HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 6-30-14 Part 1
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 30, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. June 23, 2014
4. Public Hearing
a. EASTON VILLAGE – PRELIMINARY PLAT. The Planning Commission is
being asked to review a Preliminary Plat request from Easton Village, LLC for a
proposed 217-unit single family residential subdivision located in the eastern
portion of the Village Planning Area along Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15)
and South of the Union Pacific railway line. PIDs for the affected parcels are
13.029.21.42.0001, 13. 029.21.41.0001, 13.029.21.14.0002, and
13.029.21.13.0001.
b. VILLAGE PRESERVE – PRELIMINARY PLAT. The Planning Commission is
being asked to review a Preliminary Plat request from GWSA Land Development,
LLC for a proposed 97-unit single family residential subdivision located in the
northern portion of the Village Planning Area immediately east of Lake Elmo
Avenue North (CSAH 17). PID for the affected parcel is 12.029.21.33.0001.
c. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – HOLLIDAY PROPERTY. The
Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from GWSA Land
Development, LLC for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use
guidance for a property from Rural Area Development (RAD) to Village Urban
Low Density Residential (V-LDR). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
being submitted in conjunction with a Sketch Plan for a proposed single family
residential subdivision in the southeastern portion of the Village Area along
Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) and immediately north of 30th Street to be
called Village Preserve South. PID for the affected parcel is 13.029.21.44.0002.
5. Business Items
a. VILLAGE PRESERVE SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. The Planning
Commission is being asked to review a Sketch Plan submitted by GWSA Land
2
Development, LLC for a proposed 104-unit single family residential subdivision
in the southeastern portion of the Village Planning Area (PIDs: 13.029.21.43.0004
and 13.029.21.44.0002)
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – None
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
July 14, 2014
July 28, 2014
August 11, 2014
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 23, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Haggard, Dorschner,
and Lundgren.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Morreale.
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson.
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: June 9, 2014
M/S/P: Dorschner/Dodson move to approve the minutes as presented, Vote: 6-0,
motion carried with Haggard not voting.
Public Hearing: Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat-Ryland Group
Klatt started his presentation of the Preliminary Plat for a 51 single family lot
development located on the present site of Country Air Golf Facility. To provide
background of the site, Klatt highlighted the location of existing gravity sewer main on
the site. He noted that water is being extended to the site via a project set to be
completed later in 2014. Moving on, Klatt noted that the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR – Urban Low Density Residential
zoning district.
Klatt presented the Preliminary Plat, showing the general lot layouts. In addition, he
highlighted the grading plan and stormwater plan, noting that the applicants are
proposing to use an iron filtration system. The storm water plan must be approved by
the Valley Branch Watershed District. Klatt also presented the preliminary landscape
plan.
Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat application subject to 13
conditions of approval.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
Dodson asked staff about the review comment from Washington County related to a
concern about traffic noise. Klatt noted that the County will always provide review
comments when lots back up to a County road. He noted that the landscape plan does
include screening and landscaping in those areas. Dodson asked about the shoulder of
Lake Elmo Ave.
Haggard asked about required screening for the property to the east, which is guided for
Business Park development. Klatt noted that screening is required for higher intensity
uses next to lower intensity uses. Also, staff has been communicating an expectation
that both properties include some level of screening or buffering. Hag gard asked about
the landscaping requirements for 5th St. Klatt noted that the portion of 5th St. in this area
will have to meet City standards to be an accepted public improvement.
Kreimer asked why a trail is not planned for Lake Elmo Ave. Klatt noted that there may
not be a lot of future opportunities without a larger project coming forward, likely from
Washington County. Kreimer asked if the applicant is required to construct 5th Street to
the adjacent property to the east. Klatt noted that they are required to do so. Kreimer
asked about the iron filtration system being proposed for the storm water facilities.
Klatt noted that these systems are typically used in areas that have less suitable soils for
infiltration.
Dorschner asked if the 5th Street alignment is acceptable to the property owner to the
east. Klatt noted that the applicant has engaged this landowner and the alignment is
acceptable. Dorschner asked how the phasing of 5th Street will occur as it is being
constructed in different areas. Klatt noted that the City has developed a typical section
for 5th St., and the Engineer is reviewing all plans for consistency with the 5th St. design.
Williams asked about the trail extending to the southeast, if it was eligible for parkland
dedication. Klatt noted that the trail would be public and the land that the trail is
located on is eligible for parkland dedication.
Tracey Rust, Ryland Homes, gave a general overview of Ryland’s goals with the project.
She noted that they intend to purchase the property and begin construction in 2014. As
they are intending to have 5th Street be a public project that will likely occur in 2015.
Rust also gave further detail regarding the stormwater management plan.
Commissioner Dodson asked about the ownership of Outlot B now that the stormwater
facilities have been removed. Rust said they are still working on that, but it would likely
be owned by the HOA.
Dorschner asked if the entire site is going to be mass graded and inquired about the
phasing. Rust referenced the plans regarding the phasing. They would start to the North
and continue as 5th Street is completed.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
Public Hearing opened at 7:51 pm.
