The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ-Agenda-Packet-6-9-14 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, June 9, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. May 28, 2014 4. Public Hearing a. WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO-PUD CONCEPT PLAN & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission is being asked to review a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a proposed residential subdivision to be called Wildflower at Lake Elmo. This application has been submitted by Robert Engstrom Companies, and is a follow- up to a previous submission for a subdivision sketch plan that was tabled by the Planning Commission earlier this spring. The concept plan includes 145 single- family lots on a total site area of approximately 117 acres, roughly half of which would be preserved as open space. The Planning Commission will also be considering a related request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to allow residential development to occur on two small areas within the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision that are currently guided for RAD – Rural Area Development and Open Space. 5. Business Items a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – EXTERIOR STORAGE. Staff will present proposed updates/perfecting amendments to the City’s provisions related to exterior storage. b. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SCREENING. Staff will present proposed updates/perfecting amendments to the City’s provisions related to screening. 6. Updates a. City Council Updates – June 3, 2014 meeting: i. Perfecting Comp Plan Amendment passed (Vote: 5-0). ii. Shoreland Amendment Ordinance passed (Vote: 5-0). iii. Garage ordinance passed (Vote: 5-0). 2 b. Staff Updates i. Upcoming Meetings: • June 23, 2014 • June 30, 2014 – Special meeting requested • July 14 , 2014 ii. Planning Commissioners Journal – “What Planners Do” c. Commission Concerns 7. Adjourn Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-14 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2014 Vice Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Dorschner, and Haggard joined at 7:15pm. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Morreale, Williams, Yocum and Lundgren. STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson. Approve Agenda: The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: May 12, 2014 M/S/P: Dorschner/Kreimer, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 4-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Shoreland Ordinance Update Johnson started his presentation by going over the proposed ordinance which would add the recently adopted urban development districts to the City’s Shoreland regulations. A request was made to add a definition for dedicated riparian areas. This ordinance was submitted to all the appropriate agencies. VBWD was the only one to submit comments. There was a face to face meeting with the DNR, but to date the City has received no formal comments. Dorchner asked about the performance standards for water oriented accessory structures. He asked when the provisions were last amended. Johnson noted that the performance standards were amended to allow for larger structures used as boat houses. In addition, a reduced setback is also allowed for water oriented accessory structures. Dorschner noted his concern that the proposed ordinance amends the structure height of water-oriented structures back to 10’ at the request of the DNR, while one individual property owner got to build a boathouse at a larger dimension. Kreimer asked about which lakes should be selected for riparian dedication. Johnson noted that staff reviewed the registered public water bodies in the community and 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-14 determined that the only water bodies that would benefit from riparian dedication would be Goose and Kramer Lakes. Dodson asked for clarification regarding Ordinary High Water Level in Table 17-3. Johnson provided clarity. Public Hearing opened at 8:24pm. No one spoke and the only written comment was from the VBWD. Public Hearing closed at 8:24pm. Dorschner discussed water oriented accessory structures. He noted that he is disappointed that the boathouse structures are not allowed to have a roof. The Planning Commission would like an interpretation from the City Attorney regarding what enclosed would mean. M/S/P: Dorschner/Larson, move to strike “with an additional roof” in sub section 4.a.v., Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Dodson/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the amended Shoreland Ordinance with inclusion of Dedicated Riparian area Definition, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Performance Standards Attached Garages Klatt began his presentation by explaining what the current development standards are in regards to front yard setback and minimum width of residential garages. He noted that the City has received feedback from a number of builders that the existing performance standards related to attached garages are problematic. Staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to address the builder concerns. It would raise the percentage of allowable garage width from 60% to75% of the total front facade. Public Hearing opened at 7:58pm. Joe Jablonski, Lennar Homes, shared his experiences in the dimensions of single family homes. He noted that Lennar homes does not offer single family homes that do not have 3-car garages, as it was not conducive to their marketing. He also noted that Lennar attempts to add architectural features to their homes to add visual interest around the area of the garage. Larson asked if the garages can be reversed to add visual interest. Jablonski noted that the garage side is typically determined by the grading plan and elevations of the lot. Haggard asked for clarifications on which Lennar elevations or 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-14 house types met the City’s ordinance. Jablonski noted that close to 75% of the home types that were distributed to the Planning Commission do not meet the performance standards. Larson asked about wider lots. Jablonski noted that the same concern exists, as many of their house types remain the same regardless of width of lot. Craig Allen, Gonyea Company, spoke about his experience with the custom home builders who Gonyea Company works with. He noted that these performance standards have an indirect consequence of limiting creativity with the home styles. Allen also noted that Gonyea and the stable of custom builders they work with build very few homes that do not have three-car garages. Michael Ramme, Ryland Homes, noted that they do not build any two-car garage homes. The market at this time for single family homes is demanding three-car garages. Ramme noted that requiring garages to be recessed 4 feet adds to the redundancy of neighborhoods. Dodson asked about Ryland’s experiences around the Metro area. Ramme noted that he has not encountered other communities that address performance standards for attached garages. Larson asked if it were possible for the building community to be more creative with their design to add variety. Mr. Ramme noted that Ryland has an anti-redundancy clause in their neighborhoods. Public Hearing closed at 8:32 pm. Staff discussed their perspective about the architectural standards of attached garages. Haggard stated her points to the Planning Commission. Dodson discussed his position related to the architectural standards of single family homes. Kreimer noted that he supports the interpretation of measuring the garage doors themselves individually. He noted that plats have been approved with smaller lots, and it is the City’s responsibility to make it work. Kreimer added that he would support making the minimum lot widths larger, as in retrospect he thinks that was a mistake. Klatt shared the purpose statement of the City’s Zoning Code. Most things such as adequate spacing and height, serve a specific public purpose while percent of garage really doesn’t serve a particular public purpose. Design standards are typically used to preserve a community asset while this policy is a private one. Haggard stated that these standards were devised based on hours of meetings. The lot requirement was dropped at the request of the builders which was probably a mistake. Rather than allowing a larger percentage of garage, she would rather see a wider lot. