropriate to look at financial considerations, but also feels
they could have done a better job on the review of the land use considerations of the
District 916 school project.
Larson feels that in some instances it is more important for the City to look at the
greater good of a project as opposed to the financial components.
Klatt explained that under State Statute there are 3 objectives or tasks with which the
Planning Commission is charged. Those are 1) the adoption, review and amendment of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan, 2) reviewing and adopting procedures to implement
Comprehensive Plan and 3) reviewing applications to comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. There may be financial impacts, but the main thing that the Planning Commission
should be looking at is the land use. The City Council is the body to look at the financial
impacts.
Business Item: 2014 Meeting Schedule
The 2014 proposed meeting schedule was presented and accepted.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates
1. Conditional Use Permit and PUD Amendment Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate
School District – Approved on 12/3/13.
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map 10689 60th Street– Denied on
12/3/13.
3. Driveway Ordinance – Approved 12/3/13 with minor amendments.
4. PZ recommendation to adopt a Moratorium on RAD alt -Took no action 12/3/13,
but did direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider
changing one parcel guided RAD-Alt back to RAD classification.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson move to consider changing all RAD-alt parcels back to RAD.
Kreimer discussed why the Planning Commission recommended the moratorium. He
feels it is not a good idea to change any parcels without knowing the final approved Met
Council forecast. Williams feels that the public hearing could be held on all parcels, but
the recommendation could be that only one be changed back. Mayor Pearson stated
that the Council does not like the term moratorium, especially with the current Met
Council negotiations. In addition, he feels the Friedrich property is viewed as separate
and unique because of size, location and lack of utilities. The Council feels that the
other 2 can be discussed after the Met Council decision. Klatt stated that if we changed
all 3 parcels, that would be a significant change in the eyes of the Met Council and they
might raise it as an issue.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
9
Dodson withdrew his second to the motion. The motion died for lack of a second.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. December 23, 2013 - Cancelled
b. January 13, 2014
c. January 27, 2014
Commission Concerns - None
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Johnson
City Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-13
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 1/13/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-01
ITEM: Friedrich Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission has been directed by the City Council to conduct a public hearing to
consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the future land use map for property at
9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. The Council has specifically asked that the Planning Commission
consider changing the future land use designation of this property from RAD-ALT (Rural Area
Development Alternate Density) to RAD (Rural Area Development). The primary difference
between these two land use categories is that the RAD-ALT designation would allow residential
densities on the site of up to 2.0 units per acre while the RAD designation would limit this number to
0.45 units per 40 acres.
6
Because the Planning Commission has spent a significant amount of time over the last two months
reviewing and discussing the City’s rural development areas in a fair amount of detail, Staff will be
providing a more basic summary of the City’s past action on this property within the present report
and will ask that the Commission refer to the previous meeting packets for additional information
concerning the history and current issues associated with the rural development areas in the
community.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City Council initiated action
Property Owners: Irvin Friedrich, 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North
Location: 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North (part of Section 15 Township 029 Range 021).
PID Number 15.029.21.31.0001
Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of the
subject property from RAD-ALT to RAD
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential/Agricultural/Agricultural Outbuildings
Existing Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use: Single Family Residential, Agricultural, Park
Surrounding Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family; RR – Rural Residential; A – Agriculture
Comprehensive Plan: RAD-ALT (Rural Agricultural Density Alternate Density); 2.0 units per
acre
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – PUBLIC HEARING
2
Proposed Comp Plan: RAD (Rural Agricultural Density); 0.45 units per acre
History: The subject property has been used as an agricultural farmstead for decades. The
future land use designation for the property was changed in 2010 in response to a
request for a senior living/farm school development proposal that has since been
rendered void due to the passing of City submittal deadlines for further review.
There are no active development proposals pending on the property. Upon receipt of
a Planning Commission recommendation to establish a moratorium on all RAD-ALT
properties, the City Council did not adopt such a moratorium and instead directed the
Commission to consider a land use change to the subject property.
Deadline for Action: None
Applicable Regulations: Comprehensive Plan – Chapter III: Land Use Plan
Zoning Ordinance – Article 9: Rural District Standards
Section 154.067 – OP2 Zoning Regulations
REQUEST DETAILS
The Planning Commission has devoted time at two of its recent meetings to discuss the City’s rural
development areas, and has asked that these conversations continue as part of the Commission’s
work plan for 2014. The Commission will specifically be looking at potential changes to the
Comprehensive Plan that will study the following issues:
• Potential population and household forecast reductions associated with the Met Council’s
revised 2040 regional forecasts.
• Elimination of the RAD-ALT future land use category.
• Amendments to the rural development areas that will allow for additional development
opportunities on parcels less than 40 acres in size.
• Consideration of the benefits and drawbacks of allowing additional development in rural
areas in terms of public service costs, impacts on rural character, and other factors.
In anticipation of potential changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan related to the above
discussions, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a moratorium on all
RAD-ALT development for a period of nine months. This time period was chosen to allow time for
the 2040 Regional Forecast (and related projections for cities within the metro area) to be finalized
before the City made any long-term decisions concerning the population and household numbers
used in the land use plan. The City Council ultimately did not support the recommended moratorium
concerning RAD-ALT development, but did ask the Planning Commission to consider a more
immediate change on one of the City’s properties that is guided in this manner.
The specific request from the City Council was that the Commission consider a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the future land use designation of the property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard
North from RAD-ALT to RAD. The Council’s rationale for choosing only this parcel for a change
includes the following:
• The City created the RAD-ALT (which was initially called RAD-2) land use category as
part of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment after an extensive study and review of
the City’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and
Met Council.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – PUBLIC HEARING
3
• Based on an analysis of these obligations, it was decided that the City would need to
increase densities in the rural development areas in order to achieve the household and
population requirements by 2030.
• The sites chosen for the increased density (RAD-2 land use classification) were selected
for specific reasons, including proximately to sewered development, isolation from other
rural parcels, and locations along municipal boundaries or adjacent sewered communities.
• The land use designation for the subject parcel at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard was changed
based on a specific development proposal that has not materialized and is no longer valid.
Under state statutes, the City Council cannot take action to amend the Comprehensive Plan without a
recommendation from the Planning Commission and until after a public hearing has been conducted
as part of the Commission’s review. The Commission is therefore being asked to conduct this public
hearing at its next meeting to gather additional feedback on this matter and to make a formal
recommendation to the City Council concerning the appropriate land use designation for the subject
property.
BACKGROUND/PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The City received a land use application from Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail in the spring
of 2010 to change the future land use designation of the Friedrich property at 9434 Stillwater
Boulevard North from RAD to RAD-2 (which is the same as the current RAD-ALT land use
category). This application was made in order to allow a concurrent request for a senior living,
townhouse, and farm-based preschool Planned Unit Development project to move forward. The
applicant further requested an amendment to the City’s zoning regulation in order to create new OP-2
Open Space Preservation Zoning regulations that was also drafted in order support the proposed
development.
In the period of time since the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the subject property was
approved, the project applicant has not submitted a preliminary development plan and the timeframe
for submitting such a plan has expired. There is therefore no pending application moving forward on
this property, and any previous or new request for development would need to go back through a
concept plan review (with a new application, hearing, etc.).
In order to aid the Planning Commission’s deliberation on the current Comprehensive Plan
Amendment under review, Staff has attached the previous Staff Report that was prepared for the City
Council when the 2010 request was initially reviewed by the City. Although over three years has
passed since this review was conducted by the City, the information specific to the Comprehensive
Plan and the applicant’s site is still relevant and should be useful for the Planning Commission to
consider with the present request. Please note the following important points from this report:
• The City split up its review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and project development
(PUD) applications and dealt with these matters at separate meetings.
