HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ-Agenda-Packet-5-12-14
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, May 12, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. April 28, 2014
4. Public Hearing
a. HAMMES ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT - The Planning Commission will
consider a Preliminary Plat application submitted by Hammes West, LLC for a
164-unit single family residential development to be located on 78.1 acres
immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) and within the City’s I-94 corridor
planning area.
5. Business Items
a. VILLAGE AREA AUAR FIVE-YEAR UPDATE – The Planning Commission
will receive an update from Staff concerning the Village Area AUAR and the
mandatory five-year update that is being prepared by the City.
b. NET DENSITY CALCULATIONS – The Planning Commission will discuss a
proposed amendment to the City Code to add a definition for net density and to
review density definitions from surrounding communities.
c. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GARAGE STANDARDS – The Planning
Commission is being asked to review the City’s development standards pertaining
to required front yard setback and maximum width of residential garages.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – May 6, 2014 meeting:
i. Verizon Wireless Communications Tower CUP passed with 16 findings of
fact and 4 conditions of approval.
ii. Zoning Text Amendment - Commercial Wedding Venue ordinance
adopted.
2
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• May 28, 2014 (Wed due to Memorial Day)
• June 9, 2014
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-28-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Haggard, Yocum, Dorschner
and Lundgren.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Larson and Morreale.
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: April 14, 2014
Chairman Williams noted three corrections to the minutes.
There was a general discussion of the minute-taking procedures.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0,
motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit – Verizon Wireless Communications Tower
Klatt began is presentation be describing the request. The proposed 125’ monopole
tower would be located at Oakland Jr. High School at Manning Ave. N. and 10th St. N.
Klatt described the exact location of where the proposed tower would be located. Klatt
then presented the detailed plans for the tower, noting that the site would be fenced in
for safety purposes. Moving forward, Klatt explained the requirements of the City’s
ordinance, including the proof of need, site ranking requirements, expert review, and
other requirements. Kyle also noted that the City’s consulting engineer, Gary Lysiak of
Owl Engineering, is also in attendance to answer any technical questions.
Haggard asked who would receive financial compensation for the lease agreement for
the tower. Klatt noted that the school district would receive compensation.
Gary Lysiak, Owl Engineering, explained his review procedure to the Planning
Commission. He noted that a search of existing towers in the areas was completed, and
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-28-14
it was found that no existing structures in the area could accommodate the need of the
proposed tower. Lysiak added that there is no negative impact on the operation of Lake
Elmo Airport. He also analyzed the proposed pole for loading capabilities, so future
facilities can be sited on the proposed tower. Lysiak wrapped up by noting that the
proposed tower will not cause any safety or health concerns related to radiation.
The Planning Commission asked various technical questions about the operation of the
tower and the site itself.
Blake Conklin, representing Verizon Wireless, requested that condition #4 of the
approval be removed, as it is not practical.
Dennis Bloom, Director of Operation of Stillwater Area Public Schools, addressed site-
related questions. He addressed the safety concerns of the baseballs entering the
fenced in portion of the cell tower. He also noted that additional landscaping is not
necessary. Bloom wrapped up by noting that the school district has other properties
with monopole wireless towers and the district has not experienced any problems
related to the operations of these facilities.
Public Hearing opened at 7:54 pm.
No one spoke. No written comments were submitted.
Public Hearing closed at 7:55 pm.
Chairman Williams asked planning staff about omitting Condition #4. Klatt explained
that the purpose of the condition is to not prohibit the siting of future carriers on the
site. There was a general discussion about the location of the equipment shelter. Klatt
noted that the siting of a future accessory building or equipment would not require an
amendment to the conditional use permit.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Dodson, move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to site a 125-
foot monopole wireless communications tower at Oakland Jr. High School based on the
findings of fact listed in the Staff Report and the conditions in the staff report with
amendment to condition #4, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Williams/Lundgren, move to amend the previous motion to include the findings
of fact listed in the staff report and the conditions in the staff report, including the
report from Owl Engineering, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item: Shoreland Ordinance Update
Johnson presented information concerning a proposed update to the City’s Shoreland
Management zoning ordinance. He noted that with recent updates to the City Code to
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-28-14
add sewered zoning districts in the City, the Shoreland Ordinance needs to be updated
to address these new districts. Staff is recommending adopting ordinances similar to
those is surrounding communities, which will generally separate the City into sewered
and unsewered development areas.
Johnson reviewed the purpose and intent of shoreland regulations, and described the
terminology used for these ordinances. He stated that all construction and
development activities within shoreland zones are subject to these special shoreland
rules.
Johnson reviewed the content of the proposed ordinance, and discussed the proposed
changes that are being recommended by Staff. The ordinance does provide for
flexibility from the state rules to allow for development around certain lakes in
exchange for riparian dedication to the City of a 200 foot buffer around these lakes.
Lundgren questioned whether or not the City would require the dedication of existing
property that has already been platted. Johnson noted that the ordinance would only
apply to new developments and does require implementation of a buffer in existing
developments.
Williams asked for clarification concerning the riparian dedication and non-riparian
dedication lots. Johnson replied that there is a setback of 50 feet for lots adjacent to an
area dedicated for riparian purposes. The Commission generally discussed the
implications of the riparian setbacks, and suggested changes to clarify the intent of the
code.
Lundgren requested that Staff look into regulations concerning the dumping of lawn
clippings, leaves, and other materials into lakes. Klatt stated that it would be covered
under DNR regulations.
The Commission discussed whether or not other lakes should be included in the riparian
dedication requirements. Johnson noted that Staff would research other lakes that
should be subject to the riparian dedication requirements. Staff will be meeting with
the DNR and will be asking for an update to the classifications.
The Commission felt that it would be helpful to include definitions in the code, but
would still like to see the definitions in the definitions section.
The Commission felt comfortable with the code with the changes discussed and asked
to bring it to public hearing.