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-14 M/S/P: Dorschner/Kreimer, move to amend 457.A.2 to read “the width of the visible garage door surface area when closed shall not exceed 60% of the width of the entire principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street, Vote: 4-1, motion carried, with Haggard voting no. M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the amendments to Section 154.457 of the zoning code concerning attached garages with the amended changes related to garage door width, Vote: 4-1, motion carried, with Haggard voting no. Public Hearing: Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Density Ranges Klatt started his presentation related to the proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. This amendment would clarify the density ranges in the Urban Districts. The intent of the perfecting amendment is to close artificial gaps that exist between land use categories in the City’s plan. This will provide clarity, and the change is now possible due to the termination of the MOU with the Metropolitan Council. There would be no changes to Urban Low or High Density, only Urban Median Districts. There would be a minor adjustment to VMX. There would be no requirement for external review based on the districts being looked at. There was general discussion about the appropriate ranges for the land use categories as part of the plans. The Planning Commission suggested that the number not overlap. An example would be 2.5 to less than 4. Public Hearing opened at 9:41pm. No one spoke and no written comments were received. Public Hearing closed at 9:42 pm. M/S/P: Dorschner/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove gaps in the density ranges within the Comprehensive Plan and Table 3-B, as well as changing the ranges to avoid overlap of density ranges, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Updates and Concerns Council Updates – May 20, 2014 Meeting 1. City Code Amendment – Driveway width Perfecting Amendment passed. 2. City Code Amendment – Net Density Passed. 3. Street Vacation – Approved a partial vacation of 12th Street. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-28-14 4. Developer’s Agreement – Approved the Savona Developer’s Agreement. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. June 9, 2014 b. June 23, 2014 2. MOU now terminated by the City and Metropolitan Council. The 2040 forecast was also adopted, noting a population of 20,500. 3. Staff will send out Planning Commissioner’s web articles. Commission Concerns - Planning Commission hoped to discuss what the MOU termination means for the City’s Land Use Plan. Klatt offered some ideas about how to complete some high level analysis. Planning Commission would like to get presentation from Stillwater School District to know how they are planning to accommodate our growth. Meeting adjourned at 10:04 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/9/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-17 ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a proposed residential subdivision to be called Wildflower at Lake Elmo. This application has been submitted by Robert Engstrom Companies, and is a follow-up to a previous submission for a subdivision sketch plan that was tabled by the Planning Commission earlier this spring. Rather than resubmitting a revised sketch plan for this subdivision, the developer has instead decided to address the Comments as part of a request for a PUD Concept Plan. The application has therefore moved into the City’s formal review process, and should be considered as a new application. As noted in the following report, the developer has been working to address the comments he received as part of the sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is also asked to take action on an additional related request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to allow residential development to occur on two small areas within the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision that are currently guided for RAD – Rural Area Development and Open Space. During the Planning Commission’s review of the sketch plan, these amendments were identified as necessary for moving the project forward. The proposed subdivision would be located immediately north of the Brookfield Addition along 39th Street and would extend to the northern limits of the Village area boundary. The concept plan includes 145 (up two from the previous sketch plan) single-family lots on a total site area of approximately 117 acres, roughly half of which would be preserved as open space. The PUD Concept Plan does require a public hearing and Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of both the Concept Plan and the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN Property Owners: Premier Bank, 2866 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN Location: Part of Sections 12 and 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, north of 39th Street, west of Lake Elmo Avenue, and south of the northern Village Planning Area boundary line. PID Numbers 13.029.21.32.00001, 12.029.21.34.0001, 13.029.21.21.0001 and 12.029.21.43.0013. BUSINESS ITEM 4a – REVIEW 2 Request: PUD Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Existing Land Use: Agriculture, Woods/Natural Vegetation, Wetlands, Open Space Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning Surrounding Land Use: North – vacant/agricultural land, rural residential; west – agricultural land (future Village residential); south – offices, business park land; open space/ Field of St. Croix II subdivision Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional; RR – Rural Residential, GB – General Business Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open Space Overlay Proposed Zoning: MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential History: Property was included in Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer service area as defined in the 2013 Village Land Use Plan. Site has historically been used for faming activities, including the growing of agricultural crops. A large portion of the site is located in a Flood District. A small number of the residential lots and Outlots O and P are located on part of the open space land associated with the Fields of St. Croix second addition. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/23/14 60 Day Deadline – 7/23/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 9/23/14 Applicable Regulations: Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (MDR) Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo is in receipt of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept plan from Robert Engstrom Companies concerning a proposed residential subdivision to be located within the northern portion of the Village Planning Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision would be located on land formerly known as the Heritage Farm and Premier Bank property, which consists of 101 acres within the Village Planning Area. In addition to the 101 acres that Mr. Engstrom has agreed to purchase from Premier Bank, the proposed development also includes land that was previously included as part of the open space dedication for the Fields of St. Croix second addition. Because this land was included in the open space calculations for this Open Space development, the applicant will need to modify the terms of an existing conservation easement in order to develop this area as shown on the sketch plan for Wildflower at Lake Elmo. A second component of the proposal, and a critical element of the application in front of the Planning Commission, is a request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to allow residential development to occur on two small areas within the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision that are currently guided for RAD – Rural Area Development and Village Open Space Overlay. These amendments would be split between two portions of the Village Planning Area as follows: BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 3 • 12 lots that would be platted on land immediately north of the Schiltgen Farms “Parcel B” development and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue. This land is guided both for RAD – Rural Area Development and as part of the Village Open Space Overlay. The proposed amendment would remove these designations for the area to be subdivided and establish a new land use designation of V-LDR (Village Urban Low Density Residential). • Outlot P of Fields of St. Croix Second Addition. The proposed amendment would change the future land use designation of the western portion of this outlot from RAD – Rural Area Development to V-MDR (Village Urban Medium Density Residential). If approved, the amendment would allow the platting of roughly 17 lots that encroach into this outlot (which would then be replatted as part of the Wildflower subdivision). Outlot