HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 6-22-15
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
Wednesday, June 22, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. June 8, 2015
4. Public Hearing
a. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – Lennar Homes
has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use permit
for a 48-Unit single family attached (townhouse) subdivision to be located
immediately north of 5th Street and east of Lake Elmo Avenue within the City’s I-
94 Corridor planning area. A conditional use permit is required because the
developer is proposing to serve the subdivision with a private road. This project
area is 15.11 acres in size. The PID’s associated with the application are as
follows: 36.029.21.32.0002 and 36.029.21.32.0034
5. Business Items
a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACKS,
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. The Planning Commission is being asked
to consider advancing a Zoning Text Amendment to amend the rear yard setback
requirement for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts.
b. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider advancing a Zoning Text
Amendment to amend the Sign Ordinance to provide greater clarity and direction
on subdivision identification signs.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – June 9, 2015 Meeting
i. Phase 1 Downtown Street and Utility Project – City concurrence to award
contract approved
ii. Cooperative Agreement w/Washington County approved
iii. Easton Village Development Agreement amended
iv. East Village Trunk Sewer Agreement approved
v. Zoning Text Amendment – Freeway Signs denied w/written findings
2
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
July 13, 2015
July 27, 2015
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-8-15
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 8, 2015
Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dodson, Dorschner, Williams, Fields, and Griffin
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kreimer
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Johnson
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: May 27, 2015
M/S/P: Dorschner/Griffin, move to approve minutes as amended, Vote: 5-0, motion
carried with Haggard and Larson not voting.
Business Item: Proposed Nature Center, Sunfish Lake Park – Tony Manzara
Planner Johnson stated the Mr. Manzara would be presenting tonight. He also stated
that the role of the Planning Commission tonight is to determine if this proposal meets
the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal has already gone through the Park Commission.
Mr. Manzara began his presentation about the proposed nature center in Sunfish Lake
Park. He talked about the non-profit that would be set up to fundraise to support this
use to minimize the tax burden to the City. Once the building was built, the ownership
would transfer to the City. He noted several community benefits associated with the
nature center. First, there would be an educational benefit that may include a
relationship with the ISD 834 school district. He then described how the City’s
Comprehensive Plan relates to the proposal. In addition, Mr. Manzara highlighted how
the proposed use would be allowed under the existing conservation easement on
Sunfish Lake Park with the Minnesota Land Trust.
Dodson asked about additional parking. Manzara stated that if the parking lot was
marked, you could use striping for bus lanes. There is also room for expansion.
Manzara stated that he is contributing $125K and the rest will be obtained through
fundraising.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-8-15
Mr. Manzara then showed an aerial photo of the parking area of Sunfish Lake Park. He
described two possible locations for the proposed building. Moving on to the building
itself, he showed several examples of proposed designs for the building. In addition, he
described interior uses of the building. Goals for the building include low maintenance
design, exhibit space, classroom or presentation space, a possible gift shop, restrooms,
among other uses. As far as utilities go, electrical is available, geothermal would be
possible for heating, and water could be available through a well.
With regards to process and timeline, Mr. Manzara identified the activities he has
completed to date. He presented a proposed timeline with next steps. Next steps
include presentation to the City Council, establishment of the non-profit organization,
completion of plans, and construction to start in May of 2016. Mr. Manzara also
identified other parties that he intends to contact for further feedback.
Fields asked if there is an Oak Savannah area in Sunfish Lake Park. Larson confirmed that
the park contains the largest stand of oak savannah in Washington County.
Fields also encouraged Mr. Manzara to determine annual maintenance costs.
Haggard noted that some nature centers have difficulty being fully staffed because of
funding. She also suggested a partnership with Stillwater High School. Students often
need volunteer credits for science related courses.
Dodson asked if Mr. Manzara has contacted the MN Land Trust. In addition, he asked
about contacting the Ski Club. Manzara will contact both of these organizations prior to
presenting to the City Council. Dodson suggested considering some form of agricultural
themed architecture.
Williams supports the idea and finds it consistent with the Comprehensive plan. He
feels the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the request.
Haggard supports the idea. She offered two points: 1) There is concern about the cost
of operation and maintenance, and 2) proposed location #1 for the building may be
preferable as it is further away from the residential home.
Larson stated that North Star Ski Club uses the park frequently. There is enough demand
in his view to warrant exploration of the proposal. Larson noted that he served on the
Park Commission, and the proposed location is consistent with the desire of the
previous Park Commission that developed the conservation easement for the park.
Larson provided feedback about the proposed locations based on his knowledge of the
park. Dodson asked for best location for a septic drainfield. Larson noted that it would
be best to the south of the structure.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-8-15
Griffin asked about exterior lighting. Mr. Manzara noted that he will use downcast
lighting. Johnson noted that any lighting would be required to meet the City’s Dark Sky
Ordinance.
M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move that the proposed nature center should be pursued and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Vote: 7-0 motion carried unanimously.
Council Updates – June 2, 2015 Meeting
1. Village Preserve Developers Agreement – passed.
2. Wedding Venue Ordinance Amendment – postponed.
Williams was concerned that the City Council seemed not be willing to
change parts of the ordinance and seemed to have more of a take it or
leave it kind of approach. Johnson stated that sometimes if there are
major changes to what is presented, staff is asked to bring it back to the
Planning Commission with those changes.
3. Interim Ordinance – postponed.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. June 22, 2015
b. July 13, 2015
Commission Concerns
Williams noted his concern about the Easton Village construction not starting. Johnson
noted that Easton Village is working with Gonyea and Engstrom to finalize plans to
complete construction on the final sewer segment.
Meeting adjourned at 7:51 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/22/15
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2015-19
ITEM: Diedrich Property Townhouses (Lennar) – Preliminary Plat and Conditional
Use Permit
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
Jack Griffin, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat request from Lennar
Corporation for a 46-unit single-family attached (townhouse) development to be located on slightly
over 15 acres of land immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and north of the Hunters Crossing
development. The site is located within the I-94 Corridor Planning Area and is therefore on property
that has been guided for public sewer and water services. The application as originally submitted
included a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of a private street to serve the
individual townhouse units. The applicant has since updated the proposed site plan and plat to
incorporate a public street within the development, which will eliminate the need for a conditional
use permit. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions as listed in the below
report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Lennar Corporation (Paul Tabone); 16305 36th Avenue North, Suite 600,
Plymouth MN 55446
Property Owner: Tammy Diedrich and Gerhard Rieder, 7401 Wyndham Way, Woodbury, MN
55125
Location: Part of Section 36 in Lake Elmo, north of I-94, east of Lake Elmo Avenue, and
south of the Cimarron Golf Course property. Immediately north of 404 Lake
Elmo Avenue North. PID: 36.029.21.32.0002
Request: Application for a preliminary plat related to a 46-unit townhouse subdivision. A
request for a conditional use permit is no longer need based on the submission of
an updated site plan with a public street.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant with fairly heavy tree cover. Current Zoning: RT –
Rural Transitional; Proposed Zoning: MDR – Medium Density
Residential
Surrounding Land Use: North – Cimarron Manufactured Home Park and golf course;
East – Trans-City industrial building; West – Rural Residential
property and The Forest residential subdivision; South –
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
Hunters Crossing single family residential development; also
one existing home site adjacent to Lake Elmo Avenue.
