Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 3.26.07 PacketCity of Lake Elmo �-*, Minutes of February 26, 2007 Chairman. Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ptacek, Fliflet, Armstrong, Van Zandt, Lyzenga, Roth, Deziel, and Schneider. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Gozola, Interim Administrator T. Bouthilet, and Planner Matzek. Agenda Add 7H. Handout from Park Commission M/S/P, Van Zandt/Deziel to accept the Agenda as amended. Vote: Minutes M/S/P, Roth/Lyzenga to accept the Minutes of January 22, 22007 as presen led. Vote: 8:0. Variance to Lot Width - 3200 Lake Elmo Avenue Senior Planner Gozola introduced the application for a Variance to lot width at 3200 Lake Elmo Avenue in order to create a minor subdivision on the applicant's land. A public hearing was held at the January 22, 2007 Planning Commission 'meeting,, The application was then tabled at that meeting. The applicant's have since altered the proposed lot ,line to reduce the variances from two toone. Parcel F is proposed to have increased frontage along Lake Elmo Avenue. Due to the new configuration, the road frontage along 32"d Street would be the front yard and the lot width would be met at that location. The lot width at. the shoreland setback on Parcel F continues to not meet the required 150 foot width. At the previous meeting there was,discussion of whether to recommend the movement of the existing driveway to access 32"' Street. Senior Planner Gozola stated that section 400.14 Subd. 8(f) of the City Cod&.States that with A subdivision, the lots shall access onto local streets wherever possible. Staff.Would askthatthe applicant's work with the City Engineer to relocate the existing driveway onto 32nd Street. Senior Planner Gozola identified a number of potential vehicle accident conflict points that are possible in turning in and out of the existing driveway from Lake Elmo Avenue. By moving the driveway, three conflict points would be eliminated. He stated that the level of traffic is anticipated to increase on Lake Elmo Avenue because of the planned and guided growth. The number of average vehicles per day were presented as is shown in the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Gozola stated that he would still recommend requiring the standard utility easements around the perimeter of the proposed lots. He suggested allowing a one year timeframe for the applicants to hook the homes up to city water. The applicants are proposing two septic locations for the two proposed lots. As the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as slated for sewer, an approval of this variance should not preclude the city, if it so chooses to do so in the future, ftom requiring the land owners to Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes — February 26, 2007 hook up to the future sewer lines. There is currently no policy in place requiring existing land owners to hook up to sewer in the future. Staff is recommending approval with the nine conditions listed in the report. Chairman Ptacek asked for clarification on the one year timeline for hooking up to water. Senior Planner Gozola stated it would be helpful to the City to have a timeline for homeowners to connect to the city water lines. Anthony Dorland, applicant's attorney Mr. Dorland stated that on page seven of the staff report is the listed conditions of approval. His clients are opposed to #1, 3, and 4 for the main reason that the conditions are applicable for the subdivision of unimproved land where there is not an existing water supply. That is not the case in this situation. Staff has come up with new reasons such as safety for the movement of the existing driveway. He is concerned about driving on 32'd Street because it is very narrow and may not be any safer. He stated that the requested easement would contain existing non- conforming structures which the applicant would like to grant a sewer easement. Mr. Dorland stated that the app water supply. It is not necessary to shut down the existi Commissioner Deziel asked Mr. Dorland what was the standard drainage casements. Mr. Dorland said there are two legally non line. If there is an easement, a utility corral pillars on the existing driveway would a lk Planner Gozola said he would r lakeshore, and 5 feet along side Chairman Ptacek Gozola stated that may there pplicant would be willing to y has a safe and adequate to condition #3 regarding the nforming structures along the southern property y could say the structures need to be removed. The 11 within the easement. easements along the roadway, 20 feet along the ection for the existing non -conforming structures. issue for the City Attorney. Carolyn Horttor, Co-applicaid, Ms. Horttor stated she would like to address the three recommendations the attorney addressed. She stated that 32nd Street is narrow and lined with vegetation. Currently, both 32nd Street and Lake Elmo Avenue have speed limits of 30 mph. The existing driveway has an excellent view of oncoming traffic. There is a 3 foot shoulder on Lake Elmo Avenue which also helps. She spoke with Joe Lux and Carol Hanson at Washington County regarding the proposed additional driveway. The permit is on file with the City for the proposed future driveway. She has seen more accidents on 32nd Street. The existing driveway does not cause flooding concerns. 71s. Aorttor stated that with condition #4 she does not have concerns about attaching the new home to water and sewer. However, the existing home has a deep existing well that has an excellent water source and is tested annually by the property owner. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:27 P.M. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes -- February 26, 2007 Constance Smith, Co -applicant Ms. Smith stated that a lot of people park on 32'd Street in front of the garages and it is a dangerous road. Commissioner Deziel suggested taking the conditions piece by piece since there are a few contentious recommendations. Chairman Ptacek asked for a straw vote to determine if the commission should look at the conditions individually. The commission agreed to look at conditions 1, 3, and 4 separately with an 8:0 vote. Chairman Ptacek asked for clarification on condition #1 Senior Planner Gozola stated that the County has no choice about legally non -conforming. He said Joe Lux with the County would., existing driveway. Commissioner Deziel recalled the applicant's statement and therefore it may be dangerous. The City may need, too narrow. The Senior Planner has identified good stat Commissioner Roth asked if there was any 400. Senior Planner Gozola said there is Commissioner Fliflet stated that Se the movement would create a safer does not see the speed inct , 6ASIA9:1­ this condition. fisting driveway as it is .e City to get rid of the that they always stop to look �I e I nts to 32"u Street; it may be moving the existing driveway. t and new subdivisions in Ch mer I GO.Kola made good points, but she does not think for the I 'driveway. It is 30 mph in this location and only one driveway access. She would not support Chairman Ptacek asked for a straw Voll for condition #1. This resulted in a tie 4:4 Commissioner Armstrong stated-.0that condition #3 regarding the easements is pretty standard. Statutes allow the property owner to keep the existing structures. This is an important condition since utilities are going to be added in the future Cornmissioner Deziel asked if the utility company could make them remove the buildings. iijiillli!!!Illl III Senior Planner Gozola stated that for all practical purposes the easements would be for drainage purposes in the future. He is not sure it would be used for utilities. Commissioner Fliflet suggested the City Attorney may have suggestions for rewording the easement to protect the homeowners regarding the existing buildings. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes — February 26, 2007 DRAFT Chairman Ptacek asked if they were unanimous in leaving in #3. There was agreement of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Flifiet asked if the City Code addressed developments with an existing building or if it assumed it was all raw land. Senior Planner Gozola stated he is fairly confident in his interpretation of code, Commissioner Armstrong stated he thought the city would not be forcing residents to hook up to utilities unless there was a health, safety and welfare issue. He would like to see condition #4 deleted. Commissioner VanZandt said that in the tri -lakes area there is concern if they will be forced to hook up to water. That is a major concern. Chairman Ptacek said he will differ from Commissioner has some concern about the contamination plume. Commissioner Deziel said he believes this is a safe area that as long as individual's wells continue to function, tl MIS/P Armstrong/Fliflet to approve striking conditions I a Government Training Services Assistant Planner Matzek encouraged the Planning offered through the Government Training Services: 2007 Work Plan Senior Planner Gozola said the meeting with the City Council. discussion. Since then, he has the zoning district ordinances. ordinances would be awromia Commissioner Fliflet said she map. of condition #4. He for watei.-.,He agrees with Tom ,uld not force them to hook up. )m the staff report. 4:4 attend a workshop that is I a response by March 2,d ommissio n discussed this work plan at the February l3th joint He created the priontized work plan from the meeting po.ken with the Metropolitan Council representative regarding le confirmed with the representative that interim zoning for the village area and the area South of 10th Street. input on the list. I I IN 1!, 11111, 11!''! 11! ii NINE I Z City Council Updates Planner Matzek stated that a joint meeting was held on February 13 th between the Planning Commission and the City Council. A work plan was created and allowed an open dialog between the comnussion and the City Council. At the February 20th Council meeting a septic Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes -- February 26, 2007 DRAFT system variance was approved at 11225 31St St. N., a moratorium was placed on sexually oriented businesses, and commercial outdoor social events was discussed. On February 27Ih the consulting village planners will give a presentation on the Village Area Master Plan. At an unknown future meeting, the draft park plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Handout from Park Commission Chairman Ptacek said he had received a statement on Sunfish Lake Park- from Parks Chairman Steele and would like to distribute it to the commission for their information. Mayor Johnston stated that the city has an unmet need for approximately 20 acres of play fields which are currently planned for in the village area, with a need for additional playfields by 2030. Thirty acres of land South of Sunfish Lake Park is currently being used for agriculture. One of the questions the City needs to consider is the financial implications of where the playfields would be built. It should be considered to place low intensity uses like ball fields in that 30 acres. Respectfully submitted, Kelli Matzek Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes — February 26, 2007 Lake Elrno Planning Con-anission Agenda Item Executive Surnmary Title (?f Item: PUBLIC HEARING: A variance application to allow a private off-site septic system on less than 1 acre at Lot 11, Block 1, Ruth's I" Addition, located off Klondike Avenue North Meeting Date: 3-26-07 Stq,f ,jfGuestRepordnen Gozola, City Planner Suinmary.The applicant is seeking two variances to allow for the construction C� of an off-site septic facility for a proposed new home ort Lot 11, Blk 1, Ruth's Is'Addition to Lake Eli -no, The variances are as follows - 1. A variance from the requirement that the sewage treatment system must be 4;011 -site." 1 A 0.38 acre (16,572 sq ft) variance from the required one (1) acre septic site for a dwelling unit. Staff analyzed both requests using the general standards called for by statute, and the specific standards called for by Lake Elio City Code. Based on our analysis of the review criteria in state statute and in City Code, staff would recommend AppLoval of the variance request to locate a septic system off-site, but denial of the variance request to place such a septic system within an easement of less than one acre. Staff's recommended findings for each request are provided in the report, as are suggested conditions to be attached to any approval.. The 60 -day review period for this application expires on 4-27-07, but can be extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed. Main, Points: 1. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an off-site septic t - system, and a variance to allow a septic system on less than one acre. 2. Staff is recommending approval of the variance to allow the off- site system, but denial of the variance on septic site area. VA h3 ondilkC A, wJ )c I -h B4,!x I? J Z 264) 7 0 City of Lake Elmo Planning Departnient Variance Report To: Planning Commission Froin: Ben Gozola, City Planner Meeting Date: 3.26-07 Applicant: Joe Bush Owner: Same Location: Lot 11, Blk 1, Ruth's 1" Addition to Lake Elmo Zoning: R-1 Introductory 1, Proposed The applicant is seeking two variances to allow for the construction of an off --site Project: septic facility for a proposed new home on Lot It, Blk 1, Ruth's I't Addition to Lake Elmo. Section 300.07 Zoning Districts Subd.. 4.4 LcLR-1 — One Family ResidepLial fflediujnj2ensity� ...3. Minimum District Requirements ...Septic Drainfield Regulations: All lots must have at least one (1) acre of C) land suitable for septic drainfields and area sufficient for two (2) separate and district drainfield sites. Placement of the second required drainfield between the trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited. [sic] Section 300.09 Additions and Exceptions to Minimum Area, Height, and Other Requirements. Subd. L ExiLsti.n�Lot An existing lot is a lot or parcel of land in a residential district which was of record as a separate lot or parcel in the office of the County Recorder or registrar of titles, on or before the effective date of this section. Any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district may be used for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the area and width of the lot are within sixty percent (60%) of the minimum requirements of this section, provided all. setback requirements of this section must be maintained; and provided it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage treatments systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling... 'ariance ReqbhPSU ot 1f. .lit- '� /', Ruth',S "'Adolitiori to Lake r°t`trttriim, Commivsioit Report,� 3-- '1d}_07 (conl) Section 300.09 Additions and Exceptions to Minimum Area, Height, and Other Requirements. Subd. 8. Minimum Area lie gin rements for Lots Without Public Sanitar Sewer. In areas without public sanitary sewer where public sanitary sewer is not proposed in the City Capital Improvement Program or Comprehensive Plan..single and two family homes shall demonstrate suitable soil conditions for a. minimum on-site sewage treatment area of one (1) acre per dwelling unit. r.n Variance For the proposed project, the applicants will need the following variances: Request(s): 1. A variance from the requirement that the sewage treatment system must be "on- site." 2. A 0.38 acre (16,572 sq ft) variance from the required one (1) acre septic site for a dwelling unit. Z:� FJ M1,10-2 I M-11 Site Data: I Lot Size — 1.37 acres (59,677.2 square feet) Existing Use — Vacant Land Existing Zoning — R-1 C) Property Identification Number: 23-029-21-11-0003 om Applicable Code BUILDABLE LAND AREA. The gross land area less the unbuildable land area that 4:� includes hydric and restrictive soils, land with slopes over 25%, wetlands, and areas that cannot accommodate septic systems. BUILDING LINE. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required. setback beyond which a structure may not extend. BUILDING SETBACK LINE. Aline within a lot parallel to a public right-of- way line, a side or rear lot line, a bluff line, or a high water mark or line, behind which buildings or structures must be placed. DOMESTIC WASTEWATER. Waste water that is primarily produced by residential users, with B.O.D.5 concentrations of approximately 250 mg/1 and suspended solids concentration of approximately 300 nig/l. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILE A residential structure designed for or used exclusively as 1 dwelling unit of permanent occupancy. Klomfik,�_ Alvejoe 1hv,,hV?ep­,1oe, 1-hish.,?­26-07doc Page 2 Virtancc Re.,qucst: Lof N, Btk f, Ruth',% 1Add.Won to 1_ako Elmo mwais,,,a si,�Reno�rt: 3-26-017 EASEMENT. The right granted. by a property owner to another or to the public to use a tract of land for the purpose of constructing and maintaining drives, utilities, including,but not limited to, sanitary sewers, water mains, electric lilies, telephoney lines, storm sewer or storm drainage ways, and gas lines. HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; that the plight of the L) tD landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; and that these unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. c ZD HOLDING TANK. A watertight sewage tank for the temporary storage of sewage ZD until it is transported to an approved. point for treatment and disposal. INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. A septic tank, seepage tile sewage disposal system, or other sewage treatment device. 11 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. An on-site sewage treatment system connecting to a single dwelling or other establishment, consisting of soil treatment unit, septic tank, and any associated pumping and piping systems.r_� LOT, RIPARIAN. A separate parcel of land within a designated shoreland area having frontage along a. lake or tributary stream. MOUND SYSTEM. An alternative sewage treatment system designed with the soil treatment area built above grade grade to overcome the limitations of water 1'� table, bedrock, or soil permeability. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OR ELE VATION (O.H.W.). The boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For water courses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. SEPTIC TANK. A sound, durable, watertight sewage tank designed and constructed to receive the discharge of sewage from a building sewer, separate solids from liquids, digest organic matter, and store liquids through a period of detention. SHORE IMPACT ZONE. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel. to it at a. setback. of 50% of the structure setback. SALand Klondike Ave--d0e Bits1N?cp­Joe Bu.sh-3-26-.07.doc 11'age Vari(fflce Reqivesf: I.Im 111, &k j, Rtah',s IA,,,h,,J'ition v; Elnw lllannin,,,� ("Onmilssion Report,''i-26-07 Cora. Variance Criteria® SHORELAND. Land located within the following distances from public waters: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or foliage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extend of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a river or stream; whichever is greater. The limits of shorelaDds may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the Commissioner. STANDARD SYSTEM. An individual sewage treatment system employing a building sewer, sewage tank, and the soil treatment system commonly known as a dram field or leach field. STEEP SLOPE. (1) Land where agricultural activity or development is either not reconu-nended or described as poorly suited, due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12%, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet, or more, that are not bluffs. By state statute, there are three definitive criteria that all variances must address. The three criteria are as follows, along with staff's analysis of the applicant's requests. Z:I A. Is the variance request reasonable? The hardship requirement does not inean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the property owners must show that they would like to use their property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. Staff finds that the request to place the septic site on an adjacent property rather than on the subject property is reasonable. Section 300.09, subd 1, states that this type of lot (a lot of record which provides 60% of the lot width and area requirement) is eligible to be used for one single family dwelling. Staff would interpret the City's septic regulations to be focused on the proper treatment of wastewater regardless of the location of the septic site. The fact that multiple shared off-site systems exist throughout the community supports this position. For the request to locate the septic area off-site, staff finds this criteria is satisfied. Provided the septic area on the adjacent parcel is covered by an easement which runs in favor of the subject parcel; and provided the proposed area is shown to be able to support a primary and alternate septic site; staff believes the requested variance for a site area of less than one acre is also reasonable and meets this criteria. Klondike Avt loe M,Yh\Rcp---Jo(' BuS1?_3--26-W.d0c `il"«i-ie,lii(:r�'Reqrf,r,y7,� LoT 1t, Blk 1, I?uf I i ,�tddition to E,,"H I lo 111(u,ming Report: 3.-26-07 (cont.) B. Does the application present unique circumstances? For the request to have an off-site septic system, staff finds this application does present unique circumstances and meets this criteria. While the lot itself is considered a lot of record and is eligible for a single family dwelling, encumbrances (i.e. steep slopes & wetlands) restrict the area available for an on- site septic system. As code establishes a 60% rule as the threshold for buildable lots or record, it is already recognized that a parcel as small as 0.90 acres could be buildable even though it could never meet the 1 acre septic area requirement. With regards to the request to have less than a one (1) acre site for the primary and alternate systems, we do not rind this situation to be unique and therefore the second request rails ih­iscriteria. The applicant is currently the owner of both parcels in question. The property proposed to host the septic system for the subject lot is 8.78 acres in size and could easily support the required one acre septic site. It is our understanding that the applicant has already provided a future buyer an option on the 8.78 acres, and therefore expanding the proposed casement may certainly be a problem for the applicant. However, we do not find that loss of a potential sale of property is a unique circumstance. Staff would recon-u-nend the easement be expanded to meet code requirements to eliminate the need for this second variance. C If approved, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The construction of a single home on this lot and a septic site across the street would have DO impact on the essential character of Lake Elmo. Staff finds this criteria is met for both requests. The applicant must also establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 300.06 Subd. 3, before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. For ease of review, staff C, provides a three part breakdown of the definition of "hardship" in Lake Elmo City code to ensure the requests are meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance. D. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; As a home cannot be constructed without a septic site in this area, and as code does allow for parcels of less than one acre to be eligible for building, staff ZD believes this criteria is met for the proposed off-site system. Clearly the allowed home cannot be established without this variance, so staff rinds this criteria is satisfied for the off-site septic location. With regards to the variance request for a substandard septic area (less than one acre), an alternative does exist: expansion of the proposed easement. Once the casement on the neighboring property meets or exceeds the required one acre, the neighboring need for this second variance is eliminated. As expansion of the easement is Klondike Ave -doe BusIM(p...