P is also subject to a conservation easement held by the City of Lake Elmo that would need to be vacated in order for any portion of this outlot to be replatted into residential building sites. The entire development site is slightly over 117 acres, which includes the 101-acre Premier Bank land, the 15 acres of open space associated with the Fields of St. Croix Second Addition development, and a smaller strip of land that provides access to the Smith farmstead property to the north of the applicant’s site. Of the 117 acres, roughly half would be used for residential development, while the remainder would be preserved as open space or used for storm water infiltration and retention. As noted in the attached project narrative, the applicant is proposing to use the open space for natural habitat restoration and creation, with a focus on providing a landscape that is friendly towards bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. This philosophy would be carried forward into the residential areas, where the developer will work to incorporate pollinator-friendly plants within these areas. Overall, the project will include 145 single-family residential lots, the majority of which will be located on the higher portion of the property directly north of the Brookman Addition commercial area along 39th Street. A small number of lots are proposed on the lower part of the site along Lake Elmo Avenue, and the applicant has indicated that he will be providing public sanitary sewer services to these lots in order to address previous review comments. The primary access into the subdivision will be provided over an existing right-of-way that was previously platted within the Brookman Addition south of the applicant’s site. The access through the Brookman Addition will follow the common boundary between the Engstrom property and land immediately to the west now owned by the Gonyea development company. The proposed development plans call for an expansion of this right-of-way in order to accommodate an enhanced wider parkway-style entrance into the subdivision. In addition to cooperating over the future location of the 39th Street access that will serve their residential developments the Gonyea and Engstom Companies have also been coordinating the siting of a smaller park area to be shared by both developments. This park area would be located essentially in the middle of the two developments and accessible via roads from either development. With the significant amount of open space being set aside within Wildflower at Lake Elmo, the applicant is not proposing any additional land dedication for parks. The sketch plan was previously reviewed by the Park Commission, and the Commission was open to the idea of the City participating in the long-term maintenance and preservation of the proposed conservation land. The City will need to work with the applicant to define the City’s responsibilities for this open space, and to establish an appropriate plan for ownership and upkeep of this area. The proposed internal street pattern follows a fairly rigid grid system, with larger lots located further to the north. Within the southern half of the residential area, the applicant is proposing a unique lot layout that incorporates small green courtyards surrounded by homes on smaller lots. This layout BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 4 will allow the homes to face the front of the streets around the block, while moving all garages and vehicular accesses to a secondary road around the courtyard. These courtyard homes are intended to serve a different market than has typically been served in Lake Elmo, and would provide for a traditional streetscape and environment that is very attractive for pedestrians. Other major features of the plan being presented include the creation of larger storm water facilities to the east of the residential areas along State Highway 5 and the development of an extensive trail and path system providing access to the conservation areas and to the rest of the Village Planning Area. The applicant is no longer proposing to construct any community/commercial buildings within the common open space areas adjacent to Highway 5. One of the reasons the applicant has elected to pursue a Planned Development is that the development proposal includes certain elements that do not conform to City requirements, including the following: • The applicant is proposing to construct streets that are 18-feet in width to serve the rear portions of the courtyard homes. The City’s street standard is 28 feet for public streets. Staff is recommending approval of this exception because these lots are also served by a street meeting standards in the front of all of these lots (with one additional exception noted below). • The extreme southern street within the project area is shown at 18-feet. As per the City Engineer’s comments, Staff is willing to accept a 24-foot road within a 50-foot right-of-way under the terms decried in the City’s Engineer’s comments. • While the courtyard homes will average 7,000 square feet in size, these lots will include several that are 6,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the MDR zoning district is 7,000 square feet. By recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan, the Planning Commission would also be recommending approval of the exceptions described above. In addition, the developer has prepared a list of additional setback requirements for the design features associated with these homes as noted in the attached submission materials. Staff is suggesting that all requested exceptions and any additional development requirements be included in a separate PUD planning document at the preliminary platting stage of the project. Staff has completed an internal review of the concept plan, and general comments from Staff and recommended conditions of approval are included in this memorandum. BACKGROUND The proposed sketch plan is located within the Village Planning Area and is therefore located within the one of the City’s future sewer service areas. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as urban medium density residential at a density of 3 to 4 units per acre, which is consistent with the residential land use classification used for areas closer to the core of the Village. When considering the entire area of 117 acres, the overall gross density proposed is very low at only 1.2 units per acre; however, the net density calculation (which removes wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and other undevelopable areas) is closer to the low end of the medium density range at roughly 3 units per acre (approximately 135 homes on 45 acres). Given its location within the Village Planning Area, there are several issues and details that will need to be resolved for the proposed project to move forward. Most critically, the project falls under the scope of the AUAR Mitigation Plan, and the components of this plan that may be relevant to the BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 5 applicant’s project must be addressed at the preliminary platting stage. As noted below, Staff is recommending approval of the PUD concept plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendments with several conditions of approval to address the most significant outstanding issues, and more critically, to ensure that the development as proposed cannot move forward with the conservation easement over Outlot P of the Fields of St. Croix still in place. Staff has provided comments where appropriate in following section to identify elements of the plan that need to be further addressed by the applicant. The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components: • Concept Plan Overview. The attached narrative includes a general overview of the project with additional details concerning some of the unique aspects of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo development. • Existing Conditions. The applicant has provided detailed surveys depicting the existing conditions in and around the project area. • Concept Plan. The PUD Concept Plan includes a proposed configuration of roads, lots, and other public spaces on the applicant’s site. While the plan provides initial dimensions for many of the various lots and streets, some details are still missing and will need to be further reviewed for compliance with the City’s standards and regulations. The general lot sizes of 7,200 to 11,200 square feet meet the City’s requirements for the MDR – Medium Density Residential zoning district (7,000 square feet is the minimum allowed in this district), with the exceptions notes above for the courtyard homes. • Color Plan Rendering. The applicant has provided a colored drawing that highlights the conservation areas, green space and wetland areas within the development. • Typical Courtyard Homes Block. The applicant has submitted a sketch of a typical block within the courtyard home area. The developer is proposing to establish a homeowners association for the development that will be responsible for the maintenance of the areas between and around homes and the common “courtyard park” areas internal to the lots. The Staff review comments that follow are all based on conducting a high level review of the concept plan since there is not a lot of detailed information that is required at this stage in the development process. Staff has instead focused on the bigger picture items and those things that would otherwise not allow the development to move forward if they contrasted with elements from the Comprehensive Plan, Village AUAR Mitigation Plan, or the City Code. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Members of the Community Development, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments have previously reviewed the sketch plan, while the City Engineer has provided an additional review of the PUD Concept Plans. The Staff comments for this project are as follows: • Land Use: The proposed residential development is consistent with the future land use map, which guides this area for Village Urban Medium Density and open space. Using the City’s recently adopted definition for “net density”, the project falls right at three units per acre, which is at the low end of the MDR land use range. BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 6 • Buffer Areas/Green Belt. A minimal open space/green belt buffer is preserved as part of the Wildflower development. Because residential lots now encroach closer to adjacent residential sites that were excluded from the Village Planning Area, Staff is recommending that the developer provide additional details concerning the buffering techniques that will be used to ensure the spirit and intent of the City’s village open space buffer is met as part of a future preliminary plat submission. • Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The following amendments have been requested as part of the application to the City: o A Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the western portion of Outlot P of Fields of St. Croix Second Addition from RAD – Rural Area Development to V- MDR (Village Urban Medium Density Residential). o A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change roughly eight acres immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and north of the Schiltgen Farms – Parcel “B” area from RAD – Rural Area Development and Village Open Space Overlay to V-LDR (Village Urban Low Density Residential). • Zoning Map Amendments. The following amendments will be necessary to move this project forward. Please note that such rezoning area typically requested as part of a preliminary plat submission: o A Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of this development area from RT – Rural Transitional to MDR – Medium Density Residential or LDR – Low Density Residential (for the smaller 12-lot area). Some form of public or open space zoning may be appropriate for the conservation areas depending how this land is owned and managed. • Density: The net density calculation for the site is right at three units per acre, which at the minimum end of the MDR range of three to four units per acre. • Village Guiding Principles. The Village Land Use Plan incorporated the 13 guiding principles from the Village Master Plan. Of these principles, the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo will implement several of them, including: o Principle 1 - Evoke a sense of place: Build on existing assets to preserve the small town, rural character of Lake Elmo, maintaining the Old Village as the heart of the city. o Principle 2 - Balance natural and built systems: Integrate development within a green framework of parks, trails and the open space greenbelt. o Principle 7 - Improve connectivity: Provide a balanced network for movement that links local neighborhoods and Village Area attractions with city-wide and regional systems, paying equal attention to cars, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 7 o Principle 11 - Become a great model: Encourage other communities to ‘raise the bar’ by demonstrating low impact development, best practices and sustainability. • Lake Elmo Theming Study. As Robert Engstrom Companies move forward with the preparation of a preliminary plat, Staff is strongly encouraging the applicant to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the design of the project. The inclusion of various theming elements would help augment the implementation of several of the guiding principles noted above. • Zoning. The City recently adopted new urban development districts, including urban low density, medium density, and high-density residential zoning districts. In general, the concept plan has been designed to comply with the medium density district standards in regards to lot area, setbacks, and other dimensional standards. The smallest lots that average 7,000 square feet are consistent with the MDR district requirements. The City has not adopted any special zoning for the Village Residential areas, and Staff is recommending that the City rezone applicant’s site to LDR/MDR at the time of preliminary plat review. Zoning changes as noted above will be necessary for the project to move forward as proposed. • Land Use and Zoning Flexibility. Proposed lot layouts and street widths in some cases do not meet minimum zoning requirements. The City’s PUD Ordinance allows for some flexibility from zoning and subdivision requirements. Single family homes are permitted in the underlying MDR zoning, and exceptions have only been requested for the courtyard home areas. • Conservation Easements. The developer is proposing to trade additional open space to the north of the development in exchange for being able to develop land that is currently subject to a conservation easement. There are approximately 17 lots that would be platted across the Premier Bank parcel on to land that is presently owned by Robert Engrstrom Companies, but currently encumbered by said easement. This land would also be used for some of the subdivision’s storm water facilities. The applicant has met with the Fields of St. Croix Homeowner’s Association to discuss the land use change on this parcel, and both parties have indicated to Staff that there is a general agreement to allow the easement vacation to move forward. The developer will need to submit a formal request to the City to eliminate these easements as the City is the sole easement holder. Natural Resource Areas. The Village AUAR included an analysis of ecologically sensitive areas within the planning area, and a portion of the primary ecological areas are found on the northern portions of the applicant’s property. These ecologically sensitive areas are all located with the proposed conservation areas. The applicant’s plan for habitat restoration is very much in line with the mitigation plan adopted as part of the AUAR. Wetlands. The ecologically sensitive areas discussed above include wetlands, but will be protected from impacts through the platting process as part of the open space preservation areas within the development. • Parks and Open Space. The proposed plans include the creation of a shared park with the neighboring development. The Park Commission will need to continue to work with the applicant at developing a long-rang plan for the conservation area. BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 8 • Sidewalks and Trails. The sketch plans include an extensive series of paths and trails. The developer will need to work with the City to establish which are private and which are public. Trails around storm water facilities should be public since they will likely be located on storm water outlots dedicated to the City. • Subdivision Review Process. In order to proceed with the subdivision of the land included in the concept plan area the applicant will need to prepare a preliminary plat application. At this stage there is much more information required as part of the submission process, which also requires a public hearing. • Public Utilities. The applicant has been cooperating with other property owners within the Village to extend sanitary sewer services to the site from the south. The City has also been coordinating with these owners to run the eventual sewer service line under 39th Street. The sewer would then follow the 39th Street connection road into both the Engstrom and Gonyea North developments. The City Engineers comments include multiple references concerning the developer’s need to properly plan for the extension of public services to the site. • Landscaping. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site, which must be submitted at the time of preliminary plat submission. The applicant will also need to submit a tree preservation and protection plan as part of this application. The plan as submitted avoids any significant impacts to the portions of the site covered with trees and other vegetation. • City Street Standards. The roads as proposed do not meet the minimum requirements and standards for residential streets, and in particular, the City’s typical cross section for such streets. The streets as depicted on the sketch plan range in size from 28 feet wide to 18 feet wide; the City’s typical section calls for a 28 foot wide street. Since the submission of the sketch plan for the project, the developer has revised the streets so that all streets with the exception of streets internal to the courtyard homes comply with the City’s minimum strandars. • State Highway 5 Access. The project no longer includes any access to Highway 5, and the main entrance is located off of 39th Street. The sketch plan does eliminate an existing access driveway that connects directly to Highway 5. This driveway would be routed to one of the local streets within Wildflower at Lake Elmo. • 39th Street Access. The developer will need to construct the new road connecting the development with 39th Street as part of the public improvements associated with the project. The developer is encouraged to work with the neighboring property owner to build this road (Gonyea will have a similar requirement with its Gonyea North development). Engstrom Companies has requested that the City consider expanding the existing 60-foot right-of-way through the Brookman Addition to 90 feet on order to provide additional room for a trail and enhanced landscaping. • Environmental Review. The proposed Easton Subdivision is located within the area covered by the Village AUAR. As such, the City and the developer will need to comply with the BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 9 AUAR Mitigation plan that was adopted with the Final AUAR. The most critical elements of the Mitigation Plan that must be addressed include the following: o Floodplain Management. While the northern portion of the applicant’s site includes a large floodplain area, there is no development proposed within these areas. o Storm Water Management. The storm water management plan for Wildflower at Lake Elmo will need to meet the AUAR requirements in addition to City ordinances and Valley Branch Watershed District standards. o Natural Resource Areas. Preservation of the primary ecological areas is one of the goals of this development. o Transportation. The developer is proposing a new access to Highway 5 that was not identified in the AUAR. As noted above, Staff is recommending that a transportation engineer be retained to provide recommendations concerning this proposed connection. In general, Staff does not believe that the proposed Highway 5 access would substantially alter the findings and conclusions from the AUAR; however, there are potential safety concerns associated with this connection that warrant further study before this access can be shown on a preliminary plat. o Potential Environmental Hazard Sites. There are no identified hazard sites on this property. • Storm Water Ponds. In accordance with the City’s Engineering and Design Standards, all storm water facilities must be located on an outlot dedicated to the City. The developer will need to provide access to these ponds to allow for future maintenance. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer’s has submitted comments as outlined in the attached letter. The Engineer has previously noted that he would need to see additional details before commenting on any proposed storm water management plan, and in particular, questioned how storm water runoff would be directed by applicant. • Fire Chief Review. The Fire Chief has previously asked that the roads within the development be designed in accordance with Minnesota Fire Code standards. He did express concern that the proposed roads interior to the courtyard homes would be difficult to maneuver through, especially if parking were allowed on these streets. PROPOSED FINDINGS: Based on the above comments and analysis, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan and the Comprehensive Plan amendments described above. Staff has also found that the PUD plans, including the creation of a larger conservation area in exchange for a reduction of the existing conservation easements within the Fields of St. Croix second addition is warranted and consistent with the objectives of a PUD listed as follows: A. Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; B. Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities; BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 10 C. Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques; D. Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; E. Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities; F. Preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape features; G. Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses; H. Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on transportation, and the promotion of energy resource conservation; I. Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved; and J. Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD Concept plan for Wildflower at Lake Elmo subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall submit a formal request to the City to remove the existing conservation easements over Outlot P of the Fields of St. Croix Second Addition. The concept plan must be revised if the City Council does not agree to the requested removal. 2) The proposed road providing a connection to 39th Street shall be included as part of the improvement plans for Wildflower at Lake Elmo. 3) The preliminary plat shall include landscape plans that incorporate additional screening and buffering of residential properties located to the east and northeast of Wildflower at Lake Elmo. 4) The Preliminary Plat will address all comments from the City Engineer in a letter to the City dated June 2, 2014. In particular, the preliminary development plans shall address the provision of public sewer and water to the subdivision. 5) The Comprehensive Plan Amendments related to Wildflower at Lake Elmo must be approved before the City can take action on a preliminary plat. 6) All storm water retention and infiltration areas must be dedicated to the City and platted as outlots on the preliminary plat unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. 7) The developer shall define the purpose and use of the proposed streets, and specifically for those streets that do not meet current City engineering and design standards. All streets shall be dedicated for public use subject to any parking restrictions as recommended by the City Engineer. 8) The most southerly street running east and west shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. 9) A public trails must be located outside of wetland buffer zones. 10) The small residential area and cul-de-sac immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue shall be provided with public sanitary sewer service. BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 11 11) The applicant shall secure all necessary permits from Washington County for the proposed access off of Lake Elmo Avenue North. 12) The developer shall work with the property owner immediately to the south of Wildflower at Lake Elmo concerning the proposed expansion of the existing Layton Avenue right-of-way. The developer will also give consideration to adding a second access point to 39th Street. 13) The developer shall submit a PUD plan as part of any future preliminary development plans. The City of Lake Elmo agrees to a reduced road right-of-way to serve the rear yards of the courtyard homes. The PUD Plan shall include all requested departures from City ordinances and development standards. 