• Planning Staff recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for reasons that
are spelled out in greater detail in the report.
• The Planning Commission unanimously (all nine members at the time) recommended
approval of the request to the City Council.
• The City Council, after several meetings and a workshop session, voted 4-1 to approve the
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – PUBLIC HEARING
4
Since 2010, the City has adopted two major amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and adopted a
new future land use map for the entire community. There were no changes made, however, to any of
the land uses outside of the Village Planning Area and I-94 Corridor Planning Area with the
exception of minor corrections and adjustments to fir the new map.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Because this matter is being directed to the Planning Commission from the City Council, Staff will
not be presenting a formal recommendation to the Commission other than to review the findings that
have been previously proposed or adopted. The Commission should consider its recent discussions
concerning rural area development as part of its review, and Staff would be happy to make any of
these past reports available to individual Commissioners (these reports are also available on the
City’s website).
Staff would like to suggest the following parameters as the Commission deliberates on the present
request:
1. The Planning Commission has been asked to consider a specific Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for a specific property in the community.
2. A public hearing notice has been mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the subject parcel
and this hearing has been scheduled for January 13, 2014.
3. Comments and discussion concerning a specific development are not appropriate and are
irrelevant to the Council’s specific request.
4. Discussion and comments concerning general land uses are appropriate, especially those that
relate to uses and densities allowed under the RAD-ALT land use designation.
5. The zoning that correlates to the RAD-ALT category (OP-2 zoning regulations) allows senior
living multi-family buildings, townhouses, and single family residential structures at a
density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The RAD-ALT and corresponding OP zoning
allow single family homes and a very limited number of townhouses at a density of 0.45 units
per acre (18 houses per 40 acres).
6. The Council is seeking public feedback on the proposed change and will be considering this
feedback along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation prior to taking action on
the proposed amendment.
Using the previous staff recommendation and City Council action as a guide, the Planning
Commission should consider the following potential findings as the basis for a recommendation to
the City Council. All of these findings are based on the information that was presented or drafted
during the 2010 City reviews:
Findings that Support a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Change Subject Property from RAD-ALT
to RAD):
1) The current use of this site as a working farm is unique compared to other properties
designated for RAD development in the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The proposed amendment will help provide opportunities for senior housing within the
community.
3) Recent subdivisions in areas guided for RAD development have been approved at a density
below the unit levels anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density increase
will be offset by reductions that have previously been approved or acknowledged by the City.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – PUBLIC HEARING
5
4) The subject site is located in close proximity to public transportation along State Highway 5,
and specifically, a bus route that could provide alternate transportation options for a
residential development.
5) The applicant’s site is located immediately adjacent to existing R-1 Single Family Residential
zoning districts along its southern, eastern, and western boundaries. Other areas guided for
RAD development are primarily surrounded by rural residential, agricultural, or public open
space uses.
Findings that Support No Change to the Comprehensive Plan (Leave Subject Property as RAD):
1) There have been no changes in circumstances since the Land Use Section of the
Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2006 that warrant revisions to increase or transfer
density to the subject site.
2) Higher density residential development is encouraged in areas that will be served by public
sanitary sewer where the provision of these services is more cost-effective and where the City
will receive credit towards the REC unit counts mandated under its Memorandum of
Understanding with the Metropolitan Council.
3) The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that any future senior-
specific housing in Lake Elmo will be best accommodated within the Old Village Area due to
proximity to goods, services, and public facilities.
4) The subject site does not demonstrate any characteristics that are substantially different from
other areas guided for RAD development in the City of Lake Elmo or that would indicate that
higher density development is more appropriate in this area than any other site within the
City.
5) The City is has recently adopted major Comprehensive Plan amendment related to
development in the Old Village Area and the I-94 corridor. Given the current market
conditions, the City encourages higher density development in areas that would help off-set
the significant infrastructure costs required to serve these areas.
6) Higher density housing is not consistent with the City’s stated goals to preserve and enhance
its rural character, especially when planned in areas that are guided for Rural Agricultural
Density.
7) Build-out of existing empty lots in platted and developed OP developments is encouraged
over the creation of new development and service areas in the community
8) New access that would be needed to support development on the subject site does not
conform to the City’s Transportation Plan that encourages limited access to major collector
roads and is inconsistent with the City’s access spacing guidelines.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Please refer to the comments in the previous section.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – PUBLIC HEARING
6
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the materials present above, attached to
this report, and previously considered by the Commission during its deliberations regarding the
City’s rural development areas and make a recommendation to the City Council to either:
a) approve an amendment to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan to change the future land
use designation of property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD-ALT to RAD
based on the “Findings that Support a Comprehensive Plan Amendment” as presented
above or as otherwise modified by the Planning Commission; or
b) make no changes to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan based on the “Findings that
Support No Change to the Comprehensive Plan” as presented above or as otherwise
modified by the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report – 5/4/10 City Council Meeting
2. Location Map
3. Proposed Map Amendment
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Public Hearing Comments ............................................................................... Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – PUBLIC HEARING
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendment
To: City Council
From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 5/4/10
Applicant: Tammy Malmquist
Owner: Tammy Malmquist; Marlene Friedrich
Location: 9434 Stillwater Blvd N
Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
Introductory Information
Application
Summary:
The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Tammy Malmquist, 8549
Ironwood Trail North, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Text
Amendment, Open Space Preservation (OP) Development Concept Plan, and Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan. The individual elements of this request have
been made to allow the establishment of a 40-unit senior living multi-family building,
10 townhouse units, and a farm-themed preschool on a 30.9 acres parcel at 9434
Stillwater Boulevard North. The request would incorporate the existing family care
facility that is located adjacent to this property at 9442 Stillwater Boulevard North. As
the current owner of the 30.9-acre parcel, Marlene Friedrich has signed as a co-
applicant to this request.
Given the complex nature of this application, Staff has recommended that the City
review focus first on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments before
proceeding with a discussion of the OP Development and PUD Concept Plans. To
facilitate this two-tiered review, separate public hearings and agenda items have been
scheduled at different times with the Planning Commission as follows:
• April 26: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments
• May 10: OP Development and PUD Concept Plans
The primary reason for the staged review is to take the bigger picture items first, and
then advance with the detailed plan reviews if warranted. This process will save time
and effort if there is no support by the City Council to move forward with the
Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning. If these elements of the application are approved,
it would allow the required Met Council review to proceed while the City is
considering the development Concept Plans.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
The Planning Commission reviewed and conducted a public hearing on both the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments, and made a recommendation to
the City Council on the first issue at its meeting on April 26th. The Commission tabled
its discussion on the latter issue and directed staff to prepare an alternate ordinance to
consider in addition to the amendments requested by the applicant. The ordinance will
be brought back before the Planning Commission at its next meeting, prior to
discussion on the OP Development and PUD Concept Plans.
Application
Details:
As noted above, there are four distinct components of the applicants request, which
include the following:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed amendment would change the
future land use designation of the parcel located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard
North from RAD (Rural Agricultural Density – 0.45 dwelling units per acre) to
RAD2 (Rural Agricultural Density – 2 dwelling units per acre). This change is
necessary to move forward with the proposed development because the current
designation as RAD would limit the overall number of units on the site to 14 units
and the project that has been requested is for 51 units (1.7 units per acre), in
addition to the existing single family residential site and proposed farm school.