Surrounding Zoning: MDR – Medium Density Residential, RT – Rural Development
Transitional; LDR – Low Density Residential
Comprehensive Plan: Urban Medium Density Residential (4 – 7.5 units per acre)
History: No history on file with the City. Site has been vacant or used for agricultural
purposes for a long period of time. The sketch plan was reviewed by the City in
February and March of 2015. Staff did not find any information in the City’s land
use files for the site that would impact the proposed subdivision.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/3/15
60 Day Deadline – 8/2/15
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 10/1/15
Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations
Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (MDR)
§150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Lennar Corporation for a preliminary plat for a
46 unit townhouse development tentatively called the Diedrich Property Preliminary Plat. Please
note that the original application and all of the construction plans as submitted were for a 48-unit
project utilizing a private street. Due to several issues concerning the original configuration of lots
and in order to address City, County, and watershed district comments and concerns, the applicant
has submitted a revised site plan that now includes a public street and a reduced number of lots. The
applicant may still be seeking some variation from City standards in order to plat a public street, and
Staff is suggesting that any variations from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations be
addressed at the final plat stage.
The City previously reviewed a sketch plan for the property earlier in the spring of this year, and the
current application has been preceded by a Comprehensive Plan amendment that changed the future
land use designation of this parcel from HDR – High Density Residential to MDR – Medium Density
Residential.
The site under consideration is situated between the Cimarron Golf Course and the Hunters Crossing
development north of the planned 5th Street corridor and west of Lake Elmo Avenue. The property is
currently vacant, and there is no record of any buildings or structures being constructed on the site.
When the City was initially planning the trunk sewer line project to serve the Village Area, the
original alignment of the trunk sewer through this property followed the northern and eastern
property boundaries. After subsequent discussions with the property owners, this alignment was
changed to the southern boundary of the site, within what eventually become the planned right-of-
way for 5th Street. The City has acquired easements for both 5th Street and the sewer and water main
serving this area that cross the southern property boundary of the applicant’s property. These
easements may eventually be vacated since the preliminary plat will formally dedicate the required
right-of-way for the road, sewer, water, and other utilities as 5th Street. A similar dedication of the
road and utility right-of-way was provided with Hunters Crossing to the South.
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
The proposed access into the development is now proposed to occur via a new public road
immediately across from the entrance to Hunters Crossing (Lavern Avenue North). The City has
previously approved the use of private roads to serve the townhouse units with Lennar’s Savona
subdivision, and the plan as originally drawn out called for a private road to be used to access the
proposed townhouses. The road as originally planned would have been located within a 30-foot wide
Outlot, however, the City Engineer expressed concern that this outlot was not wide enough to
accommodate all necessary infrastructure (both private and public) to serve the development. In
order to address these (and other) concerns, the applicant has propose a modified plan that
accommodates a public street meeting all City standards. This updated plan has been submitted as a
supplement to the original application materials that still include a 30-foot outlot with a private street.
Any future plan submissions and reviews will need to address revised review comments from Staff,
and specifically, the City Engineer, prior to approval of a final plat.
The overall site plan is generally consistent with sketch plan submitted earlier this year. The two
notable exceptions are that the (now revised) preliminary plat reduced the overall number of units
from 50 to 46. The developer is proposing to construct a sidewalk along the main entrance into the
development in addition to a sidewalk connecting the western cul-de-sac with the planned 5th Street
trail. There are no interior sidewalks depicted on the preliminary development plans, and the
applicant has stated that they believe that interior sidewalks will not be necessary given the low
traffic volumes expected on the interior streets. Staff is recommending that if the project does
includes a public street and right-of-way meeting City standards that a sidewalk on one side of all
street be included in the final development plans.
One of the reasons that the applicant originally requested the use of a private street is that it would
allow them to slightly vary the setbacks of the townhouse units in order to help minimize the visual
impact of a row of townhouses all at the same setback. The developer is still looking for ways to add
some variation to the setbacks, and will be seeking some minor modifications as part of the final plat
submission in order to address this issue.
Consistent with the City’s specifications for the 5th Street roadway segment, the applicant has
provided for a 100-foot wide right-of-way, which will provide sufficient room for the construction of
a parkway with turning lanes, 10-foot bituminous trail, sidewalk, trees, lighting, and other design
elements as planned by the City. In this case, the applicant is retaining the existing easement width
of 110 feet at the intersection of 5th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue and narrowing the right-of-way
down to match the 100 foot right-of-way platting within Hunters Crossing. Both Ryland Homes and
Lennar are still working towards a joint project to build 5th Street at one time verses splitting the
construction up into northern and southern segments.
The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan, which identifies all of the applicant’s property for urban medium density residential
development. The plat incorporates 46 single family attached lots, most of which are designed with
widths around 40 feet each. Given the limited access to the site and relatively small nature of the
property, the applicant has worked to incorporate some variety into the arrangement of lots as is
possible given these restrictions.
Public sanitary sewer service is presently available on the site, which was constructed as part of the
Village trunk line project completed late last year. Water was extended to the site as part of the 2014
Lake Elmo Avenue water main project. Like other developments along this line, the developer will
be expected to pay the full water availability charges for each planned lot ($3,000) at the time of the
final plat, even if the project is broken up into different stages.
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
The Diedrich Townhouse site is guided for urban medium density development in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and the appropriate zoning for the site will be MDR – Medium Density
Residential. The actual rezoning of the property is a necessary step prior to development of this site
that will need to be completed prior to approval of the final plat. The overall subdivision plan has
therefore been prepared in order to comply with the district standards for the MDR districts in terms
of lot size, lot widths, building setbacks, and other design criteria. Within the MDR district,
townhouses are allowed that do not meet minimum frontage requirements or that are located along a
private street as a conditional use permit.
