HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 9-22-14
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, September 22, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. September 8, 2014
4. Public Hearing - None
5. Business Items
a. HAMMES ESTATES – FINAL PLAT. The Planning Commission will consider
a Final Plat for Hammes Estates. The Final Plat includes 57 single family lots
that will be located west of Keats Avenue and south of Goose Lake on property
that has historically been used as the Hammes Gravel operation (PID
34.029.21.13.0001).
b. RURAL AREA ANALYSIS PRESENTATION. The Planning Commission is
being asked to review a report that provides an overview of development within
the City’s rural development areas. The report is intended as a starting point for
future discussions concerning future planning within these areas.
c. PLANNING COMMISSION SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSION. City
Staff will be presenting a plan for making improvements related to the distribution
and presentation of information to the Planning Commission.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – September 16, 2014 meeting:
i. Inwood PUD Concept Plan passed.
ii. Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan passed.
iii. Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat passed.
iv. Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat passed.
2
v. Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat passed.
vi. Savona 2nd Addition Developer’s Agreement passed.
vii. Wildflower at Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment passed.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
October 13, 2014
October 27, 2014
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 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, Lundgren, Dorschner
and Haggard
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Administrator Zuleger
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Haggard/Lundgren, move that no new items are brought up after 10:30 pm;
Vote: 0-7, motion fails.
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: August 25, 2014
M/S/P: Williams/Lundgren, move to approve the minutes as amended; Vote: 6-0,
motion carried, with Dorschner not voting.
Public Hearing: Village Park Preserve – Preliminary Plat
Klatt started his presentation on the application for Village Park Preserve which is a
follow through from the concept plan. There are 104 single family residential units
located on 64 acres immediately west of Manning Avenue and north of 30th Street
within the Southern portion of the Village Planning Area.
One critical issue that needs to be addressed is storm water management. This plan
pulls water away from 30th street to a spot that is much better to be managed. A
condition of approval is written approval of affected property owners. There is also
watershed district approval required. Another item would be the formal approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. There should be
additional buffering for the McLeod property. The MAC would also like some input into
the storm water areas so that there is no problem with attracting waterfowl.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
Klatt presented draft findings to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending
approval with 13 conditions of approval.
Klatt stated that there is a 3 year growing period that the developer is responsible for
maintaining the storm water ponds.
Dave Gonyea with Gonyea Company stated that they are planning to put additional
screening in for the McLeod property. He stated that they will eliminate 2 lots in the
South West corner and put in 2 more infiltration basins.
Dodson asked Dave Gonyea if he sees any problems with getting approvals from all the
agencies before the final plat. Gonyea said he does not see any problems with that.
Public Hearing opened at 8:42 p.m.
No written comments were received.
James McLeod, 11580 30th Street, concerned about the intersection of 30th street and
Manning. There have been numerous accidents there because it is so difficult to see on
30th Street, especially at night. He feels it is imperative that a street light be there as
well as potentially a stop light. He also feels that drainage will be a huge problem. He
also asked where the sewer line is on the map. Gonyea explained that on the map. Mr.
Mcleod would like to have a sewer line stubbed up to his property.
Vonnie McLeod, 11580 30th Street, concerned that there are too many homes on too
small of lots.
Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street, is concerned with all of the conditions of approval
and is very concerned with the surface water plan. She would like to see a moratorium
on development until a comprehensive surface water plan is in place.
Public Hearing closed at 8:57 pm.
There was a general discussion about a traffic light at 30th and Manning and that in the
future that would probably take place. There was also a general discussion about the
railroad crossing.
Zuleger stated that the work on Manning is going to commence in 2016 with a
roundabout at 10th street and Manning. Probably the installation of the 30th street
traffic lights would be more in 2017-2018.
Kreimer asked about the 1% watershed district requirement for rate and volume control
and was wondering if that was incorporated into this plan. Klatt stated that they will
need to meet that and additional work needs to be done on the plans.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
Williams stated the plan meets zoning requirements and net density. The only problem
he sees is storm water management.
M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move that condition number 13 be changed to state that the
developer submit a letter from the MAC agreeing to the design of storm water facilities
acceptable to the City prior to submitting Final Plat application, Vote:7 -0, motion
carried Unanimously.
Haggard does not agree with giving a credit for parkland for a piece of land that is not
connected. Dodson agrees that it seems that it is wooded and might not be
developable. Gonyea stated that it was developable and was what the City asked for.
Dodson was wondering how many of these conditions would be resolved prior to Final
Plat. He is concerned about the Storm water getting ironed out before Final Plat.
Williams pointed out that a number of the conditions specifically state that they must
be done before final plat.
M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Village Park Preserve
preliminary plat with the 13 conditions of approval as drafted by staff based on the
findings of fact listed in the staff report, including the amendment to number 13 Vote:6
-1, motion carried, with Haggard voting no.
Lundgren asked about the feasibility to get a stub sewer line down to the McLeod
property. Dave Gonyea expressed his willingness to work with the McLeods to get a
stub sewer line down to their property.
Business Item: Savona Second Addition – Final Plat
Klatt began his presentation regarding the continuation of the discussion of the Final
Plat for Savona 2nd addition that was reviewed at the 8/25/14 Planning Commission
meeting. First addition has 2 model homes currently under construction. The Planning
Commission wanted to see more of the items resolved before Final Plat approval was
given. The developer has removed 2 lots to comply with some of the requests of the
Planning Commission. Six conditions of approval have been met. There are now 8
conditions of approval which are more Final Plat checklist items before the plat is
recorded.
M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, motion to reword condition #4 to state that a common
interest agreement concerning the management for both the single family and multi-
family areas within Savona, and establishing a homeowners association for both these
areas shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director. The
Declaration shall comply with Minnesota Statute 515B for transfer of control to the
Homeowners. Vote: 7-0, motion carried, unanimously.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
M/S/P: Dodson/Larson, move to recommend approval of the Savona 2nd Addition Final
Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as drafted by staff and amended by the
Commission and findings of fact in the staff report, Vote: 7-0, motion carried,
unanimously.
Business Item: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan
Klatt began his presentation regarding the continuation of the discussion of the PUD
Concept plan for the Inwood Plan. Klatt mentioned that although the public hearing
was closed, generally the Planning Commission will let the public make comments. He
noted that some of the Planning Commission members did go and visit the Lakes
Development in Blaine. The developer has made a number of updates. Cul -de-sac L has
been reduced, no lots encroach into the greenbelt buffer, there is increased area
adjacent to Stonegate Park. Single family lots were reduced from 281 to 273. There is
an updated net density calculation and an open space plan. Staff is recommending
approval based on 17 conditions of approval. Staff would also like clarification of 5
previous motions made at the previous meeting to see if they are still valid.