Business Item: AUAR Update
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-28-14
Klatt explained the current status of the Alternative Urban Area-wide Review for the
Village Area. The AUAR was adopted in 2009 and is valid for 5-years. As no changes or
development have occurred in the Village as of May 2014, staff is proposing to submit a
technical memorandum update that would extend the validity of the AUAR.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates – April 15, 2014 Meeting - None
Staff Updates
1. Staff engaged in a general discussion about density calculations with the
Planning Commission. Staff would like to adopt a formal definition into the Code
so that the same methodology is used moving forward. Johnson distributed 2
handouts to the Planning Commission, one an email back from the Met Council
and the other an excerpt from a Planners dictionary which gave real world
examples. The way Cities calculate net densities greatly varies. Klatt used Easton
village as an example. The Commission asked that staff research how other
Cities calculate net density and bring it back to a future meeting.
2. Upcoming Meetings
a. May 12, 2014
b. May 28, 2014 – Wednesday due to Memorial Day holiday
Commission Concerns -
The Planning Commission discussed whether or not to include further detail about the
dissenting vote. They felt that if there was a no vote, the reasons should be stated.
Dodson noted a concern about the utility of the City’s design standards manual. He
noted that there is not a strong enough tool to require the applicant or developer to
change the architectural designs of the building.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/12/2014
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-14
ITEM: Hammes Estates Residential Subdivision – Preliminary Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County
John Hanson, Valley Branch Watershed District
Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief
Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc.
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat request from Hammes West,
LLC for a 164-unit single family residential development to be located on 78.1 acres immediately
west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) and within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 19 conditions as noted in
this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Hammes West, LLC, 36 Moonlight Bay, Stillwater, MN 55082.
Property Owners: Ellie Hammes, 1187 Forest Ave., Maplewood, MN 55109, and Dorothy Lyons,
10105 10th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19),
approximately 1,300 feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and immediately south
of Goose Lake. PID Number 34.029.21.13.0001.
Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 164-unit single family residential
subdivision to be named Hammes Estates.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Active mining and gravel operation and other vacant land.
Current Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional Zoning
District; Proposed Zoning: LDR - Urban Low Density
Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North –Goose Lake and Stonegate Residential Estates (RE)
subdivision; west – Stonegate RE subdivision; south – Lennar
Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre).
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
2
History: Sketch Plan review by Planning Commission on 6/24/13. Sketch Plan review by the
Park Commission on 7/15/13 and 1/30/14.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/2/2014
60 Day Deadline – 6/30/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 8/29/14
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR)
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hammes West, LLC for a preliminary plat to
subdivide approximately 78 acres of land located within the I-94 Corridor planning area into 164
single family lots. The proposed plat would be located on property currently owned by the Hammes
family, and would be located immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19), approximately 1,300
feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and approximately ½ of a mile north of the I-94 right-of-way.
The 78 acre parcel has historically been used as a gravel mining operation. Activity has recently
ceased and the landowner has proceeded with reclamation work related to rebalancing and grading
the site. This work is permitted under the active mining permit for the Hammes properties.
The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which
identifies the applicant’s property for urban low density residential development. The plat
incorporates 164 single family lots, most of which are designed with widths of 75 or 81 feet.
In terms of access, the preliminary plat shows a connection to Keats Avenue in the northeastern
portion of the plat. In addition to the Keats Ave. connection, the proposed plat on the Hammes site
will be connected to the approved Savona single family subdivision via two north-south local roads
(Streets 1 and 5), which ultimately connect to the 5th Street minor collector road.
This subdivision is the City’s second subdivision that will receive public sanitary sewer service,
which has been made available to the site via the nearly completed Section 34 429 Public Utility
Project. The improvements constructed as part of the Section 34 Utility Project include a new sewer
lift station that is sited on the property adjacent to Goose Lake just north of the eastern portion of the
Hammes property. The utility project also includes the construction of a sewer main that will
connect to the regional sewer interceptor within the Eagle Point Business Park, and the extension of
water lines that will provide a connection to the City’s water system. At present, the City’s water for
this area is provided by the City of Oakdale. However, Lake Elmo’s long-range water plans call for
an eventual connection to the City’s water system via a new trunk line along Inwood Avenue. There
is enough capacity in the Oakdale system to provide water to the Hammes development and a
significant portion of the Stage 1 portion of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area until Lake Elmo can
make the needed connections to its system. Sewer for the Hammes site is accessible near the location
of the lift station in the northeastern potion of the property, and water main is accessible along the
Keats Ave right-of-way in the southeastern portion of the site.
One of the other major features of the proposed subdivision is a series of outlots that will provide for
open space, trails, and storm water management throughout the development area. Based on multiple
reviews of the proposed parkland dedication with the Lake Elmo Park Commission, the applicant is
proposing an extensive system of trails within the development, with the main trail being sited within
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
3
the 100-foot buffer/greenway area along the border of the Stonegate subdivision in the western and
northern portions of the property. This buffer/greenway is consistent with the land use guidance of
the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the applicant is proposing park related improvements at the
City owned parcel on Goose Lake, including a shelter and a fishing pier. All outlots that are planned
for park land or storm water use will be deeded to the City, while the future home owner’s
association will retain ownership of the remaining outlots.
Due to the former use of the site as a gravel mining operation, the applicants have stated that a Phase
1 environmental review of the site has been completed. The purpose of such review is to test the site
and soils for any hazardous or harmful materials related to the previous use of the site as a sand and
gravel mine. In order to ensure that the site complies with all pertinent environmental requirements
and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Washington County Health
Department, staff would recommend that the applicants submit evidence that a Phase 1
Environmental Review has been completed and that further environmental review is not necessary.
Evidence of environmental review must be provided in advance of Final Plat.
The applicant is proposing to bring forward a final plat for the Hammes Estates development in
stages, starting in the northeast corner of the site. The applicants have identified the area in the
southeast portion of the plat as a future phase project due to necessary settling of the soils that must
occur in that location.
In addition, the applicant has noted that the proposed builders of the residential homes in the
subdivision will consist of a mix of one national builder, Ryland Homes, and other custom or local
builders. In the narrative, the applicants have noted that the custom and local builders will build on
lots closer to the Stonegate subdivision. The intent of this strategy is to offer greater variety and
transition from the existing rural subdivision of Stonegate to the urban low density site to the south
being developed by Lennar Homes.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Hammes site is guided for urban low density development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
and the applicant will be required to zone the site LDR – Low Density Residential at some point in
the future (prior to Final Plat approval). The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in
order to comply with the district standards for the LDR zoning district in terms of lot size, lot widths,
building setbacks, and other design criteria.