-Joe Blush .?-26-0.doc Tia'c"e "5 Varioncc A'equext: I w N, Blk ", I" Adolitioo, �,ei b--tkc Elmo Plamain- Commission Peport: 3-"6-07 (Icon't„ )" possible (the applicant is the Owner of the property), and as there is plenty of room available for the needed expansion, staff finds this criteria is not met For the septic area. size variance E. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; Again, for the request to move the septic system off-site, this criteria is clearly met given the physical constraints on the lot and the fact that code recognizes the land as buildable. Likewise, this criteria is not met for the septic area size variance as there are no physical limitations hampering the creation of the required one acre septic site. F. The unique conditions ql'the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. The applicant had no control over the characteristics on the subject parcel and the fact that it is not physically possible to set aside an acre of land for septic purposes and still be able to build. As such, this criteria is met, for the request to have the septic system off-site. Conversely, the applicant is the owner of the parcel on which the septic is proposed to be located and does have the ability to comply with code. The reason for not complying with code is financial due to the existing option on the property. As such a situation was created by the applicant and has nothing to do with a unique feature of the land, staff finds this criteria is not met for the septic area size variance. Variance Based on our analysis of the review criteria in state statute and in City Code, staff Conclusions: would reconu-nend approval of the variance request to locate a septic system off - ,_ site, but denial of the variance request to place such a septic system within an easement of less than one acre. ResideniStaff is not aware of any resident concerns surrounding the requested variances. Con, I L 4111, 'U Attached to the report, please find a memo from the VBWD regarding the request. You will note the watershed district did not identify any environmental issues that would make them opposed to the septic system even if it were built on less than one (1) acre. Additionally, they recommend a number of conditions to attach to any approval. SAI -and (I'se\ I I'll riol weAv-vxx Momlike Ave -Joe BimlMep—Joc Btfsh,-3-26-07.doc" Pttge 6 Varianc(., Reques,,: Loi !/, BIk L Rurh',s Addition to I-ake Elmo Comunission, Reporf,i 3-26-07 ic;orf.f.1 Attached you will also find an email from Travis Gern-iundson (DNR) indicating that he has "... [no] comment on the proposed variance..." He does note that if this were to proceed, he would recommend the property owner to the north (also on Lake Elmo) be approached as future septic may also be a problem for that parcel, and an opportunity for a shared site across the street may exist. to As a final point, staff would Dote that the current comprehensive plan guides the area across the street for sewer, but does not guide these lakeshore parcels for connections. Given that removing septic systems from the shoreland area is an environmentally sound. practice, and given that the land will be adjacent to public sewer in the future, consideration may need to be given at some point to incorporating these riparian Lake Elmo lots into the urbanized Village area. L� As of the writing of this report, we had not received any written corm-nents from TKDA on these variance requests. It is anticipated that all engineering comment will be provided at the meeting. Conclusion: The applicants are seeking approval of the following two variances: C5 L A variance from the requirement that the sewage treatment system must be "on- site." 2, A 0.38 acre (16,572 sq ft) variance from the required one (1) acre septic site for a dwelling unit. Planning The Planning Con-unission has the following options: Com Options: A) Recommend Council approve the requested variance to allow the proposed septic system to be located off-site, and also approval of the requested 0.38 acre variance from the required one (1) acre septic site for a dwelling unit; both recommendations based on the applicant's submittals and findings of fact. B) Recommend approval of one request, but denial of the other based on the applicant's submittals and findings of fact for each variance. Q Recommend denial of both variances based on the applicant's submittals and findings of fact. D) Table the item and request additional information The 60 -day review period for this application expires on 4-27-07, but can be extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed. S:V,and Klondike Av(,,-Joe )andM'ep---Joe Btish 3-26-071doc Pa g V 7/ /aritatce liC'L7Lwsi,` Lor %1, 1313 1, % arth's % ',Avl ltft:)n to J ak IS'hilo '`!(?i112fIt�? E,llf7 f7bl i',1 )7t ,� C-'f>r)ri; ,L?6-{J/ Staff Reca Staff is recommending approval of the variance to allow an off-site septic system based on the following: (1) The requested variances is reasonable given the lot is eligible to be used for one single family dwelling and the off-site septic location will satisfactorily meet environmental standards for such systems. (2) The situation is unique in that code recognizes the subject parcel as buildable even though an on-site septic system could never be designed to meet code. (3) The character of the City will not be impacted by an off-site septic system. (4) The applicant was not responsible for the constraints on the property which prevent placement of an on-site septic system which meets code requirements. Staff is recommending denial of the variance to place the off-site septic system within an easement of less than one acre based on the following: (1) The request is not unique as the applicant owns both parcels, and can easily provide a septic easement conforming to the one (1) acre minimum. (2) No hardship exists as there are no physical limitations restricting the creation of the required one acre, septic site. Denial To deny both requests or one of the requests, you may use the following motion as a Motion guide: Template: I move that we direct staff to prepare a resolutions of denial for the requested variance based on the following findings of fact ... (use sta%f"s provided above or cite your own.) Approval To approve both requests or one of the requests, you may use the following motion as Motion a guide: Template: I move that we direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the requested variance rased on the following findings of fact ... (use stgff's provided above or cite your ovvn) n o ®with the following conditions- 1. ornditio s-1 e The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the City and other applicable entities with jurisdiction prior to any feature construction or activity on the land. 2® The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, as drafted by the City Attorney, regarding the construction of that portion of the sewage treatment system that will he located within the public right-of-way SN"and Ave -Joe BuslMep-..JoePubsh3- 007.doc "age 8 Variomce Requcsr: L"n 1 /. B/k 1, Ruth's /` Addition to Le. -&c 1) 6, - 7 , lanning Coinmi,,sion 3-" _ 1)U! 3. The applicant shall hook up to the municipal sewer system once it becomes available if mandated to do so by the City. 4. The lowest floor elevation for any future new home shall be at or above Elevation 893.0. 5. A permanent buffer strip at least 35 -feet wide, measured perpendicular to the Ordinary High Water level (Elevation 885.6) and extending 35 feet inland, shall be established. 6. For the future home, a mowed access and shoreline is allowed but, shall not exceed 30 feet in width. Access paths shall not be tocated where concentrated runoff will flow to the take. 7. Temporary and permanent erosion controls must be installed in conjunction with future activity per the direction of the City Engineer. 