The applicant has proposed shifting density from an area guided for RAD2 west of
the applicant’s property to this site in order to avoid any impacts to the overall
population projections in the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning Text Amendments. The applicant has requested an amendment to the OP
Open Space Preservation Ordinance to add requirements for development in areas
that are guided RAD2, and more specifically, to amend the OP District to allow for
the proposed multi-family senior living facility and farm-based preschool. The
current OP Ordinance does not contain any provisions that would allow residential
development to exceed a density of 0.45 units per acre (or 18 units per 40 acres),
and although one section ties the maximum allowed density to the Comprehensive
Plan, another section very specifically limits densities in OP developments to 18
units per 40 gross acres of buildable land. The other proposed amendments to this
section include the following:
• Adding Multi-Family Senior Housing buildings (only in areas guided for
RAD2) and Farm Schools for preschool and school-aged children to the list
of allowable uses in an OP development.
• Reducing the minimum land area for an OP development from 40 to 20
acres in areas guided RAD2.
• Reducing the amount of contiguous land required in open areas from 10 to
5 acres for land guided RAD2.
• Reducing the required buffer setback in areas guided RAD2 to 50 feet from
200 feet.
• Adding standards for Senior Housing Buildings in the OP minimum district
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 2
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
requirements table.
OP – Open Space Preservation (OP) Development Concept Plan. The ultimate
objective of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments described
above is to allow the development of a 40-unit senior housing building, 10-unit
townhouse development, and farm-based preschool on a 30.9-acre property located
at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. Should the City adopt the requested OP
District changes, the applicant would be able to submit a request for the proposed
development in accordance with the requirements for new OP Open Space
Preservation projects. The first step in this process is the submission of a concept
plan for review, and all plans and information required as part of this submission
have been included as part of the overall application. A few of the details of this
proposal include the following:
• The Wunder Years day care would remain in its current location, and
would be updated along with the existing house at 9434 Stillwater
Boulevard North to match the proposed townhouses.
• A community septic system is planned to serve the development.
• One access is planned off Stillwater Boulevard to serve the project area in
the general location now used for access to the existing home and daycare.
• 50% of the project site area would be set aside as permanent open space in
accordance with the OP district requirements.
• An open green area is planned within the center of the development area
and a common architectural theme is planned throughout the development
area consistent with the past agricultural use of the property.
A more detailed description and complete staff review of the proposed OP
Development Concept Plan will be provided at the next Planning Commission
meeting when this aspect of the request is considered. This request may only
proceed if the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments are approved by the
City Council.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Concept Plan. In addition to the OP
Development concept plan submission, the application also includes a request for a
Planned Unit Development concept plan. A PUD is necessary to move forward
with the applicant’s request since the project includes a mix of uses and activities
that would otherwise not be possible under current zoning regulations. The PUD
portion of the request will be considered by the City in conjunction with the
review schedule for the OP Development concept plan. The pending staff review
will group the concept plans together for the purpose of providing an analysis of
the request in a future report.
Property
Information:
The applicant’s property is located near the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and
Stillwater Boulevard North (Highway 5). The current uses consist of the original
Friederich family farmstead and related outbuildings and the Wunder Years day care
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 3
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
facility. Other than the agricultural fields, each of these uses would be considered a
permitted residential and/or agricultural use of the property. The 30.9 acre farmstead
is zoned RR – Rural Residential while the day care site is zoned R-1 Single Family
Residential and is 29,670 square feet (0.68 acres) in size. Each property currently has
its own access to Stillwater Boulevard via two driveways that are approximately 25
feet apart.
Other notable features of the farm property include a larger wooded area in the
northeast portion of the site (referred to as the “Oak Savanna” on the concept plans)
and gently rolling topography throughout the proposed project area. The 30.9-acre
parcel extends westward to Jamaca Court North, and connects to this street via a
narrow connection point between two existing homes. The surrounding property uses
include single family homes zoned R-1 to the south and east along Stillwater
Boulevard, and agricultural uses located to the north and east that are zoned A –
Agriculture and RR – Rural Residential. The Washington County Landfill and
Sunfish Lake Park is located further to the north and northwest for the latter.
Applicable
Codes:
Section 150.175 through 150.189 OP Open Space Preservation
Describes the process and requirements associated with an OP Open Space
Preservation development. The applicant has requested an amendment to this
section of the City Code in order to allow a multi-family senior living building and
farm-based preschool as part of an OP development.
Section 154.020 Amendments
Outlines the process and requirements for requesting an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance. Of particular interest, please note Subsection (J) which
reads: “Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. In granting or recommending
any rezoning or other permit provided for in this chapter, the Zoning
Administrator, the Planning Commission, or Council shall find that the
proposed development conforms substantially to the policies, goals, and
standards of the Comprehensive Plan.”
Section 154.036 RR – Rural Residential
Outlines the general requirements for the RR Rural Residential Zoning District
in Lake Elmo.
Section 154.070 through 154.075. Planned Unit Development
Describes the process and requirements for submitting an application for a
Planned Unit Development.
Findings & General Site Overview
Site Data: Lot Sizes: 30.9 acres and 0.68 acres
Existing Uses: Single Family Residences/Agricultural/Agricultural Outbuildings
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 4
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
Existing Zoning: RR – Rural Residential and R-1 Single Family Residential
Future Land Use: RAD – Rural Agricultural Density and Neighborhood Conservation
Property Identification Numbers (PID): 15-029-21-31-0001 and 15-029-21-31-0003
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendment Review:
Comp Plan
Analysis
Staff
Comments:
Of all the land use requests that are considered by a Planning Commission, a City has
the most discretion to approve or deny proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
For communities within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, this discretion is limited
somewhat by the Metropolitan Council, which requires cities to update their plans
every ten years and has the authority to review all requests to amend an approved
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, if the City decides to move forward with the
proposed amendment, the proposed change will need to be reviewed by the
Metropolitan Council before it can be officially adopted by the City. The update must
also be submitted to adjacent communities for review and comment before the Met
Council will take action on the proposal, and once accepted, there is a 60 day review
period that can be extended an additional 60 days if needed.
In general, Cities may consider an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan for several
reasons. Below are some specific examples as listed in the Met Council’s Local
Planning Handbook:
• Changes resulting from interim planning activities such as master plans,
redevelopment plans or annexation
• A need to change a land use designation to allow a proposed development.
• Routine update of a public facilities element, such as a parks plan
• A text amendment to revise a land use category, policy or other description
• A routine update to incorporate new information such as census figures
The applicant’s request clearly falls under the category of a land use designation
change to allow a proposed development; however, there is much more to the
Comprehensive Plan than just the simple designation of future land uses on a map. In
Lake Elmo’s situation, the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes many other sections
devoted to housing, provision of water service, transportation, and other elements that
form a unified set of goals and objectives for the City. Any proposed land use changes
should remain consistent with the other policies within the Comprehensive Plan or
may otherwise need to be considered in the context of a larger update to the plan.
In order to support an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan, planners will typically try
to identify circumstances that may have changed since the plan was last updated to
support a change in the future land use designation or other components of a plan. For
instance, market conditions may have led to assumptions concerning the rate of
growth that are incorrect or a transportation improvement may have opened up new
areas for development that were otherwise inaccessible. In Lake Elmo’s case, certain
sections of the plan will be updated this year, while the land use section was last
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 5
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
updated in 2006. It is staff’s opinion that, if anything, conditions have changed during
this period of time in a manner that is not conducive to the request being considered
by the Planning Commission. Specifically:
• The economic downturn has led to a very slow rate of build out in the more
recent OP developments. It is in the best interest of the City and each affected
neighborhood to encourage new building to take place on lots that are currently
vacant and served with water, roads, sewer, and other services and not in new
areas with no or limited existing services.
• The City is lagging well behind the development phasing planned for urban
service areas (with no growth in these areas to date) while OP development
have only in the past few years begun experiencing the severe downtown in
building activity. A multi-family project is more typical of the type of
development planned for the urban service areas.