The planned road serving the townhouse lots extends due north from 5th Street and then splits east
and west through the middle of the property to provide access to the townhouses. There are no
planned connections to the east, west, or north of the property because these sites have previously
been developed or will connect into 5th Street once on either side of the site under consideration.
Given the site characteristics and the immediately adjacent land uses (which are all different than
single family), the applicant has had to design the site as an isolated island that is impractical to
connect to adjacent properties. The streets as originally planned and later updated will meet the
City’s minimum standards for construction.
The sidewalks within the subdivision are limited to those mentioned in the previous section of this
report, and there are no sidewalks planned along the east/west private road. Please note that the plat
as originally submitted did not dedicate the amount of right-of-way that has been requested by
Washington County. The County has previously requested that the developer dedicate an additional
42 feet of right-of-way along Lake Elmo Avenue, and that this right-of-way width be incorporated
into the final plat. The additional right-of-way does impact the location of the planned storm water
pond over Outlot A, and this pond and associated grading work will need to be adjusted in order to
account for the expanded right-of-way. Updated plans must be reviewed and approved by the City,
County, and Watershed District prior to the City’s approval of a final plat for this subdivision.
As noted in the preceding section, the developer has submitted an updated site plan that retains the
same general layout, and configuration of lots, but changes the proposed private street outlot of 30
feet to a public right-of-way 60 feet in width. The additional right-of-way has been requested by the
City Engineer to help ensure that there is adequate room for future maintenance and upkeep of public
utilities (sewer, water, and other private utilities) within this subdivision. All final construction plans
will need to be updated to reflect the public right-of-way and reconfiguration of lots.
The preliminary site plan included as part of the application materials includes a description of the lot
size, dimensions, and all required setbacks for the development. All of the lots meet the City’s
minimum area requirement of 4,000 for single-family attached lots in a MDR district, with the
smallest lot proposed at 5,527 square feet. The site plans further illustrate that throughout the
subdivision the lots will average 8,782 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a
fairly wide margin.
The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of
the Diedrich Townhouses preliminary plat and plans:
Zoning and Site Information:
• Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
• Proposed Zoning: MDR – Medium Density Residential
• Total Site Area: 15.11 acres (includes Outlot D of Hunters Crossing)
• Total Residential Units: 48
• Proposed Density (Net): 4 units per acre
• REC Units from Comp Plan: 57 (based on a gross calculation)
Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards:
• Min. Lot Width: 40 ft.
• Lot Depth: 134 ft. (140 ft. typical)
• Lot Area: 4,000 sq. ft. (8,000 typical)
• Front Yard Setback: 25 ft.
• Side Yard Setback: 10 ft.
• Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft.
Proposed Street Standards:
• ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (potentially could be reduced to 50 ft. for a
limited access road)
• ROW Width – Minor Collector 110-100 feet
• Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard)
• Street Width – Minor Collector Varies – parkway design proposed
The standards listed above are all in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s
zoning and subdivision regulations, including the revised public street and associated right-of-way.
Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary plat, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all
applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is required for a preliminary plat. The
applicant will need to address the review comments from the City and County, and the final plat and
final construction plans will specifically need to be updated to reflect the wider public street right-of-
way and expanded Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way. Any variations from setbacks and
other standards because of the amended road section will need to be addressed with the final plat.
As with any new subdivision the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public
park use. In this case, the applicant is not proposing to dedicate any land specifically for a public
park, and is instead asking to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. This is not a site or general
location that would suitable for a public park or any specific trail connections; therefore, Staff is
supportive of the applicant’s request to pay a fee instead of dedicating any public land with the
subdivision. The required dedication for the 15.11 acre site would be 1.51 acres, or a cash payment
of approximately $90,000 based on previous appraisals of land in this area.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
City Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, and has forwarded the plans to appropriate
reviewing agencies in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. In general, the proposed plat
will meet all applicable City requirements for approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that
is needed is noted as part of the review record and can be imported in the final plat and final
construction plans. The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer
concerning the proposed subdivision; these comments are attached to this report for consideration by
the Planning Commission.
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report,
Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the
following discussion areas as well:
• Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan for this area and with the densities that were approved as part of this
plan (as recently amended). The net densities for the development fall within the low end of
the range allowed for the urban medium density, and depending on the specific amount of
land that will be dedicated for 5th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue, this density will be
somewhere in the 3.8 to 4.0 units per acre range. Given the site constraints and need to
accommodate additional right-of-way within the plat, Staff has found that the proposed
density is in keeping the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Other
aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Hunter’s Crossing subdivision as follows:
o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor
collector road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the I-94 Corridor.
Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation infrastructure that is
needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. The City’s
previous acquisition of easements through this area anticipated the future alignment
of 5th Street through the southern portion of the applicant’s property and the proposed
subdivision will officially plat this right-of-way with the final plat. Both Lennar and
Ryland are still working towards a joint project to build all of 5th Street between their
properties later this summer, and regardless of whether or not a joint project occurs,
Lennar will need to build at least its half of 5th Street in order to provide access to the
proposed townhouses. Staff will continue to work with both parties to work towards
a joint project that addresses the needs of the private developers and the City for
access.
o Parks. The City’s park plan identifies proposed locations for neighborhood parks
based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park. This
subdivision is located at the periphery of a park search area for the area east of Lake
Elmo Avenue. During its review of the sketch plan for this subdivision, the Park
Commission did not recommend the dedication of land within the subdivision for a
new park, and instead agreed with the developer’s request to submit a cash payment
in lieu of land dedication. Staff anticipates that a larger park that could be designed
in conjunction with the School District near Oakland Junior High would better serve
existing and future residents in this portion of the City.
o Water. Public water service has been extended to this area via the public
improvement project that installed a new water main along Lake Elmo Avenue last
year. The final construction plans will need to abide by any recommendations of the
City Engineer concerning the extension of water service through this site to service
other adjacent sites (which will likely not be required given the exiting development
on either side of the applicant’s site).
o Sanitary Sewer. The developer will be required to connect to the gravity sewer main
that has been installed under the 5th Street right-of-way. The utility plans provided by
the applicant document this connection.
7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
o Phasing. The Lennar townhouse subdivision is located within the Stage 2 phasing
area for the I-94 Corridor. The City’s Comprehensive Plan allows the City to
consider accelerating development stages when adequate public services are
available. In this case, the sewer and water projects already completed help this
project meet this threshold. The developer will also be required to pay all water
availability charges for the project at the time of platting regardless of project staging.
• Zoning. The proposed zoning for the site is MDR – Low Density Residential and the
subdivision has been designed to comply with all applicable requirements of this zoning
district.
• Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list
of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks,
lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer
and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. The majority of these
requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s comments (which are
detailed in the Engineer’s comment letter) or have been reviewed as part of Staff’s ongoing
communications with the applicant regarding the project. The elimination of the private
street will help the project comply with several of the concerns previously expressed by the
City Engineer and other Staff.
• Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm
water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development.
• Landscaping. The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the development that is
intended to comply with the City’s requirements for number, size and spacing of trees along
the public streets. This plan should be reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect
prior to the submission of a final plat. The applicant has also submitted a tree inventory that
documents the type and size of all trees on the property and all those that will be impacted by
construction to determine compliance with the City’s tree preservation and protection plan as
described below.
• Tree Preservation and Protection. The City recently adopted a tree preservation and
protection ordinance, and the applicant has prepared a tree inventory and tree preservation
plan for the site. Overall, there are 1,387 caliper inches of trees on the subject property, and
all of these trees will be removed in order to build the subdivision as planned. This means
the developer will need to mitigate for 485 caliper inches (the amount that exceeds the
allowed 30% removal) in accordance with the ordinance replacement schedule. The species
and mix of replacement plantings should be also be reviewed by the City’s consulting
landscape architect.
• Green Belt/Buffer/Screening. There are no planned green belts or buffers on or around the
site under consideration. The proposed landscape plan incorporates plantings along all edges
of the property and within the internal outlots.
• Streets and Transportation. The proposed street system, as revised, has been designed to
comply with all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. The
developer must also commit to the construction of at least the northern portion of 5th Street in
8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
order for the project to move forward as a final plat. The timing of this road will be
somewhat dependent on whether or not Ryland and Lennar are able to come to an agreement
to build 5th Street as a joint project. The final construction plans should reflect how 5th Street
will be built, and must include the northern portion if a join project does not move forward.
The City has received and reviewed a complete set of construction plans for 5th Street as part
of the Hunters Crossing development.
o County Comments. Comments received form Washington County during the
concept plan review, which focus on needed improvements to Lake Elmo Avenue
(CSAH 17) to serve the development, are included in an attached letter from the
County’s Senior Planner dated March 3, 2015. Staff is recommending that
compliance with the County’s comments be added as a condition of approval for the
plat.
• Trails. The Planning Commission comments during the sketch plan review encouraged the
developer to incorporate a trail connection between 5th Street and the eastern cul-de-sac. The
developer has indicated that given the tight constraints on the site (even with the elimination
of four units) that there is not sufficient room to provide for this trail connection. Staff would
also like to note that the overall distance from the cul-de-sac to 5th Street is not a large
distance even without a direct trail connection.
• Street Names. Staff has forwarded its recommendation for street names to Lennar, and these
names should be included on the final plat documents.
• Adjacent Parcels. The proposed landscape plan includes additional plantings between the
proposed townhouses and the industrial facility to the east. The landscape plan will need to
be updated to reflect the revised site plan, and in particular, the plan should continue to
provide for screening between the eastern-most townhouses and the adjacent industrial land.
• City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a
detailed comment letter as a summary of his preliminary plat review. Staff has incorporated
the more significant issues identified by the Engineer as part of the recommended conditions
of approval, and has also included a general condition that all issues identified by the City
Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a final plat for any portion
of the Diedrich townhouses. With the general site plan revisions that have been proposed by
the applicant, the construction plans will need to be updated to reflect this revisions. Any
additional comments or concerns from the City Engineer that arise from the plan updates will
need to be addressed as part of a final plat submission.
• Watershed District. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District and
the developer will need to secure permits from the watershed district in order to proceed with
the development as planned. One of the recommended conditions of approval is that the
applicant receive plan approval from the watershed district prior to submission of a final plat
for the subdivision.
• Storm Water Management. In order to accommodate the County’s requirement for
additional right-of-way along Lake Elmo Avenue, the developer has had to readjust the size
and configuration of the planned storm water basin over Outlot A. The County will not allow
any portion of the storm water facility to be located within its right-of-way; therefore, the
9
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
plans will need to be updated to reconfigure and adjust the location and size of this pond.
These updated plans will be subject to review by the City Engineer and Valley Branch
Watershed District. The developer is also requesting to use the proposed pond as part of a
water re-use system through lawn irrigation. The City Engineer is seeking additional details
concerning this system prior to making any recommendations concerning the viability of the
system as proposed.
• Washington County Review. County Staff has previously provided review comments to the
City concerning the sketch plan for the Diedrich townhouses subdivision to the City in a
letter dated March 5, 2015. The most significant of the County’s concerns is that the
applicant will need to make improvements to the County road system in order to provide the
necessary access to the subdivision. As a condition of approval, Staff has noted that the
applicant will be responsible for including all improvements to TH17 as required by the
County as part of the construction plans for the development. In addition, the County has
noted that the required right-of-way dedication for Lake Elmo Avenue should be 92 feet as
opposed to the 90 feet shown. This request does impact the proposed storm water plan as
noted above.
Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat
with several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify
the City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The
recommended conditions are as follows:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) The landscape plan and tree preservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by an
independent forester or landscape architect in advance of the approval of a final plat and final
construction plans.
2) The final landscape plan shall incorporate additional plantings where feasible adjacent to the
shared property lines with parcel at 11490 Hudson Boulevard.
3) The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the
construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as
required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the
County dated March 3, 2015. The required improvements shall include, but not be limited to
the construction of a northbound right turn lane and southbound center turn lane.
4) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland
Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the Valley Branch Watershed
District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site.
5) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the
individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land
dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat.
6) The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the
fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in
10
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. A cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by
the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording.
7) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the
commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City
Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said
plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site.
8) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter
dated June 17, 2015 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat.
9) The applicant shall update all of the landscaping and construction plans to reflect the updated
site plan that includes a public right-of-way within the project area. These updated plan shall
be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
10) Although the updated site plan does not incorporate a private street, any request for flexibility
from City regulations and standards must be considered and addressed as part of the final plat
submission.
11) The final construction plans for the Diedrich Townhouses subdivision shall include, at a
minimum, the northern portion of 5th Street if a joint construction project between the
applicant and Ryland Homes does not proceed in advance of a final plat submission for the
applicant’s site.
12) The architectural covenants for the homeowner’s association shall include provisions that
discourage blank garage doors. All garage doors shall incorporate windows or decorative
trim to minimize the visual impact of the garage-forward home design.
13) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the
Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that
delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public
improvements.
14) The site plan and construction plans shall be revised to include a sidewalk along at least one
side of all streets within the subdivision.