Linda Anderson, 275 Lake Elmo Ave. N., She noted her concern about the lack of
improved shoulders on Lake Elmo Ave. The buffering to the north could be improved.
She noted that her greatest concern is the highway speeds and lack of shoulder on Lake
Elmo Ave. N.
Becky Gernes, 10950 3rd Street Place, she is concerned about the temporary access that
will exist directly across the street from the Forest neighborhood.
No written comments were received.
Public Hearing closed at 7:56pm
Williams asked staff to address the question of Ms. Gernes. Klatt noted that the
temporary access is acceptable to Washington County, as long as the number of units
utilizing the temporary access does not exceed 25. There is an existing right-turn lane,
and the access is used to serve the golf practice facility on that site. Haggard asked who
determines what access is acceptable, and the longevity of the access. Klatt noted that
the County and City work together.
Dodson asked what would happen if the applicant is not able to construct the 5 th Street
minor collector road. Klatt discussed the various options the City would have in ensuring
that the road would be constructed.
Dodson also asked if there is a way to get more assurance from the County when the
improvements to Lake Elmo Ave. will be completed. Klatt stated that Staff will work to
engage the County. However, he wanted to clarify that the only mechanism the City
would have is to require improvements in front of the subject property, which would
not resolve the overall issue of the problematic shoulders on long stretches of Lake
Elmo Ave.
Williams asked if it would be acceptable to insert the word “paved” to condition # 8.
Also, Williams asked if it would be appropriate to add Condition #14 that “water service
be made available to the development”. Klatt noted that staff would be amenable to
adding the condition, but the City would not approve a final plat or development plans
without these improvements.
Haggard asked about condition #3. Klatt noted that landscaping plans will be
incorporated into Final plans. Haggard asked about condition #4 with the requirements
for 5th Street. She asked that staff work with the developer to finalize the landscaping
for 5th Street.
Williams noted that the draft findings should be included in the motion.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
M/S/P: Dorschner/Haggard, move to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of
Hunter’s Crossing with the thirteen conditions as drafted by Staff, while amending
Condition #8 to include “paved trails” and adding Condition # 14 to require water
service, based on the findings drafted in the Staff Report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing: Eagle Point Medical Center – PUD Development Plan
Klatt started his presentation of the Eagle Point Medical Center PUD Development Plan.
He noted that the project is in the Eagle Point Business Park, and is therefore subject to
the standards of the Eagle Point planned development. Klatt provided some
background information about the Eagle Point Business Park.
Klatt discussed the Staff review of the application. The most important element of the
Staff review relates to storm water management. Staff is recommending that the City
and applicants enter into a maintenance agreement for the storm water facilities. Klatt
highlighted the other elements of staff review, including the Design Guidelines and
Standards Manual.
Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to 7 conditions of approval. He
noted that the building is well designed and meets the City’s expectations for
architectural standards.
Mike Davis, the Davis Group, noted that the facility will mainly serve a neurological
medical group. Patrick Giodarno, architect, described the building from the
architectural perspective.
Public Hearing opened at 8:40pm.
No written comments were received.
Public Hearing closed at 8:41pm.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Larson, move to recommend approval of the Eagle Point Medical
Center PUD Development Plan subject to the 7 conditions with findings of fact in staff
report. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: Hammes Shoreland Variance
Johnson presented an overview of a request from Ham mes West, LLC for a variance that
would allow for a reduced riprarian dedication and setback to the southern channel of
Goose Lake. He noted that this request is connected to the City’s review of a 163 -unit
single family subdivision on the Hammes Property in the I-94 Corridor Planning Area.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
Johnson reviewed the key issues concerning the DNR review of the variance, and stated
that the DNR is requiring that the southern channel be subject to the shoreland
standards regardless of how the channel was created. The DNR recommended the
restoration of the natural shoreline of Goose Lake as an alternative to the variance. The
developer is planning to comply with wetland buffering requirements. Johnson further
discussed the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area, Keats Avenue access spacing
requirements, the broader City infrastructure and planning efforts,
Johnson reviewed the process that would need to be followed by Hammes West, LLC as
the developer of the land should the variance not be approved by the City . He noted
that the variance would allow the plat to proceed, and that the plat would need to be
amended to close the southern channel should the variance not be approved.
Johnson noted that the riparian buffer would be owned by the City and that there would
need to be some monitoring and oversight of these areas.
Brian McGoldrick addressed the Commission on behalf of Hammes West, LLC. He
expressed concern that the issues associated with the southern channel had been raised
at the last minute. He stated that the channel is man-made and that it had been dug by
the Hammes family as part of the gravel operation at some point in the past. He noted
that the alternative being considered would preserve the wetland feature while provide
for appropriate buffering from homes.