John Rask, Hans Hagen, spoke regarding some of the changes. They are working with
the watershed to preserve a couple of wetlands. They are working with the Park
Commission regarding the Park and one cu-de-sac was made a pass through. The buffer
was extended to the edge of the trees, so the buffer is over the 100 feet required. Rask
talked about the PUD ordinance and the requirements that relate to the Comprehens ive
Plan. Rask stated that a third of the site is open space. He spoke to the density of the
development which is within the density range required by the Comprehensive Plan.
Rask spoke about what they were trying to accomplish with this development.
Haggard asked about outlot G in the commercial area and asked if it would be
developed in the future. Rask responded that it is regulated by the Watershed District
and there can be no more than 30% impervious. Each island is an Infiltration basis.
They don’t have specific users for the commercial, so at this point it is just a concept.
Haggard also asked about the buffering between different uses.
Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave, feels that things are moving too quickly and there should
have been a moratorium until the numbers were refigured. Just because the numbers
are met doesn’t mean that it is a good development. With a PUD ordinance, it also gives
the City flexibility. It seems wrong to count filtration basins as open space. Also was
wondering about the 300 foot property notification. Klatt clarified it is 350 feet.
John Olfelt, 914 Jewel Ave, disappointed that this is such a dense development.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
Randy Hederson, 820 Jasmine Ave, totally against having such small width of lots. Also
asked about the buffer and how many trees are going to be removed. There will be
trees removed to put in the trail in the wooded area. Also feels that the park might be
too far away for people in the development.
Tom Fitzgerald, 877 Jasmine Ave Place, has been asked by neighbors to present a
petition stating their opposition of this development. Fitzgerald read the petition. The
petition had 95 signatures and was submitted for the record.
Mark Enright, 724 Julep Ave, objects to what he considers high density going in next to
Stonegate. Feels that the City is moving too quickly. Feels that it would have been
respectful if all Stonegate residents would have been notified regardless of the 350 foot
rule. Has traffic concerns regarding 10th Street as there are already issues without this
development. Asked about definition of open space. Klatt talked about what it is and
will see if there is a definition.
Nancy Andert, 697 Julep Ave, stated that she was appalled by all of this development.
She said that she feels there should be a smooth transition as stated in the
Comprehensive Plan and that the City should slow down on all the development. She
indicated that whatever the developer wants, the City has been changing the code or
issuing variances and questioned why a PUD should be different from any other
development?
Michael Lancette, 832 Jasmine Ave, seems that the developer is asking for a lot with the
PUD and the City is asking for very little. Would like the motion to include single family
homes on the east side of the development. This is a PUD and there should be
concessions on both sides.
Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave, a number of years ago there was a 55 year and older
proposal to the West of Stonegate. He supported it at that time because he felt it was
much less dense than what they could end up with.
Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave, against the variances, especially the small lot sizes. Feels
that there is enough development surrounding Stonegate and feels that the area cannot
absorb the additional traffic along 10th Street. He feels that there is not enough
parkland to support the area. He feels that the City is representing the wishes of
developers vs. the wishes of the residents.
Sue Dunn, 11018 Upper 33rd Street, what has happened to this City when a home is
called a product. What about the school district, parkland, roads. It is time to hit the
pause button. The word moratorium doesn’t have to scare people and we should be
able to develop in a thoughtful and sensitive way that is compatible with Lake Elmo.
The City hasn’t made adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan, even though the REC
units have been reduced.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
An email was received from Bob Streeter, the Community Development Director of
Oakdale, which was read into the record. Oakdale is concerned with the reduced
access to 9th Street and Oak Marsh drive. They would like to work with City of Lake
Elmo and County staff to find a mutually agreeable solution.
Greg Milner, was wondering how many people signed the petition. 95 people signed.
Dodson would like to have the benefit to the City of the PUD in this case. Klatt stated
that there are 3 things that are needed to be done for a PUD and the City feels they
have met those things. The other things are a little more subjective. It is a different
product than other developers are doing. The PUD is used as a tool when a developer
wants to do something that isn’t strictly allowed. In this case they are trying to provide
a more unified development.
Williams stated that in this case it allows for a better storm water plan when multiple
parcels are rolled together and one plan is brought forward.
Haggard asked if the staff or Council have been looking at lowering the densities now
that the forecast has been decreased. Zuleger stated that staff and Council have been
looking at rebalancing those numbers, especially in higher density areas such as along
Manning. They are looking at possibly more office park and other options.
Lundgren asked what the original rec units were that were mandated. Zuleger
responded that we were mandated 6600 total rec units. Zuleger stated that we did not
specifically deal with rec units, but dealt with population numbers. Lundgren asked how
many rec units have been approved already. Savona has approved a little over 100 rec
units. Zuleger stated that with the plats in process including this one would put us up
around 1700 rec units.
Williams stated that one thing he sees as making a big difference is exten sive
landscaping. He would like to see more spruce trees along the buffer of Stonegate.
Kreimer agrees that we do not have anything else like this and the HOA maintained
yards are very nice. However, the 38 foot lots are not acceptable and he is not in favor
of granting variances for such small lots. Feels that even if you can’t see the
development from Stonegate, there are other impacts to consider such as light, noise,
traffic, etc.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, move to recommend denial of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan
because it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the City’s
PUD Ordinance, Vote: 2-5, motion fails, with Haggard, Dorschner, Williams, Dodson and
Larson voting no.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
Larson spoke in favor of the development. He feels it is a quality development and is a
unique product where people will be proud to live. Dodson also struggles with what
else could go here instead of this development.
Kreimer stated that the land use plan was designed to put the traffic between 5 th street
and Hudson. Dodson asked about the traffic study by the County. Kreimer stated that
he read someone’s comment that there may be a need for a signal there, so clearly
there is concern about the traffic.
Dodson stated that after the tour of the Lakes, they have a good idea of what it will look
like and there are a lot of positives with the mix of products and the HOA maintained
area. Dodson stated that sewered lots are by nature going to be higher density. On the
negative, he wasn’t all that comfortable with the back yards, but that is not what he
would be in the market for.
Kreimer stated he is not comfortable with the apartments because it will add a lot more
traffic.
Haggard feels that the density numbers that are created by the multi f amily is way out
of line. She also feels that the commercial land should not be counted in. She feels that
with a PUD, the City is able to ask for a reduction.
Dorschner is very uncomfortable with the 36 foot wide lot. He feels that Stonegate
won’t be happy with any development on that property. Feels we need to decide what
is the lesser evil.