DRAFT FINDINGS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to
the proposed Lennar/Diedrich Townhouses preliminary plat:
• That the preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the
Future Land Use Map for this area.
• That the preliminary plat complies with the City’s Urban Medium Density Residential zoning
district regulations.
11
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
• That the preliminary plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including
the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances with
the plan revisions as requested by City Staff and consultants
• That the preliminary plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance.
• That the preliminary plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards provided the
plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments documented in a letter dated June
17, 2014.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lennar/Diedrich
preliminary plat with the 14 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion:
“Move to recommend approval of the Lennar/Diedrich preliminary plat with the 14 conditions of
approval as drafted by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application Forms
2. Application Narrative and Information
3. Location Map
4. Tree Inventory
5. Review Comments:
a. City Engineer
b. Washington County
6. Preliminary Plat and Plans (20 sheets)
a. Revised Site Plan (Dated 6/19/15)
b. Cover Sheet
c. Legend Sheet
d. Existing Conditions
e. Preliminary Plat
f. Preliminary Site Plan
g. Preliminary Utility Plan
h. Preliminary Grading Plan
i. Erosion Control Plan
j. Preliminary Seeding Plan
k. Preliminary Street Profiles
l. Details
m. Landscape Plan
n. Tree Preservation Plan
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
12
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
The Forest
LanducciProperty
CimarronPark
L
a
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
")17
H u d s o n B l v d N
3 r d S t P l N
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN , IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data S cource: Washington County, MN10-22 -2013
Lo cation Map: Diedrich Property (PIN: 36.029.21.32.0002)
K05001,000250 Feet
1"=50 0'
§¨¦94
Diedrich Property
PAGE 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 17, 2015
To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Diedrich Property – Preliminary Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
An engineering review has been completed for the Preliminary Plat submittal for the Diedrich Property. The
submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Pioneer Engineering:
• Diedrich Property Preliminary Plan Set, Sheets 1-14, L1 and T1, dated June 17, 2015.
• Stormwater Management Plan dated June 3, 2015.
STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments:
PRELIMINARY PLAT
• Outlot A is proposed as City owned to accommodate the storm water pond with an HOA owned and
operated water re-use irrigation system. See comments below under Stormwater Management.
• Outlot B is proposed as HOA owned to accommodate a “Private Street”. See comments below under
residential streets.
• The applicant must submit to the City written correspondence from the County indicating that adequate
CSAH 17 R/W is being dedicated as part of this Plat. If additional R/W is required by the County the Plat
must be revised and resubmitted.
• The plat must be revised to include the Xcel Energy Transmission Easement along the north property line.
• Permanent grading and drainage easements are required to implement the improvements as proposed.
These easements must be obtained prior to grading activities and prior to the City accepting an application
for final plat.
All public improvements constructed to support the development must be designed and constructed in accordance
with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website and dated February 2015.
GRADING PLAN, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STORM SEWER SYSTEM
• The site plan is subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and
regulations. Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet State and VBWD permitting
requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual
available on the City website. A finalized storm water management plan must be approved by the City and
the VBWD permit must be obtained prior to grading activities.
• The Stormwater Management Plan incorporates storm water re-use through lawn irrigation. The re-use
system is necessary for the applicant’s plan to meet State and Watershed permit requirements for water
quality treatment (volume control). Outlot A is proposed as City owned to accommodate the storm water
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283
PAGE 2 of 4
pond. The water re-use irrigation system is proposed to be HOA operated and maintained on City property.
Details of this plan are limited in the application. The following considerations should be noted.
Stormwater re-use, when implemented correctly can be an effective method to reduce reliance of
potable water use while reducing storm water discharges. It would help to reduce peak demands on
the potable water system that typically occurs during the summer irrigation and landscape watering
season. These benefits make storm water re-use worth consideration.
However, the City has no design standards or guidelines for implementation and currently has no
experience with storm water reuse operations.
The two most notable concerns for storm water reuse includes the pollutants in the storm water
(addressing treatment needs) and designing a system that provides a properly balanced hydraulic
system (sizing the storage, and balancing the drawdown to the projected use in a variable climate).
Pollutants in the storm water reuse system may be a concern for three basic reasons: 1) the health risks
associated with human contact; 2) the impact on the environment given the various uses (i.e. bacteria
or chlorides from salts); 3) issues for the system equipment and operational impacts.
Preliminary Plat should be conditioned upon the following:
The developer must sign an operation and maintenance agreement for the storm water reuse
system in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The agreement must indemnify and hold harmless
the City from any and all activities related to the developer and HOA’s operation of this system.
The storm water pond must be designed with a hydraulic capacity acceptable to the City Engineer
that ensures adequate flood protection without accounting for any water reuse from the system.
The storm water pond must be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering
Design Standards.
A detailed design of the irrigation system together with a detailed operations and maintenance plan
must be submitted prior to any grading or construction activity on the site.
• Per City requirements, all storm water facilities, including infiltration basins, must be placed in Outlots
deeded to the City for maintenance purposes. The Stormwater Facility Outlots must fully incorporate the
100-year HWL, 10 foot maintenance bench and all maintenance access roads.
The pond grading must be revised to add a 10-foot maintenance bench around the entire pond, per the
standard pond detail.
The maintenance access road must be revised to access the pond from 5th Street North, not CSAH 17.
• Overland emergency overflows or outlets will be required as part of the site plan and must be located within
drainage easements, must be in Bold Type on the plans, and must provide 1 foot of vertical separation to
the low opening of any building structure. Lot information details must include the lowest opening in
addition to the lowest floor elevation.
• The ultimate discharge rate and location is an important consideration to avoid negative impacts to
downstream properties. The storm water management plan indicates the pond outfall pipe to discharge to
the northerly property. The plan as proposed cannot be implemented without permanent drainage and
utility easements from the adjacent property. Permission should be provided to the City prior to accepting
a final plat application or allowing grading activities.
• Significant grading is proposed along the northerly property to accommodate many of the proposed
building pads. Without written permission to permanently alter grades on the adjacent property, the site
would require a redesign. Property owner permission or easements should be provided to the City prior to
accepting a final plat application or allowing grading activities.
• The storm sewer system shall be designed to maintain the City standard minimum pipe cover of 3.0 feet.
• Per City requirements all storm sewer pipe easements must be a minimum 30-feet in width.
• The maximum allowable curb run along streets without catch basins is 350 feet. Catch basins should be
added along Street B, easterly cul-de-sac to maintain maximum curb run of 350 ft.