Kelly Bopray, wetland expert with Bopray Environmental, reviewed his conversations
with the DNR and watershed district. He stated that the DNR had previously indicated
that they would not be exercising authority over the channel, in which case the
watershed district would be the body issuing permits for any work in the channel. The
watershed districts’ technical panel has previously determined that the channel could
be filled. At this point, the developer is seeking a variance to utilize wetland buffers
instead of filling the wetland. Bopray presented an aerial image from the 1960’s that
indicates there was no southern channel at this time. He also presented a 1940’s era
USGS map that shows no channel, and documents a large amount of land in this area,
and instead depicts a completely separate pond much further south on the site. The
current wetland delineation does not line up with this lower pond.
Williams asked how long the permitting would take to fill the channel. Bopray replied
that there is a public notice period, and that it would likely take 60-90 days to work
through this process. Bopray noted that the berm would need to be high enough to
prevent the flow of water between the two areas and would likely need to be at least
100 feet in length depending on the site conditions.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
Dodson asked for clarification on why setbacks and buffering is required in the first
place. Bopray commented that the buffering provides room for filtering of storm water
runoff and habitat for native species.
There was a general discussion concerning the City’s shoreland regulations and the
implications of platting smaller lots within shoreland areas. Larson asked if it would be
possible to require a certain type of landscaping at the rear of the proposed lots to help
reduce any negative impacts. Ryan Bluhm responded that the intent of the buffer area
is to plant native species that would improve water quality around the channel.
Chairman Williams opened the public hearing at 9:43 p.m.
Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Avenue, asked that the Planning Commission consider
another alternative that would add park land to the development in order to bring the
development up to current City standards for park land dedication. He expressed
concern that a wetland buffer would be reduced over time due to encroachments and
that this would impact water quality. He noted that there is potential for homes to be
impacted by flooding when wetlands are being moved closer to homes. He asked that
the City consider requiring additional land dedication rather than accepting fees in lieu
of land dedication.
Michael Doyle, 723 Jewel Avenue, noted that the shoreland lots in Stonegate have a
considerable natural area between the individual lots and the shoreline. He expressed
concern over asking a private home owner to be the steward of the property.
Lori Heinrichs, 781 Jewel Avenue, Stated that she supports the intent and purpose of the
shoreland ordinance as written. She stated that the variance would not be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the shoreland ordinance, and that the variance was not a
reasonable use of the property. She also questioned how the location of the road could
be considered a unique circumstance because the road could still be built in its present
place with the removal of some homes. Heinrichs noted that the developer had created
the issue by dredging the channel in the first place.
Mike Anderson, 655 Jewel Avenue, indicated that there has been a loss of habitat in this
area due to the construction that has been taking place. He urged the Planning
Commission to keep the 150 foot setback requirement and noted that he was opposed
to any berming of the channel.
Fred Pomeroy, 687 Jewel Avenue, noted that he enjoys Goose Lake and that he has 75
to 80 feet of forested land between the lake and his property. He supported the closing
off of the channel as opposed to the granting of a variance, and encouraged the
developer to bring forward another alternative that was agreeable to all parties.
Planning Commission closed the public hearing at 10:2 5 p.m.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
Dorschner stated that the intent of the shoreland ordinance was to protect public
waters and that the variance was not consistent with City’s variance requirements.
Dodson expressed concern that there is limited information concerning potential
environmental impacts, although there is a general sense that there will be increased
impacts to the lake with additional lots along the shoreline. He suggested that the
better option might be the closing off of the channel, which will help promote water
quality by keeping the developed lots separate from the rest of Goose Lake.
Williams stated that he would support denial of the variance, but indicated that he
would like to see the preliminary plat move forward with a condition that the lots within
the setback area not be approved until the applicant obtained proper permitting from
the DNR.
Haggard and Lundgren did not believe that the City’s variance requirements were met .
M/S/P: Lundgren/Larson, move to recommend denial of the Hammes Shoreland
Variance with findings of fact that: 1) the DNR recommends denial, 2) that denial of the
variance will not result in a hardship for the applicant, 3) that the need for a variance
was created by the applicant, 4) that there is an alternate solution, berming, that would
reduce impacts to Goose Lake.
Discussion – Larson commented that denial of the variance would give the developer a
choice of complying with the shoreland standards and 150 foot setback or to separate
the channel from the rest of Goose Lake by restoring the original shoreline.
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Business Item: Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat Cont.
Johnson reviewed the Planning Commission’s previous action concerning the Hammes
Estates Preliminary Plat and noted that the Commission had tabled taking action on the
preliminary plat at an earlier meeting. He reported that the applicant has been working
to address the comments from the previous meeting, and noted that the meeting
materials included a chart with an update on previous discussion items.
Johnson recommended that, based on the Commission’s recommendation concerning
the applicant’s shoreland variance request, that the preliminary plat include an
additional condition of approval concerning the restoration of the shoreline and that
none of the impacted lots could be platted until such time that the restoration
permitted has been completed.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
Johnson reviewed other updates from the previous review, including any specific
responses from the applicant where applicable. He further reviewed proposed findings
of fact that support a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. He
stated that Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with 16 conditions of
approval.
Lundgren asked if the trails are all paved. Johnson noted that all trails are planned for
an eight-foot bituminous surface except when going through a wetland buffer area.