The arrangement of lots and blocks loosely follows two primary streets (Street 1 and Street 2), both
of which follow curvilinear alignments. The proposed plat also includes three cul-de-sacs (Streets 4,
8 and 9), all of which meet the City’s maximum length of 600 feet for lots less than 2.5 acres in size.
It should be noted that two of the three cul-de-sacs within the plat are connected to the greater
trail/sidewalk system through trail connections at the end of the streets. All other streets have been
designed to comply with the City’s current street standards. In terms of the overall design of the
proposed subdivision, the location of the streets and lots are strongly guided by the 7 existing
wetland on the site. Per Valley Branch Watershed District rules, the applicant is required to provide
buffering of various sizes around the wetlands depending on wetland size, and type. The location of
the wetlands and the required buffers have a large impact on the design of the subdivision.
Sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the subdivision. The proposed plans provide for
sidewalks on one side of all streets, which is consistent with the Staff recommendation for sewered
single family residential subdivisions. In terms of proposed trails, all are designed to be eight feet in
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
4
width and constructed of bituminous asphalt, which is consistent with City standard. In addition to
the buffer/greenway trail, the proposed subdivision includes trails connecting cul-de-sacs on Streets 9
and 4, as well as a trail along the Keats Ave. corridor that is consistent with the same planned
improvement as part of the Savona subdivision to the south. Finally, there is also a linkage trail
provided between Lots 12 and 13, Block 11 to provide internal access to the subdivision from the
Keats Ave. trail.
A typical lot building plan (detail) is included as part of the attached subdivision packet, and each lot
as depicted in the plans includes a description of the lot size, dimensions, and all required setbacks.
There are three general lot sizes proposed for the single family area with average dimensions of 75
by 140 feet, 81 by 140 feet and 85 feet by 140 feet. All of the lots meet the City’s minimum area
requirement of 8,000 for single family lots in a LDR district, with the smallest lot (Lot 15, Block 1)
proposed at 9,836 square feet. The site plans further illustrate that throughout the single family area
the lots will average 12,285 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a fairly wide
margin. The median lot size within the development is 11,736 sq. ft. and the largest lot in the
development (Lot 13, Block 11) is 21,941 sq. ft.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Hammes preliminary plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District
• Proposed Zoning: LDR - Urban Low Density Residential
• Total Site Area: 78.1 acres
• Total Residential Units: 164
• Proposed Density (Net): 2.60 units/acre
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards:
• Min. Lot Width: 75 ft.
• Lot Depth: 140 ft. typical
• Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (8,451 min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
• Side Yard Setback: 7.5 ft. (average)
• Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft.
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard)
The standards listed above are all in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s
zoning and subdivision regulations. Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary plat, the applicant
has demonstrated compliance with all applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is
required for a preliminary plat.
As with any new subdivision the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public
park use. In this case, the applicant has indicated that certain outlot areas will be dedicated to the
City for this purpose, including portions of Outlots A and B. Since a large portion these areas
represent green belt or trail corridors and are not suitable for other types of active recreation usage, it
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
5
is Staff’s recommendation that the City only accept the trail corridors as part of the park land
dedication requirements if the developer constructs the planned trail over these areas in conjunction
with other required infrastructure improvements. As a general policy, Staff is recommending that the
City consider accepting smaller land dedications in exchange for a more robust and connected trail
system that will provide access to the City’s numerous parks (including the regional park preserve).
This recommendation is consistent with the general policy direction of the Park Commission and
results of the 2013 City Park Survey.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as
open space, which totals 7.8 acres. On the plans (sheet 3), the applicant has noted that 8.15 acres of
land associated with the greenbelt/buffer have been dedicated as park. If this calculation is accurate,
then the required land dedication has been satisfied. However, sufficient detail regarding the
calculation for public land dedication has not been provided. Staff would recommend that the
applicant must submit a detailed and updated parkland dedication calculation in advance of Final
Plat. Upon review of the updated calculation, if any gap exists between the eligible land dedication
provided and the required land dedication amount, the applicant will be required to submit a fee in
lieu of land dedication to satisfy the total land dedication requirement (10%) per the Subdivision
Ordinance.
It is also important to note that a large portion of the Hammes property is currently in the shoreland
district due to its proximity to Goose Lake. As the City’s existing shoreland ordinance does not
include standards for subdivision of properties in shoreland districts to be served by sanitary sewer,
the existing ordinance does not provide solid guidance in this case. In an effort to update the City’s
shoreland standards, staff presented a draft shoreland ordinance to the Planning Commission on April
28, 2014. One of the key features of the draft ordinance was the provision of 150’ riparian buffers
for surface waters, including Goose Lake, located within the City’s urban planning areas (I-94
Corridor and Village). Seeking additional guidance and feedback on the draft ordinance, City staff
met with Molly Shodeen, the Area Hydrologist for the DNR, on April 29, 2014. Ms. Shodeen was
familiar with the provision of riparian buffers in urban areas, a strategy that has been used
successfully in Woodbury and other cities. In addition to reviewing the draft ordinance, staff also
shared the Hammes Estates preliminary plat with the DNR. When reviewing the Hammes plat, it is
clear that a 150-foot riparian buffer would be maintained with the current configuration of lots and
outlots. City staff requested review comments for the plat from the DNR and have not received any
review or feedback at this time. Moving forward, staff intend to hold a public hearing on the draft
shoreland ordinance on May 28th, 2014. In order to ensure conformance to the City’s shoreland
rules, staff would recommend that the approval of the Preliminary Plat is contingent upon the City
approving a revised shoreland ordinance to allow for the lot sizes proposed in the portion of the
Hammes Estates subdivision that is in the shoreland district.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, which has gone through several versions in
advance of the formal application being accepted as complete by the City. During the course of these
reviews, several of the issues and concerns that were pointed out by Staff have been addressed by the
applicant with updated submission documents. However, there are other elements of the plat that
remain in conflict with City or Valley Branch Watershed District standards, which must still be
addressed or corrected by the applicant. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City
requirements for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
6
as part of the review record. Staff recognizes that this plat requires a number of revisions that will
need to be resolved in advance of Final Plat.