8. The variance shall expire one year from the date of resolution; City Council approval will be required for any subsequent extension. cc: Joe Bush, Applicant Klondike Av(,.'...)oe Bu,YhV?cp----.Ioe Rush.--3--26--07.,-J()C March 21, 2007 Ms. Kelli Matzek City of Lake Elmo 3900 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re"Variance Request, Lot 11, Block 1, Ruth's Is'Addition, Lake Elmo Dear Ms. Matzek: W Thank you for, forwarding the variance request for, the above-refeienced project. The project involves a. constructing a house on Lot 11, Block I of Ruth's I" Addition and a mound septic system on Parcel 2, which is directly west of Lot I L The variance request is to allow the off-site septic,, Concept Plan Theconcept layout shown in Exhibit C indicates that two 1000 -gallon septic tanks are proposed on the north sidle of Lot 1 L The septic tanks should have bases no lower than Elevation 893.0. The concept mound system is shown west of Klondike Avenue. Based on Exhibit A, an I8 inch diameter culvert is located under Klondike Avenue at the proposed septic system easement. The west invert of the culvert appears to be approximately Elevation 909. It is not clear how large of an area drains to this culvert and the 100 -year flood level of the pending area at the culvert. It is possible for the pending area behind the culvert (on the west side of Klondike Avenue) to flood a portion of the proposed septic system easement. However, it appears the proposed iriound system will be above Elevation 920, according to the concept shown in Exhibit C, and safe from flooding. Miscellaneous Comments The VBWD Itules require the following: The new home's basement must be no lower than Elevation °093.0. ro A permanent buffer, strip at least 35 feet wide, measured perpendicular to the Ordinary High Water level (Elevation 885,6) and extending 35 feet inland, must be established. A mowed access and shoreline is allowed, but 'should not exceed 30 feet. Access paths must not be located where concentrated runoff will flow to the lake. Temporary and permanent erosion controls must be installed. The overall project might require a Valley Branch Watershed District Permit (VBWD), but I cannot make a final determination based on the information submitted,, The following activities require a VBWD permit: A. Land alterations, such as grading or filling (including re -development projects), which disturb, remove or cover- surface vegetation or other surfaces of I acre or more, B. All projects which create a new impervious surface area of 6,000 square feet or more, C. All work within the waters and floodplain of the VBWD, D. All projects which result in a discharge of municipal or industrial water or wastewater to a surface water drainage system, E. All subdivisions, plats, and developments, F. All projects which result in lake augmentation, G. All projects which impact a wetland,. Note: Valley Branch Watershed District is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) responsible for, administering the Wetland Conservation. Act LINCOLN FETCHER DAVID BUCHECK DONALD SCHEEL DALE SORASH DUANE JOHNSON VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT www.vbwd.org P.O. BOX 838 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538 Ms. Kelli Matzek March 21, 2007 PaRe 2 (WCA) within the VBWD, except the LGU responsible foradministering the WCA on state land is the agency with responsibility.fot- the land. This letter, provides my comments solely on the variance request. If the landowner wishes to construct the project, he should contact me to disc -Liss the details of the project ject so I can determine whether or not a VBWD permit is required. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2622, Sincerely, ,I P. Hanson, P.E, BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Engineers for the District VBWD Managers (via e-mail) Ben Gozola From: Kelli Matzek [Kell i.Matzek@lakeelmo.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:15 AM To: Ben Gozola Subject: FW: Block I Ruth's 1st Addition _____Original Message ----- From: Travis Germundson [mailto:Travis.Germundson@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:34 AM To: Kelli Matzek Subject: Block I Ruth's ist Addition I have not comment on the proposed variance request to allow a private off-site septic system. The city may want to consider having the applicant contact the property owner to the North regarding the possibility of constructing a shared or community system. Since it appears that parcel would have similar constrains imposed. I 15 - PRELIMINARY VILLAGE AREA FUTURE LAND USE Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2005 - 2030 Limitation of Liability Map Date: January 31, 2006 Thi. d.—,..t I. ..t . Wpfiy—a .d ..P I --y -d is nal ;mantled tubeweadasllle, Created By: TKDA and infarmall.n f.. —1— ww'. county, and dly z D- I —,—I— Legend Land Use ml— VR -HD EM VR-MU/MD P0O8,00 1,200 ED VR -LD 0 2 MVR -G[3 Feet VR-P/S February 27, 2007 City of Lake Elmo (2/R 0 M E S PLE.- Detailed -request of variance, Attention City of Lake Elmo: The referenced property knoiAm as, Lot 11, Block 1, Ruth's I" Addition to Lalic Eli -no, Attached Exhibit "IV' is a non confbicn-fing lot that has hardship needs for a unique septic systeni. My hardship exists as this lot was recorded as a functional lot of record before current code was ivdtten- and the current property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the zoning. code. My hatdship and primary variance request is to put a septic system off 'tea, n , I m � o site s I am ot abile to eet the on site requirements of septic system (Code 325.06 Subd 9B) and, section (300.09 Subd-08)� I have a buildable area on Lot I I for a reasonable home that will not change the essential character of t1le neighborho4 but I do not have sufficient space for an appropriate septic system. I ovm. the property across the road Imown as Parcel 2 (Exlibit "A"). I have engineered a septic system that would be placed on parcel 2. See attached documents, Exhibit "A" — Site plan shows Parcel I and Parcel 2 and Dew septic system easement. Exhibit "B" — Actual documents recorded atWashing ton Comity for easement. Exhibit "C" — Septic design by licensed engineer showing a proper and primiary anad, swondaij, system placed. on. parcel 2 within the easement. 'In addition to on site needs for vanance I am. requesting the size of tine land required for nay septic be, 269988 square feet in lieu of the one acre requirement listed in the R-1 zonh-ig district, As you can. see by the attached documents I have denionstrated that the easement created and septic design fit a primary and secondary system. PleaseI un also attaching correspondence letters that may help all involved with some of the, pro, id�ings pr these se requests, Attached letters Exhibit "D" and,,E,99. .Ganef ep p P. Bush . Bush Homes 3537 LAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH , LAKE ELMO MN 55042 OFFICE, (651) 777--6162 FAX (6 fj I ) 777--6134 w vv wj P b u S 11, co ul I'll, I I E ULA A V L' J � _j 7 L 1"') V 1 1 1 Q " , I'll' U, UA, MAJ r AA, IV, U, & 9ft- �btD IMM CITY OF FF L A K E 651/777-5510 (of Laket, Elmo 3800, Laverne Avortue, 1",Iarfl-i Lalee Elaio, IM"I 55042 Nuveynl)er 14, 2,006 ,t a(-, :B, usb jj"ti Bush Home)." ooMmoION' �1,5042 Doar,Mn Bush: -r u y "M y 1-te j,,.,ake Elmo Bidld�ng Official, and I Ijave- reviewed. the. ,,, rve. ROTI MOC d dopicts e ' Klondike, Awc�nuc that is pmp .