• The City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding
between Lake Elmo and the Met Council includes provisions that will allow
the Council to assess penalties against the City for failure to reach target
population figures in sewered residential areas. Given the potential for
penalties associated with a slow rate of build-out, larger projects should be
directed to the urban service areas where they would help meet the
development milestones in the Plan.
• Although it appears that the overall pattern of development in areas guided for
RAD density in the Comprehensive Plan will result in a lower overall
population living in these areas than previously estimated, the overall impacts
to the City’s infrastructure and planning policies will be much lower if the
current trend is followed than by increasing the allowed densities by over four
times the amounts projected in some of these areas. On the applicant’s site, the
current zoning would permit a density of three dwelling units (or up to 14 units
if combined with adjacent parcels) verses the 51 units that have been
requested.
• The re-allocation of densities throughout areas guided for RAD and RAD2
should be considered within the larger context of where these densities may
best be integrated with surrounding land uses and where they can best be
provided with public services (even if these services are somewhat limited in
OP developments). There has been no substantial change since the land use
plan was updated to indicate why the applicant’s site would be better-suited for
additional density verses the areas currently guided RAD2.
Other general comments from Staff:
• The applicant has proposed to re-allocate densities from an existing RAD2
property in order to permit the proposed 50-unit project without increasing the
overall population projections for the City. In order to keep the overall
population projections level for the City, this would reduce the density of an
existing RAD2 areas to accommodate this change. There are currently around
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 6
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
Zoning
Amendment
Staff
Analysis:
140 total acres guided RAD2 which could theoretically accommodate up to
280 new housing units. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is
approved, a net transfer of 37 units in excess of the current OP standards would
be required (14 allow at .45 units per acre compared to 51 requested units).
This transfer would reduce the overall density on the 140 acre sites to
approximately 1.75 units per acre (or less if borrowed from just one property).
• There has been no discussions with the current property owner of the 103 acre
parcels that are guided RAD2 to the west of the applicant’s site that the overall
density on this site may change (or any of the RAD2 guided property owners).
• Although the land use description for RAD2 notes that “limited life cycle
housing” would be appropriate in these areas, there are no other references to
such housing in RAD or RAD2 guided land. In fact, the housing section of the
current plan states very specifically that “Any future senior-specific housing in
Lake Elmo will be best accommodated within the Old Village Area due to
proximity to goods, services, and public facilities. The combination of senior
housing needs and village scale housing density may result in attached housing
of some description”.
• The Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to make some fairly substantial
investments in public sanitary sewer services, and Staff recommends that any
developments that exceed the base densities allowed in rural areas be directed
to the urban service areas where such developments can help support the
provision of these services.
• The applicant’s plan would place additional traffic directly on to Stillwater
Boulevard at a new intersection that is not consistent with the recently-
prepared Transportation Plan. The Plan specifically encourages the use of
collector streets and limiting access to major roads The proposed project also
does not comply with MnDOT’s or the City’s access spacing guidelines.
Based on the reasons provided above, Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend denial of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
change the future land use designation of the applicant’s site from RAD to RAD2.
Draft findings were also presented to the Planning Commission consistent with the
review comments noted above. The Commission ultimately did not support the
position taken by Staff and developed a revised list of findings that are included in the
Planning Commission report that follows.
The second part of the request that was considered by the Planning Commission
concerns the proposed amendments to the OP Open Space Preservation District as
detailed in the applicant’s submission materials and summarized by Staff in this
report. Many of the changes proposed would apply on to areas designated as RAD2,
and in particular, senior-living dwellings would not be permitted outside of land so
designated. If approved, the proposed changes would apply to all portions of the City
guided for RAD2 development, which includes 103 acres at the western edge of the
City along Stillwater Boulevard and a smaller 36-acre area immediately north of 10th
Street at its intersection with Manning Avenue. This would open up these parcels for
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 7
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
a similar senior-living or school project.
Looking at the proposed zoning amendments in a general sense, Staff offered the
following comments for consideration by the Planning Commission:
• The current OP Ordinance does not contain provisions that would allow
densities to exceed the 0.45 units per acre maximum in the code even in areas
guided RAD2. At some point, this discrepancy should be addressed so that the
densities allowed in the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• If approved, the proposed amendments would not alter the maximum permitted
density in areas guided RAD2, and would primarily amend the types of uses
that would be permitted in such areas.
• Rather than amending the current OP Ordinance provisions, Staff would
recommend that an overlay zoning district be created for RAD2 that would
require compliance with all OP development standards with specific
exceptions that would allow higher densities in RAD areas. This approach
would leave the current OP Ordinance as-is while focusing a new overlay
district only in specific areas to accommodate higher densities.
• The proposed language in 150.180 (B, 2, g) should read “per gross acres of
buildable land” to be consistent with the current OP requirements.
• Given the allowance for larger buildings up to three stories in height, Staff
recommends that the buffer setbacks (Section 150.180 B, 2, d) be left as
currently written since a larger buffer should be provided in cases where there
is greater potential for dissimilar uses to be located next to each other.
• The Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not Farm Schools
should be permitted in all OP developments as the proposed draft would allow.
• The Zoning Ordinance only permits buildings over 35 feet in the BP Business
Park and PF Public Facility zoning districts. The maximum height for Senior
Housing Buildings as proposed would be 48 feet.
• The OP district standards table should include setbacks from side and rear
property lines for Senior Housing Buildings.
The Planning Commission chose to table taking action on the Zoning Amendment,
and requested that Staff prepare an alternate to the applicant’s proposal that would
create an overlay zoning district instead of amending the existing OP Ordinance. The
Commission requested that the same standards proposed by the applicant be used to
draft overlay regulations.
With the separation of the concept plan review from the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Amendments, Staff will not be providing a detailed analysis of the submitted
concept plans at this time. These plans were been provided, however, as part of the
Commission’s review materials since the application was submitted at one time. The
project narratives and required submissions are also intertwined and are being
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 8
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
Concept Plan
Issues:
presented in one package of information rather than splitting up certain pieces of
information between the two scheduled meeting and hearing dates. Also, the Planning
Department has asked for all comments from other agencies and internal staff on the
entire application, and all comments that have been submitted to date are included as
part of the Council meeting material.
In order to give the City Council, and the applicant, a quick overview of the major
issues associated with the concept plans that have been identified to date, please
consider the following:
• The Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated that it will require
certain improvements to Highway 5 if access is provided as shown on the
concept plan. Specifically, a right turn lane and escape lane for eastbound
traffic will be required at the new entrance road.
• The City Engineer has recommended that the concept plan be revised to
provide road connectivity to the east and north with the development proposal.
• The water plan does not appear to meet fire flow requirements for the proposed
improvements since the new eight-inch pipe as shown on the utility plan
connects to an existing four-inch water pipe at the edges of the development.
• The storm water management and drainage and erosion control plan will need
to address the City’s recently adopted storm water quantity and quality
standards.
• A small portion of the site is located within a shoreland district and will need
to comply with any applicable shoreland ordinance requirements.
• The City of Oakdale’s Fire Chief has been asked to review the plans from a
public safety perspective since the applicant is married to Lake Elmo’s Fire
Chief.
• The proposed landscape plan does not accommodate the minimum number of
trees required under the OP Ordinance.
• The community septic system and a portion of the trail system are shown
within and power line easement. The City should receive an acknowledgement
and consent from the easement holder in order to permit these encroachments.
• Staff would suggest a greater amount of spacing between the proposed tree
preservation area and the buildings and roads on the site. The City should
evaluate whether or not it is appropriate to use the required open space areas
for storm water retention ponds.
A more thorough review and analysis of the proposed concept plans will be
forthcoming from Staff should the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments be
approved by the City Council. Should approvals be granted, the City will need to
discuss the review schedule with the applicant since no action may be finalized with
regards to the Comprehensive Plan until the Met Council has completed its review.