• Sump manholes are required prior to all discharge points, located at the last manhole or catch basin prior
to leaving a paved area. All sump manholes must be 4-foot deep.
PAGE 3 of 4
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER
• Municipal sanitary sewer service is readily available within the 5th Street R/W located adjacent to the plat.
• The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development to serve the
proposed properties.
• No trunk sewer oversizing is anticipated. The area can be served without a lift station.
• Sanitary sewer must be realigned to better maintain street centerline alignment.
• The sanitary sewer is proposed to be placed within Oulot B to be HOA owned and maintained as a private
street. The Outlot width must be a minimum of 40 feet with a 5 foot drainage and utility easement along
each side of the street for the corridor to be acceptable for the placement of publicly owned and maintained
utilities.
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
• Municipal water service is readily available within the 5th Street R/W located adjacent to the plat.
• The applicant is responsible to extend municipal water into the development to serve the proposed
properties.
• Two connection points to the existing City system should be required.
• No trunk watermain oversizing is anticipated for this development.
• Additional hydrants and system valves will be required as part of the final design.
• Watermain must be realigned to maintain 10-foot separation from the sanitary sewer once the sanitary
sewer is realigned as previously noted.
• The watermain is proposed to be placed within Oulot B to be HOA owned and maintained as a private
street. The Outlot width must be a minimum of 40 feet with a 5 foot drainage and utility easement along
each side of the street for the corridor to be acceptable for the placement of publicly owned and maintained
utilities.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
• Access to the development must be from 5th Street as shown, directly across from the Hunters Crossing
access roadway.
• The applicant will be responsible to construct the north half of 5th Street from CSAH 17 to the east plat edge
of the Hunters Crossing development. This improvement must be completed at the developer’s cost.
• The plat must dedicate the existing 5th Street roadway easement as City R/W. The plan indicates the
minimum 100 foot R/W as required. A ten (10) foot utility easement must be provided along the north side
of the 5th Street R/W.
• The proposed 2-lane collector parkway street (5th Street) design and geometrics must meet all Municipal
State Aid design standards for urban streets (8820.9936) for ADT > 10,000; 40 mph design speed; and must
be consistent with the detailed parkway cross section installed throughout the remaining corridor segments
and as outlined in the 5th Street Collector Design Guidelines as prepared by City staff.
• Right and left turn lanes must be incorporated along 5th Street North per the City design standards to
maintain mobility along the Parkway since there is only one travel lane in each direction.
• Additional streetscape amenities are required along 5th Street consistent with the remaining corridor
segments. 5th Street Amenities include a north side off-road bituminous trail, minimum 10 foot width with
5 foot clear zone; a south side concrete sidewalk, minimum 6 foot width with 2 foot clear zone; landscaping
elements including a center landscape median; and street lighting.
• The applicant will also be partially responsible for the improvements required by Washington County at the
intersection of 5th Street and CSAH 17.
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
• Street A must include a 50 foot tangent per City standards at the intersection with 5th Street before
initiating the proposed horizontal curve.
• Street B, east cul-de-sac geometrics must be revised to eliminate turns greater than 90-degrees.
PAGE 4 of 4
• It is preferable that Public Streets be constructed to serve this development and designed to meet the City’s
Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street width and cul-de-sac radii.
• If the streets remain HOA Privately owned, the following recommendations apply:
The street/boulevard section must be widened to allow for adequate ownership and maintenance by
the City for the public utilities (watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer).
The street Outlot should be a minimum width of 40 feet (14 feet pavement + 6 foot boulevard) with 5-
foot minimum utility easement on each side. This will enable any future construction activity to remain
100% within the Street Outlot plus the utility easement. No additional encroachment on the
properties/sidewalks should be necessary during future construction.
The typical section should be updated to include storm sewer and should show the small utilities,
demonstrating the 3-foot separation between gas and joint trench.
• Street A vertical alignment should be revised to provide a K = 37 minimum at STA 0+71.00.
4GXKUKQPU +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
2.;/176*/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN5WTXG[QT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP 5+6'2.#0,.6
,.6
.
.1%#6+10/#2
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä%184
&+'&4+%*2412'46;
24'.+/+0#4;2.#6
.#-''./1/+00'516#
%18'45*''6
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
&'6#+.5
'415+10%10641.2.#024'.+/+0#4;)4#&+0)2.#0
':+56+0)%10&+6+105
%18'45*''65*''6+0&':
Ä
24'.+/+0#4;2.#624'.+/+0#4;5+6'2.#0
.#0&5%#2'2.#0.64''24'5'48#6+102.#06
24'.+/+0#4;76+.+6;2.#0Ä
.')'0&5*''6
24'.+/+0#4;5''&+0)2.#024'.+/+0#4;564''6241(+.'5
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä.')'0&
.')'0&5*''6
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä5+6'
5+6'2.#0
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
.16&'6#+.
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä5594
5#0+6#4;5'9'4 9#6'4/#+0
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä564/
5614/5'9'4
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#&
)4#&+0)2.#0
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
.')'0&
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä'415
'415+10%10641.2.#0
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä5''&
5''&+0)2.#0
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
564''6$
564''6#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä564''6241(5
564''6241(+.'5
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
564''6#
564''6$
ȭ
ȭ
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4&6.5
)4#&+0)&'6#+.5
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4&6.5
)4#&+0)&'6#+.5
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4&6.5
)4#&+0)&'6#+.5
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ2.;/176*/+00'516#
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP .#0&5%#2'2.#0,.6
,.6
.
Ä'0)ÄÄ':+$Ä5'%6+10&6.5
&'6#+.':*+$+6
4GXKUKQPU
ÄÄ%+6;%1//'065
+JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[
OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+
COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT
WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC
E
1(&+'&4+%*2412'46;
.#-''./1/+00'516#
.'00#4
6*#8'07'057+6'
ÄÄ
2,%$0/
,&/
0COG
4GI0Q&CVG
&CVG
&GUKIPGF
&TCYP
2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2#
/GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0
'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG
Ä
(CZ ÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO
.#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45
ÄÄ
2CWN,%JGTPG
2.;/176*/+00'516#
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/22/15
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2015-22
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks in the Urban
Residential Districts
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Casey Riley, Planning Intern
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider advancing an effort to complete a Zoning Text
Amendment to amend the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning
districts. The City has received an inquiry from a property owner in the Savona subdivision, the first
sewered subdivision in Lake Elmo. Upon review of the setback requirements, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear-
yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Lake Elmo
Property Owners: N/A
Location: N/A – Proposed zoning text amendment would apply to residential properties in
the urban residential zoning districts (LDR, MDR and HDR)
Request: The City has received an inquiry with regards to the rear-yard setbacks in the urban
residential districts. Upon review of the city’s building setback requirements for accessory buildings
in the LDR zoning district, staff is recommending that the City consider a minor amendment to the
rear-yard setback requirements for accessory buildings. Should the Planning Commission concur
with this recommended action, they can direct staff to prepare a public hearing for the proposed
zoning text amendment.