Lundgren thinks the density is too high. Klatt stated that they do have the authority to
make recommendations.
The Planning Commission came up with a list of conditions and voted on each one
individually.
1. All Multi-family housing, including senior housing should be south of 5th street to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Vote: 5-2, motion carried, with
Larson and Dodson voting no.
2. Add Sidewalks on one side to all roads in the residential areas, except for 9 th
Street. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
3. Situate the trail in the east buffer area as far west as possible. Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
4. Lots in neighborhoods E (lots 9-14) F (lots 7-11) and H (lots 7-12) be made
designer lots. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
5. Require a 5 foot side yard setback. Vote: 2-5, motion failed, with Larson,
Dodson, Haggard, Williams and Kreimer voting no.
6. Park Commission should consider a park to be located toward the end of
neighborhood G. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
7. The maximum density of the high density residential remain at 15 units per acre.
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
8. All Cul-de-sacs must meet the City standard for maximum length. Vote: 6-1,
motion carried, with Dodson voting no.
9. Applicant must work with the City to submit design standards to the City as part
of the Preliminary PUD Plan application for the City’s use in reviewing building
permits. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept
Plan with the findings of fact and 17 conditions of approval as drafted in the staff report,
along with the 8 additional conditions voted on by the Planning Commission , for a total
of 25 conditions Vote: 5-2, motion carried, with Kreimer and Lundgren voting no.
Business Item: Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat
Klatt began his presentation for a Final plat for Hunter’s Crossing. The Final plat is
consistent with the preliminary plat. The final plat for phase I is for 22 single family
homes. The critical issues with this development are 5th street construction and phasing,
5th street final construction plans, storm water easement on eastern property, and final
checklist for plat approval.
Dodson was wondering why an HOA was required. Klatt said that there is some
common area that needs to be maintained.
Williams is wondering why the temporary access road is not shown on the plat. Klatt
stated that the engineer is requesting an easement for the access road.
Larson asked why there is no trail shown on the plat. Klatt stated that there is a trail
plan that will circle the development and there is a sidewalk on 5 th street once it is built.
Haggard is wondering where the safe pedestrian cross walk will be. Klatt stated that
when the plans for 5th street come forward, that will be part of the plan.
Dorschner asked why this is phased for a temporary access. Klatt stated that the
northern property owner is not interested in building the road and does not want to be
assessed for it. Zuleger stated that they are working on an agreement with the northern
property owner that the road will be built within 5 years.
Lundgren asked what happens if second addition never materializes. Klatt stated tha t
there will not be over 25 homes built until the road goes in. The road will need to be
addressed before any other activity can take place there.
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
Williams asked about the grading. Currently there is an existing berm going into the
driving range. Will that be kept?
Dodson asked Rust what the HOA will do. Rust responded that it will maintain
landscaping, monument, mailboxes, architectural standards, protected lands, etc.
Dodson feels that it isn’t a lot of benefit for the conflict that it can create.
M/S/P: Williams/Lungren, move to require an easement for the temporary access road
shown on the final plat. Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
There was more discussion regarding the HOA and Klatt stated that it might go beyond
the authority the Planning Commission has for land use planning.
M/S/P: Williams/Dorschner, move to have at the beginning of the draft findings the
blanket statement “with the exception of the items noted in the staff report”, Vote: 7-0,
motion carried unanimously.
Haggard stated that she is disappointed that the landscape requirements have not been
met. She would like to make sure that we hold true to the landscape standards.
Lundgren stated that the words “generally acceptable” is too vague.
M/S/P: Haggard/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Hunter’s Crossing Final
Plat with the 12 conditions as drafted by staff and the Planning Commission and would
like to have the landscape plan be in full compliance before going to City Council, Vote:
7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates
1. Savona Conditional Use permit passed.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. September 22, 2014
b. October 13, 2014
Commission Concerns –
Haggard brought up the timing of the packet. 1 business day is not enough time to
review.
10
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-8-14
Dorschner mentioned that we are moving too fast and it is too much for the staff. If we
need more staff, we need to get more staff. Zuleger stated that we might bring in a
Planning Consultant just to work on Hans Hagen. Fees and escrows will be used against
Planning and Building staff. Dorschner also asked about the school district. Zuleger
responded that he is working with Planner Johnson and the school district on these
concerns. They are also meeting with Sheriff Hutton to talk about the impact to police
services.
Haggard would like to have a joint meeting with Council to talk more about the recs and
what we are on pace for.
Dodson asked about the deadline requirements for developments. Klatt stated that the
deadlines are already included in the staff report. Zuleger stated that the developers
are going to be told that if a complete submittal isn’t received 2 weeks before the
meeting, it won’t hit the meeting. Klatt stated that we are trying to move to electr onic,
but that may be a ways out yet.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
a. Park Sign Update (Macleod)
Macleod shared that two signs were finished (Reid and Pebble) and picked up earlier that day. The rest of the
signs are anticipated to be completed by the first week of August, with Sunfish Lake Park being the next in line
for completion. An amenity panel for one of the signs was in the council chambers for the commission to view.
b. LERT Update (Weis)
Weis stated that city planner Johnson has continued to talk to Washington County and that they are working on
the west side access plan . Zuleger added that the LERT is currently on hold but the city has been talking with
the county about being incorporated into the master plan to be considered by the Met Council. Zuleger added
that Met Council Park and Open Space Chair, former Mayor Johnston , recently dropped off a copy of the
master plan, which has been serving as a guide for next steps.
Hietpas referenced the search corridor and stated that the LERT was not currently part of that plan . She
commented that regionally , there are a lot of trails going on in other areas , but hardly anything in Washington
County and she would like to see more priority placed on Lake Elmo trails at a county level. Weis commented
on other communities coming forward and that trail plan requests are becoming more prevalent in the county .
Ames asked what the next steps are. Zuleger responded that the city has been requesting that the search
corridor be included as a key corridor in the county's trail plan between Oakdale and Stillwater, connecting to a
regional park . The City is continuing to have conversations with the county about the best way to access the
Lake Elmo Park Reserve . Weis has offered to present the LERT presentation to the County to keep the ball
rolling . He emphasized that it is important to get included in the plan because it will open up a lot of funding
opportun ities .
c. Hammes Park Space (Zuleger)
Zuleger stated that there was an item not on the agenda that needed to be addressed: The Hammes
subdivision park space. To recap , Zuleger shared that per previous discussion and in response to the
commission 's request , the Hammes developers had placed the park in the northwest corner of the
development near Keats Avenue and Goose Lake. The proposed park space includes a fish ing pier, shelter,
grill , parking lot and is also where the lift station is located . Currently the plan does not include a play structure,
which was initially requested by the park commission as a condition of approval. The Hammes developers are
seeking input from the commission as to what type of play structure to include, and if they could receive credit
for parkland dedication if the structure was included . Zuleger cont inued to point out additional green/meeting
spaces within the development and the 100 ' buffer perimeter per the comp plan (including a trail).