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 9
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
Staff
Recommendation:
Based on the report and analysis provided above, Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend denial of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
change the future land use designation of 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD
to RAD2. Consistent with this recommendation, Staff further recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed text amendments to the OP
Open Space Preservation Ordinance.
Pending Council action on these items, a separate recommendation from Staff
concerning the OP Development and PUD concept plans will presented at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Additional
Information:
Comments have been received for all four aspects of the applicant’s request from
MnDOT, Valley Branch Watershed District, the City of Oakdale Fire Department, and
the City Engineer are attached for consideration by the City Council.
In addition to the applicant’s submission materials, staff has also attached an aerial
image of the site and Future Land Use Map from the Comprehensive Plan identifying
the applicant’s site and the two areas currently guided as RAD2.
Planning Commission Report:
Planning
Commission
Review and
Public
Hearing:
The Planning Commission reviewed the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment and conducted a public hearing on each of
these items at its April 26, 2010 meeting. At the meeting, the following feedback was
provided to the Commission:
• Tammy Malmquist explained her overall goals and objectives behind the
proposed senior living and farm school project. She also introduced Jan
Friedrich, who talked about her father’s discussions with Mrs. Malmquist
concerning the future of this property.
• Tim Freeman with Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. suggested alternative
findings in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
• Seven people spoke in favor of the amendments needed to support the project.
• Councilmember Ann Smith addressed the Commission and reviewed some of
the history behind the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, and in
particular, the creation of a separate RAD2 land use designation.
• Eight letters of support were submitted and distributed at the meeting. These
letters are included as part of the Council agenda packet.
• One additional letter of support was submitted by a resident who also spoke
during the public hearing.
• Staff noted that Ed Nielsen, 9498 Stillwater Boulevard North, had contacted
the City via telephone earlier in the week to express his support for the
project.
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 10
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
• The project consultant submitted a list of neighbors that had attended a March
31, 2010 meeting conducted by the applicant to discuss the project (seven
neighbors were in attendance of this meeting).
The Commission reviewed the Staff recommendation and considered the comments
submitted in writing and verbally at the meeting. The Planning Commission
developed findings of fact to support the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
and by a unanimous vote of 9-0, recommended that the City Council approve the
request to change the future land use designation of the applicant’s property from
RAD to RAD2. The Planning Commission tabled taking any action regarding the
proposed amendments to the OP Open Space Preservation Ordinance; however, and
instead directed Staff to prepare an alternate to the applicant’s request that would
create a separate overlay district with the same standards.
The overlay district to be considered by the Planning Commission would include the
following as specific exceptions to the existing OP Ordinance:
• Allowing a density of 2 units per acre.
• Adding Multi-Family Senior Housing buildings and Farm Schools for
preschool and school-aged children as allowable uses.
• Reducing the minimum land area required from 40 to 20 acres.
• Reducing the amount of contiguous land required in open areas from 10 to 5
acres.
• Reducing the required buffer setback to 50 feet.
• Adding standards for Senior Housing Buildings.
In developing its findings of fact, the Planning Commission was concerned about
setting precedent with the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
Commission’s findings describe some aspects of this site that that the Commission has
indicated set it apart from other properties that are guided for RAD development.
A complete record of the Planning Commission’s findings is listed as part of the
formal recommendation below.
Planning
Commission
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission Recommends that the City Council approve the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of the
parcel located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD (Rural Agricultural
Density – 0.45 dwelling units per acre) to RAD2 (Rural Agricultural Density – 2
dwelling units per acre). The Planning Commission further offers the following
findings to support this recommendation:
1) The current use of this site as a working farm is unique compared to other
properties designated for RAD development in the Comprehensive Plan.
2) The proposed request will help fulfill a need for senior housing within the
community.
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 11
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Living and Farm School
City Council Report; 5/4/10
3) Recent subdivisions in areas guided for RAD development have been approved
at a density below the unit levels anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed density increase will be offset by reductions that have previously
been approved or acknowledged by the City.
4) The applicant’s site is located in close proximity to public transportation along
State Highway 5, and specifically, a bus route that could provide alternate
transportation options for seniors.
5) The applicant’s site is located immediately adjacent to existing R-1 Single
Family Residential zoning districts along its southern, eastern, and western
boundaries. Other areas guided for RAD development are primarily
surrounded by rural residential, agricultural, or public open space uses.
6) There has been broad public support for the proposed project and no objections
from neighboring property owners have been filed with the City.
cc: Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail
Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.; 12445 55th Street N
S:\Commissions and Boards\Planning Commission\Packets\2014\1-13-14\5A - Rep Council Malmquist Comp Plan 5-4-10.doc
Page 12
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN , IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data S cource: Washington County, MN
1-10-2 014
Location Map: 9434 Stillwater Blvd. N.
K9434 Stillwater Blvd. N.0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=50 0'
Jamaca Ave. N.
J
o
n
q
u
i
l
A
v
e
.
N
.
3 1 s t S t . N .
45676
Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS1-10-2014
5
Planned Land Use
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2030
Map 3-3
Planned Land Uses
Residential Estate
Rural Area Development
Rural Area Development Alt
Rural Single Family
Public/Park
Urban High Density
Urban Medium Density
Commercial
Limited Business
Business Park
Urban Low Density
Village Mixed Use
Village Urban Low Density
Village Urban Medium Density
TablynPark Farms of Lake Elmo
Jamaca Ave. N.
TH-5
Proposed Amendment: RAD-Alt to RAD
3 1 s t S t . N .
C S A H 6
Prairie RidgeOffice Park
Proposed CPA: 9434 Stillwater Blvd. N.
Lake ElmoRegionalPark Reserve
WildflowerShores
9434 Stil lw ate r Blvd
Planning Commission
Date: 1/13/14
2014 Work Plan
Item: 6a
ITEM: Planning Commission 2014 Work Plan
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 a draft work plan for 2014. The drafting of
this plan follows the Commission’s recent acceptance of the 2013 Annual Report, which included
a brief discussion of the progress made at accomplishing the items from last years’ plan of work.
It is expected that the review of development projects will take up a substantially greater amount
of both Staff and Commission time next year. There are at least 10 major projects currently the
early stages of review, and many of these will progress towards final plan approval over the
course of 2014. The other significant work items for next year include adopting further
amendments to update the Zoning Ordinance that will hopefully complete this project, drafting an
update to the Village AUAR, continuing discussions with the Met Council to eliminate the
Memorandum of Understanding, developing a form-based code to augment the zoning standards
for the Village Mixed-Use Zoning District, and implementing new airport zoning regulations within
the Village Planning Area.
The intent of the work plan is to help prioritize the projects the Planning Commission will be
reviewing in the next several months, and to also help keep the Commission informed about the
projects that will be undertaken by Staff during the coming year. It is expected that this will be a
working document and that it will help the Commission gauge its progress at achieving some of
its goals for the year.
Please note that several of the work plan items come directly from the City Council’s work plan for
the City as a whole. All of the items that are referenced in the Council work plan are depicted the
highest priority items for the Planning Commission in 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft 2014 work plan and adopt a
motion to recommend submission of the plan to the City Council.
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 and Planning Department Work Plan
• Land Use Planning Section from “2014 City of Lake Elmo Work Plan”
2
2014 Planning Commission Work Plan - DRAFT
Prepared by the Lake Elmo Planning Commission: 1/13/14
Key:
Status :
C – Complete
IP – In Progress
Date:
(Completion
Goal)
A – 0 to 3 months
B – 3 to 6 months
C – 6 to 9 months
D – 9 to 12 months
Admin: Staff Projects/Initiatives
PL: Priority Level (1-5 with 1 being the highest priority)
Project and Description Date
(Months)
PL Status
ZONING INITIATIVES
Zoning Map Updates
• Adopt map changes necessary to implement Comprehensive
Plan amendments for Village
A 1 IP
• General map updates and corrections C 3
• Implement zoning map changes for specific developments in
the Village and I-94 Corridor.