The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer and the Washington
County concerning the proposed subdivision, in addition to general comments from the Valley
Branch Watershed District, Fire Chief, and the City’s landscape consultant, Stephen Mastey, all of
which are attached for consideration by the Commission.
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the
following discussion areas as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan for this area and with the densities that were approved as part of this
plan. The net densities for the development fall within the range allowed for the urban low
density land use category. Other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Hammes
Estates subdivision as follows:
o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Urban Low Density Residential
in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for a density range of 2.5-4.0 units/acre
(net). The applicants have completed the density calculation using the methodology
consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s practice. The resulting net density
calculation resulted in a net density of 2.60 units/acre (164 units/63.03 net
developable acres). Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.
o Parks. The City’s park plan identifies proposed location for neighborhood parks
based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park. The plan
calls for one additional parks in the vicinity of the Hammes Estates Plat. As noted
earlier by Staff, the Park Commission did review the Hammes Estates Sketch Plan on
two occasions and unanimously approved the proposed park facilities to be included
in the plat contingent upon construction of a shelter, fishing pier, various trail
connections, and playground equipment on the site adjacent to Goose Lake.
o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along Inwood
Avenue. The Hammes Estates subdivision will be able to be served under the City’s
current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood extension is completed.
o Sanitary Sewer. The Hammes Estates subdivision will be served by sanitary sewer
that will connect to the lift station constructed as part of the Section 34 utility project.
All of the wastewater will flow to the lift station in the northeast boundary of the site
via gravity sewer main.
o Phasing. The Hammes Estates subdivision is located within the Stage 1 phasing area
for the I-94 Corridor and therefore the proposed development is acceptable as the
second development within the planned urban residential areas.
• Zoning. The proposed zoning for the Hammes Estates site will be LDR – Low Density
Residential. The submitted development plans demonstrate compliance with the City’s urban
residential zoning requirements. Single family detached housing is a permitted use within the
LDR zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
7
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. For instance, the Ordinance
includes limitations on the maximum length of a block (1,800 feet), and based on the spacing
of the proposed streets, the Hammes Estates plat complies with this requirement. The
majority of these requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s comments
(which are summarized below) or have been reviewed as part of Staff’s ongoing
communications with the applicant regarding the project.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development.
• Wetlands and Wetland Buffers. Due to the existence of 7 wetlands (A-G) on the site, the
applicant is required to provide substantial buffering around these wetlands to comply with
watershed district rules concerning wetland buffering. In order to demonstrate that adequate
buffering has been achieved, the applicant has submitted a preliminary wetland buffer plan
(sheets 11-12). This plan documents the proposed buffers intended to meet the VBWD rules.
In addition, the applicant is proposing to include minimal portions of wetland buffers on a
small number of private lots. As a broad policy, City staff are opposed to allowing substantial
buffering on private lots. However, if done on a very limited amount of lots and restrained to
the typical drainage and utility easement areas, staff has been willing to accept minimal
wetland buffering on a limited number of properties. To illustrate where the proposed
buffers encroach on private lots, the applicants have submitted a Wetland Buffer
Encroachment Sketch (Attachment #4). This exhibit documents that wetland buffers
encroach only within the normal drainage and utility easements of 16 total lots (Lot 3, Block
6, Lots 2 and 3, Block 5, Lots 17 and 16, Block 2, Lots 8-11, Block 6 and Lost 1-7, Block 7).
In order to protect these areas within private lots, staff required these areas to be located
within the normal drainage and utility easements. In addition, staff would recommend that
prior to the acceptance of the public improvements for the Hammes Estates plat, all wetland
buffers shall be delineated and identified via some form of staking or signage that is
acceptable to the City. In addition, it should be noted that the minimum 25’ wetland buffer
for Wetland B encroached on the City’s public right-of-way of Street 1. The encroachment
of the minimum buffer does not comply with City standards, and staff is recommending that
Street 1 be shifted north/revised. Further details on this specific encroachment are found the
review comments of the City Engineer.
• Trails. The applicants are proposing an extensive system of trails throughout the
development. Staff reviewed the proposed trails and has the following comments:
o The proposed buffer trail that aligns to the north of Wetland A appears to encroach
into the High Water Level (HWL) of Wetland A. Staff is recommending that the trail
be aligned to the south of Wetland A within an outlot dedicated to the City.
o In several instances, trail are proposed to encroach on wetland buffer areas. Per
Valley Branch Watershed District rules, no impervious surface is allowed within
required wetland buffers. In order to allow for trails in any wetland buffer, the
applicant must present a suitable design or material for proposed multi-purpose trails
in buffer areas that is acceptable to the City and VBWD. In addition, staff
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
8
recommends that the applicant limit the encroachment of trails into buffer areas to the
greatest extent possible.
o The proposed trail that connects the cul-de-sac on Street 9 to Street 1 is currently
shown is being located within dedicated easements to the City. In meeting with the
applicant, staff agreed to allow the trail to be located on dedicated easements between
Lots 6-9 on Block 5. However, City staff did request that the trail segment between
Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 be located on a dedicated 30-foot outlot. Staff would
recommend that this revision be completed to ensure maximum amount of trail are in
dedicated outlots to the City as per staff recommendation.
o In terms of the buffer/greenway trail, staff recognizes that the City has received
requests in the past from Stonegate residents to keep the trail located in the southern
portion of the greenway/buffer. However, in the instance of the trail north of
Wetland F, the trail has been located on the City-owned park property in the northern
portion of the greenway due to the required wetland buffers surrounding Wetlands F
and G. If the trails were to be located in the southern portion of the greenway in this
area, the trails would not be allowed to be constructed of bituminous or any other
type of impervious surface. In other words, some type of boardwalk trail or other
design would be required. From a maintenance perspective, this design is not ideal
for the City, as maintenance activity is also restricted within wetland buffers. For
these reasons, staff is recommending that the greenway trail be located on the City
owned property.
• Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The landscape and tree preservation plans have been
reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect, Stephen Mastey. Mr. Mastey’s review
memorandum related to the landscape and tree preservation plans is found in Attachment
#6e. The most critical component of Mr. Mastey’s review relates to the fact that the total
amount of trees/plant material proposed for the subdivision does not currently meet the
requirements of the City’s Landscape and Tree Preservation Ordinances. More specifically,
the landscape plan as proposed is 149 trees short of the City’s requirements. In the narrative,
the applicants request some flexibility from total number of plantings due to the City’s
ordinances being amended since the last subdivision (Savona) was approved. It is accurate
that the City has adopted new landscaping standards and tree preservation requirements since
the Savona development was approved. However, in the professional judgment of Mr.
Mastey, the City’s requirements are fair and reasonable compared to other metro
communities. For this reason, staff is recommending that the applicant revise the landscape
plan through one of the following methods outlined in Mr. Mastey’s review memo to make
up the difference for the required trees/plant materials. In addition, any updates to the
landscape plan should identify location of species of various plant material, landscape
irrigation plans, as well as seed or planting plans around storm water facilities, all of these
recommendations per Mr. Mastey. The applicants’ consultant is advised to contact Mr.
Mastey with any questions and/or recommendations.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north and west of the
Hammes Estates plat as a greenway/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. The
Hammes subdivision includes an area that has been design to comply with this aspect of the
Comprehensive Plan. However, there is one lot (Lot 16, Block 1) where the green belt as
shown does not appear to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9
recommend that the plans are revised in advance of final plat to meet the requirement of the
Comprehensive Plan. As an alternative to this requirement, the applicant could submit
evidence of an open space easement acquired from the adjacent property owner in the
Stonegate subdivision to fulfill the 100’ required greenbelt dimension next to Lot 16, Block 1
of the Hammes plat.
• Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable
subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. It should be noted that the
applicants are planning a temporary cul-de-sac or turn around on Street 2 to the north of the
Future Phase boundary (see sheet 4). Staff would recommend that the design of the
temporary cul-de-sac meet the approval of the City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent
and Fire Chief.
• Secondary Access. In order to ensure effective traffic circulation and appropriate access for
emergency services, staff recommends providing secondary access to the site at the earliest
convenience/phasing possible. As part of the Savon Final Plat, a connection to Street 5
within the Hammes plat was provided. This connection will likely be the best opportunity to
provide secondary access to the site, as the connection through the Savona development
provides access to the 5th Street minor collector road. Staff would recommend that only a
certain threshold or number of units are platted before secondary access is provided.
• Street Names. Staff is recommending that the street names for the proposed subdivision
follow the Washington County street naming system. As a condition of approval, Staff is
asking that the applicant continue to work with the City at developing street names for the
project, and that these names be included with the final plat submission.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a
detailed comment letter (Attachment #6a) as a summary of his preliminary plat review. Staff
has incorporated the more significant issues identified by the Engineer as part of the
recommended conditions of approval, and has also included a general condition that all issues
identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a final
plat for any portion of the Hammes Estates subdivision. The Engineer notes that several of
the City’s standards are not currently met, and the necessary revisions and corrections must
be made in advance of Final Plat.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has requested that the
locations of the proposed fire hydrants be revised to comply with the City’s requirements.
More specifically, the Fire Chief has identified multiple hydrant locations that do not meet
the criteria for required spacing or are in locations that are not ideal for operation
effectiveness. The Fire Chief’s review memo is Attachment #6d. Staff is recommending that
the applicant revise the location of the proposed hydrants at the direction of the Fire Chief.
• Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the Hammes Estates plat and
provided specific comments to the City in a letter dated May 6, 2014. The most significant
of the County’s concerns is that the applicant will need to make improvements to the County
road system in order to provide the necessary access to Hammes Estates. As a condition of
approval, Staff has noted that the applicant will be responsible for including all
improvements to Keats Ave. (CSAH 19) as required by the County as part of the construction
plans for the development, and that the developer will be responsible for constructing these
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
10
improvements, which will include the modification of the median crossing within the CSAH
19 right-of-way, the installation of turn lanes into the development, and construction of a
trail/sidewalk into the south side of the median.
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District
(VBWD). John Hanson, the VBWD Engineer, has provided informal comments and emails
to staff regarding the project (Attachment #6c). Per VBWD’s informal comments, the
proposed plat conflicts with required standards and VBWD rules. The developer must meet
all VBWD rules and will need to secure permits from the VBWD in order to proceed with the
development as planned.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
with 19 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the
City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The recommended
conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following:
a. The applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney.
b. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat and plans meeting all conditions
of approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an
application for final plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on
the site.
2) The City Engineer shall review and approve all revised Preliminary Plans that are submitted
to the City in advance of Final Plat to satisfy Condition #1.
3) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City
standards and design requirements.
4) The approval of the Preliminary Plat is contingent upon the City approving a revised
shoreland ordinance that would allow for the lot sizes proposed in the portion of the Hammes
Estates subdivision located within a shoreland district.
5) The applicants shall submit evidence that a Phase 1 Environmental Review of the site has
been completed and that further environmental review is not necessary. Evidence of
environmental review must be provided in advance of Final Plat.
6) Prior to the acceptance of the public improvements for the Hammes Estates plat, all wetland
buffers shall be delineated and identified via staking or signage that is acceptable to the City.
7) The applicant shall provide for a minimum green belt/buffer of 100 feet around all of the
adjacent Stonegate subdivision, and must either revise the preliminary plat in the vicinity of
Lot 16, Block 1 to properly account for this buffer or provide evidence to the City of any
acquired open space easements from the adjacent property in the Stonegate subdivision.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
11
8) The landscape plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape
consultant.
9) The utility plan shall be updated to relocate/add fire hydrants to meet spacing requirements
and ensure ideal operational effectiveness per the direction of the Lake Elmo Fire Chief.
10) The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements within the Keats
Avenue (CSAH 19) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in
the review letter received from the County dated May 6, 2014. The required improvements
shall include, but not be limited to: construction of a modified median crossing, construction
of a trail/sidewalk to the south side of the median, turn lanes, and other improvements as
required by the County.
11) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed
District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
12) Landscape islands shall be platted as part of the right-of-way and shall be maintained by the
Home Owners Association. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the
City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas
outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat.