Ames thought he remembered a small park internally in the neighborhood that would have a play structure. He
is not sure that a play structure near a 55 mph roadway is a good place for a play structure. Ames also
questioned where neighborhood children would play, as lot sizes looked small to consider private play sets .
Zuleger pointed out that the Lake Elmo Park Reserve was located a mile north of the development, with a
phenomenal play set. Ames stated that he didn 't feel current playgrounds were within reasonable walking
distance for residents . Hietpas shared that she didn't feel that the green spaces included throughout the
development were large enough for community meeting spaces.
Zuleger pointed out the location of neighboring parks in Stonegate and Lennar neighborhoods.
The commission requested that a location central in the neighborhood be considered for play structure
placement. Zuleger said that he would forward their comments to the developers .
Meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM
Respectfully Submitted ,
Alyssa Macleod , Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 09/22/14
AGENDA ITEM 4B
CASE # 2014-46
ITEM: Rural Area Analysis
SUBMITTED BY: Casey Riley, City Planning Intern
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner; Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The City has conducted a study of the rural areas of Lake Elmo with rural zoning:
Agricultural (A,) Rural Residential (RR,) Rural Single Family (RS,) Residential Estates
(RE,) and Open Space Preservation (OP.) The report includes a summary of each
development’s extent and infrastructure quantities. The Rural Area Analysis intends to
provide information to aid in future decisions regarding rural zoning and land uses. At
this time, the Planning Commission is asked to review the report and provide feedback.
No formal action is required at this time.
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
STAFF REPORT:
The Rural Area Analysis lists the subdivisions with the Rural Planning Areas of Agricultural,
Rural Residential, Rural Single Family, Residential Estates, and Open Space Preservation
and provides a summary of each. The summary includes a total and average of all the
subdivisions within the zone, as well as an individual summary. Item included are the number
of lots in the development, mean lot size, total area, linear feet of road, linear feet of road per
lot, secondary access, sanitary system type, linear feet of pipe if community sanitary system,
linear feet of pipe per lot, the estimated population, and the water system type. This
information is paired with an overview of research related to rural area development.
RECCOMENDATION:
No formal action is required at this time. The Planning Commission is asked to provide initial
feedback regarding the Rural Area Analysis.
2
BUSINESS ITEM 4B
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Rural Area Analysis Report
Rural Area Analysis
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Department
09/18/14
The City of Lake Elmo has conducted a Rural Area
Analysis to study parcels with rural zoning. The study
includes an analysis of each development and aims to
compare infrastructure quantities for the rural land use
types, as well as population and area. The intent of the
study is to provide background and information to aid
in future decisions regarding rural zoning and land uses.
A secondary goal of this study is to provide research
illustrating the equilibrium value where smaller lot
sizes allow for a plausible sewer expansion scenario.
This scenario is of interest to developers, The City and
residents of Lake Elmo. To better understand the issues
relating to new development in rural areas, an overview
of research relating to rural area development and
infrastructure expansion is included.
The rural areas of Lake Elmo
are zoned as Agricultural
(A), Rural Residential (RR),
Rural Single Family (RS),
Residential Estates (RE), and
Open Space Preservation
(OP).
Several Open Space
Preservation (OP)
subdivisions have been
processed through a
conditional use permit, but
retain Agricultural or Rural
Residential zoning.
Rural Area Analysis
One Acre Lots and Sanitary Systems:
According to multiple studies, the designation of “rural”
occurs at the point when a lot is greater than one acre.
Lots larger than 1.0 acre are characterized as “rural,” and
have been the subject of extensive research in the fi eld
of environmental economic and resource management.
Two types of growth emerge form these studies, growth
restrained by the need for municipal sewer and water
lines, and growth (typically larger lots) that is serviced by
private septic systems and groundwater sources.
If lot sizes are smaller than 1.0 acre and occur in a
rural setting, it is feasible for the developer to install
a community sewered septic system. However, if lots
are greater than 1.0 acre, it is fi scally advantageous for
the developer to install private septic systems. Further
spatial requirements are imposed at this point, due to
environmental and public-health concerns regulating
adequate space between septic systems. (Newburn and
Berck, 2011).
The one acre lot tipping point analyzes developer
on-site costs and profi ts. One study showed that on-
site developer costs decrease as lot sizes increase
(Mohamed, 2009). This, paired with the fact that as
basic infrastructure costs increase as lot sizes increase,
results in the more favorable decision to install septic
systems in lots larger than one acre, and maximize
profi ts. This study showed that even with lots smaller
than one acre, it can still be more profi table to install
private septic systems rather than installing public sewer,
if the development is at a great distance from the trunk
main. Private septic systems are further preferable to
the developer as the cost of the actual system and its
installation are borne by the buyer of the lot, as is the
upkeep of the system. If the development occurs where
public sewer exists, the developer can recoup the costs
of installing sewers because they add value to the lots,
as long as the lots are not too large (over one acre).
(Mohamed, 2009).
New development can help lower costs of wastewater
services for all users when the number of connections
per mile of pipe are maximized. When densities increase
and systems are utilized to capacity, cost savings can be
signifi cant (Duncan et al, 1999).
Public Services and Roads:
In 1997, a Cost of Public Services Study was conducted
by the MN Department of Agriculture and Duncan
Associates. This state-wide report concludes that
new development is “more fi scally advantageous to
local governments when it occurs within or adjacent
to established urbanized areas than when it occurs in
outlying undeveloped rural areas.” The analysis showed
that new growth and residential development has a
higher value when it occurs in areas that offer urban
services.
In Minnesota, road maintenance is the largest
expenditure item for governments (Duncan et al, 1999).
For developers, the cost of the installation of roads
surpasses that of sanitary systems and public water
(Mohamed, 2009). Per capita road maintenance costs
decrease as density, residential market value and the
percent of city residents increase (Duncan et al, 1999).
The “Cost of Public Services Study” showed that road
costs increase when townships that reach a certain
population level. In 1995, road costs averaged $47 per
capita. However, when the township reached more than
3,500 residents, the average cost for roads reached $70
per capita (Duncan et al, 1999).