B 2
Zoning Permit Tracking
• Develop system for tracking of planning and zoning permits,
including Conditional Use Permits, Interim Use Permits,
Variances, Planned Developments, and other applications
D 3
Zoning Text Amendments (Zoning Code Update)
• Accessory buildings A 1 IP
• Exterior storage B 2
• General performance standards C 2
• Specific development standards C 2
• Open Space Ordinance update (OP and OP-2) D 3
• Public Facilities ordinance amendments D 4
Zoning Text Amendments (General)
• Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Revisions A 1
• Animal ordinance A 1 IP
• Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces D 5
Form-based Code
1
• Prepare a scope of work to be accomplished including the
need for outside assistance
A 1
• Draft a form-based code to supplement the Village Mixed-Use
zoning district based on the scope of work
C 2
• Incorporate design standards from the Design Standards
Manual as part of a form-based code
C 2
Airport Zoning
• Resolve zoning conflicts with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, Met Council, MnDOT, and Washington County
D 1
• Implement City airport zoning regulations for the airport safety
zones within the Village Planning Area
D 2
Permit Software Implementation
• Complete PermitWorks database for City parcels B 4
• Add Planning Module from PermitWorks to track planning and
zoning applications
B 1
Sign Code Update
• Review sign code for consistency with new zoning districts
and economic development goals and objectives
D 3
Subdivision Ordinance
• Review ordinance for consistency with ongoing zoning
amendments
B 2
Development Reviews
• Savona Final Plat and Developer’s Agreement A 2 IP
• Boulder Ponds Preliminary and Final Development plans B 2 IP
• Landucci Goetschel Property development B 2 IP
• Ryland/Pratt Homes Landucci Property development B 2 IP
• Hammes Property development C 2
• Chase Easton Village (Village) sketch plan review C 2 IP
• Engstrom Village development C 2
• Gonyea Homes Village development C 2
• I-94 Commercial development C 2
PLANNING INITIATIVES
Village Area Planning
• Prepare Village Area AUAR five-year update A 1
• Participate in Lake Elmo Avenue/Village Storm Water study
with Washington County
C 2
• Consider undertaking Village market area study through U of
MN extension service
C 3
2
• Develop street design and cross section for Village Parkway A 1 IP
I-94/10th Street Corridor Planning
• Develop street design and cross section for 5th Street minor
collector road
A 1 IP
General Comprehensive Planning
• Reduce the population expectations to 18,000 by 2040 A 1 IP
• Eliminate the Memorandum of Understanding with the Met
Council
B 1 IP
• Review Comp Plan for consistency with I-94 Corridor and
Village land use plan amendments
D 4
• Prepare rural development area study to consider future
development options for rural areas
C 2
• Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment for “Friedrich
Property” on Stillwater Boulevard
A 1 IP
• Consider Comprehensive Plan amendments to eliminate
remaining RAD-ALT land use parcels
C 2
• Review individual projects for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan
C 3
Park Planning
• Create a master plan for selected City parks, provide
assistance to Parks Commission as needed
D 3
• Review park plans for individual developments with the Park
Commission
A 2 IP
• Conduct comprehensive mapping of existing private and
public trail systems (using GPS where appropriate)
D 4
• Work with the Trail Sub-Committee to identify alignments and
funding for future priority trail segments, including the Lake
Elmo Regional Trail
C 2 IP
• Update Park Plan in City’s Comprehensive Plan D 2
• Update Trail Plan in City’s Comprehensive Plan D 2
Capital Improvement Plan
• Planning Commission review of 2014-2018 Capital
Improvement Plan for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan
D 2
General Planning Studies
• Conduct review of 201 (community) septic system policies
and management practices. Develop system for proper
oversight, billing, and maintenance of community systems.
D 5 IP
Economic Development Support
3
• Provide support and assistance to City Administrator and
Economic Development Authority (EDA) as needed for
economic development activities
D 3
• Maintain list of business in Lake Elmo on City web site D 5
ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES
Developer’s Agreements and Escrows
• Fully implement developer’s agreement and escrow process A 1 IP
Building Division
• Monitor status of staffing within building inspection
department; consider staffing needs in 2014 and beyond
C 3
• Develop disaster preparedness manual for Lake Elmo D 3
Gateway Corridor Commission
• Act as City representative for Technical Advisory Commission
• Provide support for environmental study and alternatives
analysis review for Lake Elmo/Woodbury alignment
A 3
Permit Tracking Software
• Complete move of planning file system to PermitWorks
software
A 3
Code Enforcement
• Follow updated code enforcement program with the Building
Inspector as the City’s code enforcement officer
B 3
File Archiving and Management
• Scan Planning and Building Department files into the City
laserfische system
D 3
Engineering Projects
• Provide planning assistance as needed for regional trunk
sewer project
A 2 IP
Policy and Procedures Review
• Streamline and improve policies and procedures for the
handling of routine matters (variances, site plan review,
setbacks, etc…)
C 1 IP
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECTS
• Participate in Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) study with
Washington County.
C 2 IP
4
• Participate in Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) study with
Washington County.
B 2 IP
• Study Village/TH-5 pedestrian facilities and connections C 4
5
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 12/09/13
AGENDA ITEM: 6B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014 - 03
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Zoning District Cleanup Amendment
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review a proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning
Code to eliminate zoning districts that are no longer utilized under the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and official Zoning Map. This action is a part of the ongoing effort to update the City’s Zoning
Code, a project that began in 2012. The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed
cleanup amendment in advance of a future public hearing. No formal action is required at this time.
REQUEST DETAILS
To kick off the Zoning Code Update Project, the City adopted several new urban zoning districts in
2012, including new urban residential districts and commercial districts. The purpose of this effort
was to prepare for and implement the I-94 Corridor and Village Land Use Plans. Both of these plans
have now been formally adopted by the City and are contained within the Land Use Chapter of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City adopted an updated Zoning Map in May of 2013.
As a result of the updates to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, and Zoning Code, there
are now many outdated zoning districts located within the Zoning Code that no longer apply to any
property in Lake Elmo and are no longer necessary to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
For that reason, staff is recommending that the outdated zoning districts be removed from the Zoning
Code to reduce overall confusion and improve the organization of the document.
The majority of the zoning districts that are no longer applicable or utilized are the former holding
districts that were assigned to parcels that were guided for future sewered development. With the
adoption of the updated rural zoning districts in March of 2013, the new Rural Development
Transitional District (RT) replaced all of these holding districts. Therefore, these holding districts
are now unnecessary. The outdated holding districts include the following:
• HD-A-BP - Agricultural Business Park Holding District (§154.034)
• HD-A-SRD - Agricultural Sewered Residential Holding District (§154.035)
• HD-RR-BP - Rural Residential Business Park Holding District (§154.037)
• HD-RR-LB - Rural Residential Limited Business Holding District (§154.038)
• HD-RR-RAD - Rural Residential Ag Density Holding District (§154.039)
• HD-RR-SRD - Rural Residential Sewered Residential Holding District (§154.040)
• HD-R1-RAD - One-Family Ag Density Holding District (§154.042)
• HD-R1-SRD - One-Family Sewered Residential Holding District (§154.043)
• HD-R3-URD - Manufactured Home Park Urban Residential Holding District (§154.046)
BUSINESS ITEM 6B
2
• HD-RE-LB - Residential Estates Limited Business Holding District (§154.049)
• HD-RE-SRD - Residential Estates Sewered Residential Holding (§154.050)
• HD-GB-BP - General Business Park Holding District (§154.052)
• HD-GB-C - General Business Commercial Holding District (§154.053)
• HD-GB-SRD - General Business Sewered Residential Holding District (§154.054)
• VR-A - Village Residential Agriculture Holding District (§154.059)
• VR-GB - Village Residential General Business Holding District (§154.060)
• VR-R1 - Village Residential One-Family Holding District (§154.061)
• VR-RR - Village Rural Residential Holding District (§154.062)
• HD-LB-SRD - Limited Business Sewered Residential Holding District (§154.066)
In addition to the non-applicable holding districts, the Zoning Code also contains multiple
residential and commercial districts that are no longer valid, do not apply to any property, or
have already been reorganized into the new zoning district articles in the new structure of the
zoning code. These districts include the following:
• R-1 One-Family Residential (§154.041): The R-1 district has been moved and
reorganized under the Rural Single Family (RS) district in Article IX – Rural Districts.