13) The developer shall be required to submit an updated parkland dedication calculation in
advance of Final Plat. Upon submission of the calculation, if the amount of eligible parkland
that is dedicated does not equal the required total land dedication of 7.8 acres, the applicant
will be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value
for the amount of land required to meet the total dedication requirements less the eligible
land dedicated for park purposes. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid
by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
14) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the trail
is located within a dedicated outlot and the developer constructs said trails as part of the
public improvements for the subdivision.
15) No more than 100 units may be approved as part of a final plat until secondary access is
provided to the subdivision via a connection to 5th Street through the Savona subdivision.
16) Modifications to the proposed trails in the subdivision shall include the following:
a. For trails proposed to be located in any wetland buffer, the applicant must present a
suitable design or material that is acceptable to the City and Valley Branch
Watershed District. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant limit the
encroachment of trails into buffer areas to the greatest extent possible.
b. The trail segment aligned to the north of Wetland A must be revised to be aligned to
the south of the wetland due to concerns of the High Water Level. The trail shall be
located within an outlot dedicated to the City.
c. The trail segment between Lots 14 and 15, Block 2 shall be located on a 30-foot
outlot dedicated to the City.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
12
17) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said
plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
18) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter
dated May 8, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat.
Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to meet City standard requirements for utility
easements.
b. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to incorporate the necessary improvements to
Keats Ave. (CSAH 19) as required by Washington County
c. The Preliminary Plat must be revised remove the Street 1 right-of-way from the
minimum 25-foot buffer for Wetland A. The entire street right-of-way must be
relocated outside of the minimum wetland buffer.
d. The grading plan must be revised to meet the Valley Branch Watershed District
standards for grading within wetland buffers.
e. The Grading and Storm Water Management Plan must be revised so that the subgrade
of Street 1 is above the HWL for infiltration basin 5A on Outlot D.
f. Maintenance access roads must be relocated or improved to meet City standard
requirements.
g. The Preliminary Plat must be revised to provide additional details for the proposed
improvements to the City park property adjacent to Goose Lake and the City’s lift
station to demonstrate that the improvements can be completed as shown.
19) The applicant shall work with the Planning Staff to name all streets in the subdivision prior to
submission of a final plat.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Hammes Estates preliminary plat:
• That the Hammes Estates preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Hammes Estates preliminary plat complies with the City’s LDR- Urban Low
Density Residential zoning district.
• That the Hammes Estates preliminary plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
13
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hammes Estates
preliminary plat with the 19 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates preliminary plat with the 19 conditions of
approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Forms and Project Narrative
3. Preliminary Plat and Plans (25 sheets)
4. Wetland Buffer Encroachment Sketch
5. Hammes Wetland Report
6. Review Comments:
a. City Engineer
b. Washington County
c. Valley Branch Watershed District
d. Fire Chief
e. Landscape Consultant
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Source: Washington County, MN5-9-2014
Location Map: Hammes Estates Plat (PID: 34.029.21.13.0001)
KHammes Property 0 500 1,000250 Feet
1"=500'
Savona
Stonegate
K
e
a
t
s
A
v
e
N
.
10th St. N.
Goose Lake
HAMMES ESTATES NARRATIVE
a. Contact Information:
Owner: Hammes West, LLC
c/o Brian McGoldrick
36 Moonlight Bay
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-387-1000
Owner: Eleanor Hammes
1187 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
With Copy to:
The Afton Law Office
3121 St. Croix Trail South
Afton, MN 55001
651-436-8656
Owner: Dorothy Lyons
10105 – 10th Street
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
With Copy to:
Brian D. Chmielewski
6043 Hudson Road, Suite 340
Woodbury, MN 55125
651-330-7191
Engineer: Westwood Professional Services
Attention: Ryan Bluhm, PE, LEED, AP
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952-906-7432
b. Site Data.
Parcel Size: The parcel size is 78 acres (3,397,680 square feet)
P I D : 34.029.21.13.0001
Zoning: Rural Development Transitional District and guided
Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan,
Planned Use section. It is anticipated the zoning will be
changed to LDR, Low Density Residential in conjunction
with the preliminary plat process.
Legal Description: South ½ of the Northeast Quarter, Section 34, Township
29,
Range 21, except the East 60 feet of the North 967 feet,
and
except Parcel 3 of Washington County Highway Right of
Way Plat 49-19B, Washington County, Minnesota.
c. General Information:
Proposed Name: Hammes Estates
Proposed Lots: 165
Open Space: 20+ acres
d. Issues since Sketch Plan. A t t h e s k e t c h p l a n s t a g e , L a k e E l m o P l a n n i n g s t a f f
requested a buffer for the Stonegate neighborhood on the north and west as well as a
small playground, such as a “tot lot”, for use by residence in the existing
neighborhood. The current plan has extensive trails throughout a linear park and
encompasses a 20+ acre buffer between the Hammes and Stonegate developments. A
small community play area with fishing pier is planned on the northeast corner of the
property along the city-owned parcel.
e. Intent of Project. The intent of the project is to convert a prior mining operation into a
progressive, thriving community encompassing a broad range of home with varying
values. The project is structured to utilize various lot sizes and designs together with a
buffer zone to enhance the open space between the new lots and the adjoining
neighborhood.
f. Proposed Density. All of the lots will meet or exceed the minimum standards of the LDR
Low Density Residential zoning district. The density of the project is 2.11 units per gross
area and 2.67 units per net area. These are within the density allowed in the
Comprehensive Plan (2.5 per 4 units of net density allowed.) The average lot width for
the custom lots are approximately 82 feet and the average lot width for the national
builder lots is 75 feet. The minimum lot area within the LDR is 8,000 square feet;
therefore, no variance or exceptions are anticipated.
g. Proposed Infrastructure Improvements and Phasing.
The project intends to use sanitary sewer and water which have been installed by the
City of Lake Elmo on the east side of the 78-acre parcel.
The owners plan to begin reclamation of the mining site in mid-March, which shall
encompass moving and testing of approximately 500,000 yards of fill that have been
brought into the site.
The homes will be accessed by streets designed with the new standard urban street
section. This will feature concrete curb and gutter sections where appropriate with
bituminous surfacing and sections built to the depth and thickness appropriate for the
traffic anticipated.
The storm water facilities will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the
Valley Branch Watershed District.
The project shall include walking/hiking trails proposed to be bituminous surface 8 feet
wide.