Staff is still working with the watershed district to define an acceptab le surface for trails
in wetland buffer areas.
The Commission asked for clarification concerning the proposed park improvements
and proposed trail corridors. Kreimer stated that there may be opportunities to bring
the trail further south in the buffer areas in order to keep the trail closer to the
proposed residential homes. Ryan Bluhm stated that the applicant would be open to
meandering the trail through areas outside of wetlands, and that he would work to do
this where space is available.
Kreimer asked the applicant if they were aware of some of the past runoff issues and
asked how the system would function when it was completed. Bluhm stated that there
is ongoing work to perform soils corrections, but that this spring has been one of the
wettest on record. He noted that he is currently working with the watershed to ensure
that the project will meet water quality and runoff standards. Johnson noted that the
City Engineer is aware of some of the past issues and has taken this information into
account in reviewing the plans.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Haggard, move to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates
Preliminary Plat with the 16 conditions of approval as recommended by Staff and with
the findings as drafted by Staff. Dorchner amended the motion to add a condition
concerning the meandering of trails adjacent to the Stonegate subdivision whenever
feasible. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates – June 17, 2014 Meeting
1. Wildflower at Lake Elmo PUD Concept Plan approved with additional conditions.
2. Wildflower at Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment was tabled due to
lack of super majority.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. June 30, 2014 – Special Meeting Requested
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-23-14
b. July 14, 2014
c. July 28, 2014
Commission Concerns -
Haggard noted that there seems to be a lot of variances. Klatt stated that for a city of
our size with the number of homes built before zoning was in place, there are actually a
relative small number of variances.
Dodson is concerned that trails are being used for parkland dedication. There was a
general discussion about trails and the recommendations of the Park Commission.
Williams noted that the meeting minutes are still too long. He requests staff to reduce
the length of the minutes.
Meeting adjourned at 11:20pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/30/14
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2014-21
ITEM: Easton Village Preliminary Plat
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
Lake Elmo Development Review Committee
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat request from Easton Village,
LLC, 2140 West County Road 42, Burnsville, MN for a 217 unit single family residential
subdivision to be located on 98.47 acres west of Manning Avenue and immediately south of the
Union Pacific railroad corridor in the Village Planning Area. Staff is recommending approval of the
request subject to compliance with a series of conditions as noted in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Easton Village, LLC, (Tom Wolter) 2140 West County Road 42, Burnsville, MN
Property Owners: Same
Location: Section 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, north of 30th
Street, west of Manning Avenue, and south of the Union Pacific railroad right-of-
way. PID Numbers 13.029.21.14.0002, 13.029.21.41.0001, 13.029.21.42.0001
and 13.029.21.13.0001
Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 217 unit residential subdivision to
be named Easton Village.
Existing Land Use: Agriculture, Woods/Natural Vegetation
Current Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional
Proposed Zoning: LDR – Urban Low Density Residential
Surrounding Land Use: North – vacant/agricultural land; west – single family home, City park,
natural vegetation; south – vacant/agricultural land; east – Lake Elmo
Airport (Baytown Township)
Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional; PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
Comprehensive Plan: Village Urban Low Density Residential (1.5 - 2.5 units per acre)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
2
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. Sketch Plan
review by Planning Commission on 1/27/14. AUAR for the project area approved by
the City in May of 2009.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/13/14
60 Day Deadline – 8/13/14
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 10/13/14
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 Easton Village, LLC for a preliminary plat to
subdivide approximately 98 acres of land within the Village Planning Area into 217 single-family
residential housing sites. The proposed subdivision would be located immediately south of the
Union Pacific rail line that cuts through the bottom half of the Village Planning Area, and would
extend from the Manning Avenue right-of-way to easternmost line of Reid Park. The development
site has formerly been referenced as the Anchor Bank property; which also includes a large area
north of the railroad tracks. At this time, the developer is only seeking to plat the land south of the
railroad right-of-way, and will bring a preliminary plat forward on the northern site at a future date.
The subdivision site is presently used for agricultural purposes, and therefore has very little in the
way of larger trees or other landscape features. Almost all of the trees on the applicant’s site are
located within the extreme western portion of the land, either around an existing single-family parcel
of 5.15 acres in size, along the western property boundary, or in a windrow of trees along the
property line to the south. When reviewing drainage patterns in the Village Area, it becomes obvious
that the site under consideration accepts a large amount of storm water as it travels north to south and
eventually into the Downs Lake watershed basin. With the recent heavy rains, the water moving
through the site is readily apparent when driving by on Manning Avenue. A major component of the
City Engineer’s comments focus on storm water, which is the most significant site constraint that the
applicant will need to properly address.
The transportation infrastructure surrounding the site also plays a major role in planning for the
proposed subdivision because of the constraints it places on the site. In particular, the property to be
subdivided is bordered by a major county roadway, Manning Avenue, that is planned for expansion
to a four-lane section within the next several years. The site is further bordered by the Union Pacific
rail line, which typically carries around 6 trains each day, and is immediately across from the Lake
Elmo Regional Airport. The extreme northeast corner of the site is in a runway protection zone,
which extends across the rail road tracks into the applicant’s northern property. The location of
airport safety zones in this area is one of the reasons that the developer is planning open space and
storm water infiltration areas in the northeast portion of the site and why the site south of the tracks
has been selected for development first.