� site, 011, fl)z west ""we" of 'to sv,ve as tlio drain field sitz fora'site oyn, t11 e east side, of Klondike Avetam- that. is not itself,' of sufficient dry IAnd area to support a lain field site. Wc� Can find no speciffic prohibition hi the,LWe Elmo City Code for a remate drain field site by easemont in, the- xnannen that the sir vee depias. Fje,a.se nof..e, t1lat a City Right -Of -Way permit would be, mquired fox the waste pipp, crossing ukider Klonftm Avenue. Also note, j.,Izat no jnfoimauon has been proscutod from celfied stic -signer that derrionstrate,-, that the speeffic caseMent are�'a depictod on I l'ep the say -jocts'Irv0Y Will Or will )Dot provide sufficient surface area and/or suitablesolls to ,qu-pport. both a primary and, back I:vp draft, field, Site. Sincerely Yours, ty C "It d City Planner cC. jlnj. jv' �ic,jqa.m, ara, Rafliding Official PTIfINd On eecyded paper W-arren E Peterson Jerome R Filla Daniel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman John Michael Miller Michael T. Oberle Steven H. Bruns* Paul W Falming' Amy K. L. Schmidt Ben 1. Rust Jared M. Goerlitz ' P E MAN BERGMAN February 16, 2007 Kell) Matzek Assistant City Planner City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo WIN 55082 RE. Lot I I., Ruth's I-" Addition Our file. 11150/06-19 Dear Kelli: Suite &W 55 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1718 (651) 291-8955 (651) 228-1753 facsimile www.pfb-paxom E x h I b I t E . CS jtp F- �"4 This correspondence will summarize my thoughts regarding the application of the City's regulations to the development of Lot 11 of Ruth's First Addition ("Property"). The Property is currently a nonconforming riparian lot. Nonconforming lots: within the shoreland zone do not require a lot size variance if the following criteria can be satisfied:. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the zoning district. In this case, the proposal is for a single family home, which is allowed in this particular zoning district, 2. The l'ot has been in separate ownership since it became nonconforming. The lot became nonconforming when the City adopted its shoreland regulations, This is when the 1.5 acre lot size standard was imposed. I do not have enough information to know whether the Property and Lot 10'and/or the area south of the Property were in common ownership since it first became a nonconforming iota 3, The lot satisfied the City's regulations when it was created. The plat of Ruth's First Addition to Lake Elmo was approved in 1975. Presumably the lot satisfied the City's standards at that -time, or it would not have been approved. The,sewage treatment and set -back requirements of the shoreland regulations can be satisfied, The:City to evaluate this criteria until a e8t -lish-es, the location of the proposed specific appli*catiori is received that' ab buildint 9. 'ALSO ADIVIrrru) IN WISCONSIN February 16, 2007 Page 2 I am aware that the proposed sewage treatment system for the Property will be located across the road, The City's regulations require sewage treatment systems to be located on site (Lake Elmo Code Section 325,06, subd. 913, and Section 300.09, subd. 08), 1 would interpret the term "on site" to mean on the Property, If I am correct, the Property owner will need to apply -for a variance to the above -referenced City Code sections at the time he applies -for a building permit. In addition, the City and the Property owner will need to enter into an agreement regarding the construction of that portion of the sewage treatment system that will be located within the public right-of-way, The agreement will need to address the disruption and repair of the City's road when the sewage treatment system is installed and when it is repaired in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me, Very truly yours, cc: Thomas Bouthilet, Acting City Administrator U City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Ordinance Repeal TO: Planning Commission From: Kelli at k, City Planner Meeting Date: 3-26-07 Ordinance Ordinance 97 — 167; Commercial Social Outdoor Events Reviewed: Request. The City Council is seeking the Planning Commission's review and recommendation I regarding the repeal of Ordinance 97-167 Commercial Outdoor Social Events. Umm This ordinance was previously discussed over a series of meetings held at both the Planning Cormnission and City Council meetings in early 2006. A public hearing on the proposal was held at the Planning Commission on March 13, 2006. Throughout the meetings held by the Planning Commission and City Council, a number of concerns were brought up with regards to allowing commercial social outdoor events. Some examples are: consumption of alcohol on the site, parking, noise, structures, sanitation, frequency of events, time restrictions, and screening. Despite the concerns, this use was determined to be appropriate as a conditional use in the Agricultural zoning district and Ordinance 97-167 was adopted on May 16, 2006. The passage of time, complaints, and further consideration of potential impacts have prompted the City Council to direct staff to take steps necessary to repeal the language approved in Ordinance 97-167. Ordinance Review Existing Ordinance: The ordinance currently regulates the following itenis: - Minimum property size - Addition of structures (not allowed) - Frequency of events - Limitation on the number of people - Follow noise standards - Parking, screening ,fit linor Subdivision Revi(,nv: StWIA 3200 Lake Elmo A ventee Planning Cmmnission: 2-26-07 - Time of day and year - Sanitation provided - Prohibit charging an admission fee - Lighting The existing and complete ordinance is attached. z= Staff Comments: Currently, staff is not processing any applications that would depend upon this existing ordinance. Resident Concerns® - Staff has received a number of complaints regarding the existing ordinance. At this time, staff is not aware of any written complaints. The verbal concerns expressed at the March 6, 2007 City Council meeting are included in the attached minutes. The Planning Commission is asked to examine the existing ordinance and recommendation to repeal such, and make any recommendations to the City Council you deem appropriate. The Planning Commission has the following options: A) The Planning Commission may recommend no action. B) The Planning Commission may recommend an ordinance amendment. D) The Planning Commission may recommend a moratorium on Outdoor Commercial Social Outdoor Events to allow for further study on the issull E) The Planning Commission may table the request for further study, Recommended Staff recommends option C: Repeal of ordinance 97-167 Commercial Social Outdoor Action: Events through the adoption of the attached ordinance. CITY OFLAKE ELMO •[SIL4101of [$JW4JJ WIL1,MILIEV I INLAT WAGIL41 WE01 11 LH E H �Uft The City Council hereby ordains that Section 300.07, Subdivision 4.A,2(h) of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: h. Commercial Outdoor Social Events, subject to the following required conditions: 1. A site tax parcel area not less than 10 acres. 2. No existing permanent or newly constructed structures may be used. Tents are allowed. 3. Events limited to twice weekly and only during the months of May through October. 4. Attendance at events shall be limited to 250 people. 5. Compliance with City Code Ambient Noise standards. 6. All parking shall be off-street, and shall be set back and/or adequately screened from adjoining properties. 7. Limiting the hours for any event to 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. including take down activity. All event -related people must be off the site by 10:00 p.m. 8. On-site portable sanitation adequately sized for the events. 9. Prohibiting charging an admission fee for any commercial outdoor social event. 10. The lighting meets code and lights go off at 10:00 p.m.. mein Rffffly.