The first phase will include 50 custom lots and 70 national builder lots, primarily in the
northern one half of the 78-acre site.
The project includes extensive efforts to save and replenish as many trees as possible
under the following guidelines:
Tree Replacement requirements (based on current plans – efforts to save more trees
will continue to be refined):
· 958 caliper inches of plantings need to be replaced
· Equivalent amount of tree plantings = 383 trees (at minimum size of 2-1/2”)
Landscape Requirements:
· 5 trees per disturbed acre = 336 trees (minimum size of 2-1/2”)
· 1 street tree every 50’ of street frontage = 328 trees (minimum size of 2-1/2”)
· TOTAL = 664 trees
Landscape and Tree Replacement Proposed:
· Street Trees: 348trees (approx. 50’ on center)
· Other overstory trees: 51 trees (green & open space areas)
· Future Yard trees (2 per lot, by builder): 330 trees (in either front or back yards)
· Evergreen Trees: 129 trees (mostly buffer trees)
· Ornamental Trees: 40 trees (accent trees)
· TOTAL TREES PROVIDED: 898 Trees Total
The current proposal is 149 trees short of the new requirements, however, the
applicant is requesting some flexibility in meeting these guidelines due to the
following factors:
The old code required 6 trees per disturbed acre and one boulevard tree for
every 50 feet utilizing 1” to 1½” trees. The new code requires minimum size of 2½””
trees and does not allow any of the tree replacement planting to satisfy the
landscape requirements. The new tree requirements result in the applicant
being forced to plant double the amount of trees than the adjoining development.
h. Neighboring Property Issues. The only issue raised in response to the original proposal
was the impact on the Stonegate development to the north and west. In order to
address these concerns, the plan includes a transitional area along the 20 acre buffer
with custom builder lots that are substantially larger than the lots in the southern
portion of the development. This transition approach is designed to accentuate the
buffering that was envisioned by the City to keep the newer projects from creating
negative impacts on the existing homes.
i. Conflicts with Nearby Land Uses. The proposed project does not conflict with any of
the nearby land uses. The development to the south is a higher density development
than what this development. Significant efforts have been made to minimize
disturbance to the adjoining development to the north and west.
A wetland delineation has been completed, and the project will meet all requirements
of the Valley Branch Watershed District to minimize disturbances to and protect the
existing wetlands and natural areas.
j. No Excess Burden. The phasing of the project and build-out of the infrastructure should
not place any excessive burden on the Lake Elmo facilities and services since Lake Elmo
has been mandated and anticipated the increase in residents to the community.
k. Proposed Lakeshore Access. The proposed project includes a small park in the
northeast corner which shall include a small parking area, picnic tables and kayak/canoe
racks and a small dock for use by the residents of the development. Access to this park
will be from a short driveway immediately entering the development in the northeast
corner - (lift station in on the south side of our entrance.
l. Proposed Parks and/or Open Space. The project includes approximately 20 acres of
open space with 13.6 acres for parks, comprised of the outlot areas less any wetland
and infiltration/ponding acres below the normal water level. In addition, there is other
open space of 2.16 acres of ponding and infiltration areas below the normal water level.
m. Proposed Development Schedule.
x Preliminary Plat Submittal – March 7, 2014
x Valley Branch Submittal – March 7, 2014
x Planning Commission/City Council Meeting – Early to Mid-April, 2014
x Submit Final Plat for Initial Phase – May 5, 2014
x Complete Site Grading for the Initial Phase – June 15, 2014
x Final Plat Review Planning Commission/City Council Meetings – mid-June, 2014
x Start utilities/street work – June 15, 2014
x Street work complete – August 31, 2014
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/12/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-27
ITEM: Village Area AUAR Five-Year Update
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City of Lake Elmo is required to update the Village AUAR if five years after adoption all
development anticipated with the AUAR has not yet occurred. Since no development projects in
the Village have been approved to date, Staff is working on the required update in accordance
with the State’s environmental rules. Staff will be presenting information concerning this item at
the meeting.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
5/12/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-25
ITEM: Informational – Net Density Calculations
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission was presented with the Met Council definition of net density at the
4/28/14 meeting. The Met Council definition states that net density is calculated by taking gross
residential acres and subtracting net developable acres. The net developable acres is calculated by
subtracting water bodies (including wetlands and lakes, not storm water ponds), parks and open
space (only if they are owned by the City and are for public use) arterial right of way (most times
it is already excluded), and other areas such as any land reserved for future development or not
developable according to City ordinances (like steep slopes or conservation). The Met Council
has indicated that this definition is typically used by developing communities such as Lake Elmo.
The Planning Commission asked staff to research how other surrounding communities define net
density. As the City moves forward with subdivisions, it is important to make a clear distinction
between gross and net density.
The Met Council definition is as follows:
Net Density. The number of housing units divided by the amount of net developable land. Net
development land does not include water bodies (including wetlands and lakes, but not
stormwater ponds), parks and open space (only if owned by the City and available for public use),
arterial right of way, and other land reserved for future development or not developable according
to city ordinances (i.e. steep slopes or conservation areas)
REQUEST DETAILS
No formal action is required at this time. Staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission
concerning a proposed definition for net density in advance of a possible future public hearing to
add this definition to the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission accept the Met Council definition of gross
and net density and bring this item forward to public hearing for formal adoption at a future
meeting.
1
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Net Density Calculations – Surrounding Communities
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
2
Lake Elmo City Hall
651-747-3900
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Surrounding Community Net Density Calculations
Met Council - Net density is calculated by taking gross residential acres and subtracting net
developable acres. The net developable acres is calculated by subtracting water bodies (including
wetlands and lakes, not stormwater ponds), parks and open space (only if they are owned by the
City and are for public use) arterial right of way (most times it is already excluded), and other areas
such as any land reserved for future development or not developable according to City ordinances
(like steep slopes or conservation).
Bayport – Area, net developable means those lands within a development parcel remaining after
the deletion of floodplains, wetlands, slopes greater than 12 percent and unbuildable easements or
rights-of-way.
Chanhassen – Net density means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the
developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways and
other areas not suitable for building purposes.
East Bethel – Buildable land means contiguous land area occurring within the property lines of a
parcel or lot excluding drainageways, wetlands, watercourses and ponding areas, park land, road
rights-of-way, and slopes in excess of 18 percent.