A significant feature of the Easton Village preliminary plat is the proposed construction of an initial
segment of the Village Parkway minor collector roadway. This road will ultimately provide a
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
3
connection between Highway 5 in the northern part of the Village Area to 30th Street at the southern
end of the Village. Village Parkway, as depicted in the attached plans, has been designed to conform
to the City’s specifications for this roadway in terms of right-of-way width (80 feet), road width (32
feet), boulevard areas, and the location of a sidewalk and trail within the right-of-way. Because the
road will be primarily providing access to the adjacent residential lots, the specifications for the road
do not call for separated driving lanes with a center median. The internal road system has been
designed to accommodate the Planning Commission’s request for a modified grid layout that makes
use of cul-de-sacs while still allowing for pedestrian connections back to the Village Parkway trail.
The primary access into the development will be from a new connection to Manning Avenue
immediately across from an existing entrance into the Lake Elmo Airport. Staff is recommending
that this access road be used on a temporary basis until such time that the Village Parkway
connection to 30th Street is completed.
In terms of parks and trails, the preliminary plat includes a fairly extensive system of trails that
provide for internal connections to the planned lots and that will also traverse the open space in the
northern and western portions of the plat. Consistent with previous direction from the Planning
Commission, the developer has added trail connections at the end of the cul-de-sacs (with an
exception that will be addressed in the comment section of this report) and has extended trails to the
western property boundary. The western trails could potentially extend into Reid Park or through an
adjacent parcel north of Reid Park. There is one larger 1.36 acre park planned within the middle
portion of the site on Outlot D, with larger open space areas planned in Outlots B, H, and K.
There are two parcels that will be partially surrounding by the proposed development along its
western boundary, including a 5.15 acre residential lot owned by Elzabeth Miner and Scott Lampert
and a 2.6 acre parcel owned by Northern Natural Gas and used for a utility station. Both of these lots
are accessed via a private driveway connection across the railroad that would be eliminated under the
proposed subdivision plan. These sites will be able to access the planned public roadway system
serving the lots in Easton Village.
The proposed storm water management plan for Easton Village includes a large and very deep storm
water basin in the northeast part of the site, with smaller facilities located along the railroad right-of-
way. All storm water runoff is therefore being direction north and around the residential homes, and
will eventually outlet to into the planned storm water improvements on the property to the south.
The developer will need to obtain permission from this property owner to move forward with the
plan as proposed. The applicant has not yet obtained the proper permits from the Valley Branch
Watershed District for the project, and will need to address any permitting requirements that come
out of this review.
As the first project that will be seeking a connection to the Village Trunk Sewer line, the developer
will need to make the initial connection to the Reid Park lift station as a part of this project. This
connection will cross the southerly parcel currently under contract with Gonyea Homes, and both
parties have indicated that they are agreeable to this extension. In this case, Gonyea and Easton
Village, LLC have been coordinating a larger sewer extension project that will bring public sanitary
sewer services to the northern portion of the Village and tie into the City’s planned infrastructure
project for 39th Street. With the platting and development of Easton Village, a significant piece of
this larger sewer project will be constructed with this development. Water will be extended via a
stub from the adjacent property and will connect to existing lines in the Village.
The applicant is proposing to bring forward a final plat for Easton Village development in stages,
starting with the southeast portion of the property that will be served by the Manning Avenue access
road.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
4
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Easton Village site is guided for Village Urban Low Density development in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and Staff is recommending that the zoning for the site be established as LDR –
Low Density Residential. The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in order to
comply with the district standards for the LDR districts in terms of lot size, lot widths, building
setbacks, and other design criteria. With the recent influx of subdivision and land applications, Staff
will be bringing a broader Zoning Map Amendment proposal forward at the July 14th Planning
Commission meeting in order to more efficiently notice and prepare zoning map amendments for
each of these developing areas.
The arrangement of lots and blocks within the subdivision follows a fairly rigid grid pattern as one
moves from east to west through the subdivision, but with cul-de-sacs off of the Village Parkway due
to the City’s access spacing requirements along this roadway. The proposed roadways have been
designed in conformance to City standards, with the exception of the “eyebrow” pull out areas
located at the curve of several streets. These road features will need be subject to further review by
the City’s Engineering and Public Works Departments. All other aspects of the road and subdivision
layout conform to applicable subdivision ordinance requirements.
Although the proposed street system meets City requirements, the platting of Easton Village will
include the southerly extension of the Village Parkway that will cross the Union Pacific rail line.