Existing Land Use: N/A
Existing Zoning: N/A
Surrounding Land Use: N/A
Surrounding Zoning: N/A
Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Proposed Zoning: N/A
History: The urban residential zoning districts were adopted as part of the Zoning Code
Update Project in 2012/13. As part of this effort, the City adopted three residential
2
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
zoning districts intended to be utilized in the City’s urban planning areas (I-94
Corridor and Village Area). These zoning districts include lot dimension and
building bulk requirements that include the setback requirements for both principal
and accessory structures.
Applicable Regulations: Article X – Urban Residential Districts (154.452 Lot Dimensions and
Building Bulk Requirements)
BACKGROUND
City staff has recently received an inquiry about the required setbacks for accessory buildings in the
Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts. Upon review of the setback requirements as
found in §154.452 for accessory buildings, it was discovered that the required rear-yard setback for
accessory buildings is 20 feet. Given the limited usable area within the rear-yard of residential
properties in the LDR district, this setback requirements will likely pose a challenge for many
property owners to site any type of accessory structure. This situation is the same concern that the
property owner within the Savona subdivision identified when reviewing the setback requirements.
The rear-yard setback would in effect require that any type of accessory building be located in the
middle of the back yard, as opposed to closer to the property line. Although the limited rear-yard area
prevents large accessory structures from being constructed, tool and other storage sheds are not
uncommon in these residential districts.
Once this concern was received, staff completed some research of other communities that utilize
similar residential zoning districts of the same size and dimensional standard as the City’s LDR
zoning district. The purpose of this research was to determine what is typically required for accessory
buildings with regards to setbacks. The results of the research can be found in Attachment #2, which
includes a chart of the findings derived from 8 surrounding cities. What the research revealed is that
most communities have rear-yard setbacks that are 10 feet or less, as compared to the LDR standard
of 20 feet. Given that the urban residential districts are being newly implemented in Lake Elmo and
residential subdivision are now under construction, it is not surprising that the City is now receiving
inquiries from property owners within the developments. Multiple Certificates of Occupancy have
been issued within the Savona residential subdivision, and permits for accessory buildings and decks
typically follow as some point once these homes are occupied. It is not uncommon for some elements
of the underlying zoning to need to be amended when implementing new zoning districts.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
In reviewing the standards established for accessory buildings in sewered residential districts in other
communities, it is clear that the 20-foot rear-yard setback in the LDR district exceeds all of the other
communities researched. In addition, the rear-yard setback for accessory buildings in the Rural
Single Family (RS) zoning district is also 10 feet. Based upon the research completed and the
standard established in the RS zoning district, staff would recommend that the rear-yard setback for
detached accessory building in the LDR zoning district be reduced to 10 feet in size. This dimension
would provide for an adequate setback, as well as keep the structures outside of the City’s general
drainage and utility easements. It is the recommendation of staff that amending the accessory
structure rear-yard setback prior to many of the homes being occupied is prudent in this case. Should
3
BUSINESS ITEM 5A
the Planning Commission concur, staff will commence drafting the proposed ordinance amendment
and schedule a public hearing.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Zoning Text
Amendment to amend the rear-yard setback for accessory structures in the urban residential zoning
districts and schedule the applicable public hearing. The suggested motion is as follows:
“Move to recommend that staff draft a Zoning Text Amendment to change the rear-yard setback
for accessory structure in urban residential districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 154.452 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements
2. Accessory Structure Regulations Comparison
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
§ 154.452 LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING BULK REQUIREMENTS.
Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 10-2, Lot Dimension and
Setback Requirements.
Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts
LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.)
Single family detached dwelling 8,000 7,000 5,000
Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 5,000 4,000 3,000
Single-family attached (per unit) b - 4,000 2,500
Multi-family dwelling (per unit) - 4,000 1,800
Secondary dwelling see 155.102
Live-work unit - - 3,600
Congregate housing - see 155.102 see 155.102
Manufactured home park - see 155.102 -
Minimum Lot Width (feet)
Single family detached dwelling 60 50 50
Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 35 30 20
Single-family attached (per unit) b - 25 20
Multi-family dwelling (per building) - 75 60
Live-work unit - - 25
Maximum Height (feet) 35 35 50
Maximum Impervious Coverage 40% 50% 75%
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet)
Front yard 25 c 25 c 20 c
LDR MDR HDR
Minimum Building Setbacks (feet)
Interior side yard e
Principal Buildings f,g 10 10 10d
Attached Garage or Accessory Structures
f,g 5 5 10d
Corner side yard g,h 15 15 15
Rear yard 20 20 20
Notes to Urban Residential Districts Table
a. Common open space areas may be used in the determining whether or not the
minimum lot areas within a development are met, when provided as part of an
overall development plan.
b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them
(“twin”) or located on separate floors in a building on a single lot (“duplex”).
The per-unit measurements in this table apply to “twin” units, whether on a
single lot or separate lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling
shall apply to a “duplex” containing two vertically-separated units on a single
lot.
c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on
individual lots, minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of
density; i.e. 1 unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard is also used for
multifamily dwellings.
d. Single family dwellings (both attached and detached) and two-family
dwellings may use the side yard setbacks within MDR zoning districts.
e. In a block where the majority of the block face has been developed with the
same or similar setbacks, the front setback for the remaining lots on that block
face shall fall within the range established by the existing setbacks.
f. In situations where a garage or accessory building is set back less than 7 feet
from a side property line, the maximum permitted encroachment for anything
attached to said building (including eaves, overhangs, steps, chimneys, and
other appurtenances as described in Section 154.081) will be two (2) feet.
g. Side yards setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two-family
dwellings.
h. Corner properties: The side façade of a corner building adjoining a public
street shall maintain the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon
the same public street, or the required front yard setback, whichever is less. If
no structure exists on the adjacent property, the setback shall be as shown in
the table.
(Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012; Am. Ord. 08-071, passed 3-5-2013)
Accessory Structure Regulations – Comparison Chart
City Maximum
Size
Max Number Setbacks Other
Cottage Grove 5’ Side, 10’
Rear
30’ height maximum. Residents have to provide 400 SF of
usable open space on their lot. In no cases can more than 30%
of lot be covered with structures.