Falcon Heights – Area, net developable means those lands within a development parcel remaining
after the deletion of floodplains, wetlands, slopes greater than 12 percent, and unbuildable
easements or rights-of-way.
Hugo – Density means the number of dwelling units per acre of net developable land area as
regulated by the applicable zoning district. Net developable land area means the portion of the
property that excludes any existing right-of-way, wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplain.
Lakeville – Buildable land means all land except wetlands, public waters, “major drainageways”
as defined in the City’s comprehensive plan, and land dedicated for county roads.
Minnetonka - Density is the number of dwelling units per acre of land as regulated by the
comprehensive plan. All property zoned as wetlands or floodplain and all property below the
ordinary high water level of a public water must be excluded from the calculations, and no density
credit will be given.
Lake Elmo City Hall
651-747-3900
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Rosemount – Density is the number of dwelling units per acre of land. Gross density is based on
the total land area of the development site excluding existing public streets or highways. Net
density is based on the total land area of the development site excluding wetlands, parks, existing
public streets or highways, other land that will remain permanently undeveloped, but including
newly platted streets.
South St. Paul - Area, net developable means those lands within a development parcel remaining
after the exclusion of floodplains, wetlands, slopes greater than 12 percent, and unbuildable
easements or rights-of-way.
Woodbury – Density means the number of dwelling units per gross acre of land. Net density
means the total number of units divided by the total land area less major road rights-of-way
(arterials and collectors) and less wetlands protected by the Wetland Conservation Act provided
that right of way (including major roads) shall not be deducted if dedicated to the City at no cost.
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 5/12/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5C – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2014-26
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendments – Single Family Garage Requirements
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to review the City’s development standards concerning
single family homes, and specifically, the requirements concerning residential garages. Staff has
received feedback from several builders that the current ordinance is overly restrictive and
diminishes their ability to offer a variety of housing types within new developments. The
regulations of most concern include the requirement that attached garages be setback behind the
front façade of the house or a porch and the specification that a garage not exceed 60% of the
width of the entire principal building façade fronting a primary street.
REQUEST DETAILS
Given the number of builders that have discussed the garage requirements with Staff, the
Planning Department is asking the Planning Commission to consider revisions to the ordinance
that would allow additional flexibility concerning the placement and design of garages in the
City’s urban residential zoning districts. The specific sections of code that have raised concerns
are located in Section 154.456 and underlined below:
A. Attached Garages.
1. Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the primary
street, garages shall be designed using one of the following techniques, unless
specific physical conditions on the lot in question require a different approach:
a. The front of the garage is recessed at least four (4) feet behind the plane of the
primary façade; or
b. The front of the garage is recessed at least four (4) feet behind a porch if the
garage is even with the primary façade; or
c. The width of the attached garage shall not exceed 60% of the width of the entire
principal building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street.
The intent of these provisions was to help ensure that garages did not become the dominant
feature of newer subdivisions in the community, and to encourage a house design that was more
friendly to pedestrians and non-motorists travelling though the development. The problem for
builders is that with the smaller lots allowed under the ordinance (which also helps promote a
BUSINESS ITEM 5C
2
more intimate scale and is more pedestrian friendly), there is not a lot of room on each lot to
accommodate a garage larger than two stalls in width. In addition, the builders that have talked
to Staff have indicated that they build a variety of housing types (some of which include a
garage-forward design), and that eliminating some of their house plans because of the garage
issue will lead to a more monotonous arrangement of houses along each street.
In order to accommodate the desire of builders within new subdivisions, the ordinance would
need to be revised in the following manner:
• Either eliminating all language concerning garages being recessed behind the front
façade or a porch or adding a third provision that allows garages to extend a certain
distance (i.e. 8 feet) beyond the primary façade.
• Increasing the maximum percentage of the entire principal building façade that can be a
garage. This number would need to increase to at least 70% to address the builder’s
concerns.
At this time, Staff is seeking additional feedback from the Commission concerning potential
changes to the City’s single family residential garage standards and is recommending that the
Commission move forward with a public hearing to consider amending the code to add the
flexibility being requested by builders.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission proceed with a public hearing concerning
the proposed amendments to the requirements for single family attached garages at its May 28 th,
2014 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from Lennar
2. Email statement from Gonyea Homes
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 5C
From:Craig@gonyeacompany.com
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger
Subject:FW: Zoning Text Amendment
Date:Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:19:26 PM
Hi Nick,
Since the meeting on Monday night I've been thinking a lot about the item before ours on the
accessory building ordinance updates. Admittedly, I wasn't paying a lot of attention until the
discussion on side and rear loading garages, and I know Dave Gonyea made a few remarks to get
clarification. I understand from the response he received that it is only encouraged to have side and
rear loading garages and I remember hearing you state that you had reached out to single family
builders for remarks. I did not hear if you had received remarks and what those were and was
wondering if you could share a little of that feedback.
The item that I've been thinking the most about is the 4' recess required for a garage behind the
primary facade or porch. Did you get any feedback from the builders on this requirement and if so,
could you also share. I'm not sure about the national builders, but this could really limit a lot of the
custom builders we work with. I think if you looked around on Gonyea Homes, McDonald
Construction or Hanson Builders (all builders we've had site visits with in Lake Elmo) website you
would find that the majority will not meet these requirements. I've attached a link below to the
gallery on Hanson's website.
Could you let me know if you've received similar feedback?
http://hansonbuilders.com/gallery.php
Thanks,
Craig
B. Attached Garages, Urban Residential Districts
1. Attached garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded. If facing the primary street,
garages shall be designed using one of the following techniques, unless specific physical
conditions on the lot in question require a different approach:
a. The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind the plane of the primary
facade; or
b. The front of the garage is recessed at least 4 feet behind a porch if the garage is even
with the primary façade.
2. The width of the attached gar
age shall not exceed 60% of the width of the entire principal
building façade (including garage) fronting the primary street.
3. Attached garages shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area at the ground floor level
except by conditional use permit.
______________________________________________
Craig Allen
10850 Old County Road 15
Suite 200
Plymouth, MN 55441
Cell: 952-270-4473
craig@gonyeacompany.com