The City will need to work with the railroad to obtain the necessary permits to create a new crossing,
and this permitting process will likely take some time to complete. The City has been given initial
feedback from the railroad that a new crossing will be considered in this location, but will require the
closing of at least one existing public crossing as part of the permit. Staff is continuing to work
towards making a formal request to the railroad in order to ensure that the planned crossing can move
forward. In addition, the City needs to also determine whether or not the Easton Village, LLC should
contribute towards the cost of the railroad crossing, or if this expense will be taken on by the City as
a broader road improvement project.
Sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the subdivision, and as with other recent subdivisions,
Staff is recommending that sidewalks be installed on at least one side of all single-family residential
streets. The proposed plans provide for sidewalks consistent with the Staff recommendation. In
addition to the internal trails and sidewalks that are proposed by the developer, the City has asked
that the Village Parkway Corridor include a 10-foot bituminous trail on one side of the road and a
six-foot sidewalk on the opposite side. The proposed plans conform to this request as well.
The proposed development standards for the lots are 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 easements. The majority of the proposed lots are between 65 and 75 feet in width, and all
meet the City’s minimum area requirement of 8,000 for single family lots in a LDR district, with the
smallest lot proposed at 8,100 square feet. The site plans further illustrate that throughout the single
family area the lots will average 10,489 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a
fairly wide margin.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Easton Village preliminary plat and plans:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
5
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional
• Proposed Zoning: LDR
• Total Site Area: 98.47 acres
• Total Residential Units: 217
• Proposed Density (Net): 2.5 units per acre
• REC Units from Comp Plan: 148-246 (using gross area calulcation)
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards:
• Min. Lot Width: 65 ft.
• Lot Depth: 100 ft. (130 ft. typical)
• Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (8,100 min.)
• Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
• Side Yard Setback: 5 ft. garage, 10 ft. primary building
• Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft.
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance)
• ROW Width – Minor Collector 80 feet
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft. (per City standard)
• Street Width – Minor Collector 32 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 Outlots D and portions of B and H. Since a large portion these areas
represent green belt or trail corridors and are not suitable for other types of active recreation usage, it
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).
The Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as
open space, which totals 9.84 acres. The areas to be dedicated for public use add up to 7.96 acres
based on the applicants calculation, which leaves the applicant 1.88 acres short of the required land
dedication. Please note that Staff was having a difficult time following the area calculations included
in the subdivision materials, and is recommending that these calculations be subject to further review
by Staff and the developer. In addition, the developer does own additional land north of the railroad
line that will include additional dedications of park land, and the City may want to consider future
land dedications as part of the current subdivision review. This is an issues that can be resolved prior
to submission of a final plat.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
6
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
must still be addressed or corrected by the applicant, primarily as it relates to storm water
management. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for approval,
and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted as part of the review record.
Because of its location in the Village Planning Area, Easton Village will not be subject to a separate
environmental review as long as the project is consistent with the development scenarios studied
under the Village Area AUAR. The project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the
area, and the Comprehensive Plan was designed to be consistent with the AUAR. Where applicable,
Staff has recommended condition of approval to ensure that the development conforms to the AUAR
Mitigation Plan.
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
Building Official and Fire Chief which are incorporated as part of the Staff comments below.
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 for the Village
Planning Area as part of this plan. The net density for the development is at the upper end of
the range allowed for the Village urban low density land use category of 2.5 units per acre.
Furthermore, the overall number of REC units planned matches the overall numbers that
were used for projecting the unit counts in this area. With the current zoning restrictions
associated of the airport runway safety zones crossing the applicant’s property north of the
railroad tracks, the applicant is seeking the maximum allowed density for the southern
property given the uncertainty over the potential densities that may ultimately be allowed
north of the tracks. At present, Staff estimates that the current airport zoning would allow no
more than half of the projected density in this future development area. Other aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan relate to the Easton Village subdivision as follows:
o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor
collector road that will connect the northern and southern portions of the Village.
Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation infrastructure that is
needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. The applicant has
incorporated the right-of-way at the width necessary to construct the minor collector
as part of its preliminary plat. The plan does not include any specific language
concerning the proposed Manning Avenue connection, although Washington County
has noted that this connection will divert some traffic that would otherwise be using
the 30th Street/Manning Avenue intersection. There will not be enough future traffic
along Manning Avenue to support a signalized intersection at both intersections.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
7
o Parks. The Village Land Use Plan calls for a larger park area along both the northern
and southern edge of the railroad right-of-way, and the proposed development
includes open space and a trail along the railroad’s southern boundary. This area is
not as large as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant has
expressed concern that the open space and/or park dedication on the northern
property may need to expand due to airport zoning restrictions. Based on the Park
Commission’s review of the sketch plan, the Park Commission was interested in the
more robust trail system and potential expansion of park areas north of the rail line
consistent with the developer’s preliminary plat.
o Water. Water is being stubbed into the site from an adjacent property and will
connect to the broader Village (and City) water system. The City recently installed
Well Number 4 just north of the Village consistent with the City’s Water Plan, and
there is adequate supply to provide for the proposed development.
o Sanitary Sewer. Sewer will be extended to the development from the Reid Park lift
station, but will need to cross the property to the south (under contract with Gonyea
Homes). This project is part of a larger project to bring sewer to the northern
portions of the Village, and both Easton Village and Gonyea are cooperating on the
line south of the railroad.
o Phasing. All of the Village is identified as a Stage 1 phasing area for development,
and the preliminary plat documents that adequate public facilities are available or will
be constructed as part of the project to serve the subdivision.