With this information in mind, the rural areas of Lake
Elmo have been examined. This report aims to guide
stakeholders and policymakers by summarizing the
infrastructural quantities, areas, and densities of each
subdivision. The following provides an analysis of the
subdivisions found in the Rural Planning Area of Lake
Elmo.
Areas with a strong agricultural sector tend to have lover per-capita
costs. As land becomes more developed, local governments start to
spend more due to a rise in demand for services.
Rural Area Research
Average Number of Lots per
Development:
Linear Feet per Lot:
35.8 units
172 feet
Open Space Preservation
Mean Total OP Lot Size:
Number of Lots:
0.55 acres
20
Open Space Preservation Totals:
Tana Ridge:
Largest Lot:
Mean Lot Size:
23.47 acres
0.77 acres
Smallest Lot:
Total Size:
0.08 acres
15.34 acres
Standard Deviation:
Linear Feet of Road:
1.51 acres
3,435 feet
Average Linear Ft of Road per Lot:
Secondary Access:
144 feet
No
Open Space Preservation Zones 0 1 20.5 Miles
1 inch equals 0.757661 miles
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetTana Ridge
Septic System Type:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Est. Population
Water:
Community
1,903 feet
95 feet
70 persons
City
Open Space Preservation
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetThe Fields of St. Croix
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetHamlet on Sunfish Lake
Ft of Road per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
163 feet
162 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
46
41
The Fields of St. Croix:
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.74 acres
0.73 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
36.53 acres
29.76 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
7,510 feet
6,630 feet
Secondary Access:
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Est. Population
Water
Water
Est. Population
Secondary Access:
Yes
Community
Community
4,416.8 feet
1,903 feet
96 feet
46 feet
161 persons
Individual Well
144 persons
Individual Well
No
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Est. Population
Water
Water
Est. Population
Community
Community
7,946 feet
7,887 feet
122 feet
125 feet
228 persons
City
221 persons
City
Open Space Preservation
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetTapestry at Charlotte's Grove
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetSt. Croix Sanctuary
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
186 feet
124 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
65
63
Tapestry at Charlotte’s Grove:
St. Croix Sanctuary:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.99 acres
0.0.83 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
67.64 acres
51.87 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
12,090 feet
7,785 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
No
Open Space Preservation
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetDiscover Crossing
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetSunfish Ponds
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
119 feet
104 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
28
16
Discover Crossing:
Sunfish Ponds:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.86 acres
0.81 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
24.13 acres
12.95 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
3,345 feet
1,660 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
No
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Est. Population
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Est. Population
Water
Community
Private
3,659 feet
56 persons
Individual Well
131 feet
98 persons
City
Water
Open Space Preservation
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Community
49 persons
City
Linear Feet per Lot:62 feet
Number of Lots: 14
Bluestem at Fields of St. Croix
Mean Lot Size:0.08 acres
Total Size:1.12 acres
Linear Feet of Road:868 feet
Secondary Access: No
Bluestem at Fields of St. Croix 0 100 20050 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:216 feet
Number of Lots:32
Farms of Lake Elmo:
Mean Lot Size:0.82 acres
Total Size:26.22 acres
Linear Feet of Road:6,926 feet
Secondary Access: No
Farms of Lake Elmo 0 400 800200 Feet
Septic System Type:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Water
Est. Population
Community
5,425 feet
170 feet
112 persons
City
Open Space Preservation
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Community
Private
189 persons
161 persons
City
City
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
138 feet
130 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
54
46
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Add.
Heritage Farm
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.74 acres
0.85 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
36.53 acres
38.93 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
7,476 feet
5,991 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
No
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition 0 200 400100 Feet
Heritage Farm 0 300 600150 Feet
Open Space Preservation
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
73.5 persons
112 persons
Private
Private
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
164 feet
144 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
21
32
Meyer’s Pineridge
Parkview Estates
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
1.0 acres
0.05 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
20.79 acres
1.8 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
3,449 feet
4,598 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
Yes
Meyer's Pineridge 0 200 400100 Feet
Parkview Estates 0 400 800200 Feet
Open Space Preservation
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Community
Community
161 persons
56 persons
City
City
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
138 feet
89 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
54
16
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Add.
Prairie Hamlet
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.74 acres
0.45 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
36.53 acres
7.16 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
7,476 feet
1,426 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
No
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition 0 200 400100 Feet
Prairie Hamlet 0 100 20050 Feet
Open Space Preservation
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Community
Private
73.5 persons
67 persons
Private
Private
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
108 feet
352 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
19
19
Tamarack Farm Estates
The Homestead
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.7 acres
0.86 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
13.25 acres
16.44 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
2,044 feet
6,684 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
Yes
Tamarack Farm Estates 0 200 400100 Feet
The Homestead 0 200 400100 Feet
Open Space Preservation
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
151 persons
56 persons
Private
City
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
174 feet
209 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
43
25
Whistling Valley
Wildflower Shores
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
1.02 acres
0.63 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
43.81 acres
15.8 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
7,499 feet
5,216 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
No
Whistling Valley 0 250 500125 Feet
Wildflower Shores 0 200 400100 Feet
Rural Single Family
Rural Single Family Zones 0 1 20.5 Miles
1 inch equals 0.757661 miles
0 200 400 600 800100FeetTablyn Park
1 inch equals 400 feet
Average Number of Lots per
Development:
Linear Feet per Lot:
38 units
94 feet
Mean Total RS Lot Size:
Number of Lots:
1.2 acres
63
Rural Single Family Totals:
Tablyn Park:
Largest Lot:
Mean Lot Size:
17.96 acres
0.84 acres
Smallest Lot:
Total Size:
0.01 acres
52.74 acres
Standard Deviation:
Linear Feet of Road:
1.18 acres
5,920 feet
Average Linear Ft of Road per Lot:
Secondary Access:
113 feet
Yes
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
221 persons
CityWater
Rural Single Family
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetTartan Meadows
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetThe Forest
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
119 feet
93 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
38
18
Tartan Meadows:
The Forest:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.86 acres
1.96 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
24.13 acres
35.2 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
3,345 feet
1,675 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
63 persons
Water
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
133 persons
Individual Well
Individual Well
Rural Single Family
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetBoardners Garner Farmettes
1 inch equals 500 feet
0 250 500 750 1,000125FeetDeMontreville Highlands
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
109 feet
118 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
48
71
Bordners Garner Farmettes:
DeMontreville Highlands:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
1.42 acres
1.18 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
67.89 acres
83.87 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
5,220 feet
8,345 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
Yes
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
249 persons
Water
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
168 persons
Individual Well
Individual Well
Rural Single Family
Berschen's Shores 0 400 800200 Feet
Bergman Addition 0 200 400100 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
119 feet
93 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
24
11
Berschen’s Shores
Bergman Addition
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.67 acres
0.42 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
16.0 acres
4.6 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
2,860 feet
1,025 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
Yes
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
84 persons
84 persons
Private
Private
Rural Single Family
Down's Lake 0 200 400100 Feet