Hugo 260 SF for
lots < 1.5
acre
If accessory
building is
less than 120
SF, 10’ rear,
6’ side.
Lots > 1.5 acres but < 2.99 acres, Max size for all accessory
buildings is 1,500 SF
Inver Grove Heights 1,000 SF 1 30’ Front, 5’
Side, 8’ Rear
Max Height: 25’
Maplewood Lot area
under
8,000 SF:
768 SF
Combo of
Detached
and Attached
Garage
Building:
1188 SF
5’ Rear, 5’
Side
If the lot area is greater than 8,000 SF and less than 16,000 SF,
the accessory structure can be 1,000 SF. The Combination of
both can be 1,420 SF.
Oakdale 30’ Front, 20’
Corner Side,
5’ Side, 5’
Rear
The minimum distance between buildings at any point shall be
equal to the height of the exterior wall or 15 feet, whichever is
greater.
Stillwater 500 SF 1 5’ Side, 10’
Rear
20 ft max building height
White Bear 1,000 SF
for
garage,
120 SF for
2nd
accessory
structure
2 5’ Rear, 5’
Side
Must be in rear or side yard.
Woodbury 400 SF 1 5 ft. rear and
side
Cannot be on easement, cannot be in front of principle
building, wall cannot exceed 12 ft in height, shall not occupy
more than 25% of rear yard
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 6/22/15
AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM
CASE # 2015-23
ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Subdivision Identification Signs
SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Joan Ziertman, Planning Program Assistant
Casey Riley, Planning Intern
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider advancing an effort to complete a Zoning Text
Amendment to provide greater clarity with regards to what type of signage is allowed for residential
subdivision identification. The City has been contacted by Lennar Homes to inquire about the
possibility of installing additional neighborhood identification signs. City staff has reviewed the
City’s Sign Ordinance to determine if additional signage is allowed. Upon review of the ordinance,
it is Staff’s opinion that the section that pertains to subdivision identification signs could benefit from
additional regulations to establish clearer expectations about what type and quantity of signage is
allowed. Staff is recommend the Planning Commission discuss potential changes to the ordinance
and, if in agreement with the proposed changes, direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Lake Elmo
Property Owners: N/A
Location: N/A – Proposed zoning text amendment would apply to existing and future
residential subdivisions throughout the community.
Request: The Planning Commission is respectfully asked to discuss potential changes to the
Sign Ordinance with regards to subdivision identification signs.
Existing Land Use: N/A
Existing Zoning: N/A
Surrounding Land Use: N/A
Surrounding Zoning: N/A
Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Proposed Zoning: N/A
History: The City updated the Sign Ordinance in 2013 as part of the Zoning Code Update
Project. The provisions that regulate subdivision identification signs were included in
the 2013 update.
2
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
Applicable Regulations: §154.212 – Sign Regulations
BACKGROUND
Lennar Homes is currently in process of constructing the 2nd phase of the Savona residential
subdivision. They have contacted the City to inquire about the possibility of installing additional
identification signage and other landscape features at separate entrances to the development. In
responding to the request, City staff referenced the Sign Ordinance to determine how much signage
is permitted. With regards to subdivision identification signs, the Sign Ordinance states that in
residential districts, the following is allowed:
A subdivision identification sign not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area as
approved by the City.
Under this language, staff would interpret the ordinance to allow a single neighborhood identification
sign up to thirty-two square feet in area. While the ordinance is simple and uncomplicated, it also
does not take different locational circumstances or sign types into much consideration. Based on the
simplicity of this provision in the Sign Ordinance, staff thought it would be beneficial to research
other ordinance in the Metro Area to see if Lake Elmo’s ordinance could be improved to add greater
direction and detail to set clear expectations. The general results of the staff’s research can be found
in Attachment #1, Subdivision Signs from Metro Cities. Further detail of staff’s research will be
presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS:
Building off the research conducted of other metro cities, staff asks the Planning Commission to
consider the following with regards to neighborhood identification signs:
• Number. The typical allowance for subdivision identifications signs varies between 1 and 2
signs. However, some communities allow one sign per entrance to the development. In these
instances, cities typically qualify that the only neighborhood entrances that are allowed
signage are entrances off arterial or collector roads.
• Content. Some cities do not allow any text on neighborhood identification signs other than
the name of the subdivision. This provision would preclude any builder names or other
commercial messages.
• Sub-Monuments. Staff would ask the Planning Commission if there should be any allowance
for sub-monuments within residential subdivisions. Sub-monuments are sometimes
incorporated into landscape features or community gathering spaces. This type of signage
would be significantly less in size.
• Definition of Subdivision. For the purposes of clarity, staff would ask the Planning
Commission to confirm whether or not “subdivision” refers to the totality of the residential
development, or if individual phases or different hosing types inform the allowed amount of
signage.
3
BUSINESS ITEM 5B
These items represent some of the areas of further clarification that were included in the signage
provisions of other communities. With additional residential subdivisions being planned and
constructed in the community, staff anticipates the number of requests for subdivision identification
signage to increase. Providing greater clarification in advance of these requests would assist in the
interpretation of what is allowed for subdivision identification signs.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss areas of potential improvement based on
the staff report and presentation. Should the Planning Commission reach consensus on potential
changes, they can direct staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment,
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Subdivision Signs from Metro Cities
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
Residential Entry/Identification Sign Requirements from Metro Cities
City Number Dimensions Setback
Bloomington Two signs permitted Max area: 40 sq ft
Per neighborhood
Inver Grove Heights One sign per entrance
from a public street,
there must be 3
dwelling units.
Max area: 32 sq ft
Lino Lakes One
Max area: 50 sq ft
Max height: 8 ft
10 ft from any
property line
Maple Grove One sign per entrance
street
Max area: 35 sq ft
Max height: 8 ft
Minnetrista Two permitted at
each entrance to
subdivision.
Max area: 24 sq ft
Max height: 6 ft
10 ft from any
property line
Minnetonka One per unified
development
entrance. Maximum
two signs total.
50 sq ft max copy
and graphic area.
100 sq ft max
monument size
Max height: 10 ft
Osseo One sign per 6
dwelling units
Max area: 6 sq ft,
only one surface, not
double sided.
Plymouth Two per subdivision,
at entrances
Max area: 32 sq ft per
sign
Max height: 10 ft
Shoreview One sign per entry,
up to two signs total.
Must have 20
dwelling units for SF,
6 DU for MF
Max area: 32 ft
Max height: 12 ft