• Zoning. As noted above, future zoning action will be necessary to change the zoning of the
subject parcels from RT to LDR. A zoning map amendment to achieve the necessary change
will be brought before the Planning Commission in the near future.
• Airport Zoning Issues. The northeastern portion of the site lies within a runway protection
zone for the Lake Elmo Airport, and development activity of any kind is severely restricted in
this zone. The proposed infiltration basin is acceptable; however, there are some trees and
other plantings depicted on the plans that will likely be deemed incompatible with the
protection zone (RPZ). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) did discuss Easton
Village with Staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting, and requested that the
developer consider potential noise and other impacts associated with the airport as the
development progresses. Staff is recommending that the landscape plan be reviewed by
MAC to ensure conformance with RPZ requirements and to help address airport concerns
over the landscaping of storm water ponds outside of the RPZ. The City is continuing to
work with the MAC and MnDOT aeronautics to develop airport zoning that will address
airport zoning restrictions on the northern Easton Village property.
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. The 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. The responsibility
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
8
for the costs associated with the future Village Parkway railroad crossing still needs to be
discussed between the City and the developer.
• Landscaping. The City’s consulting landscape architect has reviewed the preliminary
landscape plan and noted that the plans submitted were not prepared by a landscape architect
as per the City’s ordinance. The plans do provide calculations to document compliance with
the ordinance, but these calculations show that the project is short on the number of trees, but
exceeds the requirements for the size (in terms of caliper inches) of the proposed trees. Staff
is recommending that a plan, prepared by a landscape architect, be submitted as a condition
of approval, and that this plan be reviewed for consistency with the City’s requirements.
• Tree Preservation and Protection. The City recently adopted a tree preservation and
protection ordinance; and the subdivision plans include a description of the tress and sizes of
these trees to be removed. There is no related replacement plan consistent with the City’s
requirements included in the attached materials. Staff is recommending that this plan can be
reviewed with an updated landscaped plan given the relatively low number of trees that will
be impacted by the development.
• Green Belt/Buffer. The Village Land Use Plan includes a green belt/open space area around
the proposed residential development areas. The plan does not identify a specific dimension
for the green belt, and instead noted that each development will be reviewed for consistency
with the general plan. In the case of Easton Village, the developer is proposing to
accommodate storm water retention and infiltration within a buffer area along Manning
Avenue, and the width of this buffer will vary from approximately 600 feet in width on the
north part of the subdivision to 100 feet in the southern portion of the subdivision.
• Natural Area Preservation. The Village AUAR identifies primary and secondary
ecologically sensitive areas throughout the planning area, and a larger primary area is located
on what is labeled as Outlot K on the preliminary plat. This area is shown as an open space
area within the plat, and will therefore not be developed for residential lots. Because this
area is located adjacent to Reid Park, Staff is recommending that this parcel be considered for
park land dedication.
• Existing Residential Parcel. The proposed development will plat single family homes
adjacent to the Lampert/Minor parcel in the eastern portion of the subdivision. The
applicant’s plan preserves most of the trees and landscaping around this parcel; Staff is
recommending the proposed protective tree fencing depicted on the existing conditions plan
also be shown on the grading plan to help ensure that as few trees as possible are impacted by
the construction activity.
• Streets and Transportation. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with
all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. Staff is requesting
that the plans for Village Parkway include all design elements as requested by the City,
including the street trees, landscaping, lighting, signage, and fencing proposed as part of the
City’s theming project prepared by Damon and Farber Associates. Other transportation
comments from Staff include the following:
o Manning Avenue Access. The proposed access to Manning Avenue will meet
County access spacing and other design requirements with the modifications as
requested in the Washington County review comments. However, after further
reviewing the overall transportation plan for the Village, Staff is recommending that
this access be approved as a temporary access until such time that Village Parkway is
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
9
extended to 30th Street. Staff is recommending this course of action for the following
reasons: 1) the connecting road between Manning Avenue and Village Parkway will
be a heavily travelled segment and serve as a de facto extension of the parkway, 2)
residents along this stretch will experience heavy amounts of traffic and will likely
run into times when queuing lines from Manning extend across their driveways, and
3) removing traffic from the Manning Avenue/30th Street intersection will greatly
decrease the potential for this intersection to be signalized at some point in the future.
o Trails. The sketch plan included a trail connection between Lots 13 and 14 of Block
3 on the preliminary plat. Staff is recommending that that this connection be
included in the final plat.
• Street Names. Staff is continuing to work on implementing a clear and consistent naming
system for new streets in the community and will need to provide names for the streets within
Easton Village. 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 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 Easton Village subdivision. Storm water management is a significant concern as noted
in the comments, and the applicant is advised to continue working with the watershed district
to ensure the storm water management plans will meet Valley Branch requirements.
• Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has requested that
additional buffering be provided between the proposed homes and Northern Natural Gas
utility site. He has also asked that the spacing of fire hydrants comply with the City’s
requirements. The City Engineer will be taking these comments into consideration during its
review of future construction plans for this subdivision.
• Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the Easton Village plat and
provided specific comments to the City in a letter dated June 24, 2014. The most significant
of the County’s concerns is that the applicant will need to make improvements to Manning
Avenue in order to construct the proposed access into the subdivision. These improvements
will required whether or not the access road is temporary or permanent. As a condition of
approval, Staff has noted that the applicant will be responsible for address all of the County’s
review comments.
• Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District; the
developer will need to secure permits from the watershed district in order to proceed with the
development as planned.
• AUAR Mitigation Plan. As projects within the Village Planning Area come forward, Staff is
continuing to monitor each development for consistency with the AUAR and to make sure
that the mitigation plan is being properly addressed either as part of broader City actions or
directly through appropriate development plans. In this case, the mitigation elements that are
most directly applicable to the Easton Village include the following;
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
10
o Railroad Setbacks and Noise. The proposed plat establishes a larger setback
between the rail line and individual homes within the subdivision by incorporating
outlots along the southern edge of the railroad right-of-way.
o Storm Water Management. The storm water management system has been designed
to comply with City and Watershed District requirements. The larger amount of open
space, including ponding areas, is consistent with the expectations established in the
AUAR.
o Traffic. The crossing of the railroad is a critical component of the transportation plan
and the proposed plans anticipate this crossing. The eventual elimination of the
Manning Avenue access will help keep anticipated improvements at 30th and
Manning a viable option.
• Railroad Crossing. The design of the railroad crossing, and in particular, the necessary
improvements within the Village Parkway to design for a whistle-free crossing, should be
further evaluated with the developer. Staff is recommending that the final development plans
include a design that will allow for a future whistle-free crossing.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
with several 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 pay all fees associated with the preliminary plat. 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 grading plan shall be updated to include the protective tree fencing necessary to preserve
all vegetative areas identified for protection around the 5.15 acre residential parcel to the
west of the subdivision.
3) The applicant shall work with the City and Washington County to identify and reserve
sufficient space for a future trail corridor along the western right-of-way line of Manning
Avenue.
4) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan prepared by landscape architect for review and
approval by the City. The landscape plan submittal will include a tree protection and
replacement plan consistent with City ordinances.
5) The final plat will incorporate all review comments from the City’s landscape architect,
including the selection and mix of plantings within storm water basins and infiltration areas.
6) The landscape plan shall include additional plantings around the Northern Natural Gas utility
site.
7) The proposed access to Manning Avenue will be permitted as a temporary access until such
time that the Village Parkway is connected to 30th Street. The construction plans will be
updated to reflect the temporary nature of this street.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
11
8) The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements within the
Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further
described in the review letter received from the County dated June 24, 2014.
9) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed
districts prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
10) 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.
11) The developer shall provide an updated accounting of the land to be dedicated for park
purposes prior to submission of a final plat. If required, the developer shall be required to
pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of
land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance
less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in
lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for
recording.
12) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the
developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision.
13) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter
dated June 26, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat.
14) The City and developer will determine the appropriate distribution of future costs associated
with the Village Parkway railroad crossing improvements as part of a developer’s agreement
for any portion of Easton Village.
15) The developer shall address any comments from Metropolitan Airport Commission as part of
a final plat submission for any portion of Easton Village. MAC will be asked to comment on
the landscape plan, and the plan shall be revised to address any specific comments
concerning the appropriate vegetation to be planted within storm water facilities.
16) The landscape plan shall be revised to eliminate all trees planted within the Lake Elmo
Airport Regulatory Protection Zone.
17) The final plat shall include a paved trail connection between Lots 13 and 14 of Block 3.
18) The applicant shall submit written acknowledgement from property owner of the parcel
immediately to the south of Easton Village concerning the storm water being outlet running
into their property.
19) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into
the open space areas within the subdivision.
20) The developer shall obtain all required permits from Northern Natural Gas to perform
construction work over the gas line that runs from north to south across this site.
21) The developer shall be required to extend sewer to the northernmost boundary of the site.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
12
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Easton Village preliminary plat:
• That the Easton Village preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the Easton Village preliminary plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density
Residential zoning district.
• That the Easton Village preliminary plat complies with all other applicable zoning
requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control
and other ordinances.
• That the Easton Village preliminary plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the Easton Village preliminary plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Easton Village
preliminary plat with the 21 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Easton Village preliminary plat with the 21 conditions of
approval as drafted by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Form (3)
2. Preliminary Plat Narrative
3. Legal Description
4. Wetland Evaluation Report (Summary)
5. Review Comments:
a. City Engineer
b. Washington County
c. Landscape Architecture, Inc,
6. Preliminary Plat and Plans (37 sheets)
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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING
13
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – PUBLIC HEARING