David Nelson Estates 0 200 400100 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
384 feet
118 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
2
5
Down’s Lake
David Nelson Estates
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
1.51 acres
1.68 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
3.02 acres
8.41 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
767 feet
588 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
No
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
persons
18 persons
Private
Private
Rural Single Family
Darwin Acres 0 400 800200 Feet
Eden Park 0 400 800200 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
245 feet
84 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
14
55
Dawcin Acres
Eden Park
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.87 acres
1.2 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
12.17 acres
66.12 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
3,432 feet
4,600 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
Yes/No
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
84 persons
192 persons
Private
Private
Dawcin Acres
Rural Single Family
Kenridge 0 200 400100 Feet
Lake Elmo Park 0 400 800200 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
120 feet
44 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
25
73
Kenridge
Lake Elmo Park
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
0.69 acres
0.57 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
17.38 acres
45.03 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
3,000 feet
3,203 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
Yes
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
88 persons
255persons
Private
City
Rural Single Family
Teal Pass Estates 0 400 800200 Feet
Fox Fire Estates 0 500 1,000250 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
154 feet
159 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
15
58
Teal Pass Estates
Foxfire Estates
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
1.94 acres
2.11 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
29.15 acres
122.31 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
2,304 feet
9,200 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
Yes
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
53 persons
203 persons
Private
Private
Residential Estate
Rural Estate Zones 0 1 20.5 Miles
1 inch equals 0.757661 miles
1 inch equals 500 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetStonegate
Average Number of Lots per
Development:
Linear Feet per Lot:
19 Units
157 feet
Mean Total RE Lot Size:
Number of Lots:
3.4 acres
64
Residential Estate Totals:
Stonegate:
Largest Lot:
Mean Lot Size:
0.15 acres
2.8 acres
Smallest Lot:
Total Size:
25.33 acres
179.19 acres
Standard Deviation:
Linear Feet of Road:
1.98 acres
10,070 feet
Average Linear Ft of Road per Lot:
Secondary Access:
156 feet
Yes
Residential Estate Zones
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
224 persons
Individual WellWater
Residential Estate
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetPark Meadows
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetCardinal View
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
161 feet
200 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
8
7
Park Meadows:
Cardinal View:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
3.28 acres
3.04 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
26.25 acres
21.29 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
1,290 feet
1,400 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
Individual Well
25 persons
Water
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
28 persons
City
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetLake Elmo Heights
1 inch equals 400 feet
0 200 400 600 800100FeetTorre Pines
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
161 feet
173 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
40
24
Lake Elmo Heights:
Torre Pines:
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
2.56 acres
2.93 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
102.39 acres
70.38 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
6,420 feet
4,150 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
No
Residential Estate
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Community
84 persons
Individual WellWater
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
140 persons
City
Residential Estate
Arabian Hills 0 270 540135 Feet
Beat Crest 0 200 400100 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
160 feet
119 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
19
16
Arabian Hills
Beau Crest
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
3.11 acres
1.84 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
59.12 acres
30 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
3,050 feet
1,904 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
No
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
67
56 persons
Private
City
Eagle Point Creek Estates 0 200 400100 Feet
Judith Mary Manor 0 400 800200 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
57 feet
179 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
7
12
Judith Mary Manor
Eagle Point Creek Estates
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
4.33 acres
3.08 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
30.34 acres
37.01 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
396 feet
2,147 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
No
Yes
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
25 persons
42 persons
City
Private
Residential Estate
Lake Elmo Park 0 400 800200 Feet
Lake Elmo Vista 0 400 800200 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
161 feet
169 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
40
10
Lake Elmo Heights
Lake Elmo Vista
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
2.56 acres
3.25 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
102.4 acres
32.53 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
6,420 feet
1,700 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
No
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
140 persons
35
Private
Private
Residential Estate
Lake Elmo Heights
Midland Meadows 0 400 800200 Feet
Rolling Hills 0 400 800200 Feet
Linear Feet per Lot:
Linear Feet per Lot:
346 feet
245 feet
Number of Lots:
Number of Lots:
13
12
Rolling Hills
Midland Meadows
Mean Lot Size:
Mean Lot Size:
7.87 acres
2.81 acres
Total Size:
Total Size:
102.35 acres
33.77 acres
Linear Feet of Road:
Linear Feet of Road:
4,504 feet
2,943 feet
Secondary Access:
Secondary Access:
Yes
Yes
Septic System Type:
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Est. Population
Water
Water
Private
Private
46 persons
42 persons
Private
Private
Residential Estate
Agricultural Zones 0 1 20.5 Miles
1 inch equals 0.757661 miles
Agricultural
Sampled Agricultural Mean Lot Size: 20.6 acres
Mean Total Ag Lot Size:17.62 acres
Agricultural Totals:
Largest Lot:116.55 acres
Smallest Lot: 0.13 acres
Standard Deviation: 23.73 acres
Average Linear Ft of Road per Lot: 472 feet
Agricultural 1 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:225 feet
Number of Lots:13
Agricultural Area 1:
Mean Lot Size:13.34 acres
Total Size:173.43 acres
Linear Feet of Road:2,920 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
45 persons
City and
Individual Well
Water
Agricultural
Agricultural Area 3 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:309 feet
Number of Lots:5
Agricultural Area 3:
Mean Lot Size:35.51 acres
Total Size:177.5 acres
Linear Feet of Road:1,544 feet
Secondary Access: No
Agricultural Area 2 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:776 feet
Number of Lots:6
Agricultural Area 2:
Mean Lot Size:21.3 acres
Total Size:127.8 acres
Linear Feet of Road:4,654 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
Individual Well
City and
Individual Well
21 persons
Water
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
18 persons
Agricultural
Agricultural Area 4 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:1,038 feet
Number of Lots:5
Agricultural Area 4:
Mean Lot Size:51.58 acres
Total Size:258 acres
Linear Feet of Road:5,192 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
18 persons
Individual Well
Rural Residential Zones 0 1 20.5 Miles
1 inch equals 0.757661 miles
Rural Residential
Sampled RR Mean Lot Size:20.57 acres
Mean Total RR Lot Size:6.41 acres
Rural Residential Totals:
Largest Lot:96 acres
Smallest Lot: 0.04 acres
Standard Deviation: 11.47 acres
Average Linear Ft of Road per Lot: 432.41 feet
Rural Residential 1 0 2,100 4,2001,050 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:261 feet
Number of Lots:27
Rural Residential Area 1:
Mean Lot Size:9.18 acres
Total Size:247.75 acres
Linear Feet of Road:7,053 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
95 persons
Individual Well
Rural Residential
Rural Residential 2 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:480 feet
Number of Lots:9
Rural Residential Area 2:
Mean Lot Size:8.71 acres
Total Size:78.47 acres
Linear Feet of Road:4,317 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
32 persons
City and
Individual Well
Water
Rural Residential 3 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Linear Feet per Lot:598 feet
Number of Lots:8
Rural Residential Area 3:
Mean Lot Size:18.07 acres
Total Size:144.6 acres
Linear Feet of Road:4,787 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Water
Private
28 persons
City and
Individual Well
Rural Residential 4 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
Rural Residential
Linear Feet per Lot:390 feet
Number of Lots:9
Rural Residential Area 4:
Mean Lot Size:20.99 acres
Total Size:188.9 acres
Linear Feet of Road:3,514 feet
Secondary Access: No
Septic System Type:
Est. Population
Private
32 persons
City Water
Other
Linear Feet per Lot:57.4 feet
Number of Lots:109
Carriage Station:
Mean Lot Size:0.38 acres
Total Size:40.93 acres
Linear Feet of Road:6,256 feet
Secondary Access: Yes
Carriage Station 0 400 800200 Feet
Carriage Station 0 400 800200 FeetCarriage Station
Septic System Type:
Linear Feet of Pipe:
Ft of Pipe per Lot:
Est. Population
Water
Community
5,846 feet
54 feet
382 persons
City
Rural Area Infrastructure Analysis
Land Use Type Development # of Lots
Mean Lot
Size (Acres)
Total Size
(Acres)
Linear Feet
of Road
Lnr Ft. per
Lot
Secondary
Access?