��� U Mbifin J. Rafferty, Pity Ini Am, ' 0 Published in the Lake Elmo Leader Anthony Dorland, Moss & Barnett (attorney), Minneapolis, provided a handout to the Council outlining the applicants' position brought forth in the Staff report. Carolyn Hortter, 1959 North Park Drive, St. Paul, stated this was her childhood home and her mother still resides there. The current driveway and the two pillars marking their driveway have been there almost a hundred years, and are at least 8 feet before the curb. The County approved the proposed second driveway in the event the property was ever split. To move the current driveway will involve trees and. vegetation being cut down. The existing well is 952 feet deep, not contaminated and gets tested yearly. Hooking up to City water should continue to be the residents' choice. The Council stated that as the Old Village develops, traffic on Lake Elmo Avenue will continue to increase as the City grows. General consensus was that additional time was needed to consider the minor subdivision and variance applications before making an informed decision. M/S/P Smith/DeLapp — to table for farther discussion at the March 13, 2007, Council Workshop and return to the March 20, 2007, Council meeting for a decision. (Motion passed 5-0) The City Attorney requested legal descriptions of the side yard easements before returning to the Council, Council Members also requested that all City Code issues discussed at tonight's meeting be interpreted by the City Attorney prior to the March 13, 2007, Council Workshop meeting. B. Review of the Commercial Outdoor Social Events Ordinance 97-167 The Senior Planner presented to the Council a review of the Outdoor Social Events ordinance and the various options to consider which included: No action; Ordinance Amendments; Repeal of the Ordinance; and/or a Moratorium on Outdoor Social Events pending further review of the ordinance. The City Council supported outdoor social events and believes a good faith effort was made to create a supportive ordinance. However, several concerns have been brought to the City's attention and Council is requesting the Ordinance be reviewed and/or repealed. Donna Sloan, 12208 Marquess Lane North, stated that noise limits are hard to enforce and would like the Ordinance repealed. Kathleen Haggard, 12154 Marquess Lane North, stated the Commercial Outdoor Event Ordinance is con -fusing, and it needs to be repealed. She thinks commercial activity should not abut. residential areas so closely. LAKE EL MO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2007 safety, alcohol, and enforcement. Fle wants Lake Elmo to be responsible and the ordinance repealed. Charles Cadenhead, 1-2190 Marquess Lane North, stated. that two events per week is excessive and wants the ordinance repealed. M/S/P Smith/Park — to direct Staff to send Ordinance No. 97-167, Commercial Outdoor Social Events, back to the Planning Commission for review and return with a recommendation at the March 20, 2007, Council meeting. (Motion passed 5-0) C. Comprehensive Plan Timeline Update The Senior Planner summarized that the City's sector representative at the Metropolitan. Council agreed with the City's determination that interim zoning districts are appropriate for both the 1-94 corridor and the Village area. The interim districts will maintain the existing properties in their current configurations and uses until such time that development is guided or sewer becomes available. Such districts will be in confori-nance with the current comprehensive plan as the planned development cannot yet occur. Creation of such districts also carries the added benefit of providing the City with additional time to craft the final zoning language that will govern these areas. The revised timeline is through May 18, 2007. D. Proposed C)akdale Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Senior Planner reported that the City of Oakdale is seeking to amend their comprehensive plan to re -designate 3.86 acres from Low Density Residential to Commercial. The property in question is near Lake Elmo on the southeast corner of Helmo Avenue and 1 01h Street. Staff does not foresee any negative impacts to the City of Lake Elmo as a result of this change. E. 2007 Work Plan 1. The Senior Planner presented the priority work items for 2007, which were established by the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting on February 13, 2007. The priority items recommended by the Planning Commission were: 1. Creation and adoption of zoning codes in the village area and 1-94 corridor that conform to the approved comprehensive plan (due by July), 2. Zoning map update to ensure the City's official map reflects all ordinances approved since 1995. 3. Interim use ordinance to allow for such permits and to define what constitutes an interim use. 4. Revisions to the NC zoning district to address multiple problems which result in too many variances. 5. Billboard sign ordinance to study and possibly adopt regulations governing the use of LCD billboard signs. A year long moratorium on this matter was recently approved by the City Council, so action must be taken on this topic within the year. 6. Sexually oriented businesses ordinance to regulate where such facilities could potentially locate within the City of Lake Elmo. A year long moratorium on this matter LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 2007 6 MEMO (March 22, 2007 for the Meeting of March 26, 2007) To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission From: Kelli Matzek Subject: Park Commission comments on Village Area Master Plan A Special Park Commission meeting was held on March 14' to discuss the Village Area Master Plan. At that time Bruce Jacobson presented the plan to the Park Commission and discussion occurred. The comments provided in the attached letter stemmed from that discussion. These comments will also be sent on to the City Council. At this time, no discussion is needed regarding the Village Area Master Plan or the associated comments from the Park Commission, This is being provided for informational purposes. On Wednesday, March 14, the Parks Commission was briefed for a second time on the draft Village Area Master Plan, and we had a broad discussion focused on issues relating to parks and trails in that critical area. Because the conversation was so far-ranging, we were concerned that any attempt to capture the perspectives of the Parks Commission in any coherent way from the official minutes would be extremely difficult, so we asked at the end of the meeting if Kelli Matzek could gather our thoughts together in the form of bulleted points. She kindly agreed to do so, and I have taken those points and put them in the following document. In addition to these bullets, the official minutes of our special meeting will be available in April after the commission has had a chance to review and approve them. I think that it is safe to say that most commissioners were impressed by the plan but that we had some fairly basic questions and, in some cases, concerns about the role of parks and trails in the draft plan. I have tried to group the comments for sake of clarity: The draft Park Plan identifies an anticipated level of service for each of the various park types. This same approach should be utilized when evaluating the location of proposed and existing neighborhood parks within the Old Village Area. The draft Park Plan and approved Comprehensive Trail Plan Guide should be integrated into the Village Area Master Plan. The central/playfield park ("Community Sports Complex") was thought by some on the Parks Commission to be the "heart" of Lake Elmo, not necessarily the civic center as was presented. A key element of the draft Comprehensive Park Plan being developed by the Parks Commission is the establishment of a "Central. Park" in the Old Village area — a park that will serve as a central meeting place for the city as a whole and also as green wace for the more densely developed Old Village area. This Central Park is distinct from the Community Sports Complex also envisioned in the draft Comprehensive Park Plan: it features water, easy walking trails, grass, flower beds, trees, ponds, benches, appropriate -scale lighting, picnic tables, perhaps a bandshell and/or gazebo. It is a place of subtle beauty that. people will come to for quiet reflection, family gatherings, strolls by young and old alike, perhaps ice skating in the winter. Parts of Como Park in St. Paul or Pioneer Park/Lowell Park in Stillwater would be