14) The developer shall prepare a plan for ownership and management of the proposed conservation areas as part of preliminary PUD plans. Staff is further recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the western portion of Outlot P of Fields of St. Croix Second Addition from RAD – Rural Area Development to V-MDR (Village Urban Medium Density Residential) and to change roughly eight acres immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and north of the Schiltgen Farms – Parcel “B” area from RAD – Rural Area Development and Village Open Space Overlay to V-LDR (Village Urban Low Density Residential) subject to the following condition: 1) Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been completed and approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Concept Plan Overview 3. Contact Information 4. Wildflower Lot Size and Design Summary 5. Legal Description 6. City Acknowledgements 7. Layton Avenue Wetland Delineation Report 8. Existing Conditions Surveys (4) 9. Wildflower at Lake Elmo Concept Plan 10. Typical Courtyard Homes Block 11. City Engineer Comments – June 2, 2014 12. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING 12 - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM Date: June 2, 2014 To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Wildflower at Lake Elmo Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Sketch Plat Engineering Review From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer We have received a Concept Plan submittal for the above referenced development proposal consisting of the following exhibits/documentation received on May 29, 2014.  Concept Plan Narrative and application dated May 22, 2014.  Concept Site Plan dated May 20, 2014, Sheet 1, prepared by Design Forum Incorporated.  Existing Conditions dated May 22, 2014, prepared by Pioneer Engineering. We have the following review comments: COMMENTS  The phasing plan indicates the first phase to begin on the east side of the development. With street access, sewer and water all coming from the west, it should be noted that the preliminary plans and construction plans must evolve to near completion for the entire development to facilitate this phasing strategy; providing assurance to allow utility installation within future R/W. MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY  The project narrative and plans do not address water service for the development. As part of the Village municipal urban service area, the development must be served by the Lake Elmo municipal water system.  Municipal water supply is available along 39th Street North and along State Highway 5. Connections to both locations will be required as well as a stub to the adjacent property to the west.  The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal water supply to the development site at developers cost. Watermain distribution lines will need to be looped wherever reasonably possible. The proposed site plan facilitates watermain looping very well. MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER  The project narrative and plans do not address sewer service for the development. As part of the Village municipal urban service area, the development must be served by the Lake Elmo municipal sanitary sewer system.  A sanitary sewer lift station will be required to provide municipal sewer service for the 12 lots proposed with access from CSAH 17. This lift station is not a part of the City’s comprehensive sewer plan and would therefore be added infrastructure. FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283 PAGE 2 of 3  Municipal sanitary sewer is not currently available to the development. The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developers cost. We understand that the developer is part of a collaborative group pursuing a trunk sanitary sewer extension project to route the sewer along the east side of the Village from the Reid Park lift station to State Highway 5. The applicant has also submitted an escrow to partially secure and support the sanitary sewer improvement project along 39th Street North. In addition the applicant will be responsible for the extension of municipal sewer from 39th Street N. to the property to be developed. Preliminary Plat approval should be conditioned upon sewer service being brought to the development.  Consideration should be given to stubbing municipal sanitary sewer to the northeast of this development for a future potential extension for relief of failing wastewater management systems. A 10‐inch sewer line will need to be extended through this development to the northeast corner. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT  Stormwater facilities shall be in accordance with the requirements listed in the City of Lake Elmo Engineering Design Standards in addition to the requirements of the Valley Branch Watershed District.  All storm water ponds, infiltration basins and other facilities that are constructed with the purpose to fulfill the rate and volume control requirements of the VBWD rules must be placed within Outlots dedicated to the City for operation and maintenance purposes and with no other restrictions on the City. The Outlots must contain the entire facility including the HWL elevation together with maintenance access roads and graded areas that allow safe access to all storm sewer outfalls and structures.  The proposed trails adjacent to the ponds must be placed such that the trail subgrade is 1 foot above the pond HWL at all points.  The minimum 25 foot wetland buffer width must be placed fully outside of any proposed lots. Additional buffering may encroach on lots if contained within a defined easement. The current plan shows wetland buffer encroachments on 3 of the 12 lots located in the northwest part of the plan.  No utility piping is shown on the drawings. However, it should be noted that all easements for City utilities must be a minimum of 30 feet with the pipe centered on the easement. Wider easements may be required for deep pipes to meet OSHA excavation requirements. STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION  It is recommended that a second access connection be pursed along 39th Street North or the development access is combined with the Fields of St. Croix entrance. The development proposes 133 lots with one access. Secondary access may be completed with later phases for the development but should be accommodated as part of the overall development plan.  The access to Lake Elmo Avenue requires Washington County approval. Improvements along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) as required by Washington County will be the responsibility of the developer. Improvements should be included as part of the preliminary plat.  Some streets are proposed with 30 foot R/W and 18 foot paved streets. The project narrative does not define the use and purpose for these streets. A clearly defined purpose and use for these streets must be provided to allow further review on the minimum required widths and potential additional requirements. Because these streets appear to act more like “Alleys” the following considerations are recommended:  Consideration should be given to requiring these streets to be privately owned and maintained.  If publically owned and maintained, minimum widths for both R/W and pavement section must be further reviewed by all City staff to establish minimums for the defined purposes.  Example restrictions that must apply to accept less than standard minimums:  Less than standard minimums should be considered only when acting as secondary street to any given lot. The primary street must always meet the City standard. PAGE 3 of 3  No public utilities, except minimal storm sewer necessary to facilitate drainage will be allowed within these R/W, and storm sewer can be allowed only when centered within the 30 foot R/W.  No private utilities will be allowed within these R/W.  No parking can be allowed. No parking signs must be installed to designate the no parking zones.  The remaining proposed “primary” streets do not all comply with City minimum design standards. The following considerations are recommended:  The street along the southern part of the plat requires a minimum 60‐foot R/W and 28 foot street width since this street serves as the primary street access to several proposed residential lots. If private utilities are allowed within the 15 foot buffer area, the 50 foot R/W may be acceptable. The Street should be centered within the “60 foot area (R/W plus first 10 feet of Buffer)” to meet the minimum City boulevard areas on each side.  Since this street is single sided by residential properties a reduced pavement width may be considered if appropriately signed. A 24 foot minimum pavement width could be allowed if the street is signed “No Parking” along one side.  The proposed emergency exit should be eliminated by connecting the road as a full intersection.  All streets must be centered within the proposed R/W.  The proposed parking near Outlot P must be parallel parking or a bump out design be utilized that extends further into Outlot P.  The two smaller “eyebrows” located on the northern loop street should be eliminated since they require increased maintenance while adding no additional lot potential.  