Septic System
Type
Est.
Population
Approx DWF
(gal/day)
Linear Ft of
Pipe
Lnr Ft Pipe Per
Lot
OP Bluestem at Fields of St. Croix 14 0.08 1.12 868 62 No 49
Discover Crossing 28 0.86 24.13 3,345 119 No* Community 98 5695.48 3658.53 130.6617857
Farms of Lake Elmo 32 0.82 26.22 6926 216.44 No Community 112 6509.12 5425.1 169.534375
Fields of St. Croix I 46 0.74 36.53 7,510 163 Yes Community 161 1830.69 4416.8 96.0173913
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition 54 0.062 1.24 7,476 138 189
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake 41 0.73 29.76 6,630 162 No Community 143.5 8339.81 1903.32 46.42243902
Heritage Farm 46 0.85 38.93 5,991 130 161
Meyer's Pineridge 21 0.099 20.79 3,449 164 73.5
Parkview Estates 32 0.05 1.8 4,598 144 Yes Private 112
Prairie Hamlet 16 0.45 7.16 1,426 89 No 56
St. Croix's Sanctuary 62 0.83 51.87 7,785 126 No* Community 217 12611.42 7886.52 127.2019355
Sunfish Ponds 16 0.81 12.95 1,660 104 No Private 56 3254.56
Tamarack Farm Estates 19 0.69 13.25 2,044 108 No 66.5
Tana Ridge 20 0.77 15.34 3,435 172 No Community 70 4068.2 1903.32 95.166
Tapestry at Charlottes Grove 67 0.99 67.64 12,090 180 No Community 234.5 13628.47 7946.48 118.6041791
The Homestead 19 0.86 16.44 6,684 352 No 66.5 3864.79
Whistling Valley 43 1.02 43.81 7,499 174 Yes 150.5 8746.63
Wildflower Shores 25 0.63 15.8 5,216 209 No 87.5 5085.25
OP Average 33.3888889 0.630055556 23.59888889 5,257 156 116.8611111 6791.633889 3850.9375 115.3358985
RE Stonegate 64 2.8 179.19 10,070 157 Yes Private 224 13018.24
Arabian Hills 19 3.11 59.12 3,049 160 yes 66.5
Beau Crest 16 1.84 29.49 1,904 119 No 56
Park Meadows 8 3.28 26.25 1,290 161 No Private 28 1627.28
Cardinal View 7 3.04 21.29 1,400 200 No Private 24.5 1423.87
Eagle Point Creek Estates 7 4.33 30.34 396 57 No 24.5
Judith Mary Manor 12 3.08 37.01 2,147 179 Yes 42
Lake Elmo Heights 40 2.56 102.39 6,420 161 Yes Private 140 8136.4
Lake Elmo Vista 10 3.25 32.53 1,692 169 No 35
Torre Pines 21 2.93 70.38 4,150 198 No Community 73.5 4271.61
Midland Meadows 13 7.87 102.35 4,504 346 Yes 45.5
Rolling Hills 12 2.81 33.77 2,943 245 Yes 42
RE Average 19.0833333 3.408333333 60.3425 3,330 156 66.79166667 3881.740833
RS Berschen's Shores 24 0.67 16 2860 119 Yes 84
Bergman Addition 11 0.42 4.6 1025 93 Yes 38.5
Down's Lake 2 1.51 3.02 767 384 Yes 7
David Nelson Estates 5 1.68 8.41 588 118 No 17.5
Darwin Acres 14 0.87 12.17 3432 245 No 49
Eden Park 55 1.2 66.12 4600 84 Yes/No 192.5
Kenridge 25 0.69 17.38 3000 120 Yes 87.5
Lake Elmo Park 73 0.57 45.03 3203 44 Yes 255.5
Tablyn Park 63 0.84 52.74 5,920 94 Yes Private 220.5 12814.83
Tartan Meadows 38 1.6 60.84 4,800 126 Yes Private 133 7729.58
Teal Pass Estates 15 1.94 29.15 2,304 154 Yes 52.5
Firefox Estates 58 2.11 122.31 9,199 159 Yes 203
Friedrich Heights 13 45.5
The Forest 18 1.96 35.2 1,675 93 No Private 63 3661.38
Lane's Demontreville Country Club 45 157.5
Bordners Garner Farmettes 48 1.42 67.89 5,220 109 Yes Private 168 9763.68
DeMontreville Highlands 140 1.18 83.87 8,345 60 Yes Private 490 28477.4
Oace Acres 100 350
Packard Park 21 73.5
Water's Bay 4 14
Springborn's Green Acres 31 108.5
Data
Rural Area Infrastructure Analysis
Land Use Type Development# of Lots
Mean Lot
Size (Acres)
Total Size
(Acres)
Linear Feet
of Road
Lnr Ft. per
Lot
Secondary
Access?