examples of such park space. The current iteration of the Village Area vision does not capture this concept adequately. It should actually position this Central Park as the heart of the city. The Central Park should be located in close proximity to senior citizen housing so that the elderly can easily access the walking paths. It will be important to import into our consideration of parkland and green space inside the Old Village area the concepts that informed the development of the citywide Park Plan: functions of parks, service areas, levels of service, the use of a needs analysis to determine scope of athletic fields, and a commitment to linkages between parks within the Old Village area as well between the Old Village, area and the rest of Lake Elmo's park and trail system. The Plan should clarify legal ownership and maintenance of the open space that serves as the buffer to the Old Village Area. If the greenspace buffer is privately owned and maintained, that may detract from that space's role as a physical link between the Old Village Area and the rest of Lake Elmo and the city's parks and trails. There should be clear trail connections designated to existing neighborhoods in Lake Elmo to the village center. If there are not connections from the village area to the rest of the city, that means a majority of Lake Elmo residents will only have access to the downtown by busy roads. The Old Village Plan should interconnect with and complement the Comprehensive Trail Plan developed by the Parks Commission in 2006. Some existing streets in the Old Village area are very narrow. Careful consideration should be given to existing conditions (street width and garage/shed/structure locations) with regards to plans for boulevard landscaping and/or trail locations in right-of-way. Safety concerns were expressed that the Community Sports Complex play fields would be located on two sides and adjacent to the existing railroad. Planning for how much use ball fields at the Community Sports Complex would receive needs to include consideration that VAA uses virtually every available non -school field within Stillwater and surrounding communities because the school district charges for use now. Many community fields get use 6 or 7 days a week for soccer and baseball/softball. A Community Sports Complex would need parking and facilities to accommodate this volume, which would come not just from Lake Elmo, but surrounding Washington County communities as well. The Community Sports Complex should be physically separate from the Central Park (although linked by a trail) so that the quiet activities pursued in the Central Park are not impacted by the louder activities of the Community Sports Complex. The Community Sports Complex should be envisioned having lights and formal fields (baseball, soccer, softball) maintained at standards adequate to support league play, but it should also have play space for less formal competition as well as a significant play lot for young children. It may be possible to place the Community Sports Complex immediately adjacent to VFW Park in order to build on such investments already made in that existing park. The Plan should clarify what walkingibike paths are coming from the EAST (Fields of St Croix) area to the Old Village Area. The trails within the Old Village Plan need to be identified as multiple use trails. Biking is just one use. There will also be walkers (individuals alone, with young children, pets, roller-bladers, etc.). These trails need to be designed to welcome all and meet the safety needs of many uses. When the sewer pipe is run up Lake Elmo Avenue and the road is reconstructed, that opportunity should be used also to put in a bike route (proposed in the Comprehensive Trail Plan Guide). The City should be sure to reserve park land dedication funding for park purposes only. The Parks Commission should be consulted during sanitary sewer planning concerning landscape design following construction. This is an important opportunity for the Parks Commission to meet the objectives of trail and parks plans in a cost effective manner. The Parks Commission should be given a good estimate of recreation facilities (athletic fields and structures -such as band stands) to be included in Old Village plans, so that it can accurately estimate recreation needs outside of the Old Village. a Lions Park is spelled incorrectly in the current iteration of the document. The Plan should be referred to as a "guide" in the same way that the Comprehensive Trail Plan is entitled a "guide." 111 1 11111111111111 - I I MIMI I JUM ULWI � I A obvious asset to the region." Change the language to read could serve or make it even less concrete. Page 31. This section of the draft Old Village Plan does not contain adequate substance and content. It should capture the main principles which parks should play in the Old Village area: 1) parks in this area (whether the Central Park, the Community Sports Complex, the smaller neighborhood parks, or the trails and green buffer) should draw people to the heart of the community and accommodate their need for open space, 2) the green space within the Old Village area should be clearly linked to the broader citywide network of trails as envisioned in the Lake Elmo Trails Plan, and 3) the design, function, and scope of park land/green space within the Old Village should articulate cleanly with the larger vision for Lake Elmo parks as presented in the Lake Elmo Park Plan. This section, too, should highlight the fact that the Old Village will be home to a Central Park (the heart and lungs by which a growing city will breathe) and the Community Sports Complex — the two "anchors" of the park plan for the City of Lake Elmo as a whole. I'm just anxious to see that the planning that materializes within the Old Village area is clearly linked to, and consistent with, the citywide planning and vision relating to parks and trails. Questions/Notes on the Planning Process A commissioner asked if any larger players, e.g., the County Park Director, Jim Luger, or others are giving/receiving input relative to this plan outside of public meetings to which we have been given pertinent information, and the Commission was told by Susan Hoyt that no meetings of this sort have taken place. The consultant attending our meeting said that parcels are still being evaluated. If any of those said parcels are pertinent to any of the Parks Commission's current or future park parcels, it will be important that all such information be brought to the attention of the Parks Commission in a timely manner. The AUAR is being proposed only for the Old Village at this point. A commissioner wanted a guarantee that this environmental tool never has the potential to become a tool that can break the spirit of the tool and be used backwards, e.g., say however unlikely, someone wants to build a water tower/maintenance facility or some other building/usage on current or potential park dedicated lands, and it then comes to Parks eliminating any action this citizen advocacy/Council advisory group might take by showing "how it can be done to mitigate environmental impact." A question was asked if the Met • can legally • the City • Lake Elmo to link trails/parks • take • that would dilute/damage our park, resources. The Parks • was told • the consultant and Susan Hoyt that "No, that it is being left up to municipalities." If this isn't known for sure, this issue should be clarified. Concern was expressed that the City attorney should review both the Comprehensive Trail Plan Guide and the draft Old Village Plan document to make sure that parks and trails are adequately protected. I would be happy to discuss any of these issues raised by the members of the Parks Commission with you. While the sentiments are those of our members, I took the liberty of editing some of the comments for presentation in this note, and I am responsible for any errors that aught appear here. M. David Steele Chair, Lake Elmo Parks Commission