Consideration should be given to extending the 8‐foot trail along the northern loop street to connect to the trail at Outlot O.  Some sidewalks are proposed at 5 foot widths instead of the City standard 6 foot sidewalk. A 5 foot sidewalk seems appropriate when sidewalk is provided along both sides of the street, otherwise the City standard 6 foot sidewalk should be provided.  All streets must include concrete curb and gutter on both sides of the road. Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS6-6-2014 Proposed ComprehensivePlan AmendmentWldflower at Lake Elmo Concept Plan Map 3-3 TH 5 L a k e E l m o A v e 39th St Proposed Amendment: RAD to V-LDR Proposed Amendment: RAD to V-MDR Planned Land Uses Residential EstateRural Area DevelopmentRural Area Development Alt Rural Single Family Public/Park Urban High DensityUrban Medium DensityCommercialLimited Business Business Park Urban Low Density Village Mixed UseVillage Urban Low DensityVillage Urban Medium Density PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/9/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014 – 31 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment - Exterior Storage Ordinance Update SUBMITTED BY: Casey Riley, Planning Intern Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review a draft Exterior Storage Ordinance intended to update the City’s exterior storage requirements. The exterior storage provisions are currently located in Chapter 150 – General Provisions. In addition, there are provisions related to exterior storage in Article IX – Rural Districts (§154.407), Article X – Urban Residential Districts (§154.458) and Article XI – Village Mixed-Use District (§154.509). Moving forward, staff would recommend having all exterior storage provisions located in one location in the Code (likely Chapter 150). In terms of the City’s existing exterior storage ordinance (§150.001), all existing provisions were carried forward in the draft ordinance. After researching best practices from other communities, staff is recommending some additions. The additions are summarized as follows: • Exterior storage of common yard items, such as outdoor cooking equipment, lawn and garden equipment outdoor furniture, was added for clarification. • Exterior storage of materials related to yard and garage sales is addressed. • Exterior storage of rain barrels for storm water reuse was also added. In addition to these proposed addition, staff would ask the Planning Commission to consider how to address storage of boats, recreational vehicles and trailers in urban districts. In urban districts, it is very difficult to store these items in rear yards due to the lack of navigable area between structures in these districts. For that reason, many communities allowed these items to be stored in driveway or off-street parking areas in front of homes. Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider whether to allow storage of these items in front of homes in urban districts. Finally, staff is also recommending to rename §150.002 from “All Districts” to “Refuse”, as the code section addresses garbage and refuse on site. This title/name change is intended to make the code section more identifiable and easier to use. RECCOMENDATION: No formal action is required at this time. The Planning Commission is asked to provide initial feedback regarding the draft exterior storage ordinance. This feedback will inform a future draft, at which time staff intends to hold a public hearing. BUSINESS ITEM 5B 2 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Exterior Storage Ordinance, dated 6/5/14 2. Existing Exterior Storage Ordinance (§150.001) and Related Provisions (§154.407, §154.458 and §154.509) 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 BUSINESS ITEM 5A DRAFT EXTERIOR STORAGE ORDINANCE § 150.001 Exterior Storage A. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the regulation of exterior storage in the city of Lake Elmo and to prevent the accumulation of excessive amounts of materials and equipment on real property. The accumulation of visible excessive storage is found to create unsightly conditions which can reduce the value of real property, create fire and safety hazards, and promote deterioration in the community. B. Agricultural and Residential Districts. Prohibited Without Screening. In agricultural and all residential districts, all personal property must be stored within a building or fully screened from view so as not to be visible from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way, except for the following: 1. Laundry drying, clothesline pole and wires; 2. Recreational equipment and other non-motorized play equipment; 3. Outdoor furniture, lawn and garden equipment, and outdoor cooking equipment; 4. Construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently (within a period of 6 months) being used on the premises; 5. Agricultural equipment and materials within the Agricultural, Rural Residential and Rural Development Transitional zoning districts; 6. Off street parking of licensed operable passenger automobiles, pick-up trucks and accessory equipment; 7. In residential zoning districts, recreational vehicles, boats and trailers less than 25 feet in length, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles may be stored in the rear or side yard more than 10 feet from each property line; 8. Merchandise being displayed for temporary sale, known as a garage or yard sale, are limited to two (2) per calendar year per residence, not to exceed four (4) days in length; 9. Firewood intended for personal use, provided it is setback at least 5 feet from the property line and ten (10) feet from any habitable structure; 10. Rain barrels, meaning a storage container that holds rainwater intended for reuse including a manufactured, built-in-outlet, spigot or faucet for draining and use of the stored water. C. Commercial Districts. In commercial districts, the storage of exterior materials must be screened from view as to not be visible from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential properties, by a wing of the principal structure or a screen wall constructed of the same materials as the principal structure. Height of the structure or screen wall must be sufficient to completely conceal the stored materials from the view at eye level (measured at 6 feet above ground level) on the adjacent street or property. D. Semi-Public and Public Districts. In semi-public and public districts, exterior storage of personal property associated with a permitted use may be permitted, provided the property being stored correlates to a use permitted by the zoning code and respects the intent and purposes of the zoning code. Storage of exterior materials must be screened from view as to not be visible from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential properties. 1 § 150.002 REFUSE A. In all districts, all refuse, rubbish, waste material, or garbage (as defined in § 11.01) shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container designed for such purposes. Refuse collection areas shall be screened from the public right-of-way. B. The owner of vacant land shall be responsible for keeping the land free of refuse, rubbish, or garbage. 2 Attachment #2 Exterior Storage – Existing Provisions EXTERIOR STORAGE § 150.001 PROHIBITED WITHOUT SCREENING. (A) Storage of property in Agricultural and Residential districts. All personal property shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties and public streets, except for the following: (1) Laundry, drying; (2) Recreational equipment commonly used in residential yards; (3) Construction and landscaping materials, and equipment currently (within a period of 6 months) being used on the premises; (4) Off-street parking of licensed operable passenger automobiles and pick-up trucks; (5) Boats and trailers less than 25 feet in length, if stored in the rear yard more than 10 feet distant from any property line; (6) Merchandise being displayed for sale in accordance with the provisions of the zoning code; (7) Farm implements in the AG Zoning District; and/or (8) Firewood storage for personal use. (B) In non-residential districts, exterior storage of personal property may be permitted by conditional use permit provided the property is so stored for purposes relating to a use of the property permitted by the zoning code and will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning code. (1997 Code, § 1340.03) (C) Existing uses. Existing uses shall comply with the provisions of §§ 150.001 et seq. within a reasonable time, not to exceed 6 months following the enactment of this code. (1997 Code, § 1340.02) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 150.002 ALL DISTRICTS. (A) In all districts, all refuse, rubbish, or garbage (as defined in § 11.01) shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container designed for the purposes. (B) The owner of vacant land shall be responsible for keeping the land free of refuse, rubbish, or garbage. (1997 Code, § 1340.04) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 154.407 ACCESSORY USES. A. Exterior Storage in Residential Districts. All materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except for the following: 1. Laundry drying 2. Construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently being used on the premises. Materials kept on the premises for a period exceeding six (6) months shall be screened or stored out of view of the primary street on which the house fronts. 