Septic System
Type
Est.
Population
Approx DWF
(gal/day)
Linear Ft of
Pipe
Lnr Ft Pipe Per
Lot
OPBluestem at Fields of St. Croix14 0.08 1.12 868 62 No 49
Discover Crossing28 0.86 24.13 3,345 119 No* Community 98 5695.48 3658.53 130.6617857
Farms of Lake Elmo32 0.82 26.22 6926 216.44 No Community 112 6509.12 5425.1 169.534375
Fields of St. Croix I46 0.74 36.53 7,510 163 Yes Community 161 1830.69 4416.8 96.0173913
Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition54 0.062 1.24 7,476 138 189
Hamlet on Sunfish Lake41 0.73 29.76 6,630 162 No Community 143.5 8339.81 1903.32 46.42243902
Heritage Farm 46 0.85 38.93 5,991 130 161
Meyer's Pineridge21 0.099 20.79 3,449 164 73.5
Parkview Estates32 0.05 1.8 4,598 144 Yes Private 112
Prairie Hamlet16 0.45 7.16 1,426 89 No 56
St. Croix's Sanctuary620.83 51.87 7,785 126 No* Community 217 12611.42 7886.52 127.2019355
Sunfish Ponds16 0.81 12.95 1,660 104 No Private 56 3254.56
Tamarack Farm Estates19 0.69 13.25 2,044 108 No 66.5
Tana Ridge20 0.77 15.34 3,435 172 No Community 70 4068.2 1903.32 95.166
Tapestry at Charlottes Grove670.99 67.64 12,090 180 No Community 234.5 13628.47 7946.48 118.6041791
The Homestead19 0.86 16.44 6,684 352 No 66.5 3864.79
Whistling Valley43 1.02 43.81 7,499 174 Yes 150.5 8746.63
Wildflower Shores25 0.63 15.8 5,216 209 No 87.5 5085.25
OP Average33.3888889 0.630055556 23.59888889 5,257 156 116.8611111 6791.633889 3850.9375 115.3358985
REStonegate64 2.8 179.19 10,070 157 Yes Private 224 13018.24
Arabian Hills19 3.11 59.12 3,049 160 yes 66.5
Beau Crest16 1.84 29.49 1,904 119 No 56
Park Meadows8 3.28 26.25 1,290 161 No Private 28 1627.28
Cardinal View7 3.04 21.29 1,400 200 No Private 24.5 1423.87
Eagle Point Creek Estates7 4.33 30.34 396 57 No 24.5
Judith Mary Manor12 3.08 37.01 2,147 179 Yes 42
Lake Elmo Heights40 2.56 102.39 6,420 161 Yes Private 140 8136.4
Lake Elmo Vista10 3.25 32.53 1,692 169 No 35
Torre Pines212.93 70.38 4,150 198 No Community 73.5 4271.61
Midland Meadows13 7.87 102.35 4,504 346 Yes 45.5
Rolling Hills12 2.81 33.77 2,943 245 Yes 42
RE Average19.0833333 3.408333333 60.3425 3,330 156 66.79166667 3881.740833
RSBerschen's Shores24 0.67 16 2860 119 Yes 84
Bergman Addition11 0.42 4.6 1025 93 Yes 38.5
Down's Lake2 1.51 3.02 767 384 Yes 7
David Nelson Estates5 1.68 8.41 588 118 No 17.5
Darwin Acres14 0.87 12.17 3432 245 No 49
Eden Park55 1.2 66.12 4600 84 Yes/No 192.5
Kenridge25 0.69 17.38 3000 120 Yes 87.5
Lake Elmo Park73 0.57 45.03 3203 44 Yes 255.5
Tablyn Park63 0.84 52.74 5,920 94 Yes Private 220.5 12814.83
Tartan Meadows38 1.6 60.84 4,800 126 Yes Private 133 7729.58
Teal Pass Estates15 1.94 29.15 2,304 154 Yes 52.5
Firefox Estates58 2.11 122.31 9,199 159 Yes 203
Friedrich Heights13 45.5
The Forest18 1.96 35.2 1,675 93 No Private 63 3661.38
Lane's Demontreville Country Club45 157.5
Bordners Garner Farmettes48 1.42 67.89 5,220 109 Yes Private 168 9763.68
DeMontreville Highlands1401.18 83.87 8,345 60 Yes Private 490 28477.4
Oace Acres100 350
Packard Park21 73.5
Water's Bay4 14
Springborn's Green Acres31 108.5
Conclusions
Resources
The Rural Area Analysis provides a summary of the
subdivisions infrastructural totals, dimensions and
populations within the Rural Planning Area of Lake
Elmo. The information provided by this study aims
to guide future decisions regarding rural zoning and
land uses. The research provided outlines the issues
surrounding new development and expansion in rural
areas and the fiscal implications of development. With
lots larger than one acre, it is more profitable for a
developer to install septic systems than sewer systems.
This is true even in areas with access to public sewer.
Lots smaller than one acre provide a favorable return for
the developer in areas with access to public sewer or in
cluster development (Mohamed, 2009).
Road costs are typically greater than sanitary system
costs. Per capita road maintenance costs decrease as
density increase (Duncan et al, 1999).
Duncan Associates, MN Department of Agriculture,
Public and Environmental Finance Associates, Diddams
Consulting (1999). Cost of Public Services Study (1-3).
Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
Mohamed, R. (2009). Why do residential developers
prefer large exurban lots? Infrastructure costs and
exurban development. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 36, 12-29.
Newburn, D., & Berck, P. (2011). Exurban
Development. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 62, 323-336.
The suggested strategy for growth to reduce local
government costs is to maintain growth in areas
serviced by the new public sewer, and in areas with City
Water. Private wells in Lake Elmo can surpass $30,000
as the depth needed for safe water is large. As new
development occurs within the areas adjacent to public
sewer and water, the cost of wastewater and water
services will decline, as will local government costs. It
is recommended that new development be encouraged
in the areas with public sewer and water, and that new
development located in the Rural Planning Areas of
Lake Elmo be larger than one acre if using a septic
system, and smaller than one acre if using a community
sewer septic system.
Zone
Lot Size # (ave. size) # (ave. size) # (ave. size)
>36 acres 11 (64) 20 (55)
18-36 acres 7 (25) 102 (15)
9-18 acres 16 (13) 70 (11)
5-9 acres 8 (7) 41 (6)
1-5 acres 13 (3.3) 45 (n/a)
>1.5 acres 334 (2.4)
<1.5 acres 1,202 (0.75)
A RR RS