• R-3 Manufactured Home Park (§154.045): The R-3 district no longer applies to any
property in Lake Elmo. The Cimarron Manufactured Home Park now is zoned MDR –
Urban Medium Residential, which allows manufactured homes as a conditional use.
• R-4 Multi-Family Residential (§154.047): This district is not assigned to any property in
Lake Elmo. The R-4 zoning district has been replaced with the City’s HDR – Urban
High Density Residential district.
• HB – Highway Business (§154.055): This district does not apply to any property in Lake
Elmo. There are no plans to utilize this zoning district in the future.
• CB – Convenience Business (§154.056): This district does not apply to any property in
Lake Elmo. The CB zoning district has been replaced by the new CC – Convenience
Commercial district in Article XII – Commercial Districts of the Zoning Code.
• LB – Limited Business (§154.057): The LB zoning district has been moved and
reorganized into Article XII – Commercial Districts of the Zoning Code.
• BP – Business Park (§154.058): The BP zoning district has been moved and reorganized
into Article XII – Commercial Districts of the Zoning Code.
After these districts are removed, there remains six zoning districts in this section of the Zoning
Code: R-2 One- and Two-Family Residential, GB – General Business, PF – Public and Quasi-
Public Open Space, OP - Open Space Preservation District, OZD – Overlay Zoning Use District,
OP-2 - Open Space Preservation Overlay District. To provide further background regarding these
districts, staff has included a general status of each district below.
Regarding the R-2 One- and Two-Family Residential district, this district must presently remain
in place because the Carriage Station neighborhood in the northeast area of the City currently has
R-2 PUD zoning. In the future, staff is looking at ways to reassign the zoning of this
neighborhood to eliminate the R-2 district. For example, the zoning could change to LDR PUD,
BUSINESS ITEM 6B
3
and all the existing standards from the original Carriage Station PUD would be carried over.
Thus, the zoning change would be a change in name only, and the standards for the
neighborhood would not change.
The GB – General Business district must also remain in place at this time. All of the GB
properties in the city are located around the downtown Village Area. Once these properties are
rezoned to Village Mixed-Use (VMX), the GB – General Business zoning district can be
eliminated. It is staff’s intention to complete this zoning map amendment in the 1st quarter of
2014.
Regarding the PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space and OP-2 – Open Space Preservation
Overlay District, these districts must remain at this time. However, staff would propose to renumber
these districts to match the new organizational structure of the Zoning Code. Under the proposed
renumbering, the PF district would go to Article XIII – Public and Semi-Public Districts (§154.600),
and OP-2 district would be moved to Article XV – OP-Alt District (§154.700).
At this time, staff is proposing to leave the OP – Open Space Preservation District in place due to the
fact that the OP Ordinance is located in Chapter 150 of the City Code (§150.175). Staff would
propose to move this district and supporting information into the same location in the Zoning Code
as part of a comprehensive amendment of the OP Ordinance in the future.
Finally, staff is recommending to leave the OZD – Overlay Zoning Use District in place at this time.
While it is not currently applied to any property in Lake Elmo, there may be areas of environmental
sensitivity or other restrictions that may warrant the use of this district in the future.
As the Zoning Code Update Project moves forward, it is likely that there will need to be additional
cleanup amendments in the future. Updating the Zoning Code on a larger scale typically results in
remaining areas of outdated or disorganized ordinances. As the City moves forward on updating the
Zoning Code, staff will continue to bring forward cleanup amendments when appropriate.
RECCOMENDATION:
No formal action is required at this time. Staff is available to answer any questions related to the
Zoning Code Update Project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Cleanup
2. City’s Official Zoning Map
3. Updated Zoning Code Structure
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
BUSINESS ITEM 6B
Draft Zoning District Cleanup
Planning Commission, 1-13-2014
Zoning Districts
154.030 Classifications
154.031 Boundaries
154.032 Zoning district map
154.034 HD-A-BP - Agricultural Business Park Holding District
154.035 HD-A-SRD - Agricultural Sewered Residential Holding District
154.037 HD-RR-BP - Rural Residential Business Park Holding District
154.038 HD-RR-LB - Rural Residential Limited Business Holding District
154.039 HD-RR-RAD - Rural Residential Ag Density Holding District
154.040 HD-RR-SRD - Rural Residential Sewered Residential Holding District
154.041 R-1 One-Family Residential
154.042 HD-R1-RAD - One-Family Ag Density Holding District
154.043 HD-R1-SRD - One-Family Sewered Residential Holding District
154.044 R-2 One- and Two-Family Residential
154.045 R-3 Manufactured Home Park
154.046 HD-R3-URD - Manufactured Home Park Urban Residential Holding District
154.047 R-4 Multi-Family Residential
154.049 HD-RE-LB - Residential Estates Limited Business Holding District
154.050 HD-RE-SRD - Residential Estates Sewered Residential Holding District
154.051 GB – General Business
154.052 HD-GB-BP - General Business Park Holding District
154.053 HD-GB-C - General Business Commercial Holding District
154.054 HD-GB-SRD - General Business Sewered Residential Holding District
154.055 HB – Highway Business
154.056 CB – Convenience Business
154.057 LB – Limited Business
2
154.058 BP – Business Park
154.059 VR-A - Village Residential Agriculture Holding District
154.060 VR-GB - Village Residential General Business Holding District
154.061 VR-R1 - Village Residential One-Family Holding District
154.062 VR-RR - Village Rural Residential Holding District
154.600063 PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
154.064 OP - Open Space Preservation District
154.065 OZD – Overlay Zoning Use District
154.066 HD-LB-SRD - Limited Business Sewered Residential Holding District
154.700067 OP-2 - Open Space Preservation Overlay District
ZONING DISTRICTS
§ 154.030 CLASSIFICATIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, all land in the city is divided into zoning districts. The zoning
districts shall be identified by the following classifications, including those districts identified in
§ 154.350:
(A) AG or A Agriculture
(B) HD-A-BP Agricultural Business Park Holding District
(C) HD-A-SRD Agricultural Sewered Residential Holding District
(D) R-R Rural Residential
(E) HD-RR-BP Rural Residential Business Park Holding District
(F) HD-RR-LB Rural Residential Limited Business Holding District
(G) HD-RR-RAD Rural Residential Ag Density Holding District
(H) HD-RR-SRD Rural Residential Sewered Residential Holding District
(I) R-1 One-Family Residential
3
(J) HD-R1-RAD One-Family Ag Density Holding District
(K) HD-R1-SRD One-Family Sewered Residential Holding District
(L) R-2 One- and Two-Family Residential
(M) R-3 Manufactured Home Park
(N) HD-R3-URD Manufactured Home Park Urban Residential Holding District
(O) R-4 Multi-Family Residential
(P) RE Residential Estates
(Q) HD-RE-LB Residential Estates Limited Business Holding District
(R) HD-RE-SRD Residential Estates Sewered Residential Holding District
(S) GB General Business
(T) HD-GB-BP General Business Park Holding District
(U) HD-GB-C General Business Commercial Holding District
(V) HD-GB-SRD General Business Sewered Residential Holding District
(W) HB Highway Business
(X) CB Convenience Business
(Y) LB Limited Business
(Z) HD-LB-SRD Limited Business Sewered Residential Holding District
(AA) BP Business Park
(BB) VR-A Village Residential Agriculture Holding District
(CC) VR-GB Village Residential General Business Holding District
(DD) VR-R1 Village Residential One-Family Holding District
(EE) VR-RR Village Rural Residential Holding District
(FF) PF Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
4
(GG) OP Open Space Preservation District
(HH) OZD Overlay Zoning Use District
(1997 Code, § 300.07 Subd. 1) (Am. Ord. 97-192, passed 6-19-2007; Am. Ord. 97-195, passed
7-17-2005; Am. Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012)
Cross-reference:
Open Space Preservation District, see Ch. 150
§ 154.031 BOUNDARIES.
Please see § 154.351.
(Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012)
§ 154.032 ZONING DISTRICT MAP.
Please see § 154.351.
(Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012)
Lake Elm o
Lake Jane
Eagle Point Lake
Lake D eMontreville
Lake Olson
Long Lake
Sunfish L ake
Horseshoe Lake
Goose Lake
Downs Lake
Rose Lake
Clear Lake
A
r
m
s
t
r
o
n
g
L
a
k
e
Long Lake
Marksgraf Lake
Mud Lake
60TH ST N
10TH ST N
STILLWAT ER BLV D N
50TH ST N
INWOOD AVE N
LAKE ELMO AVE N
34TH ST N
KEATS AVE N
20TH ST N
LAKE J A NE TR L N
15TH ST N
HUDSON BLVD
30TH ST N
JAMACA AVE N
MANNING AVE N
27TH ST N
53RD ST N
55TH ST N
JANE RD N
47TH ST N
DEMONTREVILLE TRL N
57TH ST N
59TH ST N
3 1 S T S T N
51 S T S T S
LEGION AVE N
43RD ST N
HI D D E N B A Y T R L N
4 2 N D S T N
KIMBRO AVE N
39TH ST N
38TH ST N
3 3 R D S T N
OLSON LAKE TRL N
24TH ST N
26TH ST N
HIL
L
T
R
L
N
IVY AVE N
LINDEN TRL N
32ND ST N
58TH ST N
CIMARRON
LILY AVE N
JULEP AVE N
IVORY AVE N
HI
L
L
T
O
P
A
V
E
N
45TH ST N
S T I L L W A T E R L N N
IRIS
AVE
N
21ST ST N
IS
L
E
A
V
E
N
HIGHLANDS TRL N
9TH ST N
12TH ST N
LAVERNE AVE N
J
A
S
M
I
N
E
A
V
E
N
KLONDIKE AVE N
JEWEL AVE N
44TH ST N
56TH ST N
KELVIN AVE N
LEGION LN N
LINDEN AVE N
35TH ST N
JAMACA BLVD N
MANNING TRL N
37TH ST N
36TH ST N
JAMLEY AVE N
IMPERIAL AVE N
DEER POND TRL N
JA
N
E CT N
22ND ST N
JO
NQ
UIL AVE N
U P P E R 3 3 R D S T N
KIRKWOOD AVE N
TAPESTRY RD
28TH ST N
25TH ST N
IDEAL AVE N
16TH ST N
K
E
L
V
I
N
C
T
N
14TH ST N
MARQUESS TRL N
3R D S T R E E T P L N
HYTRAIL AVE N
4
0
T
H
S
T
N
JEROME AVE N
LISBON CT N
10 ST LN N
LILAC LN N
IRO NW OOD TRL N
IV Y C T N
EAGLE POINT BLVD
LISB ON AVE N
LAYTON AVE N
JANE CIR NJASPER AVE N
JAMACA CT N
L
EE
W
A
R
D AV
E N
BIRCHBARK TRL N
JACK PINE TRL N
LUCILE LN
JANERO AVE N
JULEP CT N
ISLE CT N
IRISH AVE N
15 ST CT N
IRISH CT
N
LAMPERT AVE N
LILAC PL N
IRVIN CT N
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
S
C
T
N
MARQUE SS LN N
TAPESTRY BEND
WINDBRE AK TRL N
IRVIN CIR N
57TH ST CIR N
LINDEN TRL
W HISTLIN G V ALLEY TRL
LILAC WAY N
IVORY CT
INNSDALE AVE N
L
A
N
G
L
Y
C
T
N
11TH ST N
44TH ST LN N
57TH ST CO
VE
22ND CT N
27
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
T
N
LAYTON CT N
10TH S
TREE
T CT N
IRWIN AVE N
LAVERNE CT N
TAPESTRY GROVE
K E A T S A V E N T O W B I 9 4
EAGLE POINT CIR
M A N N I N G A V E N T O W B I 9 4
59 T H S T R E E T C T N
HILL T RAIL CT N
LEGION LN CIR N
20TH STREET CT N
HUDSON BLVD
LAKE ELMO AVE N
JAMACA AVE N
5 9 T H S T N
37TH ST N
LAYTON AVE N
60TH ST N60TH ST N
35TH ST N
INNSDALE AVE N
3 4 T H S T N
HIGHLANDS TRL N
IN
N
S
D
A
LE AV
E
N
50TH ST N
60TH ST N
ISLE AVE N
28TH S T N
15TH ST N
LEGION AVE N
IVY AV
E N
60TH ST N
IVY AVE N
L
I
LY
A
VE
N57TH ST N
47TH ST N
31ST ST N
2 1 S T S T N
KEATS AVE N
32ND ST N
LILY AVE N
IDEAL AVE N
MANNING AVE N
MANNING AVE N
10TH ST N
60TH ST N
STILLWATER BLVD N
JULEP AVE N
5 3 R D S T N
55TH ST N
21ST ST N
39TH ST N
KELVIN AVE N
INWOOD AVE N
3 5 T H S T N
E
Zoning Dis tric ts
OP
R2-PUD
LDR
MD RRS
RE
RR
A HD R
C
GB
LC
LC-PUD
RT
PFBP
CC
VMX
Legend
General
Lakes
Lake Elmo Boundary
Shoreland D istrict Boundary
Village Area
General
Lakes
Village Area Watersh ed Districts
Browns Creek
Valley Branch
South Washington
Lake Elmo Zoning Ma p
Data Disclaimer:
This map is not a boundary
survey and is not intended
to be used as such. The
City of Lake Elmo assumes
no liability for the
completeness of this map
or responsibility for any
associated direct, indirect,
or consequential damages
that may result from its use
or misuse.
Map Updated May 2013
Lake Elmo Planning Department
May 21, 2013
Zoning Ordinance Update – January 2014
Organizational Structure
Section Range Article Title Start End 154.001 154.008 1 Introductory Provisions 154.009 154.012 2 Definitions 154.100 154.149 3 Administration and Enforcement 154.150 154.199 4 Non-Conforming Uses and Structures 154.200 154.249 5 General Regulations 154.250 154.299 6 Environmental Performance Standards 154.300 154.349 7 Specific Development Standards 154.350 154.399 8 Zoning Districts, Zoning Map, and Uses 154.400 154.449 9 Rural Districts 154.450 154.499 10 Residential Districts 154.500 154.549 11 Village Center District 154.550 154.599 12 Commercial Districts 154.600 154.649 13 Public and Semi-Public Districts 154.650 154.699 14 OP District 154.700 154.749 15 OP-Alt District 154.750 154.799 16 Planned Unit Development