3. Agricultural equipment and materials, if they are used or intended for use on the premises. 4. Off-street parking and storage of vehicles and accessory equipment, as regulated in Article 5, Section 155.67. 5. Storage of firewood shall be kept at least ten (10) feet from any habitable structure and screened from view from adjacent properties. 6. Outdoor parking B. Temporary Sales. Temporary sales, also known as yard or garage sales, are permitted in all residential districts, limited to two (2) per calendar year per residence, not to exceed four (4) days in length. § 154.458 ACCESSORY USES. A. Exterior Storage in Residential Districts. All materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except for the following: 1. Laundry drying 2. Construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently being used on the premises. Materials kept on the premises for a period exceeding six (6) months shall be screened or stored out of view of the primary street on which the house fronts. 3. Agricultural equipment and materials, if they are used or intended for use on the premises. 4. Off-street parking and storage of vehicles and accessory equipment, as regulated in Article 5, Section 155.67. 5. Storage of firewood shall be kept at least ten (10) feet from any habitable structure and screened from view from adjacent properties. 6. Outdoor parking B. Temporary Sales. Temporary sales, also known as yard or garage sales, are permitted in all residential districts, limited to two (2) per calendar year per residence, not to exceed four (4) days in length. § 154.509 ACCESSORY USES A. Exterior Storage on Residential Parcels. All materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except for the following: 1. Laundry drying 2. Construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently being used on the premises. Materials kept on the premises for a period exceeding six (6) months shall be screened or stored out of view of the primary street on which the house fronts. 3. Agricultural equipment and materials, if these are used or intended for use on the premises. 4. Off-street parking and storage of vehicles and accessory equipment, as regulated in Article 5, Section 155.67. 5. Storage of firewood shall be kept at least ten (10) feet from any habitable structure and screened from view of adjacent properties. 6. Outdoor parking B. Temporary Sales. Temporary sales, also known as yard or garage sales, are permitted in all residential districts, limited to two (2) per calendar year per residence, not to exceed four (4) days in length for each event. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/9/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014 – 31 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment - Screening Ordinance Update SUBMITTED BY: Casey Riley, Planning Intern Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review a draft Screening Ordinance intended to update the City’s screening requirements. Staff would propose to move the screening requirements to Article V – General Regulations of the Zoning Code. Currently, there are existing screening requirements in Chapter 150 – General Provisions. In terms of the City’s screening provisions (150.020) all existing provisions were carried forward in the draft ordinance. After researching best practices from other communities, staff is recommending some additions. The additions are summarized as follows: • Screening provisions were added related to parking areas and driveways adjacent to residential zones. • Provisions were added to screen trash and refuse areas. • Provisions were added to better define the screening techniques that would be permitted, including fences, berms, landscape materials, etc. Overall, staff needs to conduct additional research to confirm that these proposed additions are consistent with all other City ordinances (i.e. fencing, off-street parking, landscaping, etc.) Staff is providing this as a discussion time at this point. In staff’s judgment, the screening provisions should be located in the Zoning Code. This ordinance update is part of the broader effort to update the Zoning Ordinance as a whole. RECCOMENDATION: No formal action is required at this time. The Planning Commission is asked to provide initial feedback regarding the draft screening ordinance. This feedback will inform a future draft, at which time staff intends to hold a public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Screening Ordinance 2. Existing Screening Ordinance (150.020) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff BUSINESS ITEM 5B 2 - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5A DRAFT SCREENING ORDINANCE § 154.206 SCREENING REQUIRMENTS A. General Screening: Screening shall be required in all zones where: 1. Any off street parking area contains more than four (4) parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of an adjoining residential lot; 2. The driveway to a parking area of more than six (6) parking spaces is within fifteen (15) feet of an adjoining residential zone. 3. The screening shall be greater than five (5) feet high and shall not encroach within fifteen (15) feet of any street or driveway. 4. In the case of screening along a street, the screening shall be setback fifteen (15) feet from the street right-of-way. B. Commercial, Business, Industrial screening. Where any business (structure, parking, or storage is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business, parking lot, or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on the side of a business or industry considered to be the front. C. Exterior Storage. All exterior storage shall be screened as required by § 150.001. D. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment located on roofs shall be screened or placed out of view of the public right-of-way, with the exception of solar energy equipment. E. Loading Docks and Trash Containers: In high density residential, commercial and industrial districts, 1. Loading docks shall be screened from view from adjacent streets and adjacent property unless they are at the rear of the building which abuts another commercial use. The property owner may provide a 30 foot landscaped are between the dock and the property line where screening is not possible. 2. All exterior trash containers shall be screened on at least three sides and shall not be visible from any street or right-of-way. F. Materials: Required screening may be achieved with fences, walls, hedges, earth berms, and other landscape materials. Earth berms shall not be steeper than a 3:1 ratio. All materials, including landscaping, shall have a minimum opacity of 75 percent year round. Print Lake Elmo, MN Code of Ordinances SCREENING § 150.020 REQUIRED SCREENING. (A) Screening. Screening shall be required in residential districts for any off-street parking area which contains more than 4 parking spaces and is within 30 feet of an adjoining residential lot. (B) Business, industrial screening. Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking, or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall be screened along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business, parking lot, or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on the side of a business or industry considered to be the front. (C) Exterior storage. All exterior storage shall be screened as required by § 150.001. (D) Mechanical apparatus on roofs. All mechanical apparatus on roofs shall be screened. (E) Loading docks. Loading docks shall be screened from all streets and adjacent property unless they are at the rear of the building which abuts another commercial use. The property owner may provide a 30 foot landscaped area between the dock and the property line where screening is not possible. (1997 Code, § 1345.01) Penalty, see § 10.99 Page 1 of 1CHAPTER 150: GENERAL PROVISIONS 6/6/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx